Newly bought 35SL : I was not ready for this

[proenca]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So bit of background : I am a long time ( 20+ years ) M shooter.

Had a SL original for a while and loved it but then traded it for a M10. 

But now, at 46y and the need of glasses, started to diminish the M usage and favored ( lord forbid lol ) Sony usage and I was happy at the Sony camp.

But everytime I picked up a M and specially the M9, Leica magic would surface.

So I sold all my Sony gear ( extensive G master lens list … ) and got myself a SL2 and a few adapters.

After a bit of searching for wide angle, got my first L lens : Sigma 12-24 and its a superb lens.

But wanted a more “everyday” AF lens and after reading almost every topic I could find about SL lenses and finding that almost all of them are perfect, the only drawback is the lux AF speed and size ( and I’ve seen that one in person and lord its big ), I decided by my favorite all time focal length : 35mm.

Contacted Leica Store Amesterdam which were super cool and fast to deal with and the lens arrived.

AF speed is good for SL , bad for Sony world. This is expected ( already owned the Sigma ).

Size ( didn’t hold a summicron SL before ) was very surprisingly decent - pictures dont do justice - and weight is ok albeit 700grs or so. bear in mind, I’m a M shooter and the combo works wonderfully and balances great.

Sharpness & bokeh : holy Jesus on a motorbike. I was so not ready for this. This is … perfection. I could do cat pictures but I prefer humans and here is a mundane, quick snap of my girlfriend when she was at the kitchen window having a cigarette. 

Bokeh is lovely , 3D pop is great and the sharpness - she hates it. She trully does.

I’m very very happy with this and very happy with the purchase.

Next plan ? Saving some coins to get the 90SL. Or the Sigma 85 DC DN.

My post long rethoric was to help someone, that is on the fence for dropping 4-5k on a SL lens and not be sure about it, dont hesitate - they are superb lenses and can only get better with a SL3 faster AF - but as it is today, they are supreme lenses and flawless - again, I’ve owned recently GFX50S, X1D, GFX100 and SL lenses are up there.

 

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!

Edited January 15, 2023 by proenca

[wosamko]

Hi,

Congratulations for having this legendary lens. It is extremely sharp edge to edge

 

Question:

 

What is the minimum distance to take full depth of field of whole face/face and chest/Whole human body /F2 and /F5.6?

 

I have 24-70 and APO-M 50mm and want to do replacement with either (Leica 16-35 +  75/90) or (Sigma 14-24 + Leica 35 + Leica 75/90)

 

Your response is highly appreciated

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Pelu2010]

1 hour ago, proenca said:

So bit of background : I am a long time ( 20+ years ) M shooter.

Had a SL original for a while and loved it but then traded it for a M10. 

But now, at 46y and the need of glasses, started to diminish the M usage and favored ( lord forbid lol ) Sony usage and I was happy at the Sony camp.

But everytime I picked up a M and specially the M9, Leica magic would surface.

So I sold all my Sony gear ( extensive G master lens list … ) and got myself a SL2 and a few adapters.

After a bit of searching for wide angle, got my first L lens : Sigma 12-24 and its a superb lens.

But wanted a more “everyday” AF lens and after reading almost every topic I could find about SL lenses and finding that almost all of them are perfect, the only drawback is the lux AF speed and size ( and I’ve seen that one in person and lord its big ), I decided by my favorite all time focal length : 35mm.

Contacted Leica Store Amesterdam which were super cool and fast to deal with and the lens arrived.

AF speed is good for SL , bad for Sony world. This is expected ( already owned the Sigma ).

Size ( didn’t hold a summicron SL before ) was very surprisingly decent - pictures dont do justice - and weight is ok albeit 700grs or so. bear in mind, I’m a M shooter and the combo works wonderfully and balances great.

Sharpness & bokeh : holy Jesus on a motorbike. I was so not ready for this. This is … perfection. I could do cat pictures but I prefer humans and here is a mundane, quick snap of my girlfriend when she was at the kitchen window having a cigarette. 

Bokeh is lovely , 3D pop is great and the sharpness - she hates it. She trully does.

I’m very very happy with this and very happy with the purchase.

Next plan ? Saving some coins to get the 90SL. Or the Sigma 85 DC DN.

My post long rethoric was to help someone, that is on the fence for dropping 4-5k on a SL lens and not be sure about it, dont hesitate - they are superb lenses and can only get better with a SL3 faster AF - but as it is today, they are supreme lenses and flawless - again, I’ve owned recently GFX50S, X1D, GFX100 and SL lenses are up there.

