Is it true? Does one need one native lens?

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Despite all the discussions about savings in the “bar”, I am still looking for a lens.

The Q didn’t work for me, as it was to wide. The M with a 35 is great, yet my manual focus skills are too slow sometimes.

So, on the SL, which though heavier, is quite a nice replacement I would like to have a 35mm.

As i sold off some gear, I could buy a SL35 secondhand with no spare left. Pro’s: obviously its IQ and weatherproof. Cons: size and price.

The other option would be the totally opposite: sigma 35/2. Pro’s: size and price. Cons not weatherproof (though for the price I couldn’t care less). IQ (rendering obviously less nice).

all other 35 af lenses I discard due to size, as in that case I rather take the cron.

The 35mm would be my to go lens plus one m (50/75) for daytrips and holidays. I don’t care about some additional weight, but IQ is important.

Lenses I really enjoy on the M are an old cron 50mm, the nokton 35/1.4sc and the 75/1.5 nokton. All classic looks and soft.

If I buy the SL35, I can’t acquire in upcoming years some other AF lenses for the SL, as we know, the price is about 4/8 times more than both panasonic/sigma.

However, it will be a SL. And here is my question: does one need at least to have one leica L lens for the SL?

ofcourse I could try a sigma and than replace for leica if not happy, but due to lack of local dealers this is not really possible. I need to buy abroad, and at present, my dealer has a second hand offer for both … decisions, decisions.

[01af]

You should have at least one lens for your SL that exploits all the camera's technical features, including auto-focus and automatic aperture control. However it's not required to be a Leica-branded lens. It could just as well be a Panasonic or Sigma lens, as long as it natively fits the L mount (i. e. directly, without an adapter).

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[insomnia]

The Sigma 35/2 is (or at least my copy was) far away from being a great performer. I would have liked the package, size, weight and price - but the quality (sharpness) really suffered, even on 24 MP and it didn't improve significantly stopping down, it just doesn't "pop".

You might want to look into the 35/1.4 of Sigma. If 35 is your absolute go-to focal length and it would not be a weird feeling for you having nothing left to spend ("Hey, going to Iceland - could need a wide angle!") , I would say go for the SL. Get it used (from private) and you won't take a large hit if you reconsider down the road.

[Luke_Miller]

Just got the 35 APO Summicron-SL ASPH. and it is amazing on my SL2.  I have to up my game to do justice to this combination. There are a lot of posts suggesting third party L-Mount glass is just as good or close enough that the Leica premium could not possibly be worth it.  I subscribe to Sean Reid's ReidReviews which is a subscription site. He regularly does a head-to-head review of Leica and competing third party glass. He puts the lenses through a variety of tests and objectively evaluates each.  Now the Leica lens does not necessarily "win" in each test, but by the time the review is completed the Leica lens is the one you want as its overall performance is superior.  Sean notes that not everyone can or wants to pay the price of the Leica and helps readers identify more affordable options. He find lots of good alternatives, but quickly dispels any notion that there is little to no difference.

[Anbaric]

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

However, it will be a SL. And here is my question: does one need at least to have one leica L lens for the SL?

Heresy: turning that around, if you aren't going to buy Leica lenses, is an SL the best choice? There's plenty of competition in the mirrorless world, usually for less money, and with a choice of excellent lenses from the camera manufacturers (and in some cases others like Zeiss). It's not like the M, where nobody else makes anything comparable.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Anbaric

[Stuart Richardson]

I have both the Sigma 35mm f2 and Leica 35mm APO SL. I got the Leica lens second. It is a much better lens.  But the two lenses are very different. The Leica is one of the best lenses they have ever made. It is as close to optically perfect as you will get in a 35mm lens. The Sigma 35mm is a very good lens considering its price. 
If I were in a position where I had to choose between the one Leica 35mm and several other lenses, I would say it would depend more on how important 35mm was to me, and how certain I was to remain in the SL system (and what SL body). 
If you have an SL2, the extra resolution means you can crop a lot and still have a perfect 40 or 50mm. 
Basically, if you are picky with image quality and like to shoot wide open, the Leica will knock your socks off. 
If what you mostly want is a good 35mm lens that is sharp and focuses well, the Sigma will do the job. It a lot softer wide open with more vignetting and chromatic aberrations, but not that bad, and it is very reasonably priced and well made. 
I would not worry so much about weather sealing other than in heavy rain. Even then, you could buy several before you go to the Leica…
 

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

User needs and preferences are different.  The beauty of the SL system is its flexibility to suit many diverse approaches.  There aren’t any absolute rules.  
 

