Zooms or primes for a travel/landscape kit on SL(3) system

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, MakinMemories said:

If I were putting an all-round 'light weight' Leica lens kit together with any SL, I would choose the SL21mm Cron, SL35mm Cron and SL24-90 zoom...

Not exactly what I would call travel-friendly

I started my Leica journey with the SL2-S for various reasons; video played a pivotal part in the decision-making, but I learned quickly that Leica means inevitably M. There's so much about these compact cameras that if I were to invest in a travel kit for stills photography, and wildlife was not on the list, I'd take the M route with any further thinking.  

As I travel with two film Ms, I use my SL2-S with M lenses. The SL2-S with the M 35mm Summarit f2.5 or 35mm Summicron ASPH is as lightweight as it can get and outperforms the mighty 24-90 in sharpness and aberrations at 35mm not by a mile but visibly. Consequently, I sold the 24-90. But if I needed a zoom lens, and weight wasn't an objection, I'd repurchase it without further thinking. It's the best standard zoom in the industry. 

[Advertisement]

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

[VikB]

7 hours ago, hansvons said:

Not exactly what I would call travel-friendly

I started my Leica journey with the SL2-S for various reasons; video played a pivotal part in the decision-making, but I learned quickly that Leica means inevitably M. There's so much about these compact cameras that if I were to invest in a travel kit for stills photography, and wildlife was not on the list, I'd take the M route with any further thinking.  

As I travel with two film Ms, I use my SL2-S with M lenses. The SL2-S with the M 35mm Summarit f2.5 or 35mm Summicron ASPH is as lightweight as it can get and outperforms the mighty 24-90 in sharpness and aberrations at 35mm not by a mile but visibly. Consequently, I sold the 24-90. But if I needed a zoom lens, and weight wasn't an objection, I'd repurchase it without further thinking. It's the best standard zoom in the industry. 

Hi Hansvons! The M is a dream system and I would love to move in that direction. My biggest constraint is: I do a lot of long exposure photography. Using a system without being able to see through the lens may really increase my workflow. Also incorporating things like polarizer and graduated NDs does become cumbersome and very challenging. Not that I don't like a challenge but sometimes I have only 24 hours in a city to cover as much as I can before my next trip there in who knows a few months to years. 

I do completely take your point on portability of an M system vs an SL system. I sold an entire medium format Fuji kit after I bought a Q2. I still use square filters on a Q2 and the workflow is pretty seamless. 

After being on a leica system, i cannot convince myself to go to any other system for sheer image output in colors and dimensionality. So my choice of an SL system is the outcome of being caught between a rock and a hard place. 

But if you know of solutions/possibilities to use NDs (6~10 stop) and polarizer on an M system, I'd be very happy to research my way out of an SL system. 

Thanks much for your inputs! 

[VikB]

13 hours ago, Jeff S said:

No need to buy an entire kit at once.  Pick one for your first priority and live with it for a while.  You’ll know better than anyone else what feels right and what, if anything, is missing. All of these choices can yield sufficient IQ for most humans.

(For me, the SL 24-90 served this initial role, with wide and long enough FLs to complement my 28/35/50 M kit.)

 

Jeff, if i may ask, did you replace your 24~90 eventually? Or is it still in your kit. Are you now using more primes for your landscape/travel pictures? Do you use or like or miss telephoto range for landscape pics?

Trying to piggy back on others learning curves, given the quantum of money involved and the limitations on how much is available at disposal 😅

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, VikB said:

Trying to piggy back on others learning curves, given the quantum of money involved and the limitations on how much is available at disposal 😅

Shrewd thinking! 😉

I do a lot of landscape photography because conservation projects are part of my profession, which naturally means nature. I shoot most landscapes on Kodak 5207 or Delta 100 and an M 35mm Summarit. Resolution is not crucial for me, but texture, sharpness and colour are. I print relatively large, e.g. 1m x 0.70m, mostly vertically. I shoot, however, occasionally on the SL2-S landscapes digitally (again with the 35mm Summarit or a 35mm Summicron ASPH), and they turn out nicely with tons of resolution and dynamic range for post. However, there's none yet that made it to the printer. But many made it to websites, online editorials, etc... 