 

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!

Holy Jesus on a motorbike …. 😂

[huwm]

There’s a thread comparing the Sigma 1.4 85mm Art and 90SL  Apo on here somewhere 

I saved a lot of money for a pretty insignificant loss in IQ (imho) by getting the Sigma

At some point I will probably trade up from Sigma 1.4 35mm Art to the 35SL Apo though, not really much of a difference but more to scratch an itch, so no hurry at all.

The DG DN Art range is pretty much all superb and they have an aperture ring too.

 

 

 

 

Edited January 15, 2023 by huwm
Typo

[FlashGordonPhotography]

4 hours ago, huwm said:

There’s a thread comparing the Sigma 1.4 85mm Art and 90SL  Apo on here somewhere 

I saved a lot of money for a pretty insignificant loss in IQ (imho) by getting the Sigma

At some point I will probably trade up from Sigma 1.4 35mm Art to the 35SL Apo though, not really much of a difference but more to scratch an itch, so no hurry at all.

The DG DN Art range is pretty much all superb and they have an aperture ring too.

 

 

 

 

IMHO there is no such thing as an insignificant loss in IQ…..

I have the older Sigma Art. The monster. I think it’s better than the new one. The 90 APO is better again.

I agree that the modern SIgma lenses are fantastic. But you can do that on any system. There is only one way to get the SLAPO’s. L mount. The problem is that you think you’ll get the SL35 and be done. Truth is that everyone who’s gone before you and purchased one is now working on a way to have *just one more*. I see a SL 90 APO in your future.

Start with one. Finish with many. This is the way….

Gordon 

[akiralx]

Excellent shot of a beautiful lady... 

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Totally agree with your take on this wonderful lens. Congrats on your purchase!

[proenca]

13 hours ago, wosamko said:

Hi,

Congratulations for having this legendary lens. It is extremely sharp edge to edge

 

Question:

 

What is the minimum distance to take full depth of field of whole face/face and chest/Whole human body /F2 and /F5.6?

 

I have 24-70 and APO-M 50mm and want to do replacement with either (Leica 16-35 +  75/90) or (Sigma 14-24 + Leica 35 + Leica 75/90)

 

Your response is highly appreciated

 

 

 

Hi there,

I'm travelling in a couple of days and I'll take real world examples of face / face and chest / human body at F2 and F5.6 at minimum focusing distance for you.

Funny thing : your alternative is my setup ( or it will be once I add the 90 ) : I currently have the 12-24 Sigma Art and the 35SL. very very very happy with both

[proenca]

8 hours ago, huwm said:

There’s a thread comparing the Sigma 1.4 85mm Art and 90SL  Apo on here somewhere 

I saved a lot of money for a pretty insignificant loss in IQ (imho) by getting the Sigma

At some point I will probably trade up from Sigma 1.4 35mm Art to the 35SL Apo though, not really much of a difference but more to scratch an itch, so no hurry at all.

The DG DN Art range is pretty much all superb and they have an aperture ring too.

 

 

 

 

I've seen that thread.

I might get the Sigma 85 DG DN while saving up to the 90SL - which will be my end goal.

Apart from the 90SL is a superb lens, the thing that really really captivates me in the SL line up is that they are made with the same principles as the cine lenses ( which are much much more expensive ) : the glass and construction is shared. that means the color, sharpness and fidelity is shared across the line up - only the focal lenght changes.

this is paramount and very new to the photographic world.

very much the norm in cineworld ( high end ).

so while I perhaps will buy the 85mm , the "end game" will always be the 90SL for few reasons

[tangosix]

This could turn into an interesting chat regarding women over 45.  This might be one of the reasons I got away from a nikon z9 with freaky sharp lenses.  Of course, the colors were sometimes off and that required more editing time for me, but the sharpness and resolution of that rig destroyed aging ladies at events.  God forbid that the light was unflattering and wow, those wrinkles were something awful to deal with in post processing. 

This is the single most benefit I am enjoying regarding the sl2s and leica glass.  Sharp, and with contrast, yes, but there is something quite flattering about the rendition of aging humans with this setup. 