I prefer keeping my 35mm M lenses on my M bodies, where they’ve served well since the 80’s using the the RF. The SL2 offers a very different experience, serving very different needs, which are addressed using the SL24-90 and 90-280.  I might sell the latter only because of infrequent use.
 

Others have very different opinions and methods, none of which influence my choices.  Shooting and making prints works better for me than taking surveys.

Jeff

 

[ravinj]

5 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Despite all the discussions about savings in the “bar”, I am still looking for a lens.

The Q didn’t work for me, as it was to wide. The M with a 35 is great, yet my manual focus skills are too slow sometimes.

So, on the SL, which though heavier, is quite a nice replacement I would like to have a 35mm.

As i sold off some gear, I could buy a SL35 secondhand with no spare left. Pro’s: obviously its IQ and weatherproof. Cons: size and price.

The other option would be the totally opposite: sigma 35/2. Pro’s: size and price. Cons not weatherproof (though for the price I couldn’t care less). IQ (rendering obviously less nice).

all other 35 af lenses I discard due to size, as in that case I rather take the cron.

The 35mm would be my to go lens plus one m (50/75) for daytrips and holidays. I don’t care about some additional weight, but IQ is important.

Lenses I really enjoy on the M are an old cron 50mm, the nokton 35/1.4sc and the 75/1.5 nokton. All classic looks and soft.

If I buy the SL35, I can’t acquire in upcoming years some other AF lenses for the SL, as we know, the price is about 4/8 times more than both panasonic/sigma.

However, it will be a SL. And here is my question: does one need at least to have one leica L lens for the SL?

ofcourse I could try a sigma and than replace for leica if not happy, but due to lack of local dealers this is not really possible. I need to buy abroad, and at present, my dealer has a second hand offer for both … decisions, decisions.

I assume you have the M lenses you mention that you like. In that case, buy a used SL 35. And use your M lenses with the M to L adapter. SL 35 could be the only lens you "need". It is that good. Not sure where you are located, but in the USA, used SL 35 can be had for approx USD $3,400-$3500 from private sellers. 

[MJB]

You don’t “need” any specific type of lens for your SL - just get what you want and can afford. It doesn’t “need” to be Leica, AF, or even L-mount. Personally, I find SL lenses to be far too precious, and nowhere close to worth the price. I use my SL solely for adapted Contax lenses, which works well for me. YMMV. 

[blessingx]

If you don’t mind the slight FL bump, have you considered the one lens Sigma experiment (cine in stills shell) of the 40mm f/1.4? You get some of the advantages of the Sigma 35, including price, with the performance approaching, maybe equalling, the SL35. Big and heavy, but check out the reviews and those MTF charts. Love mine. Hell, you could get the 40mm f/1.4 and Sigma 35 f/2 (or 35 f/2 APO-Lanthar or Ultron) for different situations. 

Edited September 27, 2022 by blessingx

[Olaf_ZG]

@AnbaricI bought the SL cause sometimes I do equine photography, and needed a tele for that. As the SL was the best second choice (after M) for M-lenses it was the most logical choice. AF is quick enough to me, though with other brands and quicker AF I might have more keepers when shooting horses running towards me. However, the SL is here to stay.

@Stuart Richardsonyou confirmed my research, now I still need to make up my mind.

@Jeff SI know you use SL only with zooms, but for the short range, I prefer primes. Pity, cause the 24/90 would be a perfect solution otherwise.

@ravinjlocated in Croatia, and prices in Europe are in the same range, except in € and not in $.

@MJBI want to have a AF, manual lenses I have already.