There are two kinds of landscape photographers: the waiters (people who wait for the light at a given location, not the restaurant staff) and the hunters. I belong to the latter breed, but there's nothing wrong with being a waiter. My landscape photography is content-driven and secondarily determined by light and mood. To understand that, looking at Caspar David Friedrich's works makes tons of sense. It's all about content. As with street photography, landscape photography can be determined by a special point in time when I'm there, and I don't want to miss that; the tripod slows me down and adds weight. That's why I don't put my camera on a tripod but walk and shoot handheld.

Similar things can be said about filters' usefulness and potential to slow me down. I do get the point of a polarizer and NDs. But NDs in landscape photography make the most sense for these water or sky-blurring pictures, which are rarely not kitschy and long in the tooth, IMHO, and require a tripod. YMMY, of course. Polarizers are different. I use them for B&W. As you can't see the polarizing effect in an M viewfinder, I have a second one in my pocket, check the settings by eye, and adjust the polarizer attached to the lens accordingly. The M system requires no extra treatment for NDs as it measures the light through the lens.

I use only 35mm lenses. The reason is that I need consistency both in the result and in the approach. This can be very different for other people, but I learned early on as a cameraman that composing the image via zooming is the recipe for meaningless photos. When working with a zoom, I first select the focal length (98% of the time, 35mm) and then compose the shot. There's a reason why particular lenses are associated with a particular type of shot in cinematography.

To understand what I'm looking for in landscapes, you can look here.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 28, 2024 by hansvons

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, VikB said:

Jeff, if i may ask, did you replace your 24~90 eventually? Or is it still in your kit. Are you now using more primes for your landscape/travel pictures? Do you use or like or miss telephoto range for landscape pics?

Trying to piggy back on others learning curves, given the quantum of money involved and the limitations on how much is available at disposal 😅

I’ve never based my photographic choices on input from forum surveys.  No two photographers make the same pics, even using the same gear (thankfully), let alone share preferences regarding working methods.  That’s why I suggested that, rather than piggybacking, you pick one lens to create your own path, which secondarily will save you initial investment. In the US, where I reside, it’s also relatively easy to rent or demo gear to assist in purchase decisions.  And I always buy from reputable dealers with fair return/trade policies.

But you asked.  The SL 24-90 remains my core lens with the SL system. I owned the SL 75 APO Summicron, but eventually sold it due to lack of use. I still own the 90-280, but don’t use it much and recently loaned it to a friend who damaged his.  I’ll probably sell it at some point.  The M system remains my primary kit, lately with the M10 Monochrom. I use the M10R much less frequently. The SL2 serves complementary needs, and provides an entirely different experience.

Jeff

[VikB]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:06 PM, Jeff S said:

I’ve never based my photographic choices on input from forum surveys.  No two photographers make the same pics, even using the same gear (thankfully), let alone share preferences regarding working methods.  That’s why I suggested that, rather than piggybacking, you pick one lens to create your own path, which secondarily will save you initial investment. In the US, where I reside, it’s also relatively easy to rent or demo gear to assist in purchase decisions.  And I always buy from reputable dealers with fair return/trade policies.

But you asked.  The SL 24-90 remains my core lens with the SL system. I owned the SL 75 APO Summicron, but eventually sold it due to lack of use. I still own the 90-280, but don’t use it much and recently loaned it to a friend who damaged his.  I’ll probably sell it at some point.  The M system remains my primary kit, lately with the M10 Monochrom. I use the M10R much less frequently. The SL2 serves complementary needs, and provides an entirely different experience.

Jeff

hi Jeff. While I do appreciate your point and I've been there done that for over a decade through my camera gear journey (Nikon DSLR to Fuji crop to Fuji Mediums to Leica Q and here I am). surely not my first rodeo trying to buy camera gear. But for the first time in our lives, there are more people using the same equipment to make pictures than ever before. In the times of hundreds of millions of camera phones out there, it takes a lot of commitment to make unique pictures in urban locations. the likelihood of uniqueness is diminishing by the hour. I don't do a lot of documentary photography, mine is mostly travel urban or rural and I've gotten more into long exposures to bring about that sense of some uniqueness (fortunately not available to phone cameras as yet). Just going thru this process so I don't have to change gear in another 3 months ( take pictures maybe 30 to 40 days a year at best). Forum crawling surely helps eliminate some of the clutter. And I appreciate you sharing your journey to get where you are. Every bit of these discussions is adding up for me in making choices. 