Enjoy.  I do love the color of her eyes in this image.  It is the exact type of pop in color that I look for. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I always find the talk about making lenses flattering for portraits of women to be a bit old fashioned, and also at times weirdly sexist. My take on lenses is that there is no such thing as "too sharp". A sharp lens is just better at translating the image of the world onto the sensor. It is closer to reality. There is certainly a problem with too much sharpening, but I think when your lenses are really sharp themselves, it allows you to turn the sharpening down or off. I think the idea that older people, women in particular, need to have their wrinkles smoothed out to look younger is somewhat dehumanizing and ageist. That said, if that is something someone wants,(and I am sure that many or most do), fine, but it seems to be kind of a reflexive response. I will agree, for sure, that there are lenses that do render beautifully in portraits because of their softness or bokeh, but that need not be every lens used in a portrait. I do think however, that having an extremely sharp lens offers a similarly unique perspective in its precision in translating the world before the camera onto the sensor with the maximum clarity.

As for the 35mm SL, it is a stunning lens and along with the other APO summicrons, the best reason to buy the SL system. I also have the 24mm 3.5 and 35mm f2 Sigma lenses, and while I am happy with the 24mm, I would say the 35mm f2 and 45mm that I tried are not in the same league at all as the apo summicrons. Not even close. The 24mm seems better to me than both, though it is also not close to the 35mm SL. I have not tried the 28mm SL, or of course the more relevant upcoming 21mm.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[dem331]

23 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I always find the talk about making lenses flattering for portraits of women to be a bit old fashioned, and also at times weirdly sexist. My take on lenses is that there is no such think as "too sharp". A sharp lens is just better at translating the image of the world onto the sensor. It is closer to reality. There is certainly a problem with too much sharpening, but I think when your lenses are really sharp themselves, it allows you to turn the sharpening down or off. I think the idea that older people, women in particular, need to have their wrinkles smoothed out to look younger is somewhat dehumanizing and ageist. That said, if that is something someone wants,(and I am sure that many or most do), fine, but it seems to be kind of a reflexive response. I will agree, for sure, that there are lenses that do render beautifully in portraits because of their softness or bokeh, but that need not be every lens used in a portrait. I do think however, that having an extremely sharp lens offers a similarly unique perspective in its precision in translating the world before the camera onto the sensor with the maximum clarity.

As for the 35mm SL, it is a stunning lens and along with the other APO summicrons, the best reason to buy the SL system. I also have the 24mm 3.5 and 35mm f2 Sigma lenses, and while I am happy with the 24mm, I would say the 35mm f2 and 45mm that I tried are not in the same league at all as the apo summicrons. Not even close. The 24mm seems better to me than both, though it is also not close to the 35mm SL. I have not tried the 28mm SL, or of course the more relevant upcoming 21mm.

How do you rate the SL50 and 90 APOs in comparison with the SL24-90? Would you be able to distinguish a picture at f4 at 50mm or 90mm taken with the zoom compared to the APOs?
 

Not a trick question. I have the zoom and the SL35 and I think I can distinguish them, but not always. Genuinely interested in your opinion. 

[Stuart Richardson]

I would agree. In my experience the 24-90mm was a very good lens and absolutely worthy of its praise. I also found that I did not love how it did not have the crispness in the edges or the same degree of microcontrast. But I think the differences are there. I was mostly comparing at the time on 24mp, whereas now I use the SL2 at 47mp, so I think the differences would be clearer. That said, I think the 24-90mm was closer in its way to the APO Summicrons than the Sigma lenses I tested. The reason being that when wide open, the Sigma lenses showed a lot more longitudinal chromatic aberration and overall lack of microcontrast. To me the fringing was especially disturbing in comparison to the clean results of the APO Summicrons. I will see if I can dig up some crops to show what I mean. But overall I think the 24-90mm is very good. Not as good, however. I do not own it, but I have borrowed one to test. I do have the 90-280mm, however, which is great. But it is visibly worse than the 90mm APO M at 90mm and the APO Summarit S 120mm at 120mm. Zoom lenses are a compromise. They always have been and seemingly they always will be. Sometimes the loss of quality is low enough to be insignificant, however.

[proenca]

9 hours ago, tangosix said:

This could turn into an interesting chat regarding women over 45.  (...)

Enjoy.  I do love the color of her eyes in this image.  It is the exact type of pop in color that I look for. 

Over 45 ? If she see this chat, she will kill you. slowly. she's 39 lol.

joking - and yes, I love the subtle details of the image, only viewable on screen or printed and gets a bit lost over the internet.

its a trully fantastic setup.

