SL Primes vs Zooms...

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since owning 35 and 50 and 75 SL APOs and also Zooms I could answer the question maybe myself, but I am interested in your guys opinion...

What do we gain with the APO Summicrons compared to the Zooms? (2470 or 2490)

Is it just a little wider aperture and shallower DOF (which is probably most the case for the 90 SL APO)?

Do we get better Bokeh?

Do we get better Microcontrast?

A little bit of everything?

Or is it just GAS?

For my part I really love the 50/1.4SL because it shows a very smooth bokeh, nice 3d look and great color IMO. But its pretty big and heavy.

I don't use the 75 so often, so I plan to replace it with 90 to get a little more compression.

And I might replace my 35 with a 28, since 35 is pretty close to 90.....might as well keep 35

On the other side on vacation, hiking, and many occasions I just grab a zoom ;(

 

[Stuart Richardson]

In my experience the zooms are very good. But the primes are that much better. I have the 90-280mm zoom and the 90mm APO Summicron M, and in the side by side tests I did, the M lens was significantly sharper at wider apertures. But the zoom has the advantage of also being a 91-280mm lens. In this case the tradeoff is very much worth it to me if I am working out of the car and in the landscape. If I have to carry the lens with me for a longer distance, there is no question that the prime is a better choice. In addition to being a small fraction of the size and weight, it has more detail, better contrast and an extra stop. I don't think it is GAS here, it is all about preference. I like the primes in general because they are lighter and more compact by quite a bit (other than the 50 1.4), while also being sharper, more even across the frame and at least a stop faster. I often work from a shoulder bag or from a car, so the biggest fatigue factor is the lens on the camera, not the ones in the bag or the car. So I would rather have a single lighter more compact lens on the camera (like the 50mm APO Summicron), and two others in the bag (in my case the 24 3.5 Sigma and 35mm APO Summicron), rather than have the 24-90mm lens on the camera the whole time. I find it less fatiguing, as most of the effort is holding it up to the eye and carrying it on the shoulder strap, as opposed to having a slightly heavier weight in a well-designed shoulder bag or backpack. My photography is usually not events or things where I need the speed and convenience of a zoom, so I like the primes in the normal range.

I do like a telephoto zoom, however. The reason being that telephoto lenses tend to be quite large, and having several with you at a time is bulky and inconvenient. Additionally, with a shorter lens in the normal range, it is easy to walk a bit forward or back to make the framing work. Trying to make the same composition that you would get with a 280mm lens with a 90mm lens might be a 5km hike if you are photographing mountains in the distance...so with distant objects at least, a telephoto zoom can allow you to take pictures you absolutely could not otherwise.

At the end of the day, there is another thing I like about the APO Summicrons. You simply never ever have to worry about them from a technical point of view, and that is very freeing. They are so good that you can shoot at any aperture with any composition and as long as there is enough depth of field, you are golden. With the zooms I have not had that experience. If I want really even and sharp edge to edge results with the 90-280, it means throwing it on a tripod and stopping down to f8, turning off stabilization and turning on the electronic shutter. This is not my experience when using the 90mm APO M, 105mm Sigma Macro or 180mm APO Elmar S, which are my telephoto primes. They all do better at f4 or 5.6.

Edited December 29, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[JohnathanLovm]

I said this as someone use prime lens for almost 10 years, Leica zoom lens definitely makes my life easier. I also like to think it as 4 in 1 Elmarit lens because it’s very sharp and still have enough bokeh at 70mm. 

[robb]

Love Stuart’s post.

great summary.  Apo summicron’s rock.

Robb

[Guest]

On 12/29/2023 at 8:17 AM, tom0511 said:

Since owning 35 and 50 and 75 SL APOs and also Zooms I could answer the question maybe myself, but I am interested in your guys opinion...

What do we gain with the APO Summicrons compared to the Zooms? (2470 or 2490)

Is it just a little wider aperture and shallower DOF (which is probably most the case for the 90 SL APO)?

Do we get better Bokeh?

Do we get better Microcontrast?

A little bit of everything?

Or is it just GAS?

For my part I really love the 50/1.4SL because it shows a very smooth bokeh, nice 3d look and great color IMO. But its pretty big and heavy.

I don't use the 75 so often, so I plan to replace it with 90 to get a little more compression.

And I might replace my 35 with a 28, since 35 is pretty close to 90.....might as well keep 35

On the other side on vacation, hiking, and many occasions I just grab a zoom ;(

 

++ I would call out the edge-to-edge performance of the SL APO Summicrons as a strength.

+ Portability is a nice, even compared with other primes. Zeiss 'Herniator' Otus lenses come to mind ...

+= Micro and Macro contrast is well balanced, more so than with the zooms

+= Bokeh is good, but not exceptionally so: Give me the M-Summilux 90mm over the SL APO any day.

= Price is OK, compared to the top tier M lenses

- The usability of the Leica SL APO lenses suffers from the absence of a mechanical aperture ring. As a M shooter, I miss that greatly.

