Is it time to ditch the Q2/3 and fully embrace the SL2?

[Sohail]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

13 hours ago, cj3209 said:

I would love the 35 m-APO but I already have the 35 SL-APO and it performs as good as the M version.  I just wish the 35 m-APO was a little less expensive...

The MTF charts don't bear that out. 

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 August 1, 2023 by Sohail

[John Smith]

2 hours ago, Sohail said:

The MTF charts don't bear that out. 

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!

 

I didn't intend to turn the thread into a 35SL v. 35APO-M battle. The original question was whether it was time to ditch the Q and full embrace the SL2. I was able to snatch a 35APO off of the Leica USA site. The SL primes are phenomenal. (Long live the primes!) They are my go-to lenses for sure. But the 35APO fits a Q2/3 niche in a way without the kind of IQ compromises that the Q's 28mm entails. I expect to use it as more of a social/portrait lens than the 35SL, which is just what I tried using the Q2M for. 

 

Edited August 1, 2023 by John Smith

[Sohail]

31 minutes ago, John Smith said:

I didn't intend to turn the thread into a 35SL v. 35APO-M battle. The original question was whether it was time to ditch the Q and full embrace the SL2. I was able to snatch a 35APO off of the Leica USA site. The SL primes are phenomenal. (Long live the primes!) They are my go-to lenses for sure. But the 35APO fits a Q2/3 niche in a way without the kind of IQ compromises that the Q's 28mm entails. I expect to use it as more of a social/portrait lens than the 35SL, which is just what I tried using the Q2M for. 

 

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!

Except, of course, you lose out on autofocus, but yes IQ is better than the Q2/3

[Stuart Richardson]

For me the price of the 35mm M APO is just too much to bear. Not just the actual price, which I think I could manage if I really wanted to, but they just seem to be SO overpriced in comparison to everything else, and it makes me personally feel like I am being swindled. You can make the argument with anything Leica, but I think it is particularly egregious with the top M lenses like the noctiluxes, APO 50 and APO 35. I don't actually believe that they are truly that much more expensive than other things they make, I just think that the push that Leica got from their private equity stakeholders has encouraged them to leverage their "luxury" branding, particularly in the M market. They overprice the cameras and fanciest lenses because they are primarily directed at rich amateurs, while leaving a few more reasonably priced lenses for more mainstream buyers. The SL series is more geared toward professionals, or at least amateurs that want a professionally specced camera. One window into this is the insurance document that you used to have to fill out for sending in lenses for service. Leica's valuation of the S lenses, for example, was around 900 euros if I recall correctly. Presumably this means their cost is around that. Nearly a ten times markup. With the 35mm SL, while still very expensive, it is just that much less that it felt more reasonable to me, especially since it also does have that performance advantage. The advantage will only become more apparent with time too, as the sensors become more demanding.

In any case, I don't want to take away the enjoyment of the 35mm APO M for people. I think it is clearly a phenomenal lens, particularly given its size. If I wanted this performance in an M lenses or a more compact lens on the SL2, I would get the Voigtlander. It is only a bit bigger, but it is actually lighter than the Leica version. I imagine it would handle even better on the SL2, given the larger body.

[John Smith]

4 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

For me the price of the 35mm M APO is just too much to bear. Not just the actual price, which I think I could manage if I really wanted to, but they just seem to be SO overpriced in comparison to everything else, and it makes me personally feel like I am being swindled. You can make the argument with anything Leica, but I think it is particularly egregious with the top M lenses like the noctiluxes, APO 50 and APO 35. I don't actually believe that they are truly that much more expensive than other things they make, I just think that the push that Leica got from their private equity stakeholders has encouraged them to leverage their "luxury" branding, particularly in the M market. They overprice the cameras and fanciest lenses because they are primarily directed at rich amateurs, while leaving a few more reasonably priced lenses for more mainstream buyers. The SL series is more geared toward professionals, or at least amateurs that want a professionally specced camera. One window into this is the insurance document that you used to have to fill out for sending in lenses for service. Leica's valuation of the S lenses, for example, was around 900 euros if I recall correctly. Presumably this means their cost is around that. Nearly a ten times markup. With the 35mm SL, while still very expensive, it is just that much less that it felt more reasonable to me, especially since it also does have that performance advantage. The advantage will only become more apparent with time too, as the sensors become more demanding.