[LocalHero1953]

I have the three main Leica zooms (not the Sigma convert) and the 35, 75 and 90 SL primes. I agree that the difference between the 24-90 zoom and the primes at the same aperture is not great, but subjectively I notice when I put one of the Summicrons on after the zoom: its a clarity of colour in the EVF that makes me take a breath. I understand what Stuart means about zooms, but I actually get the same feeling when I put the 90-280 zoom on - another exceptional lens.

Whether other people looking at my pictures notice the difference is another matter. Most of the people who I photograph respond, I think, to the startling performance of most Leica lenses compared to much of what they see elsewhere - sadly for my ego, I am not in competition with a particularly high standard!

All that said, I bought and use the Summicrons because I want the option to use f/2, especially for portraits. They are not vital for studio work, but anywhere else they help you separate the subject from the background.

Edited January 16, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Stuart Richardson]

Here are two comparisons of the 35mm SL vs the 35mm f2 Sigma DG DN. This is an unfair competition as one lens is eight times the cost of the other. That said, for people saying they are equally good...well, they just aren't. Sigma may make better 35mm lenses...I assume they do. But this is a good example of how sharpness is not the only measure of a good lens. The Sigma is sharp. It is not AS sharp, but the sharpness is not the most apparent deficiency. This kind of behavior shows Leica's optical prowess. In my opinion, the bokeh in the Leica is a bit rough, but the total absence of LOCA is in this case at least, what makes the difference between a usable photo and an unusable one. Or at least one that needs to be converted to black and white. These were photographed at f2. The one in photoshop is upper right corner, the one in lightroom is near center. The photos are not in the exact same composition, but were taken from the same tripod at the same distance. I had slightly moved the camera position between shots, but it does not affect this issue.

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!

Please note that both lenses look sharper on the screen than they do in the compressed jpegs that the site here makes, even the full size ones you click through to.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[leicableguy]

5 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I always find the talk about making lenses flattering for portraits of women to be a bit old fashioned, and also at times weirdly sexist. My take on lenses is that there is no such thing as "too sharp". A sharp lens is just better at translating the image of the world onto the sensor. It is closer to reality. There is certainly a problem with too much sharpening, but I think when your lenses are really sharp themselves, it allows you to turn the sharpening down or off. I think the idea that older people, women in particular, need to have their wrinkles smoothed out to look younger is somewhat dehumanizing and ageist. That said, if that is something someone wants,(and I am sure that many or most do), fine, but it seems to be kind of a reflexive response. I will agree, for sure, that there are lenses that do render beautifully in portraits because of their softness or bokeh, but that need not be every lens used in a portrait. I do think however, that having an extremely sharp lens offers a similarly unique perspective in its precision in translating the world before the camera onto the sensor with the maximum clarity.

As for the 35mm SL, it is a stunning lens and along with the other APO summicrons, the best reason to buy the SL system. I also have the 24mm 3.5 and 35mm f2 Sigma lenses, and while I am happy with the 24mm, I would say the 35mm f2 and 45mm that I tried are not in the same league at all as the apo summicrons. Not even close. The 24mm seems better to me than both, though it is also not close to the 35mm SL. I have not tried the 28mm SL, or of course the more relevant upcoming 21mm.

Respectfully, I disagree that a lens can never be too sharp as it boils down to what aesthetic the photographer wants to capture. If sharpness and getting as close as possible to “reality” is all that mattered, then you might as well just stop the entire lens down and forego any background blur.  Or just use an iPhone (not in portrait mode of course).

Personally, I tried the 35, 50, and 75 SLs and ended up with a 50 Summilux.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I want the lens that makes the best looking photograph, not the lens that makes the most accurate one. 
 

Interestingly enough, my background is in music production, and I see so many parallels here.  When digital came on the scene, studios were literally throwing their (now priceless) analog gear in the trash because digital was supposedly more accurate.  The only problem was that the resulting music quality was terrible, and now there is a whole industry of products aimed at trying to make digital recordings sound more analog.  Same thing happened with solid state amps until everyone realized that the harmonic distortion from tubes and transformers  sounded better.  