Thanks Again! 

 

[VikB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 1/28/2024 at 3:40 PM, hansvons said:

Shrewd thinking! 😉

I do a lot of landscape photography because conservation projects are part of my profession, which naturally means nature. I shoot most landscapes on Kodak 5207 or Delta 100 and an M 35mm Summarit. Resolution is not crucial for me, but texture, sharpness and colour are. I print relatively large, e.g. 1m x 0.70m, mostly vertically. I shoot, however, occasionally on the SL2-S landscapes digitally (again with the 35mm Summarit or a 35mm Summicron ASPH), and they turn out nicely with tons of resolution and dynamic range for post. However, there's none yet that made it to the printer. But many made it to websites, online editorials, etc... 

There are two kinds of landscape photographers: the waiters (people who wait for the light at a given location, not the restaurant staff) and the hunters. I belong to the latter breed, but there's nothing wrong with being a waiter. My landscape photography is content-driven and secondarily determined by light and mood. To understand that, looking at Caspar David Friedrich's works makes tons of sense. It's all about content. As with street photography, landscape photography can be determined by a special point in time when I'm there, and I don't want to miss that; the tripod slows me down and adds weight. That's why I don't put my camera on a tripod but walk and shoot handheld.

Similar things can be said about filters' usefulness and potential to slow me down. I do get the point of a polarizer and NDs. But NDs in landscape photography make the most sense for these water or sky-blurring pictures, which are rarely not kitschy and long in the tooth, IMHO, and require a tripod. YMMY, of course. Polarizers are different. I use them for B&W. As you can't see the polarizing effect in an M viewfinder, I have a second one in my pocket, check the settings by eye, and adjust the polarizer attached to the lens accordingly. The M system requires no extra treatment for NDs as it measures the light through the lens.

I use only 35mm lenses. The reason is that I need consistency both in the result and in the approach. This can be very different for other people, but I learned early on as a cameraman that composing the image via zooming is the recipe for meaningless photos. When working with a zoom, I first select the focal length (98% of the time, 35mm) and then compose the shot. There's a reason why particular lenses are associated with a particular type of shot in cinematography.

To understand what I'm looking for in landscapes, you can look here.

 

 

 

 

 

Thanks again Hansvons! I do see your point on the pictures you're into and how the workflow works for you. Mine is definitely a different style. While I wouldn't call myself a Waiter on scenes or light, I have to usually breeze thru a scene pretty quickly (more often than not) and rarely get to test the same location again in a series of days or even hours to catch the light. I am forced to make the most of the given moment I am in. Because of my primary work I do for a living, I don't manage to take too much time off to hunt.  that's why I use things like NDs and Grads to get a little more out of the given light/scene. 

Maybe I will be on an M in its next avatar. until then maybe I will try my hands at some of the lenses with converters. Appreciate all your inputs! 

[Jeff S]

25 minutes ago, VikB said:

hi Jeff. While I do appreciate your point and I've been there done that for over a decade through my camera gear journey (Nikon DSLR to Fuji crop to Fuji Mediums to Leica Q and here I am). surely not my first rodeo trying to buy camera gear. But for the first time in our lives, there are more people using the same equipment to make pictures than ever before. In the times of hundreds of millions of camera phones out there, it takes a lot of commitment to make unique pictures in urban locations. the likelihood of uniqueness is diminishing by the hour. I don't do a lot of documentary photography, mine is mostly travel urban or rural and I've gotten more into long exposures to bring about that sense of some uniqueness (fortunately not available to phone cameras as yet). Just going thru this process so I don't have to change gear in another 3 months ( take pictures maybe 30 to 40 days a year at best). Forum crawling surely helps eliminate some of the clutter. And I appreciate you sharing your journey to get where you are. Every bit of these discussions is adding up for me in making choices. 

