Do I have realistic expectations of the SL?

[Me Leica!]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I currently shoot an M262 and have two lenses. I enjoy shooting it a lot.

However, I have something in mind and was considering selling the M262 (keeping the lenses) and acquiring an SL (the original, mark 1, whatever its official nomenclature is). 

It seems that the SL could be one of those cameras that is all things to all people. You can use M lenses on it and not have to worry about the RF going out of whack, you can use AF lenses from a variety of manufacturers, and - this is what I was really looking at - you can adapt a (ducks, waits for the flying bottles for mentioning the enemy) Zeiss Otus to it and get accurate focus at 1.4 (something which is extremely hard with a DSLR unless you use live view or have the eyesight of a hawk).

My research has brought up the main potential issue: weight. I think I can handle that; I've shot a Hasselblad H5D 50C in the past. And the Otus wouldn't be on the camera all the time: only in situations where it would be in its element. Also I'm under the impression that the SL mark 1 has no form of image stabilisation. Again, not a dealbreaker.

I'd like to get some ideas from SL users - anything I may have overlooked, any downsides I may not have considered. Concerning the Otus in particular, is there a particular reason for going with a Canon mount or a Nikon mount?

Thanks in advance for all replies.

[benqui]

I had the SL Mark 1 and bought it as a modern alternative to my M. I did not like the huge and heavy SL lenses and wanted to use just my M lenses. I did it and was very happy until I tried the SL zoom 24-90. It was the perfect lens for traveling and portrait shootings. I am sure you will buy sooner or later some of the excellent SL lenses too. I have no experience with the Otus lenses but for sure this would be a killer combi too.

But to be honest, I see no reason to use a Canon or Nikon lens system at all with the SL.

At the end I sold it after 2 years because I had more fun with the M camera. But this was of course a completely irrational decision because the SL is the much better and more versatile camera. But it was no camera for my heart… 

[Stuart Richardson]

I would always advising trying first if you can, but I think most of what you say about the SL sounds correct to me. The only additional thing I would say is that transitioning to an EVF can be a challenge if you are used to an M, but if you are already used to that, then you are fine. I still think focusing M lenses below 90mm is easier and quicker on an M than it is on an EVF camera.

What M lenses are you trying to use? Most perform perfectly on it, but some of the extreme wides are a little bit better on the M, but you may not notice much difference in practice. I would say, however, if you go for the SL you are probably better off selling the Otus and buying a used SL Summilux 50mm. They seem to have similar performance, and the SL lens will give you spot on accurate focus at 1.4 every time, since it is contrast detect AF. It may be slow and not always accurate for AFc, but for AFs, the SL system is always spot on, in my experience (albeit, only of the SL2).

[darylgo]

Buy the Nikon version of the any lens that has a physical aperture ring, use the Leica SL to Nikon (E lens only) adapter and tape over the contacts.  There is a Canon adapter also but I find physical aperture rings allow more adaptations to other systems. 
 

The original SL continues to be an excellent camera despite its age and technologies rapid progression.  It is not however a substitute for an M, for me I am always happy to use M lenses on an M body.  Having both is nice if possible. 

[jaapv]

Don't forget that Sigma brings out an excellent and affordable line of L lenses.

[darylgo]

2 minutes ago, darylgo said:

Buy the Nikon version of the any lens that has a physical aperture ring, use the Leica SL to Nikon (E lens only) adapter and tape over the contacts.  There is a Canon adapter also but I find physical aperture rings allow more adaptations to other systems and the M bodies. 
 

The original SL continues to be an excellent camera despite its age and technologies rapid progression.  It is not a substitute for an M, for me I am always happy to use M lenses on an M body.  Having both is nice if possible. 

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by darylgo

[darylgo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

20 minutes ago, benqui said:

But to be honest, I see no reason to use a Canon or Nikon lens system at all with the SL.

