The technically “best” of SL vs M, is there a difference?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For those of you that have the technically “best” combos …. let’s say an SL2 +SL 50/35mm APO Summicron; and you directly compared its output to the “best” of the M equivalent, say M11 +M 50/35mm APO Summicron …..do you think you see any difference in its (i) technical image quality, and (ii) especially rendering? For example, I sometimes wonder if the output from SL combo is even more prefect / clinical / modern, and there is a different character from even of the latest M APOs (perhaps slightly more gentle aesthetic?)

Edited November 9, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Max EPR]

I have a SL2 + SL28,50,90 APO Summicron, plus an M11 + M 50 APO Summicron. First, both combos are fantastic. Peter Karbe states the SL glass is technically superior to the best M glass. I can't see any superiority of the SL 50 APO over the M M 50 APO Summicron. I select the 2 combos based on what I'm doing. If there is  a weather issue or lots of action I prefer the SL. If I want to be more discreet or want a lighter/smaller kit I prefer the M.  I often can't make up my mind which combo to travel with. They are both fantastic, but different.

[Advertisement]

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

[robb]

I have shot both my 75 SL Apo and my 90 M apo on my sl2

the SL lens is noticeably sharper and the 90 m is great.  Background blur the same.  
 

so I am moving all my m lenses over to SL Apo… because I want the best technical image quality especially when using multishot mode and wide open apertures.

also I feel the SL lenses will hold up to any sensor the future brings us.

I don’t consider the SL Apo lenses that large so the m size benefit vs optical improvements with lower cost in the Apo lenses is easy choice to me.

Robb

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, robb said:

 

I don’t consider the SL Apo lenses that large so the m size benefit vs optical improvements with lower cost in the Apo lenses is easy choice to me.

 

It’s a good point. I used to own the SL 50 APO (perhaps sold out of the SL system too quickly, in hindsight), its form factor and image quality was impeccable, and yes, I agree, the lower cost for all that benefit in SL primes is compelling versus the nearest equivalent M lenses. I think I’m still undecided, however, in the realm of technical perfection (say, M 50 APO vs SL 50 APO on their respective highest performing bodies) is whether there is a meaningful difference still in “aesthetics / rendering” when it comes to output between the 2 systems.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[robb]

If you take the 35 Apo lenses in particular…

cost is 3500 to 4000 for an SL apo

vs 9k to 12k for M apo

only thing m has going for it is smaller footprint.

If you are only using an sl2, operation is faster with changing SL lenses rather than selecting which lens you have just attached with the adapter.  Af and weather proofing is a plus also.  Optical numbers are better.  It was a slam dunk for me.  
 

I’m waiting on ibis to go in an M camera otherwise m lenses are not on my hit list currently.  
 

Robb

[Jeff S]

How do you view your output, screen or print, big or small?  At what apertures do you typically shoot?  Can you hold your M as steady as your SL2, or do you use a tripod?  Is your M system perfectly calibrated, and your vision well corrected? MTF charts are one thing; practical shooting and viewing habits are another.  
 

I choose between my M10-R/ M10-M and SL2, using native lenses on each, for reasons that have little to do with any minor technical performance differences. Differences regarding weather sealing, AF, IBIS, focal length, subject matter, carrying requirements, etc, determine my choice.

Print audiences don’t know the difference, often including me over time.

Jeff

[John Smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, robb said:

I have shot both my 75 SL Apo and my 90 M apo on my sl2

the SL lens is noticeably sharper and the 90 m is great.  Background blur the same.  
 

so I am moving all my m lenses over to SL Apo… because I want the best technical image quality especially when using multishot mode and wide open apertures.

also I feel the SL lenses will hold up to any sensor the future brings us.

I don’t consider the SL Apo lenses that large so the m size benefit vs optical improvements with lower cost in the Apo lenses is easy choice to me.

Robb

I’ve done a few side-by-side comparisons with the 50APO-M and the 50SL. The 50SL is not only sharper, it conveys more depth.

I have a few M lenses with adapters and am thinking of selling them all off. It doesn’t do any good to put a 50APO-M on your SL2 when you have a 50SL on the shelf.

Edited November 9, 2022 by John Smith

[John Smith]

Just thought I'd add this. I know the OP is probably asking about IQ in absolute terms. But I think you have to take the rangefinder mechanism in real life. I found that all too often the 50APO-M was just a smidgen off (a pixel or two?) of perfect focus when using the rangefinder. I don't think the rangefinder mechanism has kept up with the technological advances we've seen in the EVF, AF, and SL lenses.

