Dilemma on upgrading 50 M or 35 SL lens

[Seba66]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I would be happy to receive advice and opinions, especially, but not only, from those who own both systems, M and SL.

I own:

• M10 with CV 28 f/2 Ultron II and CV 50 f/1.5 Nokton VM
• SL2-S with Leica 24-90 SVE, Sigma 35 f/2 and 65 f/2 i-series.

I decided to sell the 24-90, especially, because, due to its weight and size, I often leave it at home.

I use the two systems indifferently for any photographic genre, except wildlife of course, and especially for long trips that often involve multi days treks for which I try to reduce the weight of the backpack.

I would like to use what I get from the sale of the 24-90 to make an upgrade with the precise purpose of having at least one Leica lens for one of my systems.

The doubt is:

• to replace the CV 50 Nokton with a 50 Summilux ASPH (no close focus), or
• to replace the 35 Sigma with the 35 APO Summicron SL

provided they are roughy in the same price range in second hand market.

What would you do in my shoes? In which case do you think I would have a more significant upgrade?

Thanks to those who will want to help me solve this dilemma.

PS. I post this in SL forum as I to use the M lenses also on the SL2-S

[Stuart Richardson]

I have the 35mm APO, started with the 35mm Sigma and also have the 50mm ASPH for the M. I have not used the Nokton. Personally I think the 35mm APO is by far the best lens out of all of them. I also think there is a bigger gap between 35mm and 50 and 50 and 65mm, at least in terms of overall look. Most Leica 50mm lenses are actually slightly longer lenses. This is not that significant though. Mine is 51.4mm. You can tell by looking at the two small numbers to the right of the "m" meter setting near infinity. My number is 14. The two digits are the last two numbers in the lens focal length. So 14 is 51.4mm. My 35mm FLE has no mark, but my 90mm is 09, so 90.9mm. I believe they do this to optimize the optical performance of a given lens unit.

  The case in favor of the 50mm 1.4 ASPH, however is that you could use it on both cameras. I think you should decide based on which camera you truly expect to use more...both now and in the next couple of years. If it is an M camera, then get the Summilux ASPH, if it is the SL, then I think you will find the 35mm APO to be remarkable...especially if you go to a higher resolution body.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dpitt]

I would choose the M lens. It can be used on both bodies and is smaller and lighter than the SL lens. Of course the SL lens has AF and probably has the edge on IQ.

YMMV

[Almizilero]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Stuart Richardson:

Personally I think the 35mm APO is by far the best lens out of all of them.

This is probably true. I tried it during a visit to Wetzlar and it is outstanding. But ... I got the Sigma 35/1.2 on my SL2-S and it is so darn close to the APO at F/2 and creates such a special look at F/1.2 that I couldn't convince myself that the APO is worth the extra money. But I have to admit, I still sometimes look at the comparison pics I took and consider getting the APO anyways. It's just a class of it's own.  So what I was going to say is... If you can live with the extra weigth, the 35/1.2 is only a third of the price of the APO, so you might consider getting that for the SL and the Summilux for the M.

If that's not what you want, I think the 35 APO will be the more significant upgrade.

[hellobrandonscott]

I have both lenses and they're absolute worlds apart. The 50 is super dreamy/romantic/etherial wide open. The 35 is rich/contrasty/sharp but also has incredible bokeh. I'm addicted to both. Weather sealing is something to consider btw. Sucks not being able to use the 50 on a rainy day. 

Maybe not the best A/B comparison, but here's an example. Photo 1 is the 50 and photo 2 is the 35. https://www.instagram.com/p/CyFJ1qarnhY/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link&igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

Edited January 14 by hellobrandonscott

[Olaf_ZG]

Which f/l you like more? Based on that I would decide… plus the APO isn’t that much lighter then the 24-90.

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is weight important for multi-day treks? I wouldn't even think about the SL2-S or lens for it.

Is IQ important? The 35SL is the only one worth considering.

The choice is yours!😁

[Jon Warwick]

For treks I would prefer to take an M system due to the lower weight, and also use the same M lens on an SL body. If one weighs an M and typical lens, it’s roughly about 50% of the weight of an SL and SL APO prime. The SL primes are pretty “perfect”, but one could argue their superiority to many M lenses is helped because most of the latter are often over a decade old, but if one compares the latest and greatest M lenses the difference is much more nuanced (eg, M 35 APO’s MTF is really rather similar to the SL 35 APO’s, but in a lens half the size and weight).  I had an SL 50 APO, and personally didn’t like the rendering a lot of the time with my SL2 - the whole “look” felt a bit too sharpened for my taste, even with sharpening at zero in ACR.  Aside from weight, my personal view is weather sealing and autofocus on the SLs are bigger drivers for what I’d choose. 

Edited January 14 by Jon Warwick

[epand56]

If you're a Pro, then, maybe APO could be your choice. If (like me) you're not a pro, the APO is just a waste of money. With the money of an APO SL lens you can buy two wonderful lenses, the 35/2 Asph. and the 50/2 Asph. and save maybe some bills for cigarettes or several beers. 35 and 50 are small, very light and totally outstanding in IQ. I do not think you can see the difference with the APOs looking at a picture online.

