Will using M mount lenses on my SL2-S solve my problems?

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, padam said:

The basic architecture is already there in the S5 series of cameras. It is not about the numbers not making sense. It is about a snowball effect on their whole line-up.
People would not need to agonize as much about choosing between a Q or an SL or an M (with an EVF add-on).
So yes, it might not increase their market share in that regard, I guess they know their market very well, although the SL Summicrons prove that they can't just ignore the lower-end part of the market, just needs to generate more revenue than for instance the Summarit-M line, leaving that to Voigtländer.

There are likely not the numbers of Leica users "agonising" as some might think.

[padam]

26 minutes ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

There are likely not the numbers of Leica users "agonising" as some might think.

So what would be the viable solution then? Looking at it from this viewpoint, the SL series might still be least complicated solution. Adding more bodies is neither cheap or light.
But thinking about how M lens designers worked tirelessly to make them as compact as possible with the performance they provide, adapting most of them on SL bodies seems counter-intuitive. (On the other hand, slightly bulkier ones compared to their Leica counterparts like ZM 35/1.4 or VM 35/2 APO have less drawbacks, not affecting balance or finder blockage.)
The alternative is to fiddle with an EVF on M that's not so great anyway. But cropping on a Q takes the cake.
I guess I am just failing to see something, but I am not quite sure that it has to be this way.

[dkCambridgeshire]

34 minutes ago, padam said:

So what would be the viable solution then? Looking at it from this viewpoint, the SL series might still be least complicated solution. Adding more bodies is neither cheap or light.
But thinking about how M lens designers worked tirelessly to make them as compact as possible with the performance they provide, adapting most of them on SL bodies seems counter-intuitive. (On the other hand, slightly bulkier ones compared to their Leica counterparts like ZM 35/1.4 or VM 35/2 APO have less drawbacks, not affecting balance or finder blockage.)
The alternative is to fiddle with an EVF on M that's not so great anyway. But cropping on a Q takes the cake.
I guess I am just failing to see something, but I am not quite sure that it has to be this way.

The 2016 Q 28/1.7 lens is seen by some as 'adequate' at best and not state of the art to match the Q3's sensor. And M lenses are M lenses and not intended for use on non-rangefinder cameras – but will work well for 35mm and longer focal lengths on non-rangefinder ICL digital cameras . Wider angled M lenses need in-camera 'correction' – thus not really the best 'solution' for any FF ICL cameras.  Horses for courses. There are be inevitable compromises with "shoe-horning".  

Edited September 26, 2023 by dkCambridgeshire

[padam]

1 minute ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

The 2016 Q 28/1.7 lens is seen by some as 'adequate' at best and not state of the art to match heh Q3's sensor. M lenses are M lenses and not intended for use on non-rangefinder cameras – but will work well for 35mm and longer focal lengths on non-rangefinder ICL digital cameras . Wider angled M lenses need in-camera 'correction' – thus not really the best 'solution' for any FF ICL cameras.  Horses for courses. There are be inevitable compromises with "shoe-horning".  

Again these are points I've already outlined as far as IQ does. The 21 and 28 lenses I have were more than good enough on the SL2 so not at a level which I personally consider to be a big problem considering the endless amount of options. That part is done well enough. It's the handling that is unnecessarily mismatched to me (and many others who have the financial means to switch it up depending on various factors, but I think this is simply not necessary if the puzzle is complete with no piece missing.)

I guess I can only be grateful that they've made the SL series as good as they did. As even if they were a lot worse (software certainly needed working and to their credit, they've done that very well), people would still appreciate them, just like they do all the old or new M digital cameras with their various quirks.
(Funnily enough, I can't apply the same logic to their film cameras, at least the M6 TTL probably remains my favourite camera.)

[hansvons]

On 9/23/2023 at 9:34 PM, lencap said:

I did buy the Panasonic 20-60 lens, but I’ve not even taken a single picture with it.

This is interesting. Why is that? 

—

If I were in your shoes, I’d try to fix that RF issue. I have good eyes but wear varifocals with a moderately far-sighted base level. That means in the M6, I can't see the 28mm frame lines, and even 35mm isn't perfectly in my sight, especially in portrait mode. I’d try a diopter and/or have my glasses checked. I wear Zeiss top-shelf glasses. They make all the difference. 