Not saying the APO SL lenses aren’t extraordinary, but I do chafe at the insinuation that sharpness is the only thing that matters.  And my wife also hated the test shots I took of her with the APO Summicrons 🤣😂🤣

[John Smith]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Here are two comparisons of the 35mm SL vs the 35mm f2 Sigma DG DN. This is an unfair competition as one lens is eight times the cost of the other. That said, for people saying they are equally good...well, they just aren't. Sigma may make better 35mm lenses...I assume they do. But this is a good example of how sharpness is not the only measure of a good lens. The Sigma is sharp. It is not AS sharp, but the sharpness is not the most apparent deficiency. This kind of behavior shows Leica's optical prowess. In my opinion, the bokeh in the Leica is a bit rough, but the total absence of LOCA is in this case at least, what makes the difference between a usable photo and an unusable one. Or at least one that needs to be converted to black and white. These were photographed at f2. The one in photoshop is upper right corner, the one in lightroom is near center. The photos are not in the exact same composition, but were taken from the same tripod at the same distance. I had slightly moved the camera position between shots, but it does not affect this issue.

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!

Please note that both lenses look sharper on the screen than they do in the compressed jpegs that the site here makes, even the full size ones you click through to.

This is why I personally dismiss the Sigma-is-just-as-good arguments (or put in whatever other camera maker).  

Peter Karbe was right when he said that the performance of the SL primes is exceptional (I believe a 12 out of a 1-to-10 scale).  

[hansvons]

7 hours ago, dem331 said:

How do you rate the SL50 and 90 APOs in comparison with the SL24-90?

The SL 24-90 is very likely the best standard zoom on the market; at least, that's my experience. As it is a Swiss Army knife, it must compromise. And it does. The corners are not as sharp, especially in the wider range, and spherical aberrations are there and must be controlled digitally. But it's superbly coated, plenty sharp and shows the similar dimensionality of its sibling primes.

7 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

always find the talk about making lenses flattering for portraits of women to be a bit old fashioned, and also at times weirdly sexist. My take on lenses is that there is no such thing as "too sharp". A sharp lens is just better at translating the image of the world onto the sensor. It is closer to reality. There is certainly a problem with too much sharpening, but I think when your lenses are really sharp themselves, it allows you to turn the sharpening down or off.

I don't find sharpness in portraits the main issue, as I agree that winkles and other "blemishes" are part of the personality. Fitting lighting is much more critical. However, the best lighting cannot influence how a lens renders faces in terms of plasticity. I find the 24-90's dimensionality too pronounced for portraits and only usable on the long end. Hence I prefer vintage lenses that render considerably flatter, like the 50mm Summilux R or even the 35 Summicron R, which renders particularly flat for a 35mm. But, being a magical lens, it keeps some plasticity in certain surroundings as the focus plane is relatively bent at open apertures.

Edited January 16, 2023 by hansvons

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, leicableguy said:

Respectfully, I disagree that a lens can never be too sharp as it boils down to what aesthetic the photographer wants to capture. If sharpness and getting as close as possible to “reality” is all that mattered, then you might as well just stop the entire lens down and forego any background blur.  Or just use an iPhone (not in portrait mode of course).

Personally, I tried the 35, 50, and 75 SLs and ended up with a 50 Summilux.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I want the lens that makes the best looking photograph, not the lens that makes the most accurate one. 
 

Interestingly enough, my background is in music production, and I see so many parallels here.  When digital came on the scene, studios were literally throwing their (now priceless) analog gear in the trash because digital was supposedly more accurate.  The only problem was that the resulting music quality was terrible, and now there is a whole industry of products aimed at trying to make digital recordings sound more analog.  Same thing happened with solid state amps until everyone realized that the harmonic distortion from tubes and transformers  sounded better.  

Not saying the APO SL lenses aren’t extraordinary, but I do chafe at the insinuation that sharpness is the only thing that matters.  And my wife also hated the test shots I took of her with the APO Summicrons 🤣😂🤣

I don't think we are really in disagreement...at least not completely. I also don't think I said that all photos had to be sharp. I am totally fine with people using softer lenses. I use them myself. But if I want a sharp lens, I don't think they can be too sharp. I also think that if that is the aesthetic I am going for, I prefer the window, as it were, to be as clear as possible. I prefer to have the nuance in the composition and quality of the photo more than in the tool I make it with. That said, it also depends greatly on what you do. I do most of my portraiture with 4x5 and 8x10 film, and I primarily use the SL2 for general use, work and landscape work. I appreciate the lenses there. I also think the 50mm 1.4 Summilux SL is extraordinary. For me, however, it was just too big and heavy for the focal length. I do not particularly need 1.4, so I prefer the Summicron. The fact that it is also sharper and still has a pleasing character is a bonus for me.