Skip Nikon Z8, and Buy My Next Leica SL Zoom Lens -- But Which?

[skchurch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently purchased the SL2-S bundle with the 24-70mm (although I wish there was the option for the 24-90mm). I already sold my Nikon Z9 to purchase the SL2-S bundle, and I am kind of struggling as to if I should get the Nikon Z8, or skip it and sell my remaining Nikon glass (which are the 3 Nikon f2.8 S-Line Zooms) so I can buy another Leica SL Zoom? I also have an M11 which I use for my "small package" and prime lenses (a Summilux 35mm and 50mm, and next a 28mm).

I would be deciding between the: Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4, APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4, or Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm f/3.5-4.5. I mostly do ocean scapes/beach photography (I live in Hawaii), along with with some street/travel photography, as well as individual and group shots of family/friends. I also know I have the 24-70mm, but the 24-90mm being more "Leica" and that bit of extra reach is interesting to me. Over time, I plan to have all of them, but I'm curious in which order you would rank/aquire them as I build out my SL kit?

[LocalHero1953]

I have all three Leica zooms (not the rebrands) and the SL2-S. Without trying to answer your question fully, I would comment:

- The 24-90 is my most used L lens and I wouldn’t be without its extra reach over the 24-70. I do a lot of stage and performance photography and that is my workhorse. I can use it for everything, though the 90-280 can get unique shots when you can’t get close to the stage (eg a performance with a live audience rather than dress rehearsal). You might want the 90-280 for surfers etc. 
- I use the 16-35 much less, though it can be useful in confined spaces (family groups indoors). If I sold it I might not miss it…much. It could be useful for you for ocean scapes. 
- I would quickly lose the will to live if I tried to use the SL2-S for street and travel. Too large and heavy, especially carrying more than one lens. That’s what I have a Q2 for, and you have a M. I know some use a SL body with M lenses but I would rather put M lenses on a lighter M body. 
- If you photograph portraits of individuals then you will be irresistibly drawn to a Apo-Summicron prime, a 75 or 90 (I have both, and the 35). They give looks that the zooms cannot. 

Just personal views. 

Edited May 13, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[Olaf_ZG]

I guess for surf photography a longer reach would be useful, so in your case, having a 24-70, I would first add the 90-280 and then later on replace the smaller zoom, depends on funds available ofcourse.

For the rest I agree fully with @LocalHero1953

[Luke_Miller]

I'm a long time Nikon F Mount shooter moving into the SL system.  Love the primes and have the 35 APO SL and 75 APO SL.  The 24-90 is my zoom.  My problem is that my most used lens in my Lightroom catalog is the Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 and most of the time it is at 200mm.  So the Leica lens that would replace it would be the 90-280.  At present that purchase is a "bridge too far".  My solution is to keep my D850 and 70-200 f2.8 until I can afford the Leica lens.  Not a surf photographer, but I like to shoot tight, so I would want at least a 200mm if I were.

[tangosix]

12 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

- If you photograph portraits of individuals then you will be irresistibly drawn to a Apo-Summicron prime, a 75 or 90 (I have both, and the 35). They give looks that the zooms cannot. 

I moved from the z7ii and z9 also.  The f2 primes in 75 and 90 give me that wow feeling when I get home and load files.  I am so pleased with these primes. 

My choice was to take advantage of working in f2 primes and then add the 90-280.

However, I recently took a class at leica los angeles and more than a few bonified professionals raved about the 24-90 as their go to favorite.  

 

 

[skchurch]

Thank you everyone that replied at this point, it's really helpful:

@LocalHero1953: I really appreciate your opinions and overview of the three zooms, wow! With my Nikon Zooms, I do find myself either using the 24-70mm and the 70mm-200mm the most, and then when I want that really exaggerated landscape look (which can be really fun for ocean scapes and the sky), the 14-24mm is so great (it's just a more particular, and less used, look...but so fun when that is the look).

@Olaf_ZG: Thank you for that idea as well, even though the Leica 24-70mm is rebranded, and not exactly what I want to have in that bundle, it does cover that range for now, and so perhaps starting with the 90-280mm lets me get the additional coverage I want for now, and then I can go back and replace it with the genuine Leica 24-90mm (or even add it, as it doesn't seem like the Leica 70-200mm even re-sells for that much at like KEH or similar). But yeah, many videos and posts say that 24-90mm is THE workhorse for the SL, and the must have Zoom, ugh. It's obviously the most all-purpose/general in the line-up, and even just more useful with the extra reach up to 90mm, that was clever.