I figured that with 35mm focal length I’m in the RF’s sweet spot in terms of focus alignment/precision and depth of field, keeping me covered for not nailing super-critical focus. To be clear, I dislike soft images very much. But with 35mm I nail focus 90% of the time.

One camera, one lens. That's it. If digital were my thing, I’d get an M10 and a 35mm Summicron of choice, in my case that would be the V1 ASPH. F 1,4 and 50mm, RF and portraits just don't work reliably. 

By the way, I own the SL2-S as well. But this is my machine for proper photo and video shoots and not for carrying around. I also owned the 24-90, which is the sharpest standard zoom in the market. But for people and faces it’s too dimensional for me. I have a set of R-primes for this camera and an M adapter. M lenses above 35mm work just fine with the SL2-S. 

And, as usual @Stuart Richardson is right. M lenses work best on M cameras. Sigma’s contemporary line works nicely with the SL2-S. If you want to shave off some bulk and keep AF, they might be worth a shot. 

Edited September 26, 2023 by hansvons

[lencap]

I haven't used the Panasonic lens because I'm still learning the various camera settings and using only one lens makes it easier for me to gauge my progress.  

My eyesight is challenging - dry eye, astigmatism, cataracts, floaters and high interocular pressure.  I've got a great eye doc, but there's only so much that can be done.  I use various eye drops/wetting drops, a total of three kinds/day, each applied at least twice.  The bottom line is that almost every time I try to focus my vision is different.  That was the reason for moving to the SL line instead of keeping my M body cameras.

I tried the Q116, loved it as a "M replacement" with lens distance markings and the haptics of real lenses, but the 28mm focal length isn't my friend.  My primary image is candid people shots, and with a 28mm lens I have to be pretty close to get the framing I want.  I never found the magic answer to getting the look I wanted.  Using a 50mm lens on the M limited me to greater depth of field to get acceptable focus, typically f/4-f/8, using zone focus.  That worked, but seemed to waste the greatest feature of the M lenses - "dreamy bokeh".  I had a Summilux M-50 on my film M bodies, but the "keeper" rate was very low.  It got even worse in low light/low contrast situations.

I moved to the SL to keep me in the "Leica family" while trying to overcome the eyesight issues.  Frankly, it's been very frustrating.  The body/lens combo is heavy, the 24-90 is exceptional and versatile, but the weight and over the shoulder strap carry is not much fun.  Still, the autofocus L mount lenses at least improve my "hit rate" and provide composition closer to what I prefer - shallower depth of field, some bokeh ability, but it's not the same experience as shooting with an M.  I tried the Sigma 50mm F/1.4 ART lens, and enjoyed it very much, but it was also very heavy and tiring.  It's also nothing like an M lens/body in terms of weight and portability.  My only downside of Ms, when my vision was better, was shooting longer lenses.  I could work with 75mm, but beyond that was always hit or miss - the focus area was too challenging.  That's another reason for the SL.

The Q was my hope of getting closer to the M experience, and if/when Leica offers a different focal length I'll be first on line.  Until then, the way I see it, it's find a workable solution using SL bodies, or move to another brand.  I've moved away from Leica before, and I always come back.  I won't say it's the "Leica magic", but I will say that when I hold a Leica camera I enjoy the haptics and quality.  That's hard to replace.  

And, truth be told, there is some "pride of ownership" with Leica, which some have called "snob appeal".  My friends who use the "snob" argument have good gear, just different brands.  I've let them shoot with my Leica gear over the years, and while they still balk at the price, and argue about specs, the bottom line is they keep shooting with the Leica gear instead of what they brought with them.

Edited September 26, 2023 by lencap

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OP, excellent points already presented here from knowledgeable Leica users of many years.

I bought the SL2S because I wanted a 24MP AF camera with interchangeable lens capabilities. I actually remember the Leica 24MP M cameras from years past and since I now print only up to 17x22, I decided to go back to that size sensor with better low light performance. If they removed the video from it I would be even happier. I own many M lenses, but seldom use them on my SL. I use my M lenses on my M cameras. 

Off topic a bit, but when I want a small AF camera for long days I use a Fuji XT-5. Fuji offers many excellent small AF prime and zoom lenses. If Leica still made the CL I would use that camera, but I have no interest in that platform since it is very sadly discontinued. If a used CL might work for you give one a try since it uses L mount glass and over time you might find a few CL lenses that could also fit your SL2S needs. If not sell your SL2S and with the proceeds you can buy two XT-5 bodies with many excellent lenses.  Since someone noted you do not print large or at all, this system might suit your needs.

