Opinion on SL/R/M lens choice on SL2-S for Madagascar trip

[Adam_James]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello All,

     First post ever, as I’m having an internal struggle regarding lens choice.  Going to Madagascar in April for travel/leisure and just bought a Leica SL2-S.  I’d like to photograph people on the street, do portraits, take close-ups of food, etc.

     I’ve traveled with a Contax 645 back in the day with roll film, and have some experience traveling around Africa.  Older now, eyesight waning, and carrying lenses might be more challenging than when I was in my 20’s.  I’m still going to try though.  I’ve got a list of hopeful lenses, and I’d like to see what you suggest.  I have the landscape portion of my lens choice settled, so just need advice for environmental/street/documentary lens choice.  Here are my choices:

1) Leica Summilux-R 35mm

2) Leica Summilux-R 50mm

3) Leica Summilux-SL 50mm

4) Leica Summilux-M 24mm

5) Leica Summilux-M 28mm

6)  Leica Noctilux-M 50mm 0.85

  I worry that pulling out a 50 Summilux-SL might kill the spontaneity, but autofocus has some advantages.  I’d like to also shoot scenes in shops, like barber shops, etc.  Just looking for some advice.  I can probably afford two lenses if I live off Ramen. 🤪

 

Regards,

Adam James

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

I would take the Summilux SL - high quality and AF - if you pull out a camera of SL size the lens size won't make any difference -  plus the Summilux M 28. It is all you will need for your use.

[Adam_James]

Thank you for taking the time to respond.  I’ve been reading the forum for over two years.  I respect your opinion and the knowledge you have.  

[pgh]

None of them - and I disagree that the SL Lens won't make any difference. Those things are honking big. An SL2 is only slightly bigger than an M - and if you keep small lenses on it, it's a different experience than going full bore. It's still not as svelte as an M but it does at least get to being a manageable and quick walk around camera.

I have the sigma contemporary 45 for almost exactly this reason. You could buy the whole set for one Leica lens - but really, the 45 is all you need for this. Or the 35. You should probably decide on what focal length it is you actually prefer. I'm more of a "normal" myself. It's about the size of an old 50mm 1.8 lens and yes, a little slower at 2.8 but that doesn't matter so much anymore and esp with the nice low light of the SL2-S. You shouldn't expect the optics of an L lens - but it is still quite good - plenty good to have no bearing on whether or not your picture succeeds - and you will make more of them with a lens that is more convenient. 

My second choice would be to get an M lens and a cron, not a lux. You don't need 1.4 with that camera and since budget is an issue and the optics won't be better I don't see it making sense unless you just love to shoot everything wide open. 

I personally use M lenses on my SL2 the most but I don't mind MF - the Sigma is for when AF is necessary. I would rarely use my SL if I had to use the native SL glass, nice as it is. 

[beewee]

If I’m going to be shooting M primes, I’d use an M body.

If I’m going to be shooting an SL2 or SL2-S, I’d use an SL zoom for flexibility with decent image quality at the cost of weight and size. If I don’t need the flexibility, I’d go with the APO SL primes for compactness and amazing image quality. There’s no point shooting an SL body otherwise, at least for me.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I travelled to Burma, before the troubles with the Summilux 50 as part of my kit. Not a subtle lens. You won't be getting many candids. The 50 Summilux and 90 Summicron SL's were by FAR my most used lenses. About equally. And I loved shooting with them. But I had two bodies with a lens on each and a 14-24 in a hip pack. Mostly the longer lenses were locked up at the hotel.

If I were to do that trip again I'd probably take something smaller than the Summilux SL. I know it's not on your list but I would seriously consider taking two of the Panasonic 1.8 primes. For me that'd be the 50 and 85. Combined they're lighter than your 'lux and the optics are excellent. All the benefits of AF and not ridiculous money. Or you could get the 50 or 90 SL Summicron, price be damned....

I'd also be influenced by what else you're carrying.

I do understand Africa and Burma are different. I've spent years travelling in Africa (literally) and you do need to be much more aware of what's going on around you. Myanmar is a very safe country to travel. Much of Africa, not so much although it varies widely. So I'd be inclined to take the Panasonic lenses and tape your logos. Maybe a waist bag in front for easy access and security. If you're already taking a mid zoom maybe even leave the primes at home and just do your portraits with a single camera/lens as it's much easier to manage.

Gordon

[Adam_James]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for all the responses so far.  Honestly, I never had any trouble out in the streets of Africa shooting.  I was using a Contax 645.  One time in Mali someone tried to smash my camera to the ground, but I shot a picture that might be considered sensitive.  I think having an SL2-S body, it’s going to be noticeable anyway.  I was dreaming about manually focusing a Noctilux, but Summilux-SL might be the ticket

[Photoworks]

Did you ever try the Summilux SL? It is big, heavy and slow moving focus.

When I travel a take zoom lens on the SL2, 24-90mm, and something to look good at night like Summilux-M 50 or 35.