Thanks Again! 

 

Uniqueness, and excellence, won’t come from the gear, or from changing the gear. As I wrote, no two people take the same pics, even in the same location, using the same gear.  Thinking otherwise will be a futile… and expensive…journey. Can’t buy a great photographic eye.
 

Jeff

[VikB]

38 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Uniqueness, and excellence, won’t come from the gear, or from changing the gear. As I wrote, no two people take the same pics, even in the same location, using the same gear.  Thinking otherwise will be a futile… and expensive…journey. Can’t buy a great photographic eye.
 

Jeff

Are you just assuming that I am a bad photographer? 

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, VikB said:

Are you just assuming that I am a bad photographer? 

I’m sharing my opinion about photography, not about you. 
 

Jeff

[L_lover]

Hello!

 

you had my same doubts when I got my SL system (first the SL1 then the SL2). 

I needed lenses for travel photography and long exposure shots.

 

I started with ONLY the 24-90....but after many experiments I got the 90-280 (for safaris), the M adapter for a 50 summiluxM 1.4 and the 21M summilux 1.4.

A couple of months ago I sold the 21M and upgraded to the 21 SL APO... I used it for a travel project in Japan during the autumn foliage and it's a very good lens. Unfortunately it had a factory problem and Leica replaced it right away with a new one.

 

So I would suggest to get the 21 SL APO and a 24-90 zoom lens.  They are very good also on astrophotography and long exposures.

 

If you like to have a nice "Leica-bokeh" unfortunately you would need a M lens (that's why for portraits I use only M lenses with an adapter).

 

happy travelling!

[keeping_a_balance]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:36 AM, VikB said:

 

But if you know of solutions/possibilities to use NDs (6~10 stop) and polarizer on an M system, I'd be very happy to research my way out of an SL system. 

 

Not a filter expert I use a magnetic filter system with step up rings and works to have one set of filters for all my lenses, M, SL, Sigma etc...

[VikB]

4 hours ago, L_lover said:

Hello!

 

you had my same doubts when I got my SL system (first the SL1 then the SL2). 

I needed lenses for travel photography and long exposure shots.

 

I started with ONLY the 24-90....but after many experiments I got the 90-280 (for safaris), the M adapter for a 50 summiluxM 1.4 and the 21M summilux 1.4.

A couple of months ago I sold the 21M and upgraded to the 21 SL APO... I used it for a travel project in Japan during the autumn foliage and it's a very good lens. Unfortunately it had a factory problem and Leica replaced it right away with a new one.

 

So I would suggest to get the 21 SL APO and a 24-90 zoom lens.  They are very good also on astrophotography and long exposures.

 

If you like to have a nice "Leica-bokeh" unfortunately you would need a M lens (that's why for portraits I use only M lenses with an adapter).

 

happy travelling!

Thanks L_Lover! 90-280 is sure only my radar but I am hearing practicality issues from a lot of users on the forum. But I know I miss that long reach so sooner or later it will be in the kit. 21 SL APO does sound like a very good product, surely better optics than a 16-35. I am evaluating if I will need the extra mm for any scenarios by digging into my last 2 years on a Leica Q2. 28 to 21 is still fairly wide for me but don't want to end up with buyers remorse (not sure if a photographer is ever free of that). 

Appreciate the inputs. 

[VikB]

20 minutes ago, keeping_a_balance said:

Not a filter expert I use a magnetic filter system with step up rings and works to have one set of filters for all my lenses, M, SL, Sigma etc...

Thanks keeping_a_balance. And I assume you are using these M on your SL body/bodies? 

[keeping_a_balance]

I have very little experience compared to the other members who have posted. 

I like you started with the Q2 coming from another brand and now have M11 and the SL2-S.  I love them!  

I have purchased a few SL APO primes and they are great, but so are Sigma lenses, and for my photography frankly it's hard to justify having a lens that costs upwards of 5x the cost of a lens that renders 98% of what the APO does.  

