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

[trickness]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

59 minutes ago, padam said:

 

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.

We all have our limits/tolerances/preferences. I personally have never experienced a moment where I was unable to photograph with the SL2 because it was not nimble or discreet enough, nor have I ever had a moment where I found the weight of the camera inconvenient or a barrier to getting the picture I wanted. I use only primes so I can't comment on the 24-90 - I recall Ralph Gibson's comment that the most beautiful sound in the world was a zoom lens being thrown into a swimming pool 😂

I can appreciate the desire for something smaller/different, which is why I also own a Q2M. It's something different. But it's not a replacement for my SL2. It has different capabilities and limitations. If I had to choose between the two cameras, I'd hand over the Q2M without thought. It's light, discreet, nimble, but it would never be my primary tool - nor would an M of any variety.

The M is celebrated for its limitations, the SL is reviled (by some) for them. There is no perfect camera. But the SL2 is just about perfect for me. I don't share your concerns about the size and weight of the camera, and I feel compelled to provide a contrary narrative to the usual "the SL is too heavy" diatribes that appear here. I'm 58, my back and feet hurt, I have two small kids that wear me out, I have sleep apnea, a heart attack under my belt and I live in a city that's been trying to kill me for 40 years. I'm literally the last guy that would give a pass to a camera that is a pain in the ass to use. The SL2 is a sweetheart, really.

Tiny body? I had a Canon Elph and I nearly threw it off the Furkapass 🏔️

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by trickness

[BernardC]

55 minutes ago, padam said:

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.)

Have you managed to find the only adapters made of materials that do not expand and contract with temperature. Zeiss Zerodur perhaps? That can't have been cheap...

The (grossly simplified) reason why M lenses can stay within specifications across a wider range of operating temperatures is because the lens groups aren't attached to the back of the lens. They are attached at the middle of the lens (again, over-simplified), which means that the barrel expands in one direction (away from the camera), and the elements expand in the other direction (toward the camera).

In the real world it's a vastly more complex interaction of multiple helicoids, cams, mating surfaces, etc., involving both the camera and the lens.

Similar solutions are used in mechanical watches and other instruments, if you are interested. Any history of the Harrison chronometers will explain this in much more detail.

The M-Adapter-L isn't made to compensate for thermal expansion and contraction. The price would be truly appalling if it was, not just excessive.

None of this matters because adapted are meant to be focused optically, via the EVF or rear screen. To put it another way: M lenses can't be rangefinder focused on an L-mount camera (or any other non-M camera), and that's OK because these cameras do not have a rangefinder.

I'm not sure where you saw it advertised or "intended" that this wasn't the case. Leica has explained this in the past.

 

And yes, you could shim any adapter to reach perfect infinity at one temperature. The limitations should be evident, but it's something that can be done.

 

 

[padam]

4 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Have you managed to find the only adapters made of materials that do not expand and contract with temperature. Zeiss Zerodur perhaps? That can't have been cheap...

The (grossly simplified) reason why M lenses can stay within specifications across a wider range of operating temperatures is because the lens groups aren't attached to the back of the lens. They are attached at the middle of the lens (again, over-simplified), which means that the barrel expands in one direction (away from the camera), and the elements expand in the other direction (toward the camera).

In the real world it's a vastly more complex interaction of multiple helicoids, cams, mating surfaces, etc., involving both the camera and the lens.

Similar solutions are used in mechanical watches and other instruments, if you are interested. Any history of the Harrison chronometers will explain this in much more detail.

The M-Adapter-L isn't made to compensate for thermal expansion and contraction. The price would be truly appalling if it was, not just excessive.

None of this matters because adapted are meant to be focused optically, via the EVF or rear screen. To put it another way: M lenses can't be rangefinder focused on an L-mount camera (or any other non-M camera), and that's OK because these cameras do not have a rangefinder.

I'm not sure where you saw it advertised or "intended" that this wasn't the case. Leica has explained this in the past.

 

And yes, you could shim any adapter to reach perfect infinity at one temperature. The limitations should be evident, but it's something that can be done.

Sometimes one has to let it go, but on internet forums that's never the case.

Basically, it's being admitted that Leica could make this adapter better. And yet unless I am missing something, by some weird phenomenon that has never been proven to have any effect in practice it is somehow perfectly acceptable that they don't. Which would be fine, if the profit margin wasn't as ridiculous. People can think about what an adapter is, how much it costs to make it and add contacts to it. Meanwhile, others add actual, genuinely useful things like helicoids, four focusing motors... It's not like other companies like RED do not have similarly ridiculous things regarding accessories or media in the older days. etc.
Again, main thing about this for me is that Leica makes this optional, good on them. (If given for free with a new/used Sl, I shall take it and use it or resell it.) Although it wouldn't be bad to have coding while also being made properly in the first place.

