Total amateur changing direction brings up an SL2 question

[the gardener]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, hopefully someone can advise me, a I'm toying with the idea of trading in my Q2 and getting an SL2 with a Leica Vario-Elmar-SL 100-400 f5-6.3 Lens, for what I assume would give me the flexibility necessary for both landscape and bird/wildlife/nature photography + I'll also be able to add further lens varieties once the bank balance looks healthier again. I prefer my images to be usable straight from the camera rather than spending hours on editing suites. What is the general consensus on my probable choice... many thanks in advance

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

I think that is a pretty drastic change. The 100-400mm focal length range is on the long side for most normal landscape work. If the budget is a concern, you might consider buying the Sigma version of the 100-400mm, from which the Leica is derived. You will find various opinions, but most acknowledge they are very similar if not identical. Personally, I think you would be much better off with a two or more Sigma lenses instead of one Sigma designed Leica lens. If you only have the 100-400mm, I think you will not really use the camera all that much. If you want a zoom, I would suggest the 24-70mm version II Sigma and perhaps the 100-400mm, or perhaps the 100-400mm and a 28, 35 or 50mm prime lens.

[dpitt]

The SL2 with any long tele lens will be more suited for bird/wildlife and it will be totally different from the Q2 experience.
I would at least consider one lens to go with it in the "normal" range, unless you have that covered by an other system.

The excellent Lumix 20-60mm S comes to mind because it covers more than the Q2's 28mm and will not break the bank. It is also one of the most compact and lightweight AF combo's with the SL2.

Speaking of lightweight... If you want to have a cheaper alternative, have a look at a used Leica TL2(or TL) and CL together with the 18 or 23mm TL lenses which are also usable on your new SL2. I often use the 20-60mm as a nice 30-90mm zoom on my TL2 too.
If you already have M lenses like I do, then the M adapter for both the T and SL range makes a lot of sense. I use my TL2 with the Summicron 35mm M all the time as a very compact travel camera. 

[the gardener]

Thanks very much for all this help... perhaps I should add, I work in landscape and document major ground works: before I had the Q2, I used Lumix LX5's(I went through 3 of them)then Lumix L100 (just 2 of them) then finally decided to buy a robust weather sealed camera, and as I'd used Leica lens on the Panasonics and liked the pictures produced I made the decision to go Leica... Hence the Q2.. but, the Q2 has made me have to completely rethink my photography... and now it doesn't come out of the bag as often as I'd like... Great for Macro and scenery (though I'm forever walking back and forth to compose the image, and that subdues the immediacy of the moment) I do think I need that drastic change to I fall back in love with taking pictures... I figure starting off with the 100-400mm will allow my birding to flourish (I keep seeing beautiful shots through my Swarovskis) and I can get a prime or smaller zoom lens to indulge the landscape later on... I'll certainly try out some of your recommended lenses before I buy... Fools rush in, as they say and I prove!!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

For the cost that you’re looking at adding a Panasonic 20-60 would be a trivial add on and give you a versatile two lens kit to start with. Later you can upgrade if you feel the need but the 20-60 is a competent lens with a very good focal range for what you want.

The only difference between the Sigma and Leica 100-400 is the weather sealing and the lens tripod collar is an add on extra for the Sigma. The Leica is fully sealed and the Sigma is sealed at the mount only. Optically they’re identical. If you’re not in extreme conditions you may save money and weight with the SIgma.

Gordon

[hansvons]

23 hours ago, the gardener said:

bird/wildlife

The SL2 is not good at birding because the AF doesn’t cut it. If I were in the market of a camera for birds, any kind of wildlife, I’d get the Olympus OM1 and the 300mm prime or one of the superb Olympus zooms. Shot with it many times and it’s night and day compared to the SL2/S. Amazing keeper rate, even for little bird taking off, etc. Horses for courses. 

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Later you can upgrade if you feel the need but the 20-60 is a competent lens

This. And/or get a used copy of the Sigma 35mm contemporary f/2. The footprint of that combo isn’t dramatically larger than the Q2, providing a similar experience but with the more useful 35mm field of view. 

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, hansvons said:

If I were in the market of a camera for birds, any kind of wildlife, I’d get the Olympus OM1 and the 300mm prime or one of the superb Olympus zooms.

The Lumix G9 II is the other Micro Four Thirds option. Both have ultra-fast AF, great frame rates, and great stabilization.

[FrozenInTime]

9 hours ago, BernardC said:

The Lumix G9 II is the other Micro Four Thirds option. Both have ultra-fast AF, great frame rates, and great stabilization.

Also a good selection of Lumix Leica DG lenses.