I am not much of a tele zoom shooter as can't stand the weight and frankly get infuriated by tripods.  However I have the 100-400 by sigma and I can't say anything bad about the IQ.  

Since you seem to want long reach have you not considered the Sigma 60-600?  that plus the 21 APO two lenses, few filters and you should be set...

I know it is not leica glass, and the micro contract etc etc etc... but I would say something along those lines seems to fit someone who is not afraid of carrying heavy gear, has little time in each spot and needs to unify filters etc...  

In the end there is something special about Leica looks, rendering and the more you read this forum the more you want to just buy all that wonderful SL glass.  But during my short photographic life I have unfortunately now found that I can get 90% of the result using lighter, smaller, more versatile gear, and cheaper gear.

Best of luck in your decision.

[L_lover]

5 minutes ago, VikB said:

Thanks L_Lover! 90-280 is sure only my radar but I am hearing practicality issues from a lot of users on the forum. But I know I miss that long reach so sooner or later it will be in the kit. 21 SL APO does sound like a very good product, surely better optics than a 16-35. I am evaluating if I will need the extra mm for any scenarios by digging into my last 2 years on a Leica Q2. 28 to 21 is still fairly wide for me but don't want to end up with buyers remorse (not sure if a photographer is ever free of that). 

Appreciate the inputs. 

I used the 90-280 lens literally 10 times after I bought it.

I never carry it around as it is extremely heavy...but when you use it and you check the photos...well it's wonderful!

I used it for a safari in Tanzania and although some animals were far away, the wuality of the SL2 sensor made it possible to crop the image without losing quality. So I actually think the 90-280 is better than the 400 mm Leica made available.

 

I think for your needs the 24-90 would be a better choice than the 90-280.

 

[keeping_a_balance]

10 minutes ago, VikB said:

Thanks keeping_a_balance. And I assume you are using these M on your SL body/bodies? 

Yes quite often on the SL2S as well as my M body.

[deekay]

Another landscape photographer here who has used Sony A7Rs including 100-400 for a few years...
When I got my M11 I used it and a 35 and 90 with great effect and really loved the light weight. I don't print big and I found that I hardly missed the 100-400 as the M11/90 (and the M11/35) combo was so "croppable". I have ND filters for both the 35 and the 90.
I am considering getting an SL3 with only a 24-90, mainly for my comfort in bad weather and assume that the croppability will apply. I can't see myself getting the 90-280 dues to its size and weight.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Dr. G]

On 1/30/2024 at 8:29 AM, VikB said:

Thanks L_Lover! 90-280 is sure only my radar but I am hearing practicality issues from a lot of users on the forum. But I know I miss that long reach so sooner or later it will be in the kit. 21 SL APO does sound like a very good product, surely better optics than a 16-35. I am evaluating if I will need the extra mm for any scenarios by digging into my last 2 years on a Leica Q2. 28 to 21 is still fairly wide for me but don't want to end up with buyers remorse (not sure if a photographer is ever free of that). 

Appreciate the inputs. 

Rent a 14-24 for a few days and go out and shoot.  When you review your images see what focal lengths you use most often and start there on your wide end.  If you’re fairly even across the board then a zoom may be a better choice… plus it gives you the ability to see how much wider than your Q2 you’re comfortable with.  Even though it’s “only” 7mm, there is a big difference between 21mm and 28mm.  Small differences in focal length have bigger impacts the wider you go.  

For me, I rarely shoot wide, so I couldn’t justify the price of the 21 APO (I have the 35, 50 and 75 APO Summicron SLs) and ended up with the Voigtlander 21 f/1.4 and Voigtlander 15 f/5.6 so I would still have those focal lengths covered with high quality optics at a fraction of the cost and they are small enough that I can carry both of them without issue.  

I shoot the SL2-S right now, though.  When I get the SL3 I may swap my 15mm for a CV12mm or CV10mm which would still give me 18mm or 15mm equivalents at 26Mp in APS-C mode.  26Mp is still more than adequate for large prints.  

Edited February 24, 2024 by Dr. G

[deekay]

The other thing you can do, if you use Lightroom, is to select all your favorite images and then look at the metadata and you can see which focal lengths you used for your favorite images.