@tangosix: And yeah, that is why I'm struggling with not buying a Z8, is that I could just keep all the Nikon glass and have all the Zooms for now, but then I wouldn't have the extra funds to build up my SL Kit, I wish that didn't have to be a consideration, and the only reason it makes that part a little struggle. With Nikon the images are amazing and the cost of ownership is lower, but with the Leica's (M and SL), I find it just feels more intentional, I like the process of working with the Leica cameras (especially the M, it has really slowed me down in a good way), and so taking that leap of letting go of all the "Nikon Auto" technology, and slowing down to a more mindful way of shooting is what makes me want to build up the Leica gear, even thought that's quite a bit more cost, ugh.

Also, I had really just been thinking about using Zooms on the SL, because the M11 is where I'm adding my primes, and they are so amazing and so much smaller anyhow, but perhaps thinking about primes instead even on the SL, might be a unique way to approach the order of what to buy as well (or, just adds even more options and makes it harder...because there are so many GREAT options LOL).

I really appreciate this forum, being able to read other people's post and trying to think through the different perspectives/apporaches you all have taken. Thank you for being so generous with your experience and thoughts. I'm definitely still chewing on this, I did place a pre-order for the Z8, so I feel like I need to decide soon so I can cancel that and focus on the SL kit if that is the leap of faith I take.

[Malabito]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why do want to go the z8?

If you need the speed, autofocus capabilities, or long range, no leica camera or lens will give you that.

Avoid the frustration of speding money in equipment not fit for the job.

If you don't need any of the above then its another story.   

Edited May 13, 2023 by Malabito

[skchurch]

@Malabito

Yeah, that's kind of where I"m stuck too...but I'm leaning to just going down to one platform/system -- Leica (because I'm for sure all in on the M11). From a conversation I'm having with another member:

I think I took a baby step first, by selling the Z9 and all the primes I had for it. That was more than enough to cover the SL2-S bundle with the 24-70mm and let me take it out before committing and selling the Nikon Zooms, because I knew I could get a Z8 and stay with Nikon if I felt any remorse.

So, I can say I have NO regrets selling the Z9 and getting the SL bundle, because I do think the SL handles better than the Z9, and even though the SL is heavy, it's not quite as big as the Z9...and honestly, for me, the Z9 was just too big. (I know nothing is as small as the M, and the SL2-S and Leica glass is also big/heavy). So I would have sold it for the Z8 regardless of considering the Leica. I do like the SL, and I LOVE the M, it's a completely different photographic experience and being able to use M-glass on the SL was also a big reason for thinking about going to one system/platform with Leica and leaving Nikon. I don't need a lot of fast auto focus and high fps shooting, because I don't do a lot of action, and for me making an image is more like an artistic hobby as opposed to a situation where I can't miss any shot. So I think Leica does that very well. So yes, the autofocus is fine on the SL2-S, and I imagine it will only be even better and a lot closer to competitors on the SL3 in the future. I've been more thinking about it as an investment in the overall platform, present and future, than exactly this moment in time, knowing that glass is actually the bigger investments and priority.

The high cost of Leica makes it hard as well, where every lens, no matter of focal range that is truly "Leica" is going to be $5k+ a pop, as it was a lot more affordable to build out the Nikon kit. Honestly, I think Nikon is the biggest bargain/value of everyone these days, and for me, I was glad to see the Z8 is a baby Z9, because the Z9 (to me) is wonderful except for its size. But, the M is a magical experience, and the way they implemented the SL, it's also a more streamlined an enjoyable DSLR-like experience for me. So, if make the full jump into Leica, it's a matter of what order to buy the lenses in, which is just as painful 😂😩.

[Virob]

While the end goal might be the SL 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280, realizing that might not be affordable right away, why not build up slowly. There are several  Panasonic and Sigma options that cover both the wide and tele zoom ranges. You could sell your Nikons and start with these without too much financial hardship and get back out there taking pictures. Then over time replace them with the Leica zooms. 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Virob said:

While the end goal might be the SL 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280, realizing that might not be affordable right away, why not build up slowly. There are several  Panasonic and Sigma options that cover both the wide and tele zoom ranges. You could sell your Nikons and start with these without too much financial hardship and get back out there taking pictures. Then over time replace them with the Leica zooms. 

