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

[huwm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 11/11/2022 at 1:36 AM, Archiver said:

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.

i haven't used my S5 since i succumbed to the SL2 about 10mths ago, 2 SL lenses so far even though I was going to stick with Sigma, oops

most used is my Q2 though

Edited November 12, 2022 by huwm
forgot that Q2

[jaapv]

I think that at this level the question which is “best” is wholly irrelevant. The SL2 combo is the best mirrorless one, the M11 combo the best rangefinder one, S undoubtedly the best DSLR one, - until you pick up a camera -any camera- better suited to the task at hand…

[Advertisement]

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

[Farrell Gallery]

On 11/10/2022 at 8:49 PM, 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.

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!

 

 

Epic photo!

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I think that at this level the question which is “best” is wholly irrelevant. The SL2 combo is the best mirrorless one, the M11 combo the best rangefinder one, S undoubtedly the best DSLR one, - until you pick up a camera -any camera- better suited to the task at hand…

A fair point. I guess as the OP, I’m oddly agnostic about the different viewfinders and even auto vs manual focus.

In that regard, I guess my question could equally be “is it worth carrying an SL system that is 2x heavier than an M when paired with their “best” respective native prime, in the event that it might provide some extra image quality over the M?”

For some, the use of autofocus and IBIS on the SL provides the benefit of consistently being able to obtain maximum image quality. But if one deploys good technique on both the SL and M, is there anything extra that the SL system and its primes (eg, telecentric design, unlike the M) can offer in image quality that makes it worth carrying 2x the weight? - possibly, possibly not, and to your point at this high level is it even relevant ?

Edited November 12, 2022 by Jon Warwick

[Stuart Richardson]

I am really tired of the whole "artists don't talk about their brushes" thing. Photography is an art that requires craft. We need tools to do this...literally. A human cannot "make" a photograph without tools. Having a preference for sharp lenses does not mean you do not care about aesthetics or that you are not artistic enough to see that sharpness is unimportant etc. 100% pixel peepers are just as annoying as bokeh bros and holga/lomography plastic lens lovers. If you are talking about actual artists it is often the opposite...they are not trying to rely on lens aberrations and faux vintage image characteristics to build their aesthetic for them. They are doing it with their composition and technique and the equipment and lenses they use are a means to their artistic ends. The tools they require for that are going to vary based on what they like to do. I will absolutely grant that certain lenses render in a way that most people find "pleasing" and that can be a very valid reason to get that lens. Personally for that kind of work I don't think much in 35mm can really get anywhere near the larger formats, particularly with lenses like the 110mm f2 Planar, 135mm 3.5 Planar for large format and so on. But for a crystal clear rendering of the world as it is in front of the camera, I don't think you can get any better than the Leica SL summicrons. If you want to make images like a Provoke photographer then you don't need an APO SL summicron, but if you want to make photos like a Becher, Burtynsky, Crewdson or Mitch Epstein etc, they aren't going to hurt. It is not a value judgement...choose the right tool for your end goal.

[John Smith]

6 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

In that regard, I guess my question could equally be “is it worth carrying an SL system that is 2x heavier than an M when paired with their “best” respective native prime, in the event that it might provide some extra image quality over the M?”

In my case, the answer is yes. The SL might be two times heavier on paper but it is easy to use and easy to carry. It’s close focusing let’s you do what am M cannot. You can also use lenses like the 75mm or 90mm with ease.
 

As for aesthetics, I don’t think any of the SL lenses cede anything to M lenses or any other lenses for that matter. See Benoit Linero’s work, for example. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by John Smith

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Actually it is horses for courses. My SL lives behind long and heavy lenses and extreme wideangle. My M and CL are used for medium and light lenses. For Macro I prefer the TL. 

[Jon Warwick]

11 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

But for a crystal clear rendering of the world as it is in front of the camera, I don't think you can get any better than the Leica SL summicrons. If you want to make images like a Provoke photographer then you don't need an APO SL summicron, but if you want to make photos like a Becher, Burtynsky, Crewdson or Mitch Epstein etc, they aren't going to hurt.

I know all of those photographers’s works  and have stood in front of their prints many times, but I’ve followed the projects of Epstein and Crewdson in particular, and yes, I get the sense their equipment (10x8 for Epstein, Phase One these days for Crewdson) helps create an output that is a crystal clean rendering of what’s in front of the camera. For Epstein, I will always recall the beauty of seeing a world in full detail (not an aberration or any off-focus area anywhere) in a c 90” wide print such as “Ironwood Forest National Monument”.  I felt like I was there falling into the scenery as a result of the realism. And Crewdson has discussed, such as for “Cathedral of the Pines” that he intended to have absolute focus and clarity in the image so that the viewer doesn’t think about anything photographic such as grain or unfocus (or anything that disrupts the view into the world he’s created). His prints are super-sharp with not a lens aberration in sight, but simultaneously his images are all about aesthetics driven by different factors such as his complex cinematic lighting, blowing mist into parts of the image etc etc. 