Easy to carry all day that you don't have to leave it in the hotel when you go to dinner.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I travelled to Burma, before the troubles with the Summilux 50 as part of my kit. Not a subtle lens. You won't be getting many candids. The 50 Summilux and 90 Summicron SL's were by FAR my most used lenses. About equally. And I loved shooting with them. But I had two bodies with a lens on each and a 14-24 in a hip pack. Mostly the longer lenses were locked up at the hotel.

If I were to do that trip again I'd probably take something smaller than the Summilux SL. I know it's not on your list but I would seriously consider taking two of the Panasonic 1.8 primes. For me that'd be the 50 and 85. Combined they're lighter than your 'lux and the optics are excellent. All the benefits of AF and not ridiculous money. Or you could get the 50 or 90 SL Summicron, price be damned....

I'd also be influenced by what else you're carrying.

I do understand Africa and Burma are different. I've spent years travelling in Africa (literally) and you do need to be much more aware of what's going on around you. Myanmar is a very safe country to travel. Much of Africa, not so much although it varies widely. So I'd be inclined to take the Panasonic lenses and tape your logos. Maybe a waist bag in front for easy access and security. If you're already taking a mid zoom maybe even leave the primes at home and just do your portraits with a single camera/lens as it's much easier to manage.

Gordon

In over thirty years of traveling Africa, apart from the large towns, especially in South Africa, I have never felt unsafe. Having said that, it is always and anywhere wise to be a bit careful when carrying obviously expensive gear. As to lens size, people don't really notice the lens as such; they do notice a full-sized camera pointing at them (and see the lens end-on  ). 

[Virob]

environment/street/documentary/food close up, that is what the Q2 was designed for.

Supplement with the SL2 + Sigma  65/2 and  throw in a 20/21 for landscapes and you have a flexible, reasonably simple set up. Bonus, the SL2 and Q2 take the same battery, and there will be less lens switching.

 

 

[hansvons]

The 35mm Summilux R is one of the most expensive Leica lenses. Pristine copies go for 2x SL2-S. The 50mm Summilux R is not better in terms of sharpness, colour, Leica glow and bokeh than the 50mm Summicron R, which can be had for a third of the price, plus it’s a bit smaller. I own both and prefer the Summicron for its smaller footprint.

Regardless of M or R series, all Leica lenses of some vintage render very differently from modern glass, (almost) irrespectively of the brand.

You will get different images from a modern Sigma or vintage Leica lenses. That also counts for modern Leica SL primes, which are so perfect that, in my eyes, they lack soul. I use my vintage primes much more than my super-sharp and uber-plasticity rendering 24-90 Vario Elmarit. Others might have a different opinion and see the ability to render a pronounced dimensionality as an essential virtue. 

That said, the 24-90 is my go-to lens for landscapes and reportage-style photography when on an assignment because a quick AF allows for more keepers and the variety of fields of views only zooms can provide is essential for covering the whole story. 

If I were in your shoes, I’d get the 24-90 and a used Q2. You’d have the convenience of AF, the small footprint when strolling along in critical areas (Q2), and the versatility and sharpness of the best standard zoom in the market. Both setups/cameras are weather sealed, which can be a big plus in certain areas. 

If I were in my shoes, I’d take the SL2-S with a small 35mm M lens (the Voigtländer Nokton Classic is an excellent option for the price) because size matters when travelling, and an R6.2 plus a 50mm Summicron R for B&W. That way, I have the smallest possible SL-S setup and the option of using the 50mm Summicron with an R-L adaptor. 
 

Please note that I don’t need wider and longer lenses for my kind of work. Many think differently about that and don’t bother to carry a few kg of gear. 

 

 

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, Adam_James said:

 Here are my choices:

1) Leica Summilux-R 35mm

2) Leica Summilux-R 50mm

3) Leica Summilux-SL 50mm

4) Leica Summilux-M 24mm

5) Leica Summilux-M 28mm

6)  Leica Noctilux-M 50mm 0.85

That's three 50mm lenses! Granted, they each render slightly differently, but is that difference important to your photography?

I don't want to throw one more into the mix, but the 50mm f/1.4 ASPH Summilux-M covers most of the same bases while being significantly smaller and lighter.

I assume you already own the Summilux-R 35? If not, maybe an M would be better, because of size, price, availability, and repairability.

Other than that, I see no issues. You obviously know your focal length preferences, and you don't want a zoom.

[Adam_James]

Hello All,

     I appreciate everyone’s feedback, and have my solution narrowed down to (2) options.  Ideally, I’d like to have variety and as many focal lengths as possible and go stealth and not be noticed, but that is not reality.  I’m a foreigner and I’ve always been easy to point out in Africa.  Only in Northern Africa did I blend in well due to olive complexion, so could be more stealth.  That being said, I think an approach where I get to know my subjects will afford me the opportunity to get the images I want, and won’t need to ‘run-and-gun’ with my camera.  
 

     The two options are as follows:

Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm

or

Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 and Summilux-SL

 

     I’m glad I’ve been able to narrow it down, because lens choice takes up space in your mind.  Thanks for all your suggestions.  I respect everyone’s feedback as it did help immensely.  What option above makes the most sense?