Disclaimer: I cannot stand the Bokeh of the Leica SL zooms (I have the 24-90 and 90-280). I still use both 20%-ish of the time as flexibility or reach requires. They are incredibly versatile, and the 90-280 is sufficiently well corrected to have earned the 'APO' designation from Leica. The 16-35 is a door stopper, no redeeming qualities - SL APO Summicron 21mm has no competition here.

For SL Primes, I would always consider 3rd party options as well. For example, I am considering a 28mm lens for my SL this year (M-Summilux 28mm is not always ideal). Currently, I'm very much undecided between the 28mm Otus and 28mm SL APO Summicron. Another one: For a 35mm, the f/1.2 Sigma proved irresistible - no 35 APO for me. For 90-105, the Sigma f/1.4 won - a 'king of bokeh' compared to f/2 lenses. Etc. ...

Edited January 3, 2024 by mzbe

[Sohail]

The 28 SL APO is a phenomenal lens. Lloyd Chambers rates it as the finest 28mm he's ever used - better than the Otus. I ditched the Q2, and passed on the Q3, precisely because the APOs are so good. Yes, the Q and zooms offer convenience, but I guess it boils down to what you value more. As a "slow" photographer, and if I can afford it, I opt for the best available optics. 

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I consider the size of the Apo-Summcrons also a big advantage. I also use Canon, and while the "pro" lenses are faster with f1.2, they are also monster big and heavy.

IMO f2.0 is a nice compromise, the coolest is to have the choice like with 50mm.

I dont miss an aparture ring that much, but I miss a distance (and DOF) scale.

[WvE]

As a new SL2-s owner, I went for the lightweight (non-apo) SL 50 Cron. Apart from important factors like weight and price, I'm used to shooting with the 50 and 35 primes on my M so it feels more natural when switching to the SL (at least that's what I'm telling myself). The results of the SL 50 Cron are more than fine.

 

[PeterBoyadjian]

10 hours ago, Sohail said:

The 28 SL APO is a phenomenal lens. Lloyd Chambers rates it as the finest 28mm he's ever used - better than the Otus. I ditched the Q2, and passed on the Q3, precisely because the APOs are so good. Yes, the Q and zooms offer convenience, but I guess it boils down to what you value more. As a "slow" photographer, and if I can afford it, I opt for the best available optics. 

35 APO SL on a SL2S in APSC mode is sharper, better resolved than a Q3 at 50mm crop. (About a 8MP difference)

APO SL lenses are ridiculously underrated in the camera world.  

[IkarusJohn]

I did a couple multi-day tramps with the SL and 24-90 and 90-280 zooms a few years ago. My pack was about 15kg, excluding the camera and lenses. I had the camera slung across my shoulder and the other lens at the top of my pack. The reason for that choice was two lenses which were weather proof.  On the downside, the size and weight was a discouraging factor!

I have found over the years that I dislike zooms. Leaving aside the technical benefits of the APO’s and the wonderful 50 Summilux-SL, I realise that I think in terms of focal length and with most zooms I either take image at the widest or longest setting; rarely in between.

My preferred kit is a wide (28mm or 21mm), something in the middle (50mm or 75mm) and 180mm. I’m ditching my SL and remaining 24-90 lens (when I find my spare battery for it, and unless I change my mind again), but I prefer using the SL with my M 21 and 50 lenses, and my R 180 with 2x adapter with it, when I do use it.

[Olaf_ZG]

Recently I bought my first standard zoom in my entire life. After some thoughts, I went with the 24-90. I wanted a zoom as I sometimes photograph a friend who rides horses. Sometimes she’s very close, sometimes she’s far away, so a zoom is convenient.

I am really astonished with its quality and really enjoy its versatility, even on a simple walk during a day out. I still would like to add a prime, but this will have its purpose: its specific goal to photograph something, either a landscape or portrait, but for general photography, the 24-90 will do.

[FocusDot]

On 1/3/2024 at 10:02 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

Recently I bought my first standard zoom in my entire life. After some thoughts, I went with the 24-90. I wanted a zoom as I sometimes photograph a friend who rides horses. Sometimes she’s very close, sometimes she’s far away, so a zoom is convenient.

I am really astonished with its quality and really enjoy its versatility, even on a simple walk during a day out. I still would like to add a prime, but this will have its purpose: its specific goal to photograph something, either a landscape or portrait, but for general photography, the 24-90 will do.

I also really like the 24-90. Normally I use primes (typically M-mount) on my SL2 but every time I need increased flexibility when shooting (with no time to switch lenses) I use my
24-90. And every single time I am astonished with the outcome!
And I do not have any issues with sharpness or anything else even close to 90mm (like I heard some people complain about) - also when wide open. Really spectacular zoom lens!

[Luke_Miller]

As an event shooter the zooms are often the better choice.  When I see "the shot" I need to capture it quickly and the zooms allow me to compose without repositioning.  I do love the primes and use them when circumstances permit.  I regularly shoot a low light event and the f4 aperture of the zooms (I am often at the long end) does not work.  So the f1.4 and f2 primes are the choice.

