lens choices

[Farrell Gallery]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi there. I was looking at a used SL, and am hesitant; the thing I dislike about it is its lenses do not have an aperture ring.....is that basically my option, or using M lenses? In which case, using the M may be better suited. I have the Q2 and love it, though would like one with interchangeable lenses too. 

[FrozenInTime]

1 hour ago, Farrell Gallery said:

Hi there. I was looking at a used SL, and am hesitant; the thing I dislike about it is its lenses do not have an aperture ring.....is that basically my option, or using M lenses? In which case, using the M may be better suited. I have the Q2 and love it, though would like one with interchangeable lenses too. 

Sigma L-mount lenses  have aperture rings e.g.https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c020_35_2/

DG DN Contemporary series is closest to a M in size and feel that you can get, but with AF, for L-mount

[Advertisement]

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

[chris_tribble]

IMHO the main reason for getting the SL is the image stabilised Leica zooms. If you don’t want the size and weight of the lenses (and they’re perfectly manageable for all day carry) don’t buy into the system.  If you want full manual control (with its many pros and cons) stick with the M. If you want spectacular, uncompromising image quality, and great flexibility in composition, I’d not worry about the aperture ring and would get an SL (or better, SL2) + 24-90.  If budget is an issue look at CanNikOlyPan or whatever.  They all let you make great images!

[Farrell Gallery]

3 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

Sigma L-mount lenses  have aperture rings e.g.https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/c020_35_2/

DG DN Contemporary series is closest to a M in size and feel that you can get, but with AF, for L-mount

That's awesome, thanks so much! 

[Farrell Gallery]

11 minutes ago, chris_tribble said:

IMHO the main reason for getting the SL is the image stabilised Leica zooms. If you don’t want the size and weight of the lenses (and they’re perfectly manageable for all day carry) don’t buy into the system.  If you want full manual control (with its many pros and cons) stick with the M. If you want spectacular, uncompromising image quality, and great flexibility in composition, I’d not worry about the aperture ring and would get an SL (or better, SL2) + 24-90.  If budget is an issue look at CanNikOlyPan or whatever.  They all let you make great images!

I definitely wish to stick with primes, and aperture rings. I have used Fuji since 2014 and over the summer, added a Q2 to the arsenal. Which is a true pleasure to use. I can use the Q2 for nearly anything, except headshots. Both Fuji bodies went tits up at the same time, prematurely, which is why I am hoping to find a suitable Leica option. 

[Bibowj]

IMHO, I think that's what Chris is getting at. IF youre not going to use the SL with the zooms (and I would argue with the APOs), youre paying a premium for something you can get with a Sony/Nikon/Canon for far less with as good of image quality. Those sigma lenses are in other mounts as well. 

Ive shot the Sl2s with non Leica APO SL lenses and I would say its on par with other makers...the difference is when you add the SL specific lenses.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, chris_tribble said:

IMHO the main reason for getting the SL is the image stabilised Leica zooms. If you don’t want the size and weight of the lenses (and they’re perfectly manageable for all day carry) don’t buy into the system.

No doubt Leica's zooms are great, but there are lots more reasons to get an SL. I originally got mine because of the viewfinder, which was significantly better than anything else on the market. There's also the near-universal lens compatibility: just about any lens ever made that covers at-least a 35mm cine frame (4-perf, similar to APS-C) will work well with the SL. The interface is intuitive, and works well with adult hands. Colours are excellent: skin tones look more human, and you can see subtle shade variations that don't necessarily come through on other cameras.

 

[Geoff C. Bassett]

Gotta disagree with people saying you need the APO or zooms to appreciate these cameras, I love my SL2 and SL2s for the incredible handling and viewfinder. AF is good enough as long as you don't shoot weddings or sports.

[Jeff S]

The beauty of the SL system is its flexibility to suit a diverse user base, which has varied needs and preferences. There’s no right or wrong approach.

One reason I enjoy Leica cameras is that the company prioritizes the viewing experience, whether it’s the unique RF experience with the M, the glorious S system OVF, or the state-of-the-art EVF that started with the original SL 601.  There are other attributes, but this remains a core characteristic.

Jeff

[Chris Nebard]

21 minutes ago, Geoff C. Bassett said:

Gotta disagree with people saying you need the APO or zooms to appreciate these cameras, I love my SL2 and SL2s for the incredible handling and viewfinder. AF is good enough as long as you don't shoot weddings or sports.

Agree - I love the SL2-s for the viewfinder and simple menus, set-up, and it’s fantastic with the Sigma Contemporary and M lenses. Also, I have used it for 3 weddings very recently (with the Elmarit Vario 24-70). The autofocus was absolutely fine for me, including for the documentary & moving subject candid stuff. I’m a long time Nikon user and while Leica’s competition might outperform it in A/F, it’s more than usable to me. The SL primes and zooms are, unquestionably, fabulous but there’s much more to the SL system than optical perfection. I’ve seen some beautiful work done using the SL and old Nikkor AI lenses with an adapter. The SL’s are so adaptable. Literally.