M vs L mount lens?

[edelweiss]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a super basic question and one I'm surprised I can't seem to find an answer to, despite my efforts at searching on the internet as well as this forum.  So I apologize in advance if I missed the topic.

I own a Q3 and I want to move on to getting some other gear I can use professionally.  At least eventually, since my wallet has not caught up to my ambitions just yet.  So of course, I am thinking about the SL3 vs some kind of M.

I understand the vast difference between the two bodies, i.e. range finder, AF, etc.  But I'm actually more interested in the lenses for each system.  I notice there's a greater variety of M lenses, and they tend to be more expensive.  Why is this the case?  If anything the lack of focusing/electronics in the lens would make me think M lens' ought to be simpler/easier to construct and maintain, and therefore cheaper.

Admittedly, I find the M-lenses absolutely gorgeous to behold, but Leica as a company doesn't seem to price their product merely on aesthetics. 

So what's the story here?

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

8 minutes ago, edelweiss said:

Why is this the case?  If anything the lack of focusing/electronics in the lens would make me think M lens' ought to be simpler/easier to construct and maintain, and therefore cheaper.

Quite the reverse ...... making small high quality lenses and adjusting them to work perfectly to the close tolerances required for the M's mechanical rangefinder mechanism is not cheap. The M is designed to work with the original form factor so that old lenses function well. 

The L mount bodies are free of these constraints and it's easier to make larger lenses and incorporate modern electronics and focussing. 

The price differentials are not that great ..... until you get to the more exotic faster and better corrected M lenses, where they are made to a critical specification and then priced accordingly. 

[adan]

1) Realistically, the entire M system is more expensive than the SL system.

Compare:

SL3 flagship model: $7000
M11 (flagship M, but with fewer features): $9000

Partly, that is due to competitive positioning in the marketplace - there is no real competition for the M system, especially in the digital, full-sized sensor arena. Whereas everyone and their brother now make mirrorless, full-sensor cameras that go head-to-head with the SL line (Sony, Panasonic, Nikon, Canon).

With the M system, Leica (and current owners selling used gear) can charge what the market will bear.

And partly, it is exactly as thighslapper says - all-mechanical fine metal-milling and fitting throughout is more expensive than a lens partly made of electronics and chips and solenoids (and "firmware") with snap-together assembly.

2) Small size/low weight itself is a valuable feature for some (including me), which is worth paying extra for. Especially if it includes comparable (if not better) optical performance.

Although that is a complicated subject - bigger (and often heavier) lenses usually allow better optical corrections (compare performance charts and size/weight of, e.g., the 28 Summicron-SL with the 28 Summicron-M - higher lines are "better," theoretically). The SL lens is 750g, the M lens is 280g. But....

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

I got into the M system in 2001 precisely because of the "bloat" and weight that AF systems and built-in film-advance motors were imposing on the vast majority of the traditional SLR world. (And my back has thanked me ever since. 😉 ). With digital, Leica has generally managed to maintain or even increase that differential - in the M cameras and lenses, anyway.

Get a camera and set of lenses that cost 3 times as much - but weigh less than half as much - and fit in a bag half the size - and perform at least as well (as of 2001). Whatta deal!

[GFW2-SCUSA]

I think a lot depends upon what you are going to be using the cameras for professionally. I did fashion/beauty/models professionally and used only Nikon (Leica didn't have a DSLR then) because that was most useful. When I do more "journalistic" type work I use my Ms.  Today I would use the SL2 for fashion etc. I don't think it's a one-size-fits-all situation. So tell us what you plan to do.

As for the lenses, M's are like jewels and priced as such. BUT I have, as do many others here, M lenses that are 30 years old. They never wear out or lose their usefulness. Not so with the SL lenses, in my opinion. I doubt they will be chugging along in 30 years if used professionally. 

Leica, which I have been using since mid 1960s, just are wonderful and rugged and are a part of my being. I love the simplicity and how they produce what I want. My wife thinks I have a little bit of an obsession, which I flatly deny.
 