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, the SL2 will not take you as far as a drum scanned 8x10, but the lenses give you that kind of clarity that you usually only get in small enlargements. In other words, the feeling that the lens is not being stressed at all. With 8x10 it is because the reproductive ratios are so small (a 90 inch wide print is less than a 10x enlargement, while for 35mm that is around an 11x14 inch print), but with the SL summicrons it is because the lenses are so technically perfect. 
But again, they are not for everyone or for all occasions! But since that is the subject of this thread…

[o2mpx]

Terrific to read through this thread. At Iguazú Falls now with SL2, 16-35 and 24-70 (chose the shorter zoom instead of bringing the 24-90 to save weight) in backpack.  Walking the trails, the weight is noticeable wearing and tiring on shoulders despite only a body and 2 lenses. 
 

Thought about bringing the M10-R (don’t have a M11) with WATE, 50APO, 90Macro, but given the lines and crowds, it would be challenging to change lenses, and with fixed primes, perhaps difficult to get the shots with the preferred field of vision. 
 

At end of day, earlier poster nailed that it comes down to not image quality but usability and purpose drive selection of SL or M. 
 

Was planning to sell all the L mount and stay with the M gear given the weight, but will keep L mount for the right occasion - planning a trip to Antartica and it’ll be the SL2 and not M gear for the trip. 

[Tailwagger]

On 11/9/2022 at 3:35 PM, 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.

A lot depends on use case. In my world, I land in the opposite corner.  The equivalent of my classic M kit, WATE + 28mm lux + 50mm lux would weigh at least double and take up three times the space. Not a problem perhaps when shooting for an hour in a single location, but over a full day of wandering... big difference.  I'd add that M lenses are far easier to juggle without incident in the field. 

AFAIC, while there certainly can be significant differences in rendering, I fail to see much difference between the two systems at least in terms of perceived acuity.  To a degree they go back and forth with the M11's added pixels providing increases detail in certain instances, the APO accuracy carrying the day in others. But in the end, from a classical definition of IQ perspective, I find next to nothing between the two systems once ink lands on paper.  In my view the SL system is pretty much a one trick pony; the M lens family provides a far broader palette of renderings styles to select from. An alternate but AFAIC equally important definition of the word quality. That said I'd concur, MM use case aside, that if one's taste runs more toward the APO side of the equation, the SL primes are a better deal, assuming they can stand the test of time.

[jaapv]

4 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

A lot depends on use case. In my world, I land in the opposite corner.  The equivalent of my classic M kit, WATE + 28mm lux + 50mm lux would weigh at least double and take up three times the space. Not a problem perhaps when shooting for an hour in a single location, but over a full day of wandering... big difference.  I'd add that M lenses are far easier to juggle without incident in the field. 

AFAIC, while there certainly can be significant differences in rendering, I fail to see much difference between the two systems at least in terms of perceived acuity.  To a degree they go back and forth with the M11's added pixels providing increases detail in certain instances, the APO accuracy carrying the day in others. But in the end, from a classical definition of IQ perspective, I find next to nothing between the two systems once ink lands on paper.  In my view the SL system is pretty much a one trick pony; the M lens family provides a far broader palette of renderings styles to select from. An alternate but AFAIC equally important definition of the word quality. That said I'd concur, MM use case aside, that if one's taste runs more toward the APO side of the equation, the SL primes are a better deal, assuming they can stand the test of time.

The test of time indeed. The SL lenses will be obsolete electronically at some point in the future. 

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

The test of time indeed. The SL lenses will be obsolete electronically at some point in the future. 

So will everything else...I inherited three M lenses from my father...28mm 2.8 Elmarit v3, 50mm 1.4 Pre-asph and 90mm 2.8. While they all work, they are all quite poor performers compared to any modern lenses, including lenses from Voigtlander or Zeiss etc. Sure, they are usable, and certainly some like the look of the 50mm 1.4, but they are, in a real sense to me at least, obsolete. By the time the SL lenses reach that point, there will likely be lenses and cameras that significantly outperform them. If you buy lenses to keep their value when you resell them, then the M lenses are a better choice. But if you are buying your systems to use, and are more concerned with that end of the equation, the SL lenses are great, and it is not like they are going to fall apart anytime soon. There are many electronic lenses from decades ago that are still working perfectly...I would even say most are, as long as they have been stored properly.