 

Regards,

Adam James

Edited October 28, 2022 by Adam_James

[pgh]

20 hours ago, beewee said:

If I’m going to be shooting M primes, I’d use an M body.

If I’m going to be shooting an SL2 or SL2-S, I’d use an SL zoom for flexibility with decent image quality at the cost of weight and size. If I don’t need the flexibility, I’d go with the APO SL primes for compactness and amazing image quality. There’s no point shooting an SL body otherwise, at least for me.

I'll grant you that I don't think it makes a ton of sense to buy M lenses for primary use on an SL (though really, if you like manual focus, there's no better choice), but if you have M lenses the SL is a great secondary, and sometimes even primary choice. I use my SL2 with M lenses any time I want to keep things easy to travel with, but when IS or more resolution is called for compared to my M10. It effectively makes it so there's no practical need for an M10R/M11. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

20 hours ago, jaapv said:

In over thirty years of traveling Africa, apart from the large towns, especially in South Africa, I have never felt unsafe. Having said that, it is always and anywhere wise to be a bit careful when carrying obviously expensive gear. As to lens size, people don't really notice the lens as such; they do notice a full-sized camera pointing at them (and see the lens end-on  ). 

Well, I was mugged in Mombassa (lost a watch, ripped off my wrist), assaulted in southern Ethiopia (nearly started a riot at that one) and held up at knife point an hours drive outside Nairobi (lost nothing there with help from other locals) amongst other smaller petty thefts. They call it Nairobbery for a reason. The man who's hand I found in one of my pockets in Zanzibar hopefully still has a sore wrist and I recognised the group husstle in Sudan and managed to secure my daypack so it was not able to be pilfered from. Had my tent cut into and cash and processed slide film stolen in Victoria falls. That one really hurt. I lost my mountain gorilla photos. But I'm going back next year to make up for them.

I suppose it also has to do with how you travel and where you are. I rode a bicycle and stayed in *budget* accomodation, mostly camping. It's a poor continent. The informal re-distribution of wealth is to be expected. It didn't put me off. It's a wonderful continent with many fabulous people. Just be aware, that's all.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, Adam_James said:

Hello All,

     I appreciate everyone’s feedback, and have my solution narrowed down to (2) options.  Ideally, I’d like to have variety and as many focal lengths as possible and go stealth and not be noticed, but that is not reality.  I’m a foreigner and I’ve always been easy to point out in Africa.  Only in Northern Africa did I blend in well due to olive complexion, so could be more stealth.  That being said, I think an approach where I get to know my subjects will afford me the opportunity to get the images I want, and won’t need to ‘run-and-gun’ with my camera.  
 

     The two options are as follows:

Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm

or

Leica Tri-Elmar-M 16-18-21 and Summilux-SL

 

     I’m glad I’ve been able to narrow it down, because lens choice takes up space in your mind.  Thanks for all your suggestions.  I respect everyone’s feedback as it did help immensely.  What option above makes the most sense?

 

Regards,

Adam James

If it were me it's be the zoom and the WATE.

Gordon

[Adam_James]

Gordon,

     Sounds like you have some interesting experiences.  Nairobi was intense.  Especially getting out of the airport and being rushed by taxi drivers/touts.  I don’t know why, but Africa calls me back over and over.  I learned so much about myself and to be humble.  Now, if I could only figure out this lens conundrum… 🤪

[Gateway77]

Hi

Apart from the size and the weight considerations - the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm will offer you a single set-up solution.

You will lack for nothing else at all and just be able to concentrate on taking the images you want.

But it is big and it is heavy, but if you've not used this lens before I think you'll be completely satisfied with the results.

Have a great trip.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

11 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Well, I was mugged in Mombassa (lost a watch, ripped off my wrist), assaulted in southern Ethiopia (nearly started a riot at that one) and held up at knife point an hours drive outside Nairobi (lost nothing there with help from other locals) amongst other smaller petty thefts. They call it Nairobbery for a reason. The man who's hand I found in one of my pockets in Zanzibar hopefully still has a sore wrist and I recognised the group husstle in Sudan and managed to secure my daypack so it was not able to be pilfered from. Had my tent cut into and cash and processed slide film stolen in Victoria falls. That one really hurt. I lost my mountain gorilla photos. But I'm going back next year to make up for them.

I suppose it also has to do with how you travel and where you are. I rode a bicycle and stayed in *budget* accomodation, mostly camping. It's a poor continent. The informal re-distribution of wealth is to be expected. It didn't put me off. It's a wonderful continent with many fabulous people. Just be aware, that's all.

Gordon

It has a lot to do with the attitude one projects. I walked out of our hotel in Harare and the people that followed us shortly after  were mugged- by a group of youths that I had been exchanging friendly How are you? Fine- and you? Where are you from? words with just minutes earlier. But we walked confidently and they were obviously nervous. 

[robb]

For your trip, I’d go with only two m lenses.  Like a 28 and 50.

or add a 90 also but did not see it on your list.  
Robb