[jdlaing]

It’s the glass that’s inside the lenses.

[edelweiss]

On 3/22/2024 at 3:14 PM, thighslapper said:

Quite the reverse ...... making small high quality lenses and adjusting them to work perfectly to the close tolerances required for the M's mechanical rangefinder mechanism is not cheap. The M is designed to work with the original form factor so that old lenses function well. 

The L mount bodies are free of these constraints and it's easier to make larger lenses and incorporate modern electronics and focussing.

 

On 3/22/2024 at 6:54 PM, adan said:

And partly, it is exactly as thighslapper says - all-mechanical fine metal-milling and fitting throughout is more expensive than a lens partly made of electronics and chips and solenoids (and "firmware") with snap-together assembly.

Ah ok ok, this makes a lot of sense.  Thank you.  I suppose all that software you can just replicate across lenses, whereas M lenses have to be individually "tuned" if you will.

 

On 3/22/2024 at 7:34 PM, GFW2-SCUSA said:

I think a lot depends upon what you are going to be using the cameras for professionally. I did fashion/beauty/models professionally and used only Nikon (Leica didn't have a DSLR then) because that was most useful. When I do more "journalistic" type work I use my Ms.  Today I would use the SL2 for fashion etc. I don't think it's a one-size-fits-all situation. So tell us what you plan to do.

As for the lenses, M's are like jewels and priced as such. BUT I have, as do many others here, M lenses that are 30 years old. They never wear out or lose their usefulness. Not so with the SL lenses, in my opinion. I doubt they will be chugging along in 30 years if used professionally. 

Leica, which I have been using since mid 1960s, just are wonderful and rugged and are a part of my being. I love the simplicity and how they produce what I want. My wife thinks I have a little bit of an obsession, which I flatly deny.
 

I didn't really intend for this post to be about deciding which camera system, though I suppose while I am here... 🤷‍♂️

I am quite conflicted.  What I really want is an M-system because like adan said, the lightweight/compact nature is a feature for me.  I've been shooting recently with the Leica iiif and really enjoy the experience.  I like that it's slow, simple and uncomplicated, no digital menus to select what features need turning on or off, etc.  And I'd like to venture into documentary/journalistic assignments (not sure how yet, but a man can have dreams), and it seems like the M system suits that need quite well. 

However, most of my work is in weddings, and I've started dabbling in other types of photography like commercial and sports photography.  My wife (and business partner) made a good point that if I want something compact and good for travel photography, well then I already have the Q3.  And I had a tough time arguing with that.

So emotionally, I definitely want an M system.  But it seems like from a logical and a business standpoint, I really should invest in the SL. 

EDIT: the longevity of an M system is also a *major* draw for me.  I despise obsolescence, most of all when it makes the least sense, for example with software/hardware/computers.  Why are digital goods effectively perishable?  /rant

Edited March 24, 2024 by edelweiss

[GFW2-SCUSA]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, edelweiss said:

 

 

So emotionally, I definitely want an M system.  But it seems like from a logical and a business standpoint, I really should invest in the SL. 

 

I think you might have answered your own question here. In business logic must outweigh emotion. The M isn't great for weddings, though it certainly can be used and really isn't the camera for sports. If weddings and sports will be the source of photographic income, then I think the SL2 is the right tool. Once you have earned a pile of money with the SL, then you can sell your Q3 and get an M! Also, do listen to your wife... the key to happiness! 

[hansvons]

15 hours ago, GFW2-SCUSA said:

Also, do listen to your wife... the key to happiness! 

Absolutely. That out of the way, I cannot stress enough the good mood and little chats about the great things in life an M camera can evoke, which any other modern digital camera can't.

This is actually a business USP. I’m quite good at quick focusing with the RF and would get a pair of M10s (plus a Q3 for those party snaps) without hesitation, if I was a wedding photographer with the job of making people happy. Maybe I’d add an M6 with a 35mm Nokton 1.4 and with Kodak 5222 loaded for those unique B&W photos. That’d be the classic Leica-style wedding reportage. 