In any case, I don't want to take away the enjoyment of the 35mm APO M for people. I think it is clearly a phenomenal lens, particularly given its size. If I wanted this performance in an M lenses or a more compact lens on the SL2, I would get the Voigtlander. It is only a bit bigger, but it is actually lighter than the Leica version. I imagine it would handle even better on the SL2, given the larger body.

Yes, the 35mm M APO is expensive. But so is every other M lens, even the less exotic ones. Yet I don't think Leica is swindling anybody. The SL system is built on a platform where the lenses share a large percentage of parts and design. And they are bigger. Leica, I read somewhere, said it was because of these things it could manufacture the SL lenses less expensively. The "problem" with the M lenses is that they are pretty idiosyncratic. Leica has to built each one from the ground up. That translates into higher costs. When you add in the nanometer tolerances for lenses like the 35mm APO or even the 50APO, the cost can't help but go higher.

I had thought about the Voigtlander before seeing that a 35mm APO was available. I didn't see that it matched the build quality or performance of the 35mm APO. I had sold off a few Leica items so I had some extra money to spend. I'd prefer to use the SL primes all the time, but some people are put off by their size in closer quarters. The 35mm APO solves that, at least for my stuff. 

Edited August 1, 2023 by John Smith

[Sohail]

12 hours ago, John Smith said:

Yes, the 35mm M APO is expensive. But so is every other M lens, even the less exotic ones. Yet I don't think Leica is swindling anybody. The SL system is built on a platform where the lenses share a large percentage of parts and design. And they are bigger. Leica, I read somewhere, said it was because of these things it could manufacture the SL lenses less expensively. The "problem" with the M lenses is that they are pretty idiosyncratic. Leica has to built each one from the ground up. That translates into higher costs. When you add in the nanometer tolerances for lenses like the 35mm APO or even the 50APO, the cost can't help but go higher.

I had thought about the Voigtlander before seeing that a 35mm APO was available. I didn't see that it matched the build quality or performance of the 35mm APO. I had sold off a few Leica items so I had some extra money to spend. I'd prefer to use the SL primes all the time, but some people are put off by their size in closer quarters. The 35mm APO solves that, at least for my stuff. 

If your focussing technique is good (wide open) and you're not missing opportunities, then yes go with the M. But for me, I know the SL APOs will get the job done.
 

[John Smith]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, Sohail said:

If your focussing technique is good (wide open) and you're not missing opportunities, then yes go with the M. But for me, I know the SL APOs will get the job done.
 

Yes, I'd rather use the SL primes all the time. But I think you missed my point that some people are put off by the size of the SL primes in close quarters. The 35APO-M appears less intrusive. Hence the photos showing the comparisons between the two.  

[hdmesa]

Don't forget about the Voigtlander APOs. Not as tiny as the Leica versions, but still much smaller than the SL lenses.

• Voigtlander M 35 APO + 50 APO = $2,150 
• Leica 35 APO-M + 50 APO-M = $17,400 👀 🫠

 

[Sohail]

4 hours ago, John Smith said:

Yes, I'd rather use the SL primes all the time. But I think you missed my point that some people are put off by the size of the SL primes in close quarters. The 35APO-M appears less intrusive. Hence the photos showing the comparisons between the two.  

No, I got your point. You're right. People do react differently. It's part of the trade-off, I guess.

[cj3209]

Post deleted.

Edited August 4, 2023 by cj3209

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 8/1/2023 at 9:17 PM, Sohail said:

The MTF charts don't bear that out. 

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!

 

Any one that thinks the near intangible difference between the SL APO’s and the M APO’s makes a significant impact on an image is kidding them selves. There’s essentially no real world differences apart from they way they draw slightly differently. And anyone who thinks that they’ll get better images with either of these over the 28 1.7 on the Q is also kidding themselves. Not once in my 35 years as a working photographer has anyone said, “Nearly perfect. If only you’d used an M APO lens…”. Even if you could glean ultimate image quality from a MTF chart, which you can’t because the lens is four points down the chart of what makes a good image, you still have to take so much else into account. Astompheric haze, sample variation, focusing accuracy, camera shake and God knows, about a hundred other things. And how, exactly, do you know that your single sample of each lens actually matches the MTF curve any way.