There’s some nice lenses, the Otus 100/1.4 is a beautiful lens.  Zeiss 135/2 is stellar.  Nikon/Canon 200mm F2 is a poor man’s (relatively) 180/2 R.  And many more.  

 

[darylgo]

29 minutes ago, benqui said:

But it was no camera for my heart… 

Well said benqui, it captures the essence of the M. 

[MJB]

I just picked up an SL, primarily for the purpose of adapting legacy SLR manual-focus lenses. I have no intention of ever purchasing any of the native SL lenses, as they are just WAY too expensive for my tastes.  Plus I own a pretty fleshed-out CL/TL system which I'm very happy with for auto-focus, I just thought I'd prefer a full-frame camera for use with old 35mm system lenses.

Initial impressions are good, the SL is wonderful.  The EVF in particular is great, as good as you've probably heard.  The focus aids are good, similar to the excellent CL but with an even more immersive finder.  Really the only downside to the camera is it's size and weight - there's just no getting around it.  It's a brick, and I can see myself often reaching for something lighter and/or more discreet, depending on the occasion.  You should get your hands on one if you can before you buy.  I may get more used to it with time, and I don't regret buying it, but I can't help but think that a full-frame Leica with an integrated EVF that splits the difference in size between the CL and SL would be about the perfect camera.

Edited August 23, 2022 by MJB

[LocalHero1953]

I owned the SL from launch to SL2-S launch, and used a range of L lenses. I owned a M240 and M lenses for the first part of that period till I sold it (between the SL and the CL it was not getting much use).

I found the SL too large and heavy for social, street & travel - I would have kept the M240 for that if I hadn't had the CL. I use the SL/SL2-S a lot, for those things that don't require met to do anything other than take photos: portraits, performance/theatre/music etc.

Clearly some people are happy with the SL for carrying around and travel - all I can say is that I am not! It remains a wonderful camera, especially with the zoom lenses and the Summicrons: i still take a breath when I look through the 90-280 or the 90 in the EVF. 

[BernardC]

I originally purchased the SL for the very same reasons: to adapt my existing SLR and M lenses, and to eventually add a few AF lenses. I've been 100% satisfied with how it has performed in those roles.

Size is relative. The SL is bigger than an M, but it's smaller than traditional full-frame DSLRs like the Canon 5D or Nikon D850. I have no issues with the SL's size and weight when I'm out to take pictures, but it is a little big as a general "carry around" camera. Anything with an Otus attached can't be called compact anyway.

As far as Otus mounts are concerned, there's only one adapter that works with the SL and EOS lenses. It was made by Novoflex and is now discontinued (although still available used). The later SL2 and SL2S can use the current Sigma adapter. I'm not familiar with the different versions of the Nikon F mount, but one answer above suggests that they may be easier to adapt.

I don't know which Otus lenses you have, but you should consider trading them for L-Mount equivalents. All three L-mount partners make outstanding 50/1.4s, and Sigma offers 1.4 lenses that match the other Otus focal lengths. The Sigma lenses are in the same league as the Zeiss, in terms of sharpness. You'll find many opinions online about the differences between Sigma's "Art" lenses and the Otus, but keep in mind that they are counting angels on a pinhead. They are among the very best lenses available.

[hansvons]

In 2022, I'd probably try to find a reasonably priced used SL2-S rather than an SL. IBIS is a new universe for manual glass, especially when paired with the enormous sensitivity of the SL2-S sensor. 

In terms of a 50mm 1,4 lens, a used Summilux R can be found in good working condition for half the price or even less than a used Otus. And it won't lose value, on the contrary. For sure, it's not as sharp as the Otus, but it's a brilliant portrait lens in its own right.

[SrMi]

 Instead of Otus, I would rather get an APO-Summicron-SL lens.

[Jeff S]

4 hours ago, Me Leica! said:

It seems that the SL could be one of those cameras that is all things to all people.

There are as many use cases as there are users. One of the beauties of the system (whether SL, SL2 or SL2-S) is its flexibility.