Out of the Leica zooms, the 90-280 is the one I would get - 1/ it doesn't significantly overlap with the 'primes' range; 2/ it would complement the OP's 24-70; 3/ it is technically (MFT, aperture range, ...) far better than the 16-35; 4/ it's far better than any other L mount zoom in its range; 5/ will produce in my experience more (or rather: any) images that will 'wow' the spectator (16-35 and 24-90 are more 'documentary' style tools).

"Shirley Temple" - taken one hour ago, SL2-S, APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 1:2.8-4/90-280, 91mm, f/2.9, 1/80", ISO 6400 (vignette added in post)

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 May 14, 2023 by mzbe

[skchurch]

@Virob: I really, really, prefer the native glass (in fact, the re-branded Leica 24-70mm made me a little hesitant), but you are right to save money and build-up, third-party lens offer an opportunity; and along the same lines, using my M Primes offers some immediate solutions (just not zoom).

@mzbe: That is a stunning picture, and you are right, has the "wow" (great job!). One reason I love the M Primes, is at 1.4 the bokeh is incredible, and those are my favorite types of photos (isolating subjects with DoF) and with my M, I do have a couple of primes in the mid/standard range and so something with reach does make the most sense. You kind of also got me thinking, since I really love fast lenses the most (for the bokeh), really none of the Leica Zooms are fast, and maybe If I just cover the reach with a Telephoto Zoom, that kind of allows me to look at Primes for the mid-range, with faster/lighter lenses (the APO SL Lenses seem pretty great).

[robb]

edit:  I got the different posts mixed up above… but anyway, this is a great combo to strive for below:

Robb

 

I’d buy once and cry once and take your time adding the RIGHT lens rather than just adding “another” Leica lens.  I’d def add the 90-280 before you add the 24-90.  Try a used one at a more reasonable price.  Because you have the 35 and 75 summicron already, I don’t think the 24-90 would solve any issues for you.  And I don’t think you’d like it more than those.
 

the 21 apo would complete you trifecta of summicrons and top resolving power and I believe it is VERY close to being released.  I’d buy it before the wide zoom.  

I’d also add the 21 before anything long.  The long edif Nikon (you have) and also long L canon lenses are excellent with great quick continuous autofocus on the dslr bodies.  They are good enough until you can add the 90-280 to go all in on one system.
 

and fyi, the more I shoot with my apo summicrons, the less I reach for the 24-90.  The apo summicrons are just perfect for everything, fast, nice background out of focus, and lighter in the hand.  I really appreciate that.

21

35

75

90-280

all apo and you have a complete range with f2 for less depth but flat field sharpness to the corners.

Robb

 

Edited May 14, 2023 by robb
Mixed up posts…

[Guest]

On 5/12/2023 at 7:09 PM, LocalHero1953 said:

I have all three Leica zooms (not the rebrands) and the SL2-S. Without trying to answer your question fully, I would comment:

- The 24-90 is my most used L lens and I wouldn’t be without its extra reach over the 24-70. I do a lot of stage and performance photography and that is my workhorse. I can use it for everything, though the 90-280 can get unique shots when you can’t get close to the stage (eg a performance with a live audience rather than dress rehearsal). You might want the 90-280 for surfers etc. 
- I use the 16-35 much less, though it can be useful in confined spaces (family groups indoors). If I sold it I might not miss it…much. It could be useful for you for ocean scapes. 
- I would quickly lose the will to live if I tried to use the SL2-S for street and travel. Too large and heavy, especially carrying more than one lens. That’s what I have a Q2 for, and you have a M. I know some use a SL body with M lenses but I would rather put M lenses on a lighter M body. 
- If you photograph portraits of individuals then you will be irresistibly drawn to a Apo-Summicron prime, a 75 or 90 (I have both, and the 35). They give looks that the zooms cannot. 

Just personal views. 

24-90 is exactly the one I would chose for travel ... In the 40-60mm range sharpness is quite good, very little to give up on primes (unlike the Leica 16-35, which I do not recommend).
Then combine the zoom with M lenses and/or M bodies as needed.