[Camaro5]

The SL 35 APO is my all-time favorite lens with the SL2-S.  I also use a 24-90 if the situation calls for it with stellar results.  I think the 35 APO is maybe a hair sharper, but not by much, and has the advantage of f/2.    The 24-90 has the advantage of going to 24mm at f/2.8, which is very acceptable in most cases.  

I like them both and it just depends on what I need or want in any given scenario.  These are the only two lenses I use most of the time but I do have a Sigma 14-24 if I need to go super-wide, and that's a nice lens as well.  

[o2mpx]

Reading all the accolades on the APO primes, it’s been challenging not to add them to the arsenal. However, knowing travel landscapes are all that are taken, zooms serve the purpose better than primes. Yes, the bulk and weight of 24-90/16-35 are cumbersome, but adding a complement of primes might not be a weight saver. More importantly, without ability to move positions, zooms will work better than primes. 

Accepting the fact that primes likely will have better image quality, but the original SL zooms, vs the more recent lighter weight options, likely are the closest one can get to the best quality and weight compromise. 

The outstanding question is whether the newer lighter weight zooms, some have commented being converted from Sigma zooms, or those made in Portugal, when stopped down to f8-11, which landscapes typically are taken versus wide open, will they match the original zooms’ quality? If the answer is yes, then the weight and bulk challenge would be solved with the newer zooms. 

[Abram]

This is a topic I have played through in my own mind over and over and over and over again since switching to the SL2 last year from My M10-P. I still prefer the M platform as my tool of choice, but as a dad now and wanting to document my daughter's life amongst other work, I was finding that having autofocus available was desirable. I have a Q2 as well and in trying to weight my options I rented the 24-90 to see if I could wrap my head around using a zoom again after so many years of only using primes. I admit I did enjoy the flexibility and found it to be easy to use overall. 

Ultimately I decided to get the 50 APO and that's the only lens I have for this system. I'm not personally in a position to be able to buy more without selling my other gear. The 50 APO is rather remarkable but if I'm brutally honest, I don't find it THAT much better than the Sigma 50mm f/2 DG DN I initially purchased. Many of those Sigma I-Series lenses are rather impressive overall. 

[IkarusJohn]

4 hours ago, Abram said:

This is a topic I have played through in my own mind over and over and over and over again since switching to the SL2 last year from My M10-P. I still prefer the M platform as my tool of choice, but as a dad now and wanting to document my daughter's life amongst other work, I was finding that having autofocus available was desirable. I have a Q2 as well and in trying to weight my options I rented the 24-90 to see if I could wrap my head around using a zoom again after so many years of only using primes. I admit I did enjoy the flexibility and found it to be easy to use overall. 

Ultimately I decided to get the 50 APO and that's the only lens I have for this system. I'm not personally in a position to be able to buy more without selling my other gear. The 50 APO is rather remarkable but if I'm brutally honest, I don't find it THAT much better than the Sigma 50mm f/2 DG DN I initially purchased. Many of those Sigma I-Series lenses are rather impressive overall. 

I was in a similar position, though perhaps I had more lenses!

I found that I was duplicating focal lengths between my Sl and M systems, with minimal gain.  Yes, I could see the benefits of the 50 Summilux-SL, but was it really better than any of my M 50s?  I came to the conclusion that I was committed to the M system in a way I wasn’t to the SL.  I kept the 24-90, as my sole AF zoom.  Even that, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’d rather persist with the M, as I have a good selection.

I should add that for AF, I’ve gone the X2D route (with only the 38V at this stage).  If I was sticking with the SL, I could see the benefit of keeping the zoom, and perhaps adding the 21 & 75 APOs and the 50 Summillux-SL; but then I would be wondering what to do with my M lenses …

[Abram]

I should have mentioned I did keep my film M (the M-A) and my two M lenses (35/50 Summilux) since I didn’t want to abandon the M platform and fully intend to return to it digitally eventually. But for now, the L mount is working well for me. 
 

I also agree that I feel funny that I’ve duplicated my focal length since I still have my 50 Summilux and the adapter to use it on the SL2. I instinctively wanted to still treat the SL2 like an M, but now after a little bit of time using just the 50mm I find myself wondering if the 24-90 ultimately would be the more useful tool to just leave on the camera (since I still have the Q2 or film for runabout work)

[hamey]

In my film days I loved my prime R 50mm Cron and the M 50mm Lux 1.4  also  Zeiss Milvas 50mm F2 Planer in the Nikon f mount.

But when I tried Digital, I went with zooms.

Currently have two SL2-S's one is attached with the 24-70mm 2.8 and the other is the 28-90mm R lens, couldn't be happier.

With variable ISO and IBIS on my SL2-S, aperture and speed is no longer that relevant, so VARIO  lenses are quite adequate for me. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[tom0511]

Update. I found a mint used 28 apo sl and love it. It delivers outstanding clarity, low vignetting ( for example compared tom28 Summicron M), good contrast and color, and very nice bokeh.

more an more I am getting convinced about the APO Summicrons. They seem to add  this extra little bit, and seem to still render gentle while being super sharp.

the Leica zooms are very good as well, but now I really like the primes. Except for Tele, I re-explored the y90-280 , I feel it renders like a prime.

Edited April 5, 2024 by tom0511