Agree, the SL2S is heavy, but I like using a bell bar with a sturdy camera built in to it and I get a workout at the same time.  I use SL APO lenses as they are the best Leica currently makes, even though heavy.

OP, just saw your reply. I have had serious eye issues and even lost one eye 12 years ago. I sold my M system and 65 M lenses back then. I then used Fuji for a while until such time as my brain caught up with my handicap. Now that it has I have started buying back many of the M lenses I owned and then some. Since I often shoot in sandy and windy conditions I decided to get the SL2S due to its dust/moisture benefits while using SL lenses. M lenses do not offer much protection.

I have upgraded to the Fuji XT-5 with grip from the XT-3 because that system saved me from utter eyesight despair and when going out with 1-2 lenses it is great to have as an option.

 

Edited September 26, 2023 by algrove

[lencap]

I shot with the Nikon D5500 quite a bit, another crop sensor 24MP sensor without an anti-aliasing filter.  The lenses are lightweight and reasonable for getting the image I wanted, and the final images are very good!  But there was no joy in using it.  It felt like a toy, the cramped sizing made it uncomfortable in use, and I mentally didn't want to use a cropped sensor after shooting "full frame" sensors.  It's an emotional issue, not a quality issue.  I'm sure the CL line is excellent, but being discontinued I'm not interested in moving in that direction.  I had Fuji camera too, EX mostly, but I didn't like the colors except on people, and the X-TRAN sensor wasn't compatible with many processing tools, at least early on.  The learning curve to move to other alternatives made me leave that platform too.  And, again my bias, but I prefer a non-cropped sensor.

The APO lenses are very exceptional, but when I borrowed one to use with my SL601, I found the images to resemble the Zeiss line - clinically accurate, but a bit too sharp.  I'm not suggesting that they are inferior, but for shooting candid people shots I often shifted to black/white photos since any skin imperfection was very visible.   I had similar issues with Zeiss lenses in the past, along with other issues (flare in particular), and the SL APO avoids that to a large degree, but the size, weight and cost are still challenging.

I even found that I used the 24-90 zoom less and less on the SL601.  It was very flexible, but just too challenging for all day carry.  

Edited September 26, 2023 by lencap

[algrove]

OP

There is a very nice dealer up your way called South Eastern Camera. The owner Tony Mansfield could certainly help you with alternatives. You could even rent some systems just to try out. He always treats me fairly.

BTW I use Iridient Transformer to convert my XT-5 images to dng which I believe is the way to go for the future instead of these proprietary camera files. Learned this from Sean Reid.

Edited September 26, 2023 by algrove

[lencap]

Tony Is a gem, I’ve bought and sold different gear with him for well over a decade.  Like you, I always feel he’s fair and always tries to be helpful.  So far, neither of us have a solution.

[Jean-Michel]

OP

According to your original post, you already have pretty much the lightest SL2/lens combo — you could of course replace your 50 mm with the quite identical Panasonic 50 mm f/1.8 (different construction – plastic vs Leica metal) and gain a 100 gr weight reduction. AF and image quality are identical. 

I have an SL2 and M-P(240); and quite few M lenses. Using M lenses on the SL2 is a nice bonus but there are of course limitations. My main 'con' is that I need to focus wide open and then close down the aperture if I wish to photograph at a smaller aperture, that does take bit of time. That may or may not be relevant depending on what you are photographing: running children or stable mountains.

When I purchased the SL2 I first used it with M lenses, primarily my 50 Summicron and my 90 Macro-Elmar. Happy to use those but happier to use the SL2 with my L24-70 and Sigma 85mm f/1.4. And, yes, I am seriously considering getting the Panasonic 50mm f/1.8.

I originally thought that using my WATE would be great with the SL2. Reality is that it is way easier to focus with the rangefinder and frame with my EVF2 on the M. Plus the EVF2 tilts!

One 'pro' is the ability to use a wide variety of other lenses. For example, I have a Canon FD 70-210 that fits either my M or SL2; with the SL2 I get stabilization (I fake it as a 135 Leica lens in the lens profile to allow stabilization). My other FD lenses would fit too if I cared to.

 Essentially, I use my M for one type of work, and the SL2 for quite a different type of work. In the past my choices included everything from view cameras to medium size to miniature which is what the 35 mm format was referred to at the time!