Thankfully many can ignore the vapid chase of a 1.0 MTF chart. Or we’d not have the renowned M 50mm Summilux or the Zeiss’s 1.5 Sonnar. Or the Noctilux. Optical *perfection* doesn’t make great photographs. Every time I see a (usually computer generated) MTF chart pop up a proof one lens is better than another I just throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Gordon

[lukeadair]

MTF charts? MTF charts? What do they have to do with actual photography? Nothing, that's what.

[Sohail]

2 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Any one that thinks the near intangible difference between the SL APO’s and the M APO’s makes a significant impact on an image is kidding them selves. There’s essentially no real world differences apart from they way they draw slightly differently. And anyone who thinks that they’ll get better images with either of these over the 28 1.7 on the Q is also kidding themselves. Not once in my 35 years as a working photographer has anyone said, “Nearly perfect. If only you’d used an M APO lens…”. Even if you could glean ultimate image quality from a MTF chart, which you can’t because the lens is four points down the chart of what makes a good image, you still have to take so much else into account. Astompheric haze, sample variation, focusing accuracy, camera shake and God knows, about a hundred other things. And how, exactly, do you know that your single sample of each lens actually matches the MTF curve any way.

Thankfully many can ignore the vapid chase of a 1.0 MTF chart. Or we’d not have the renowned M 50mm Summilux or the Zeiss’s 1.5 Sonnar. Or the Noctilux. Optical *perfection* doesn’t make great photographs. Every time I see a (usually computer generated) MTF chart pop up a proof one lens is better than another I just throw up in my mouth a little bit.

Gordon

There are lots of strawmen here to keep us going for at least another 20 threads of discussion.😀 I'll just keep to one. Nobody is saying optical perfection makes great photos. Pointless arguing something nobody is claiming, MTF charts give us a baseline by the manufacturer (not any Tom, Dick, Harry) of how good they think the contrast and resolution of their lenses are. If those are two features you prize in your photos, that's very useful information. If they're not, no need to throw up in your mouth.😉

[Olaf_ZG]

I just ditched the Q2. That said, I am not yet convinced that the SL is the sole way to go for me. At this very moment I am thinking SL for zooms, HB for fine art.

[trickness]

20 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I just ditched the Q2. That said, I am not yet convinced that the SL is the sole way to go for me. At this very moment I am thinking SL for zooms, HB for fine art.

Forget the zooms, get a 75 Noctilux for that SL2!!! 🤩

[Olaf_ZG]

2 hours ago, trickness said:

Forget the zooms, get a 75 Noctilux for that SL2!!! 🤩

For that price one can buy a landscape or portrait set from HB, so I guess that won’t go. 

[trickness]

1 hour ago, Olaf_ZG said:

For that price one can buy a landscape or portrait set from HB, so I guess that won’t go. 

Ahh, but it won’t be the Nocti!

It’s AMAZING on the SL bodies. Color is very different from SL glass.

Edited August 7, 2023 by trickness

[Olaf_ZG]

13 minutes ago, trickness said:

Ahh, but it won’t be the Nocti!

It’s AMAZING on the SL bodies. Color is very different from SL glass.

I do believe you. One option i am still considering is the apo 90m and apo 75sl, second hand, half of the price of a nocti. I do like what you do with it. But then, that’s more about you then the lens…

[trickness]

50 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I do believe you. One option i am still considering is the apo 90m and apo 75sl, second hand, half of the price of a nocti. I do like what you do with it. But then, that’s more about you then the lens…

Thanks Olaf, that’s very kind of you to say. I really enjoy your pictures as well.

I have the 75 SL and it’s wonderful but the 75 Nocti is very much it’s own thing.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[T25UFO]

4 hours ago, trickness said:

Forget the zooms, get a 75 Noctilux for that SL2!!! 🤩

I'd like to try the 75 Noctilux on my M10R but I guess it would be frustrating - too many missed focussed photos.  And then there's the cost ☹️

From what I seen on this forum, particularly the Mono section, it can be sensational when you get it right.