Which to get: SL2 or SL2-S?

[BLeventhal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I realize that the SL3 is out and betters the former cameras, I am wanting to build a small Leica system for nature photography. Yes, I absolutely realize that there are better options out there. In fact, I currently use among the best gear for wildlife (Nikon Z9 & Z8, 14-30, 24-120, 100-400, 400mm f2.8TC, and 1.4x converter). I am a very experienced wildlife photographer and have been shooting nature since the late 1980's (proof... http://btleventhal.com and @BruceLeventhal on IG). 

So what's going on with this lunacy?... I have owned and shot the Leica SL and the CL Digital. I absolutely love the camera and the out of camera DNGs that these produced. I also felt a bit of joy when using these bodies and would like to build a small nature kit with more modern Leica gear. Finally, I am planning a return trip to Japan in January to photograph minimalistic landscapes. I think a mix of Leica and Nikon gear would be well suited to this type of photography. 

I am willing to invest $10K US to go down this rabbit hole but not a lot more.... so here are a few questions: Is there an autofocus capability difference between the SL2 and SL2-S? Could the SL2-S produce 32" prints with detail?... I ask these as, I could save a bit of money on the S and apply this to lenses. 

As for lenses.. well, I'm not the type of guy who will benefit from the APO/ASPH series, as I am not a pixel peeper. I am the type of person who likes quality glass especially in the telephoto range... As a two lens kit, I'm thinking 24-90 or 24-70 or 14-24 & 90-280 or 100-400. I would need to do one Leica/Sigma lens if I am to swing the purchase of a Leica only zoom.... thus my kit could be: SL2 (S or Not), 24-90, 100-400... or SL2 (S or Not)... Sigma/Leica wide, 90-280. 

Final point... I do not plan on using this gear for wildlife specific outings, but would use it if that is what's in my hand during a serendipitous moment. If I love what I've got, I'd add an SL3 to the mix and shrink my Nikon bag to the two bodies and two telephotos... Leica for landscapes and Nikon for wildlife.

Your experience and thoughts are important and very welcome as I consider adding the SL system to my gear bag.

bruce

[trickness]

Responding to only one part of your comment about the native SL APO glass and not being a pixel peeper...I think you're looking at this backwards. The glass is more important than the body, and the SL APOs are the highest performing glass Leica has ever made, according to Karbe. They are stunning in use, the resolution, color rendition, detail, unbelievably 3D - biggest issues are price, size, and the biggest APO is a 90mm. The 24-90 is stunning as well. 

Bodies come and go, don't cheap out on the glass. 

[Photoworks]

I would suggest you try the 2 cameras out. borrow or rent and put them to use in your environment.

I would also suggest looking at the used market, there are many Leica owner that keeps the equipment pristine and it is like new.

For my use, the SL2 with high-resolution files makes more sense. I would only get the SL2-s if you need to shoot above 6400 ISO often.

the SL2 can be cropped or switched to APSC format giving you even more reach.

24 minutes ago, BLeventhal said:

As for lenses.. well, I'm not the type of guy who will benefit from the APO/ASPH series, as I am not a pixel peeper. I am the type of person who likes quality glass especially in the telephoto range... As a two lens kit, I'm thinking 24-90 or 24-70 or 14-24 & 90-280 or 100-400. I would need to do one Leica/Sigma lens if I am to swing the purchase of a Leica only zoom.... thus my kit could be: SL2 (S or Not), 24-90, 100-400... or SL2 (S or Not)... Sigma/Leica wide, 90-280. 

The APO lenses are really good, but I can see how carrying everything can become a challenge.

24-90 Is a good lens to do most that you want, it is a little weak on the long side at 90mm. this is my to-go lens.
24-70 is the Leica version of the Sigma lens. I use this lens from Sigma and it performs great on the SL2, with lots of detail. a little less performance on the 24mm

I don't have the 100-400, it is a slow aperture, but it can be interesting.

I do use the 90-280, it delivers high-quality images, but it is heavy and I don't take it everywhere. I would not pack it for a trip to Japan 😉

[Chaemono]

If you care about the red channel, you’ll keep your current gear and wait for a used SL3 in a couple of years. The reds in the CL suck big time, BTW. I still have the camera.

[Virob]

The only real difference between the 2 cameras is the sensor. The SL2 will be similar to your Z8/Z9 with respect to resolution and the SL2s, similar to the SL you used to have. For minimal landscapes, nature, non wildlife, who cares about AF speed? Looking at some of your images ( very nice by the way), you use a tripod for landscapes so low noise at high ISO is less important, so it seems to me that the SL2 would better suit your needs. There are some decent used deals out there right now. 
For lenses,  I also notice that you like long shutter speeds for water, are you using ND filters? The 14-24 takes rear filters which might be an issue for you. 
The way I would look at it, if you are keeping the Nikon bodies  and telephoto lenses no matter what, I would be less inclined to duplicate those focal lengths and focus more on the wide to short telephoto ranges for the Leica.

[Jeff S]

As already suggested, rental is easy here if you can’t access dealer demos.

Jeff

Edited March 29, 2024 by Jeff S

[BLeventhal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Photoworks said:

I would suggest you try the 2 cameras out. borrow or rent and put them to use in your environment.

I would also suggest looking at the used market, there are many Leica owner that keeps the equipment pristine and it is like new.

For my use, the SL2 with high-resolution files makes more sense. I would only get the SL2-s if you need to shoot above 6400 ISO often.

the SL2 can be cropped or switched to APSC format giving you even more reach.

The APO lenses are really good, but I can see how carrying everything can become a challenge.

24-90 Is a good lens to do most that you want, it is a little weak on the long side at 90mm. this is my to-go lens.
24-70 is the Leica version of the Sigma lens. I use this lens from Sigma and it performs great on the SL2, with lots of detail. a little less performance on the 24mm

I don't have the 100-400, it is a slow aperture, but it can be interesting.