In this combo (or solo), the 24-90 is not 'loved' but unbelievably useful/competent. On my SL2-S, it may not ever be the 'best' for a single shot, but it will never let me down ... For this reason, I will always prefer to keep it. The 24-90 is more than good enough for any paid professional work that doesn't exceed its zoom and aperture range.

Now, if I don't have an obligation to deliver (or not having one of my lazy days), the 24-90 may stay home and 'general purpose coverage' achieved through one of 50/35/28 on an M body or 35.1.2 Sigma or SL-Summilux 50. The biggest tradeoff with the 24-90 for me is that is is preventing my one SL body from performing other 'special assignment duties' that the M cannot cover (e.g. 14-24 2.8, 105 1.4 or 2.8 macro, 90-280, ...).

P.S.: The built-in image stabilization is often not mentioned, but a valuable part of the 24-90 performance. E.g. not aware of another L-mount lens, besides the 90-280, that would allow me to capture images like this at 90mm, hand held, shutter speed 1/5": [faces blurred for privacy reasons]

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 May 14, 2023 by mzbe

[robb]

I agree that the extra in lens stabilizers in the 24-90 and 90-280 are def great.

the ibis used with the apo summicrons or other adapted lenses is also fantastic.

Robb

Edited May 14, 2023 by robb

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, robb said:

I agree that the extra in lens stabilizers in the 24-90 and 90-280 are def great.

the ibis used with the apo summicrons or other adapted lenses is also fantastic.

Robb

Agree on both accounts. The lens stabilizers and IBIS appear to be additive in effect - could not be happier.

[hansvons]

A little perspective on shooting reportage stuff and cleaning the shelve. I sold most of my shelve and ended up with the brilliant SL2-S, an M4P for B&W, and two M Summicrons.

I owned the formidable 24-90, the best standard zoom in the market. Period. But it's the heaviest as well. As it turned out, after three years of working with the system shooting primarily reportages, I figured I didn't need AF. It doesn't add anything to make my photography better. Nor does the heft of the gear, as it doesn't motivate me to go out and shoot like my little M4P or the SL2-S does with an M Summicron. Often, in reportage, luck is your best friend. It's essential to carry a camera with you to leverage that. But that means the camera should be lightweight and quick to handle.

I learned that I need only 50mm for close-ups and 35mm for everything else, as I have feet (nothing new). So I sold everything. I now have a 50mm SummicronM and a 35mm SummicronM ASPH. Both lenses have character and render images that the 24-90 cannot do. Both lenses work on both cameras interchangeably. I've used this setup for a few jobs and can't be happier. I travel light, and I don't miss a thing. 

BTW, the classic 50mm M Summciron renders faces considerably flatter than the 24-90 and most other modern glass. That means I don't miss the zoom's long end. 

As it stands for me: you either go full in and buy a set of APO Summicrons, which are genuinely another level (doesn't mean they are better for one's work, though), or you bring down the heft as much as possible to leverage the convenience and availability of your camera as the most crucial piece of the puzzle is opportunity.

[julianf73]

15 hours ago, hansvons said:

A little perspective on shooting reportage stuff and cleaning the shelve. I sold most of my shelve and ended up with the brilliant SL2-S, an M4P for B&W, and two M Summicrons.

I owned the formidable 24-90, the best standard zoom in the market. Period. But it's the heaviest as well. As it turned out, after three years of working with the system shooting primarily reportages, I figured I didn't need AF. It doesn't add anything to make my photography better. Nor does the heft of the gear, as it doesn't motivate me to go out and shoot like my little M4P or the SL2-S does with an M Summicron. Often, in reportage, luck is your best friend. It's essential to carry a camera with you to leverage that. But that means the camera should be lightweight and quick to handle.

I learned that I need only 50mm for close-ups and 35mm for everything else, as I have feet (nothing new). So I sold everything. I now have a 50mm SummicronM and a 35mm SummicronM ASPH. Both lenses have character and render images that the 24-90 cannot do. Both lenses work on both cameras interchangeably. I've used this setup for a few jobs and can't be happier. I travel light, and I don't miss a thing. 

BTW, the classic 50mm M Summciron renders faces considerably flatter than the 24-90 and most other modern glass. That means I don't miss the zoom's long end. 

As it stands for me: you either go full in and buy a set of APO Summicrons, which are genuinely another level (doesn't mean they are better for one's work, though), or you bring down the heft as much as possible to leverage the convenience and availability of your camera as the most crucial piece of the puzzle is opportunity.