@blessingxThe 40mm looks like a great lens and almost ticked all the boxes, except for weight (1.2kg?!) and close focus distance. As my M’s can’t focus close, at least the new lens must be able to do so.

Thanks all for your inputs so far.

[MJB]

28 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

 

@MJBI want to have a AF, manual lenses I have already.

My point was not that you stick to manual focus lenses (rather the opposite, in your case), but that you evaluate your own needs and budget to determine your lens choice, instead of relying on what anyone else thinks you "should" have for your SL.

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, MJB said:

My point was not that you stick to manual focus lenses (rather the opposite, in your case), but that you evaluate your own needs and budget to determine your lens choice, instead of relying on what anyone else thinks you "should" have for your SL.

Ok, sorry, misunderstood. You are right ofcourse, and basically I am quite able to define what I want/need. However, I value other inputs as we have lots of knowledge on this forum. 

Sadly, I am not able to try or rent, hence my request for other opinions.

[Simone_DF]

What about the Panasonic 35mm?

 

[hansvons]

I’d have a closer look at the 24-90. In terms of sharpness, vignetting, and CA, it’s the best standard zoom I ever had. One could call it a variable prime in quality standards. The combination of AF and variable field of view makes it highly versatile when time and spontaneous action are of the essence. 

The 24-90 is heavy but weather-sealed, adding even more versatility. I’ve used it a couple of times in heavy rain and annoying drizzle and it does what its meant to do. A real Leica champ.

All else I cover with primes that I chose for their character; all of them, in fact, manually focusing. YMMV, of course.

[tom0511]

It really depends what focal length you want/need except the 35mm???

I personally would not bind myself to just one lens only to have the best in its class.

For example if I could keep only one of them, I would rather keep the 24-70/2.8 SL (or 24-90SL) instead of just the 35/2.0SL.

If 35mm is all you need - go for it. 

[hansvons]

As a side note, I once had a closer look at the 35mm SL. It’s a fabulous lens in terms of sheer IQ; even the focus roll-off is as smooth as it possibly gets.

But for my work it doesn't add anything valuable. It's character is somewhere hidden behind the glorious sharpness and contrast at any stop, which makes it somewhat souless. 

But there are many lens aficionados out there who love to own the best 35mm AF lens on the market. A landscape image super-sharp from corner to corner at f 2, 0 can be fascinating. But I don't have the need for that and portraits require other virtues.

Edited September 27, 2022 by hansvons

[BernardC]

8 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

The 40mm looks like a great lens and almost ticked all the boxes, except for weight (1.2kg?!) and close focus distance. As my M’s can’t focus close, at least the new lens must be able to do so.

The Panasonic 35/1.8 could be a good choice. It's a little bit lighter than the Sigma 35/2.0, and it focuses a few centimeters closer (24 vs. 27cm).

17 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

And here is my question: does one need at least to have one leica L lens for the SL?

No, you don't. The SL is a great platform for lots of lenses. Leica's L lenses are great, but Panasonic and Sigma both offer AF lenses that are as good as almost anything else in competing systems.

17 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

The 35mm would be my to go lens plus one m (50/75) for daytrips and holidays.

Have you considered Panasonic's 20-60 zoom? It's a great "walking around" lens.

[Olaf_ZG]

@Simone_DFthanks, but from what I have seen the Panasonic might be a bit soulless or however one wants to call it.

@tom0511it wouldn’t be my only lens for the SL, but it would be my only Leica lens. 

@hansvonsthanks for replies. I wouldn’t use it for portraits (except some environmental ones) as for this I use the more classical m lenses I have. 
The smooth focus roll-off attracts me a lot, and I can see lots of use for that during my walks in nature. 
Yesterday I tried similar styled images with the sigma 45/2.8, and though nice, it didn’t had that wow effect.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[RBB]

Comparing Sigma and Leica, Sigma makes some fine lenses, I have a Sigma 85mm f/1.4, a year ago I bought the Leica SL75 f2 and never used the sigma again and definitely going to buy the Leica SL35mm.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, for me is Leica another (next) level.

Edited September 27, 2022 by RBB
typo