Edited January 14 by epand56

[epand56]

3 hours ago, Jon Warwick said:

For treks I would prefer to take an M system due to the lower weight

Weight is not very different. An M11 with a Lux 50/1.4 Asph is about 1000 grams, An SL2-S with a Cron 50/2 Asph is 1150. Different if we consider APOs or Zooms.

[Jon Warwick]

31 minutes ago, epand56 said:

Weight is not very different. An M11 with a Lux 50/1.4 Asph is about 1000 grams, An SL2-S with a Cron 50/2 Asph is 1150. Different if we consider APOs or Zooms.

Yes in that combo. I was assuming a  SL body + SL APO prime … vs M equivalent (M body + M lens), the latter is about half the weight.

Edited January 14 by Jon Warwick

[Seba66]

Thank you very much for your valuable comments. 

23 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 The case in favor of the 50mm 1.4 ASPH, however is that you could use it on both cameras. I think you should decide based on which camera you truly expect to use more...both now and in the next couple of years. If it is an M camera, then get the Summilux ASPH, if it is the SL, then I think you will find the 35mm APO to be remarkable...especially if you go to a higher resolution body.

@Stuart Richardson At the moment maybe 75% of time M and 25% SL. So one point more to 50 M upgrade. 

@hellobrandonscott Helpful comment about the difference about the two lenses.

11 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

Which f/l you like more? Based on that I would decide… plus the APO isn’t that much lighter then the 24-90.

@Olaf_ZG 50 on RF and 35, maybe wider to 28 on SL 😄. Yes, one minus for the SL lens upgrade.

@LocalHero1953 For multi-days trek, SL2-S stays already at home.

5 hours ago, epand56 said:

If you're a Pro, then, maybe APO could be your choice. If (like me) you're not a pro, the APO is just a waste of money. With the money of an APO SL lens you can buy two wonderful lenses, the 35/2 Asph. and the 50/2 Asph. and save maybe some bills for cigarettes or several beers. 35 and 50 are small, very light and totally outstanding in IQ. I do not think you can see the difference with the APOs looking at a picture online.

@epand56 I’m not a Pro and your thoughts are pretty often inside my mind. But if I push even further this thought then for me it makes no sense to upgrade from 35 f/2 Sigma to 35 f/2 ASPH, I would see even less of the improvements, if I don’t see with the 35 APO . And in the same way, following this reasoning, would perhaps not even make sense to change the 50 M Nokton for the 50 Lux. And at the end of day I might as well save even more for beers (not cigarettes to me) 🙃

[Simone_DF]

Rather than upgrading, have you considered “side grading” by getting a lens with a different signature look?

All your Voigtlanders and Sigmas have modern rendering. Consider getting a Zeiss Sonnar or similar for 50mm, and a Voigtlander Nokton for your 35mm. This way you can swap lenses when you want to add more character or a more dreamy look to your subject, and keep the razor sharp ones for when the situation requires it. 

[Seba66]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Rather than upgrading, have you considered “side grading” by getting a lens with a different signature look?

@Simone_DF thank you for your advice, the lateral thinking is something that I try to apply everywhere in my life. For this I’m learning about LLL 35 8e in screw mount. I didn’t mention in the opening post because it was lateral 😆 to my main dilemma 

[Simone_DF]

57 minutes ago, Seba66 said:

For this I’m learning about LLL 35 8e in screw mount.

I don't have that lens, but opinions are very positive, and the samples on this forum look really nice. But why screwmount? There's also a M version available, I reckon

[keeping_a_balance]

LLL 35mm 8E is fun.

The APO is v. nice, but you complained about weight - it is not light for all day carry.  Would stick to Sigma and go with the M upgrade.

 

[Seba66]

4 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

... But why screwmount? There's also a M version available, I reckon

Don’t kidding me 🫣, I love it aesthetically 

[Simone_DF]

12 minutes ago, Seba66 said:

Don’t kidding me 🫣, I love it aesthetically 

Fair enough, it's a good reason!

[Jeff S]

GAS generally doesn’t improve one’s pictures, and online viewing negates many technical ‘improvements’ anyway, unless pixel peeping is the goal. You already have very capable gear, unless a change would address very specific and important needs in your photography.  
 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Seba66]

@Jeff S I agree on every single word of your post, I don’t know if I should call it GAS, but it is my wish to have at least one Leica glass.
I have the 24-90 and it is a gorgeous zoom, much better of any other I had from different brands in the past, but as I said in the OP, it stay home more and more.

It was my preferred option to upgrade the M line rather than the SL one,  and most of the comments I got from this thread do confirm my original thought.

I agree that my gears are already really capable and I decided to go for the 50 Nokton II after many readings, among those the very helpful reviews in 47-degree site, and I’m really happy with it (even if I miss the focus tab).

The 50 lux will make me a better photographer? Absolutely not. But maybe I will enjoy more to shoot with it (maybe I’m an irrational but tactile feeling and aesthetic for me aren’t less important than IQ).

This long post just to acknowledge all of you for your inputs that helped me to make the decision.

And, at the end of day, if I will be back in short time asking for input for new acquisitions… it must have been just GAS 🙃