Can you explain what you mean by "the classic 50mm M Summciron renders faces considerably flatter than the 24-90"?

Isn't the perspective of a 50mm the same across all lenses? If you're zooming the 24-90 to 50mm shouldn't the perspective/compression be the same? Am I wrong?

[hansvons]

7 hours ago, julianf73 said:

Isn't the perspective of a 50mm the same across all lenses? If you're zooming the 24-90 to 50mm, shouldn't the perspective/compression be the same? Am I wrong?

No, you are right, of course. But the field of view, which depends on the lens' focal length and sensor size, is only one part of the equation. Other parts are spherical distortions, focus roll-off, the flatness of the focal plane or the lack thereof and probably other factors I don't know because I'm not a lens designer.

Below are two images to illustrate the effect. Both images were edited with the same settings in C1. One shows a 50mm shot with the 24-90, and the other is a 80ies 50mm Summicron R, which renders very similar to the M sibling.

The Summicron is also quite different in terms of micro contrast and colour. It renders cooler than modern glass with a difference in the shadows and highlights. That can benefit skin tone and hair (brunette and darker hair). Whether you prefer one over the other is a matter of taste, of course. But the case can be made that modern glass isn't necessarily better than some vintage lenses – for a particular job. I prefer the flatter look because I have people primarily in my pictures and don't want "features" such as noses too pronounced. Flatter is also better for editorial campaigns where text and logos will be added.

One can argue, why not choose a 70mm or even 90mm? Well, as the field of view is considerably narrower, you'll lose context. For me, context is highly important.

BTW, I find the Summicron picture not flat per se. I think it's still quite dimensional. 

 

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!

 

But this isn't only a fifty thing. 35mm lenses can render very differently as well.

The 35mm Summicrons, the M and the R, and even the ASPH (I don't know about the APO, but I guess it's different) show a pronounced bent focal plane at a full aperture that kicks in visibly at the image's edges. This leads gradually to a larger depth of field experience at the edges than in the centre as objects farther away than the centre's focus will be closer in focus as the focal plane is inward bent (think of it as a bowl you are looking into). When stopping down, the bent focal plane becomes flatter and flatter until it is sufficiently flat at f 5,6/8 to allow for sharp edges at infinity (cheaper vintage lenses never achieve that). Modern high-end glass has a flat focal plane at full aperture. The brilliant SL Summicron APOs come to mind. 

The image below was shot with a 35mm Summicron M ASPH at f 2.0, showing that effect. The tree in the middle is roughly the same distance as the sign on the left or the house on the right, but the tree is more out-of-focus than the sign and the house. If the focal plane was flat, the sign, the tree and the house showed the same out-of-focus blur.

We see that often in classic cinema glass as well. Many consider this a flaw, especially the lens testers who shoot charts and pixel peep lenses to death. Some, including myself, want that behaviour as it adds character and dimensionality at an open aperture when moody images are wanted anyway. Like the 50mm, the classic Leica 35mm Summicrons render faces relatively flat (for a 35mm focal length, big grain of salt), which makes them an excellent choice for environmental portraits. Unfortunately, I'm not able to show you a side-by-side comparison.

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by hansvons

[ynp]

On 5/14/2023 at 5:26 PM, hansvons said:

BTW, the classic 50mm M Summciron renders faces considerably flatter than the 24-90 and most other modern glass. That means I don't miss the zoom's long end. 

+1

and it’s kinder to the skin than any of the modern 50s

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tom0511]

I dont know.

I never owned a Z9 but bought a Canon R5 and R3 after trying to make SL system work for sports for a long time.

I still find the SL-system to be a great allround system and love it.

But for long reach, for sports, for Teleshots of birds etc. its not on the level of what a Z9 or R3 or probably Z8 can do in regards of AF and speed. (Interesting what the Leica SL3 or other future bodies and lenses will have to offer in this regard)

And in regards of Teleglass options its the same. Nothing like a compact 70200/2.8, or a 100-500mm etc etc  Yes, the 90280 is great optics, but heavy and slow AF. If I shoot Tele I use rather my Canon gear instead of my SL2-s. In the normal range and for non-action I prefer the user interface and IQ of my Leica SL gear though.

Only you know if you do need these functions for your intended use. Was there a reason to buy a Z9 or to think about a Z8?

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by tom0511