I shoot from time to time photos for editorials and reports I write. I do that with film Ms as the turnaround times are long enough. I also use my SL2-S for that with M lenses when the light is challenging because this camera is in unbeatable at that. 

But you will never get those shots where the iris is tack sharp and the eyelashes are already getting soft. This is AF terrain, especially with a documentary shooting style.

[mmradman]

L. Lenses come engraved with recycling symbol which imply once electronic die and no longer supported they are kind of expensive bookshop.

Conversely M lens can last for ever providing there is person, still to be born, who can provide CLA.

[BernardC]

20 hours ago, GFW2-SCUSA said:

The M isn't great for weddings, though it certainly can be used and really isn't the camera for sports.

Ms can be great cameras for weddings. I've worked with very successful wedding shooters who used them. Other than the obvious advantages of size and weight, they can be easier to focus in very low light, provided you enjoy rangefinder focusing. The vast choice of lenses allows you to offer some looks that your competition can't provide with the usual 24-70 zoom. Also, many couples appreciate that M photographers are less conspicuous throughout the day. They won't know this in advance, but you can get excellent word of mouth from this, as long as your pictures are excellent.

You didn't say what type of sports you were thinking of shooting. Obviously, arena and stadium sports aren't ideally suited to a system that maxes-out at 135mm!

[edelweiss]

On 3/25/2024 at 10:01 AM, BernardC said:

Ms can be great cameras for weddings. I've worked with very successful wedding shooters who used them. Other than the obvious advantages of size and weight, they can be easier to focus in very low light, provided you enjoy rangefinder focusing. The vast choice of lenses allows you to offer some looks that your competition can't provide with the usual 24-70 zoom. Also, many couples appreciate that M photographers are less conspicuous throughout the day. They won't know this in advance, but you can get excellent word of mouth from this, as long as your pictures are excellent.

You didn't say what type of sports you were thinking of shooting. Obviously, arena and stadium sports aren't ideally suited to a system that maxes-out at 135mm!

Like I said, I only dabbled in sports photography.  These past couple weekends I was photographing for a local charity that ran rapid-fire, street basketball games that ran to 7 points.  So nothing serious at all.  It was indoors.  I'll try to share some shots in an appropriate place on the forum later.  Would be great to get feedback on my setup and method. 

 

[LocalHero1953]

If the M is new to you, don't buy it for business, buy it for pleasure. Once you are familiar with it and can make it work quickly, you can start introducing it to your business practice.

[Ms240]

I’m a wedding photographer here. I switched from Nikon to Leica. I don’t have endless money to burn so I’m very conscious about what I spend my $ on.

I currently have an M10, Q, Q3 and SL2S. My M10 and Q is mostly for pleasure (I bring my M10 to weddings if I feel inspired) and backup gear. My Q3 and SL2S is for work. On my SL2S I have all sigma contemporary lenses 35f2, 56f2, 90f2.8. Personally I chose these lenses because how compact it is, great built quality,  it’s affordable and produces such great images. On my M gear I have a 50summilux which I LOVE and 35 f1.2 Voigtlander Ultron. The M-Lenses mounted on the SL2S is so good.. on a chill wedding or family photoshoots I can get away shooting with a Q3 & the 50summilux M on my SL2S. I’m trying to master manual M-lenses on my SL2S because I just love it the experience and the images it produces. The Sigmas are there for fast moments where I really need to rely on an AF.

If I were you, I will be spending my $$ on growing my M-mount lenses vs L-mount because:

1. These lenses are evergreen and they retain their value.
2. They produce images that are unique and hard to replicate with digital lenses.
3. You can use them on most cameras with adapters.
4. They are so compact!!

SL camera paired with Leica Lmount lenses are SO HEAVY. That was one of my biggest drawbackz

hope this helps