However, not having the adapter at the optimum thickness will actually degrade the performance of lenses with floating elements, especially wide-angle ones. They are designed to focus with certain elements for a reason, the designer put all his or her effort to make it as it is. So, of course, if they are not in that optimal position, they simply can't perform quite as well as 'advertised'.
This can easily be verified with a helicoid adapter, since that is able to mimic what an adapter is doing that is not made/adjusted to the right tolerances and not hitting the infinity hard stop properly.
Again just because some people do not notice, other people take pictures and do not give a damn, and others trying to come up with all sort of justifications as to why basically everything is how it is with Leica, they still exist.

[dpitt]

On 10/4/2023 at 4:41 PM, 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...)

@padam You are right. I use all kinds of adapters and Leica adapters used to be the most accurate ones. Now I found that my Novoflex M-L adapter is spot on. And I have an old nameless R-M adapter that is spot on too. I think it might even be an old Leica one. When stacked with the Novoflex, my R lenses are behaving the same as on my Leica R8. Infinity is infinity, as it should be.

My URTH, R-L adapter also has this issue with infinity focus shifting to just before the infinity mark. The URTH is only 55€ and is well built otherwise, so I do not mind. If even stacking 2 adapters can be accurate, why not Leica?

I know of lenses that have issues with temperature and focusing points. They are made for this like my 280 APO Telyt F2.8 R lens. I never heard of adapters with this issue before the L mount existed.

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.

I can agree that when you have an EVF this issue is not very important. And, if you could not reach infinity that would be an issue. I have some Leica LTM-M adapters from Leica that are spot on, as it should be. And lots of others to MFT, and Canon mount. They all work without issues (at least the best ones do) and the infinity point is where it should be. If there are issues, it is mostly with the cheaper ones, and at all temperatures. In the 15 years that I am using R and M lenses with adapters, I never had infinity issues caused by temperature.

I think Leica has made a choice to make the Leica L adapters just a little too short. This avoids rejects in the production process (and after sales), so it is way cheaper to do so. Mentioning the issue in the manual reminds me of this software developer trick:
"Let's not fix this bug. That is way too hard. We will document it so that it becomes a new feature..."

Regarding M lenses and temperature issues:
I can imagine Leica M lenses having compensating mechanisms for temperature issues. I can imagine they might need something compensating temperature in the RF system of the Leica M bodies. But I do not see anything that affects the flange distance. Do you have any literature on this subject?

 

Edited October 5, 2023 by dpitt

[BernardC]

6 minutes ago, padam said:

Basically, it's being admitted that Leica could make this adapter better.

They could make an adapter that compensates for thermal expansion, true. As I stated, the price would no doubt be much higher.

I don't know where you got the impression that the M-Adapter-L should focus exactly to the infinity stop. It certainly wasn't from Leica. They tell us that the adapter will focus slightly short of the infinity stop at normal temperatures, so that it will reach infinity at higher ambient temperatures.

Given that the difference is measured in microns, you will never be far short of optimal floating-element position anyway. Floating elements optimize performance both for large differences in magnification (infinity and close focus). What we are talking about here is a lens that is focused at 5.2 m when the witness mark says 5 m. I'm sure that you could argue that this is a material difference, but I'm not convinced (yet).

 

[BernardC]

19 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Do you have any literature on this subject?

I know I've read it, but I can't recall where that was.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, dpitt said:

I have some Leica LTM-M adapters from Leica that are spot on, as it should be. And lots of others to MFT, and Canon mount. They all work without issues (at least the best ones do) and the infinity point is where it should be. If there are issues, it is mostly with the cheaper ones, and at all temperatures. In the 15 years that I am using R and M lenses with adapters, I never had infinity issues caused by temperature.

The LTM adapters sits only 1 mm proud of the M mount, so any issues will be an order of magnitude less. Plus, there aren't many LTM lenses that are extremely critical, like fast wides.

Like you, I've only ever had adapter issues with cheap third-party adapters, and those issues had to do with fit, not with temperature. They all work as intended (or instructed, in the case of the M-Adapter-L): they should be focused visually via the EVF.

This was a bigger deal back when I was adapting lenses to EOS. Some adapters were too long (didn't reach infinity), and some didn't clear the mirror.

[BillCB]

For me, there are two benefits to using M lenses on the SL. despite loss of AF.