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, John Smith said:

Just thought I'd add this. I know the OP is probably asking about IQ in absolute terms. But I think you have to take the rangefinder mechanism in real life. I found that all too often the 50APO-M was just a smidgen off (a pixel or two?) of perfect focus when using the rangefinder. I don't think the rangefinder mechanism has kept up with the technological advances we've seen in the EVF, AF, and SL lenses.

Impressive as the rangefinder is, yes I'd agree with you .....looking at my photos from the SL2 that I used to own, I was able to very reliably get perfect focus with the SL system at f2 (and with relatively little effort too, of course).  Aside from wide angles with their larger depth of field, and given I print very large such that it's more noticeable, I'm often more amazed at just how much of an image is NOT in perfect focus around the subject itself.  If anything, I'm finding that the out-of-focus (or just slight off-focus) "rendering" of the bokeh is hence almost as important as the sharpness itself, but fortunately the latest Leica lenses are very good in terms of rendering a very smooth backdrop.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, John Smith said:

Just thought I'd add this. I know the OP is probably asking about IQ in absolute terms. But I think you have to take the rangefinder mechanism in real life. I found that all too often the 50APO-M was just a smidgen off (a pixel or two?) of perfect focus when using the rangefinder. I don't think the rangefinder mechanism has kept up with the technological advances we've seen in the EVF, AF, and SL lenses.

One of the points I made in post #6….one of many practical, real life differences… between systems as well as between users.

Jeff

[Stuart Richardson]

That consistency of result was also the reason I mostly abandoned the S and M systems in favor of the SL. Not only are the SL lenses the best I have used (I do not have the 35 and 50 APO M lenses), but it is also extraordinarily easy to use them to their best advantage. While people may lament the slow speed of the contrast detect focusing in comparison to phase detect, I think for the highest image quality it is a better choice, as it is consistently perfectly spot on, and the lack of on-sensor phase detect sensors means that there is much less banding on pushed images and high ISO than there are with cameras that have phase detect sensors.

The first time I really was blown away by the 50mm SL APO was when I was photographing from a helicopter and had mistakenly left the camera on aperture priority at f2. When I reviewed the images at home, I was astonished how sharp the files were from edge to edge...even the farthest corners were tack sharp when taken from a vibrating aerial platform. I was also using a Mamiya 7 at the same time, and most of the photos were unusable from movement, given the slower top speed of 1/500th and the lack of stabilization. It helped confirm what I have liked best about the SL, and what I liked about the S in the CCD days...it is more than the sum of its parts. All the pieces combine to make very consistently excellent images. It does not hurt either that the system itself and all the lenses are a lot cheaper than the M system, which in a certain way has jumped the shark in terms of its value. I bought a brand new MP and 50mm Summicron for a total of about 4200 dollars back in 2003. Now, literally the same camera and lens twenty years later cost 8600 dollars. Even with inflation as high as it is now, adjusted for the time it should be around 6800. The equivalent digital body with the best lens will now cost you a breathtaking 18100 USD before taxes and shipping. To me, at least, that is not a reasonable choice when you can get equal or better quality, also from Leica, from an SL2 and 50mm APO SL at 12100 (and much less used...not so for the M).

[Jon Warwick]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

That consistency of result was also the reason I mostly abandoned the S and M systems in favor of the SL. Not only are the SL lenses the best I have used (I do not have the 35 and 50 APO M lenses), but it is also extraordinarily easy to use them to their best advantage.

Yes, I agree, and a real life example of that consistency and ease of use became very obvious when I was evaluating the SL 50mm Summilux in a Leica store, and asked an employee to take a full height shot of me outside at f 1.4 ("it'll be useful to tell how naturally this lens records images, I know for sure what I look like!"). As I stood there about 15 feet away, the employee was casually taking the image, arms stretched fully out, using the rear screen only for focusing and composition.  I thought, oh no, this isn't gonna be such a useful lens test after all. But of course, every shot was technically perfect .... precisely focused on my face (which was off-centre in the composition) and despite the very thin depth of field, and with no motion blur given IBIS. The end results, ie, an image with its very rapid focus fall-off, very smooth bokeh, and the way I was stood intensely staring at the camera, kind of reminded me of the look of a portrait photo by Alec Soth off his 8x10, but clearly with a consistency of result from the SL that was quite different!

Edited November 10, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Archiver]

This thread should come with a GAS warning. I have a toe in the water with the Panasonic S5 and have been contemplating lenses for eventual upgrade. This thread is not cool hahaha.

[Photoworks]

you are all salivating over the APO, like the painter asking for the best brush.