I do use the 90-280, it delivers high-quality images, but it is heavy and I don't take it everywhere. I would not pack it for a trip to Japan 😉

Thanks for this... I don't object to packing heavy... I brought the Nikon gear listed for my winter wildlife trip to Japan... including the 400 f2.8TC. While I'm not young, I'd rather sacrifice clothing over camera gear... I definitely take my photography seriously. BTW... I appreciate the tip for the 24-90... it universally receives high praise. 

I will be moving to Santa Cruz, CA in the coming weeks and believe there is a Leica store in San Francisco. I plan on visiting to get a sense of the differences between the cameras.

bruce

[BLeventhal]

1 hour ago, Virob said:

The only real difference between the 2 cameras is the sensor. The SL2 will be similar to your Z8/Z9 with respect to resolution and the SL2s, similar to the SL you used to have. For minimal landscapes, nature, non wildlife, who cares about AF speed? Looking at some of your images ( very nice by the way), you use a tripod for landscapes so low noise at high ISO is less important, so it seems to me that the SL2 would better suit your needs. There are some decent used deals out there right now. 
For lenses,  I also notice that you like long shutter speeds for water, are you using ND filters? The 14-24 takes rear filters which might be an issue for you. 
The way I would look at it, if you are keeping the Nikon bodies  and telephoto lenses no matter what, I would be less inclined to duplicate those focal lengths and focus more on the wide to short telephoto ranges for the Leica.

This is super helpful... thanks for looking at my work, as this gives you an idea about how I like to shoot. I really appreciate that you tailored your advice to what you saw.

You are correct... I love long exposures and do 95% of my landscape work with a tripod. I have a feeling that the 24-90 and SL2 might be the best pair for me. I do much less ultra wide work and hesitate to spend $3000+ for a lens that does not get used regularly. 

I do shoot a lot... typically many times a week, but much of that work is wildlife photography. 

regards,

bruce

[tom0511]

I would also recommend the SL2 over the SL2-s for landscape and cropping capabilities, except you do shoot at ISO 6400 and higher more often.

If you don't need more than 24 MP I would go for SL2-S. The ISO performance is very good.

 

[Olaf_ZG]

I would recommend both the 24-90 and 90-280.never thought I would ever pay such an amount for lenses, but when I recently bought them (secondhand), I couldn’t be more happier.

Having both the 2 and 2s, and above lenses, the only question you need to answer is, what light I will be photographing in? If plenty, the 2 is great. With less light (indoors) the 2s. Happily used, both are similar in price.

Personally, to me, I would choose low light ability above mp…

[BLeventhal]

If I do this, I'll probably make the SL3 my other body. As for my path in, unless Leica decides to discount the last generation gear like they did in 2023, I will buy used. If I buy the Leica/Sigma lenses, I'll get new ones... if I go for the Leica-made optics, they will be used. I know that if I buy used optics from a Leica shop, I'll get a 6 month warranty; this will be more than enough time to discover if the lenses have an issues.

bruce

[costa43]

As always with these comparisons, it depends on what is important to you. I briefly considered the sl2 along with a few other options before opting for the sl2s. I’m a fan of the very good iso performance more so than the bigger file.  Not necessarily to shoot in low light as I prefer daytime photography but to have more creative freedom to shoot at f5.6-f8 with shutter speeds that can freeze motion well. If you prioritise resolution then the sl2 is the one of course. 

Edited March 30, 2024 by costa43

[Mute-on]

@BLeventhal could you describe what you mean by ‘minimalistic landscapes’. I’ve travelled to Japan on six occasions and the landscape is, indeed, spectacular. 

[BLeventhal]

4 hours ago, Mute-on said:

@BLeventhal could you describe what you mean by ‘minimalistic landscapes’. I’ve travelled to Japan on six occasions and the landscape is, indeed, spectacular. 

To me, minimalism is an attempt to extract shape and form through selecting compositions and processing that reduce distracting elements. In landscapes, this might be a single tree on a snowy landscape with strong shadows that delineate rolling hills or the shape of a tree. I am not a black and white photographer, but black and white photography supports this type of mood. 

I'm attaching 3 examples here... the first is a wildlife minimalism photo from my recent trip to Japan, and the others are landscapes. Note, I have better examples of landscapes... just not on the laptop that I am currently using.

 

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!

[Mute-on]

Ahh, I see. Very nice, both in concept and execution.  If you happened to be travelling to Japan in November, I can envisage excellent opportunities for this type of image with their autumn foliage, and, for example, a bright red Japanese maple in a sea of browning deciduous trees. 

Best of luck with your trip!

Edited March 30, 2024 by Mute-on

[BLeventhal]

1 hour ago, Mute-on said:

Ahh, I see. Very nice, both in concept and execution.  If you happened to be travelling to Japan in November, I can envisage excellent opportunities for this type of image with their autumn foliage, and, for example, a bright red Japanese maple in a sea of browning deciduous trees. 

Best of luck with your trip!

My trip will be in January, and I will spend my time in Hokkaido. Hokkaido gets a lot of snow, and has trees that lose their leaves. As a result, you will often see rolling hills and tree "bones" that make for a stark and simple landscape.

[Olaf_ZG]

Below two images from the stables. Both with the SL2 and SL lux. The baby horse (8 days old) was in the shadows and I couldn’t get closer as the mother likes to bite. I lifted the shadows, which on the 2s wouldn’t be a problem, but on the 2 it is struggling.

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!

[Olaf_ZG]

Same as above, but with enough light 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

I prefer the first one!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Olaf_ZG]

37 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I prefer the first one!

Despite the noise?