[CharlesL]

When I want auto-focus on my SL, I use the Sigma DG DN lens that I have. It does a very good job. I presume the focal length closest to your desire will do just as well.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/52818319970_9b0be87833_k_d.jpg

When I want the magic of one of my M lenses, the enlarged view (press the joystick) works fine. Watch an edge near your desired focal point.

 

[Snap Happy]

On 9/24/2023 at 7:06 AM, mschuette said:

I have both, the M11 and the SL2-S. I use all my M lenses on the SL2-S. I rarely use the SL lenses as they are bulky. The EVF is so good that it is really easy to focus the M lenses. Even moving objects like my kids. Much easier than with the Visoflex 2 on the M. Another advantage: the SL2-S has excellent image stabilisation. I also love the M11 for its size. But since I wear glasses I find it harder to focus with the rangefinder. 

To answer you question: yes, I am really happy using M lenses on my SL2-S!! I do not need AF in most situations. It’s just a matter of practice to focus the M lenses. Even with the 50 Summilux M most of my images are in focus. Thanks to the brilliant EVF!!

 

This is my experience too. In many ways the M lenses perform better on my SL2-S than my M10-P.

[RM8]

On 9/25/2023 at 7:46 AM, dpitt said:

+1

And I can fully recomend my experience with the TL2 with EVF. Since you already are in the L mount eco system, maybe consider a tiny TL lens like the Summicron 23 TL(35mm eq) ? It would maybe even be the perfect solution on your SL2-S for the situations you do not want to carry the 50 SL lens. You give up some pixels, but you gain a lot in size and you still have AF.

Add a TL2 or CL to your set and you have an even better compact kit. 24MP and in most cases the difference with the results of the SL2-S will be hard to see.

CL with the 23mm TL, a dream combination. I even bought a TL2 body to serve as backplane for my 55-135 so I didn't have to change lenses haha

[trickness]

I think a lot of people want the SL to be something other than what it is - which is a camera that is exceedingly more flexible than an M could ever hope to be, and larger because it is.
 

But: put a Summaron 28 5.6 on the body and it’s almost tossable. Put a 50 Nocti on it and you can nail focus every time. Put a 50 SL Cron APO on it and you’ve got autofocus, weather sealing, and image quality that is superior to the M version of the same lens for several thousand dollars less. The EVF blows away the crappy one you’ve got to cough up $600 to add to the M.
 

The M is smaller and a rangefinder, and a lot more money, and not weather sealed, with no IBIS, and the latest version (M11) seems to be about as reliable as a bridge made out of ramen noodles.

By intention, Leica is never going to make one camera that satisfies everyone. They have diverse offerings to serve diverse needs.

Personally, I found that once I committed to the SL platform, photographed with more intent, and stopped grumbling about perceived weaknesses of my tools, my pictures were far more satisfying. On days when I want to use my 75 APO SL, I just deal with the extra weight because that’s the brush I want to paint with. Another day I might use my 21 SEM. I love this flexibility. 
 

I love the M too, because of its limitations - which are many. Don’t know why the SL is pilloried for its limitations. I just kind of got over them, in large part because they’re grossly exaggerated. 
 

All this to say, YES! Use M glass. And the Leica adapter, don’t skimp. And above all, have fun.

 

 

Edited October 3, 2023 by trickness

[padam]

On 10/3/2023 at 5:44 AM, trickness said:

But: put a Summaron 28 5.6 on the body and it’s almost tossable. 
All this to say, YES! Use M glass. And the Leica adapter, don’t skimp.

Had this exact combination. It is absolutely not.
Yes it works fine, and by far not be heaviest setup I shoot with, but that lens on an A7S feels like it has no weight to it at all. So much more enjoyable to shoot with.
But for heavier glass, yes. the gain is not too noticeable either.
I'm not saying that this is so important for everyone, but it might be (if we consider that some people do car about the M240 vs M9 difference or the weight and balance of Summicron lenses vs their Summilux counterparts), and things like this just get thrown out of the window.

Very much like people complaining about Apple phones missing many features (fast charging, 120Hz screens, USB-C until now) and they just get shut down or given some weird explanations that make no sense. And yet, when they finally introduce those things, They embrace it. Something ain't right...

On 10/3/2023 at 5:44 AM, trickness said:

All this to say, YES! Use M glass. And the Leica adapter, don’t skimp. And above all, have fun.