[Guest]

On 11/9/2022 at 12:35 PM, 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

75 Noctilux may be a notable exception - I am blown away by the IQ every time I use it (on both M and SL)

[Archiver]

On 11/13/2022 at 7:52 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

I am really tired of the whole "artists don't talk about their brushes" thing. Photography is an art that requires craft. We need tools to do this...literally. A human cannot "make" a photograph without tools. Having a preference for sharp lenses does not mean you do not care about aesthetics or that you are not artistic enough to see that sharpness is unimportant etc. 100% pixel peepers are just as annoying as bokeh bros and holga/lomography plastic lens lovers. If you are talking about actual artists it is often the opposite...they are not trying to rely on lens aberrations and faux vintage image characteristics to build their aesthetic for them. They are doing it with their composition and technique and the equipment and lenses they use are a means to their artistic ends. The tools they require for that are going to vary based on what they like to do. I will absolutely grant that certain lenses render in a way that most people find "pleasing" and that can be a very valid reason to get that lens. Personally for that kind of work I don't think much in 35mm can really get anywhere near the larger formats, particularly with lenses like the 110mm f2 Planar, 135mm 3.5 Planar for large format and so on. But for a crystal clear rendering of the world as it is in front of the camera, I don't think you can get any better than the Leica SL summicrons. If you want to make images like a Provoke photographer then you don't need an APO SL summicron, but if you want to make photos like a Becher, Burtynsky, Crewdson or Mitch Epstein etc, they aren't going to hurt. It is not a value judgement...choose the right tool for your end goal.

When making a film, cinematographers will often work with directors through a series of lens tests to determine the lenses that best suit the look that the director wants to convey. Same with cameras, although most movies are shot on one of the Arri Alexa variants, with a lesser number of Sony Venice, RED and tiny number of Canon cinema cameras. The camera and lens set become a vital part of the imaging process that ultimately leads to the desired look. Even on far smaller scale jobs like I do, I select lenses that will work with the subject matter and mood. I tend to shoot fashion, beauty and food with vintage Minoltas, and sports with modern Sigma zooms.

For personal work, I don't consider myself an 'artist', I shoot with what pleases me and produces the kind of images I like with the least intervention. Canon EF L lenses are amazing but the images don't do it for me in the same way as most decent M mount lenses on a M9. Even then, I used less recent lenses like the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 and 1.2 v1, until I got a Zeiss Distagon 35 and it blew my mind. That's an endgame lens if I ever used one. Now I can hardly use any other lens without thinking the images would just look better (more to my personal taste and vision) if I just used the Distagon instead. For someone who prefers the softer, more glowy look of the Noktons with their circular flare, the Distagon won't suit them as well.

As for image quality of the SL APO lenses on a SL2/S vs a M mount APO on a M11, it comes down to the user and their preferences in much the same way. From what I've seen, image quality of the SL APO primes on the SL2 and 2S is spectacular. You get autofocus, closer focusing distances, weathersealing and high quality video if needed. A set will cost a fair bit less than the equivalent M11 kit, too. But the M11 kit is so much smaller, less obtrusive, easier to carry, and more fun to use for a lot of people. I think the M11 and current Leica M lenses are more than enough for most discerning users, but some might want that little bit extra. Everything is a tradeoff. At the end of the day, the user who is deciding to whether to carry a M11 vs a SL is not aiming to create a specific look to suit a project, but to bring their personal preferences to as much of their work as possible.

Edited November 25, 2022 by Archiver

[tom0511]

I own M, SL and S system. Over the years I found the following:

I believe technically SL and S lenses beat (most) M lenses in regards of corner performance, specially vignetting.

Now it depends which lens you compare, and I must say that the M 35APO and 50APO on the M11 (or M10r) are so good, that even if the SL 35 and 50 APO might have the slight edge, it is not relevant for me. I take either M11 or SL2 based on which camera I like to use, and I don't even think a bit which lens would be better.

There is one lens which I really see a big advantage in the SL system: the SL50/1.4. For me it has a very smooth bokeh and 3D look, and is still quite sharp. I think it beats the 50/1.4M (without having shot direct comparisons). And for a 50/1.4 lens AF is a big advantage to nail focus of anything non static.

I have not had one image with either system, where I thought I should have taken it with the other system due to lens differences.

 

[tom0511]

I would like to add...to me its logic that it's more difficult to build a lens in size of M lenses vs SL lenses. So I am not surprised M lenses show somewhat more vignetting and also a little more room for perfection in SL lenses. Again and again I am amazed about lenses like the M 35 or 50 APO. SO much lens in such  a small size.

[hdmesa]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:52 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I am really tired of the whole "artists don't talk about their brushes" thing...

Anyone who says that has not met many painters.

[Stuart Richardson]

8 hours ago, hdmesa said:

Anyone who says that has not met many painters.

You would actually be incorrect about that. Since I run a printing studio I work regularly for not just photographers, but all kinds of artists who require edition prints of their work. They often talk to me about their materials or techniques, for example, one artist uses metal plates and gradually layers many coats of a particular kind of metal paint to achieve the dimensionality he is looking for. We were both commiserating over the fact that materials have become so expensive that artists are being forced to abandon their preferred ways of working because they simply cannot afford it anymore. Obviously “brushes” is a metaphor in this context, but in my experience, artists talk about their tools and techniques constantly. But perhaps I hear it more because I work for them. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You would actually be incorrect about that.

I think you mean ‘correct’ about that. He was making the same point.

Jeff