For me, it’s not an M replacement, since the M offers a unique RF shooting experience that I’ve enjoyed for decades. I keep my M lenses (28/35/50mm) on my M bodies, and primarily use the SL2 with the SL 24-90 for other needs (including a fully weather sealed system).  Others have very different approaches; many good options.

As noted, it will help if you can try it before committing (or at least hang on to your M until you’re convinced, if feasible). 
 

The suggestion of a used SL2-S might be worth considering. I value the IBIS in my camera, and others have commented favorably on the SL2-S as an SL replacement (also with controls more similar to the M).

Jeff

Edited August 23, 2022 by Jeff S

[Jim B]

I’m not clear as to wether you already own the Otus or not? If not, I would skip that purchase and buy a better/newer body the Sl2s. The BSI sensor makes a big difference in low light. 

The SL Apo lenses are incredible.  I would buy the focal you like the most and take advantage of the auto focus. You will be surprised!  If you want that dreamy wide open look you could get a lower priced Voightlander m lens. I have the 50mm f1.2 and it’s fun to use! 

But I would get the sl2-s BSI cmos 

 

[Chris W]

I just returned an SL for other reasons. On the downside I did find it big and bulky. It also screamed Leica, not very discreet.

My M240 is small and I do think it is discreet. My FP is very discreet, no one knows what it is.

I'm pondering what to do next. 

[Anbaric]

6 hours ago, Me Leica! said:

It seems that the SL could be one of those cameras that is all things to all people. You can use M lenses on it and not have to worry about the RF going out of whack, you can use AF lenses from a variety of manufacturers, and - this is what I was really looking at - you can adapt a (ducks, waits for the flying bottles for mentioning the enemy) Zeiss Otus to it and get accurate focus at 1.4 (something which is extremely hard with a DSLR unless you use live view or have the eyesight of a hawk).

Are you planning on buying native Leica L mount lenses? If you are, great! If not, you could commit heresy and buy (for example) a Nikon or Canon mirrorless camera that would give you access to AF lenses from the camera manufacturer rather than a third party that are high quality but more affordable than Leica's, and mount those Zeiss and M lenses just as easily as on the SL via adapters. And you could buy something new and very decent for the price of a secondhand SL.

[pgh]

8 hours ago, Me Leica! said:

It seems that the SL could be one of those cameras that is all things to all people

It's pretty close. I use an SL2, usually with adapted M lenses. I do use the Sigma AF primes on it though as they're pretty good and fairly inexpensive. 

Here's the thing - and it's really the only thing aside from the size/weight that you mentioned - and which with adapted M lenses is basically negligible (diff story for the native L glass). It's just not as fun as an M. BUT - it's also definitely more enjoyable than a Sony or Nikon that you could stick M lenses on. So yea - it's the most practical camera I own and it's enjoyable in it's own right. If I had to sell everything I'd probably keep that one, but I'd miss my M10 every day. 

[NERICSSON]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

I value the IBIS in my camera

Jeff, if you would only be using the 24-90 and 90-280, would the IBIS still make a remarkable diffefence on top of the OIS? Its interesting for me as I am currently on SL 601 and thinking if a 24-90 would be a good step or alternatively an upgade to SL2-S, complementing it with a "cheaper" lens without OIS

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, NERICSSON said:

Jeff, if you would only be using the 24-90 and 90-280, would the IBIS still make a remarkable diffefence on top of the OIS? Its interesting for me as I am currently on SL 601 and thinking if a 24-90 would be a good step or alternatively an upgade to SL2-S, complementing it with a "cheaper" lens without OIS

Can’t speak for others as use cases and user abilities vary.  I have a benign tremor in one hand, and typically use my 24-90 and 90-280 zooms (my sole SL lenses.. sold my SL 75) handheld.  So, yes, for me IBIS helps in addition to OIS, especially with the longer zoom.  As they say, YMMV, and the only way to know is to test for yourself. 
 

Jeff