Tolerances with Leica adapters seem just as bad as with cheaper ones, yet people try to come up with all sorts of excuses for it. (again)
Apart from having the convenience of coding (which won't make that much difference to people who actually embrace all the possibilities of M mount), seems like a waste of money to me, when where are adapters what do enable closer focusing (which also function as an infinity adjuster, so those distance marking will make sense again - just something to think about...)

[huwm]

I love my 7 artisans close up adapter 

[trickness]

30 minutes ago, padam said:

Had this exact combination. It is absolutely not.
Yes it works fine, and by far not be heaviest setup I shoot with, but that lens on an A7S feels like it has no weight to it at all. So much more enjoyable to shoot with.
But for heavier glass, yes. the gain is not too noticeable either.
I'm not saying that this is so important for everyone, but it might be (if we consider that some people do car about the M240 vs M9 difference or the weight and balance of Summicron lenses vs their Summilux counterparts), and things like this just get thrown out of the window.
 

If you want to use a Sony, nobody is stopping you of course. Personally, I don't. There is nothing enjoyable about shooting Sony that's worth saving a few ounces, or even pounds, to me. And this discussion is about M vs SL, not SL vs Sony, after all.

I often shoot 20+ hours a week with the SL2 on my hip, the only lens where I notice the weight is the 75 Nocti. But I've been shooting for over 30 years, maybe my past experiences with Nikon & Fuji DSLRs gave me increased tolerance vs others.

 

 

Edited October 4, 2023 by trickness

[BernardC]

13 minutes ago, padam said:

Tolerances with Leica adapters seem just as bad as with cheaper ones, yet people try to come up with all sorts of excuses for it. (again)
Apart from having the convenience of coding (which won't make that much difference to people who actually embrace all the possibilities of M mount), seems like a waste of money to me, when where are adapters what do enable closer focusing (which also function as an infinity adjuster, so those distance marking will make sense again - just something to think about...)

Leica's explanation makes sense, if you understand how optics and thermal expansion works. In short (no pun intended!): M lenses are designed to have some degree of self-compensating thermal expansion when used on M bodies. That doesn't work with an adapter, because it can only expand in one direction. So the adapter is a few microns shorter than it would ideally be at room temperature, in order to ensure that infinity can be reached at other temperatures. What this means to photographers is that you should focus these as you would any other manual focus lens on the SL: via the EVF.

Third party adapters have the same issue, except that nobody expects them to be accurate, and most aren't.

I use Leica's adapter for some lenses, especially the 21 where coding makes a huge difference, but I use a helical adapter with a ZM 50 Planar. The 21 is unusable on non-Leica bodies, because the outer areas of the frame are smudged.

If there's any general rule, I think that you should use Leica's adapter with Leica lenses, and third party adapters with third party lenses. Uncoded M lenses should simply be coded. I know that's a controversial thing to write, but coding has been available for almost 15 years. There's no point arguing image quality if your lens hasn't been serviced in 15+ years...

I also use a Kipon adapter with a screw mount Elmar 50. It's the only L39 adapter I found that clears the infinity lock. No point using two adapters (L39 to M, M to L), it would just make it less enjoyable, and still not allow for coding.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[padam]

On 10/4/2023 at 5:21 PM, BernardC said:

Leica's explanation makes sense, if you understand how optics and thermal expansion works. In short (no pun intended!): M lenses are designed to have some degree of self-compensating thermal expansion when used on M bodies. That doesn't work with an adapter, because it can only expand in one direction. So the adapter is a few microns shorter than it would ideally be at room temperature, in order to ensure that infinity can be reached at other temperatures. What this means to photographers is that you should focus these as you would any other manual focus lens on the SL: via the EVF.

Third party adapters have the same issue, except that nobody expects them to be accurate, and most aren't.

I use Leica's adapter for some lenses, especially the 21 where coding makes a huge difference, but I use a helical adapter with a ZM 50 Planar. The 21 is unusable on non-Leica bodies, because the outer areas of the frame are smudged.

If there's any general rule, I think that you should use Leica's adapter with Leica lenses, and third party adapters with third party lenses. Uncoded M lenses should simply be coded. I know that's a controversial thing to write, but coding has been available for almost 15 years. There's no point arguing image quality if your lens hasn't been serviced in 15+ years...

I also use a Kipon adapter with a screw mount Elmar 50. It's the only L39 adapter I found that clears the infinity lock. No point using two adapters (L39 to M, M to L), it would just make it less enjoyable, and still not allow for coding.