Well does the best brush exist? I am sure there are many options for for different taste . once you realize that there is more in the world then perfect sharp pictures from edge to edge you can move on to something more with emotional response, magic. That is why there are so many choices.
I have all the APO SL and the zooms, and personally I can wait to get some magic back with a set of Summilux-SL on Noct. Most of the time the SL cron's stay home, but I du like the 75 SL.

M11 sensor is amazing, better at base iso 64 and better in high iso. SL2 is just a different camera.

 

Here is a pix from yesterday that does not require an apo!

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

 

[robb]

Beautiful color and stellar look on that one for sure.

In a world with a giant bankroll, you could have everything in all systems and have a cabinet full of glass to change lenses like going to the library…

But since most of us can’t do that (even with tax deductions) we have to pick a variety of what we like best for each setup or use.  After doing this 35 years, I know the SL apo’s bring me exactly what I prefer in a look and with extreme sharpness.  I never feel like I lose any magic using them vs older lens designs.  I also have an M 50 nokton that I love and while I also like the non- apo and APO m lenses, I just find the SL lenses simply do their job on another scale… with the latest tech bodies and their features.  I have been enjoying my work like never before and was loving life prior to that shooting Nikon and canon, film, etc…
Robb

 

 

[hansvons]

Recently, I covered a three-day event with the SL2-S and the 24-90 that included an indoor evening without flash and outdoor scenes dealing with landscapes and people. While the 24-90 is neither a specialised portrait lens nor a dedicated landscape lens, it renders both genres much better for such an assignment as one would typically expect. It offers unparalleled versatility and a fast working pace to capture all these precious moments. Without a miss, from long shots to close-ups, the focus is always spot on, like 99,7% of the time. But what comes in handy the most is the SL2-S sensitivity and IBIS—tons of keepers and brilliant colour (providing tons of juice in the shadows at high ISO is the SL2-S strength) that allows for fast editing. Incredible, can't have it better. And the clients do appreciate the premium quality. That, in the end, counts most.

I cannot have that with M glass. But I don't use the 24-90, the journalist's essential zoom, for dedicated portraits. There are others much better suited, the SL primes and, for sure, M lenses and, for me, the excellent vintage R primes. But for landscapes, I'd argue the 24-90 does the job well when stopped down to a 5,6 and higher.

[John Smith]

12 hours ago, Photoworks said:

you are all salivating over the APO, like the painter asking for the best brush.

Well does the best brush exist? I am sure there are many options for for different taste . once you realize that there is more in the world then perfect sharp pictures from edge to edge you can move on to something more with emotional response, magic. That is why there are so many choices.
I have all the APO SL and the zooms, and personally I can wait to get some magic back with a set of Summilux-SL on Noct. Most of the time the SL cron's stay home, but I du like the 75 SL.

I am not salivating over the SL lenses, but just responding to the OP about IQ in real world circumstances. That said, I picked up a Noctilux75mm from selling off my S stuff. I went out and compared it to my 75SL. The 75SL was not only sharper and cleaner, it had "better" colors. Sure, there is more in the world than perfect, sharp pictures. But most of the time it's better to arm yourself with a sharp knife rather than a dull one. While I like the Noctilux, it stays on the shelf much more than the 75SL.

[robb]

My new 90 SL is on a FedEx plane headed my way.  I can’t wait.  Then will be waiting on the new 21…

I visited the factory in Germany a few months ago and really enjoyed walking down Leica’s display of all the things they have produced thru all time.  I’d be happy (and crazy lucky) to shoot with all that stuff… R, M, LTM, S

but SL hits my sweet spot.

Robb

[Camaro5]

I can only compare the M10-R & 35 FLE to the Q2 and SL2-S & 35 APO SL.  For me, they all produce exceptional images with slight differences.  Not so much in the quality but in the overall look.  Sometimes if I'm looking through my images it's hard to tell which camera was used.  

As hard as it is to rank them, I'd say I prefer the look of the SL2-S & 35 APO SL the most.  It has the sharpest and most natural look of the three even though the camera is 24mp.  After that, the Q2 and then the 35 FLE on the M10-R.  Never had a chance to try the 35 APO M.  

You really have to split hairs to say any of these are really "better" than the others, and for me it's just a personal preference.  I'm now down to just two -- the SL2-S & Q2.  As much as I liked the M10-R it was getting tough to shoot due to some physical issues and I needed the IBIS and AF that the others offered,  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jrp]

In the end, I find it easier to take photos with the SL2 as the framing is more precise and the SL lenses have much less by way of aberattions than the M lenses at the expense of bulk. But both systems are getting so expensive now that I hesitate before taking either out, rather than a Sony Kit, when the price of the most attractive lenses is as high as the price of a small car.