First, you get the benefit of IBIS.

Second, if you're away in the boonies somewhere and need a back-up camera, you can slip an M body in your bag with very little weight penalty. Works for me.

[2M6TTLs]

On 9/24/2023 at 6:48 AM, SoarFM said:

If you truly don’t need AF, the 50 Summilux makes for a much smaller package and a great lens.

We are living in a world where most people make their photos with an iphone or similar size phone camera. Carrying a camera the size of an SL2 with corresponding AF lenses for walk around seems a bit much these days. It is for me.

You want an M over your shoulder and only 1 or 2 other lenses in lens wraps in a small rucksack. Camera bags should be left at home or in the room during your all day excursions. My humble opinion…

 

 

I really dislike taking pictures with a smartphone, no viewfinder and a poor gripping experience. I'm living in the same world but don't care about being a "most people"

Most people take forgettable snapshots which look like everyone else's pictures, not carefully crafted photos with some artistic merit..

[deekay]

Are there any handy resources out there on the topic of making the most of using M lenses on SL bodies? Other than trolling through multiple threads on this or other forums..

[JLV]

Hi Lencap,

I have a SL2s  (and a M11) and absolutely lov ethe SL2s. (35cron non apo SL and 24-70 vatio elmarit)

I have a certain number of M lenses too.

The Sl2s has an advantage with non auto focus lenses which is the magnifier.

My eyes are not has good as they used to be and it helps drastically.

I use on the SL2s mainly the 28 summaron reissue (but I know you said you do not shoot 28 ) and a 40 mm Minolta Rokkor made for the CLE (2nd version)

The 50 mm pre-asph V4 is also a match made in heaven to use with the SL2s.

It is ultra small and light an da real gem to focus with (very short focusing scale)

I am going to receive from Wetzlar (CLAD) a 75 mm M pre asph an dI will certainly not use the M11 for this glass.

 Hope it helps

[Jean-Michel]

4 hours ago, deekay said:

Are there any handy resources out there on the topic of making the most of using M lenses on SL bodies? Other than trolling through multiple threads on this or other forums..

There is no need for any resources, just put the lens(es) on and see how it works for you. The effect of using the SL2, or s, or 3 with an M or a variety of other manual lenses is to make the camera/lens combo into what used to be a manual SLR. You would view the image at the widest aperture and focus using a variety of focus screen: plain ground glass, or ground glass with a small central split images circle, perhaps surrounded by a donut of micro-prisms, or such. You focused wide open and could press some button to close the aperture down to the selected aperture to preview the DOF. With the SL2 you get the advantage of IBIS and you can set one of the function buttons to magnify the image to help with focusing. For as precise as possible focusing, you would set your lens to its widest aperture; you can focus with the lens set to a smaller aperture but given that you are then viewing a 'DOF image' the exact spot you are looking to focus may just be in focus because of the DOF rather that the precise focus. I have both an M-P(240) and an SL2. By and large I do not see any advantage with using short lenses — 50 mm and shorter — with the SL2, but do find it advantageous with longer lenses, I occasionally mount my 135 Elmarit (quite a sight with its goggles!) or a donated Canon FD 70-210 zoom lens. However, there are no disadvantages with using M lenses with the camera other than the bulkier body of course. If you have M lenses, go for it, but I would not suggest buying an M lens to use with an SL2, there are too many L lenses that would then be a better choice.

[egrossman]

I also have the SL2-S in addition to the Q3 and M10M. I do find rangefinder focusing with the faster glass more challenging as I get older. While I initially planned on using my M glass with the SL2-S, I ended up buying used 35mm and 75mm APO SL lenses used (they depreciate more in my experience) and a light Sigma 50mm f2 DG DN (excellent; bought used for only $450). I’m going on a 3 week holiday soon and plan on using the above kit (rangefinder will be staying at home).

I’ll report back on how burdensome the kit is upon my return.

Erik 

[Jeff S]

On 6/26/2024 at 4:23 PM, egrossman said:

I’ll report back on how burdensome the kit is upon my return.

 

Well, it’s been 10 months. 

[egrossman]

On 4/29/2025 at 10:08 PM, Jeff S said:

Well, it’s been 10 months. 

Sorry for not following up. Long story short, I used the Q3 more than anything else. Japan was hot and humid and the additional weight of the SL2-S just wasn't appealing as a walk around kit with either of the APO lenses. Just too heavy. I took the SL kit out for special projects to Temples in Kyoto for example, but for almost everything else the Q3 worked a treat.

Erik