These comments make just as much sense now as they did back then.

By this (twisted) logic, an adapter where infinity is accurate should change according to temperature and I would not be able to focus to infinity. Or on other adapters at least some of the time, the offset should be at least perceivably less than what I experience.
But the reality is: I've been using various adapters on all sorts of cameras for over a decade, and they do not change (to a perceptible degree at least) whatever the temperature is.
If it was manufactured well in the first place or it it is adjusted to infinity (it can be done on any cheap adapter using shims), it just works more like on an M camera - as intended. No ifs and not buts. (As explained before by other people in that thread.)

And of course, not only it is inconvenient not to have infinity at the hard stop (or distance scale that one can use if they made them so nicely in the first place., they are called rangefinder lenses for that specific reason...), most of these new (and expensive) optics do have floating elements.
So what happens with an average adapter like this is that they are not able to perform 'quite as advertised'.


The second comment is similar. Of course you want corrections, if you can benefit from them.
Why wouldn't you want the camera to know the focal length of the lens so that IBIS can work properly.

But the other solution is not difficult: simply code the lens manually,
Leica even helped this via firmware, they added a function to sort them, no need to go through the list, just have 3-4 of the sets chosen to carry and assigned to a button, can be switched quite quickly. (Seriously, thank you Leica!)
So apart from the convenience of automatic coding (which is as I said is only useful for lenses with coding, for some people, simply have too many of them), a much more expensive adapter that also gives up close-focusing ability (making the "tax" on Leica's newest M lenses a little less attractive, of course those work on M and perform a bit better at close range, but stepped down a couple of stops on mirrorless, differences start to narrow) does not make that much sense from a value perspective - unless, for this price they can make them properly. And they definitely could do it in  the same way as some lenses have shims to make sure they focus to infinity accurately. (saw it on the 35/1.4 Distagon ZM - a lens that works brilliantly at close range with a helicoid adapter btw...) but I suppose others can be similar, some Chinese lenses are even adjustable by themselves.

But they won't. Because that would take away some of the enormous profit they make on every single adapter they sell.
https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/381534-image-not-sharp-at-infinity-stop/
And it's not like their quality control on M lenses is impeccable, so it just matches that attitude.

While most customers won't notice or care, at least some people can randomly read this, and form an educated opinion on which theory is more plausible.


I don't even consider all this such a big deal myself, since as I wrote, for a price of a few seconds and one custom button, the cameras work just as well with non-Leica helicoid adapters and (non-coded) Voigtlander lenses that are quite superb these days with just as "good" of a quality control as Leica.
To an extent, they actually help Leica selling SL bodies, because there aren't any alternatives that work quite as well (for now).
 

On 10/4/2023 at 5:08 PM, trickness said:

If you want to use a Sony, nobody is stopping you of course. Personally, I don't. There is nothing enjoyable about shooting Sony that's worth saving a few ounces, or even pounds, to me. And this discussion is about M vs SL, not SL vs Sony, after all.

I often shoot 20+ hours a week with the SL2 on my hip, the only lens where I notice the weight is the 75 Nocti. But I've been shooting for over 30 years, maybe my past experiences with Nikon & Fuji DSLRs gave me increased tolerance vs others.

 

It was only an example, I also made a point about smaller and bigger Leica lenses, which was ignored.

It is not the question of how much weight one can handle. I can handle an R5 28-70 lens just fine, the SL2 24-90 is slightly more balanced but not much of a difference. I also like the S 007 70/2.5 for what it is (but not sure how heavy it might feel with other lenses, same with a D700, etc.). Heavy, stable (and flexible in case of a zoom). There are use cases for that. Maybe it covers all needs.

But in a lot of places, it is better to be as nimble and/or discreet as possible. (And yes, it can be useful if the setup is less valuable, people can recognize Leica...)

If the user already made the decision to choose a slower lens, putting it on a tiny body will only enhance the reasons why it was chosen in the first place.
And it's not like the camera plays such a huge part in the shooting experience in this case of a 28/5.6. You have aperture and manual focusing rings with distance scale (hopefully with a good adapter lol - not something other compacts like X100V or Ricoh GR have, Leica Q not that compact - or cheap... in comparison) camera deals with the rest automatically, or ISO and shutter speed can be overridden if needed.

Edited October 5, 2023 by padam