Lightweight kits for SL/2/3

[hoolyproductions]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not the first thread of this type, but I thought I’d share my experience on this and see what sort of feedback it triggers. It turned out to be a long post that boils down to opinions on the Sigma 18-55mm APS-C versus the Panasonic 20-60mm.

For my more ‘serious’ photography, which is typically either music photography in low light (here I generally use f2 primes, sometimes a Summilux-M) or landscapes/cityscapes (the fabulous 24-90mm zoom). I don’t have any issue with the weight on photocentric excursions. In other situations – more social or longer hikes/city breaks when I need to carry some other things the above combinations are often both bulkier and heavier than I would like.

I’ve gone down the route of a Q2 and Leica M11 (still have the latter) and am in danger of ‘cycling’ between these two as alternative cameras, neither being fully satisfying to me. Sticking with SL for now, here is what I have tried and am still pondering but I suspect this is more GAS than anything that would significantly improve my experience

Prime route

• SL2 with 50mm ASPH (non APO). This is what I usually take for a lightweight and versatile kit, with 50mm being by  far my preferred focal length (one of the main reasons I never really ‘gelled’ with the Q2). Like many others I often find that being ‘stuck’ with this only focal length only actually delivers more creative/interesting shots.
• As above with Sigma 24mm f3.5. A very lightweight lens with very good results. With APS-C mode I can use it like a 24-35mm.
• As above with either Sigma 90mm f/2.8 or, (if I want best quality Leica APO 90mm). When in open country or big city vistas I use 90mm (and cropping) very often and really like the short telephoto look.
• These three lenses together still weigh quite a bit less than my 24-90mm for overall weight.

This has been my main lightweight kit for well over a year, not tempted to make any changes – I have happily settled with this and am not looking to make changes.

The downside comes when I am in a situation where a zoom would be better, which for me boils down to either bad weather conditions and/or landscape situations where I have only a few minutes to find some nice shots and want to work quickly through the focal range (e.g. changeable weather, just a short pit stop on a hike with others). Or I am doing some casual photography and would simply like the versatility of a zoom.

Zoom route

• I have the fabulous 24-90mm and, when using a zoom, this is my strong preference. I don’t find the weight at all burdensome in use, but it is pretty bulky/heavy if I need to carry other things and when I am carrying it ‘just in case’ I encounter something interesting.
• Sigma 18-50mm. I have this but have never really used it. Right now I have the SL2-S, maybe when my SL3 arrives I will give it another go with the extra resolution. I feel that the crop mode is too much a compromise with SL2-S and I miss both the wider end of 24mm and the longer of 90mm. Rather than use this I always either take the 24-90mm or a couple of primes, as above.

Other zoom options where I go around in circles:

• The Panasonic 24-105mm seems well regarded here but (i) I like to use back button focus, which is not an option with the clutch mechanism on this lens and (ii) I’m reluctant to duplicate a zoom range I already have – giving further choice anxiety 😀
• The Panasonic 20-60mm gets more mixed reviews but seems very capable, almost as light as the Sigma 18-50mm, would give me 24mm (and wider) has an AF/MF switch for back button focus. With crop mode it would get me to 90mm.

Thinking about it now, the 20-60mm seems to make a lot more sense than the 18-50mm and I am thinking about doing a trade it to try it out. However I wonder how often I would really use it versus 50mm + 24mm, which would give me a very similar range.

[Advertisement]

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

[jankap]

Weight and size?

https://camerasize.com/compare/#625,843

or here

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/canon-r6-vs-leica-q-typ-116

Edited July 11, 2024 by jankap

[LocalHero1953]

14 minutes ago, hoolyproductions said:

I’ve gone down the route of a Q2 and Leica M11 (still have the latter) and am in danger of ‘cycling’ between these two as alternative cameras, neither being fully satisfying to me. Sticking with SL for now, here is what I have tried and am still pondering but I suspect this is more GAS than anything that would significantly improve my experience

I have similar notions and have had similar, not always satisfactory, solutions. I have the SL2-S and Leica's own zooms and Apo primes for photocentric activity. For other uses I migrated from the M240 to the CL (smaller, lighter, AF), then to the Q2 (simpler total kit). Since then I have acquired two film M bodies and 28-35-75 M lenses. I find the Q2 frustratingly slow in AF (not AF speed, but just getting it to pick the right subject - face AF is almost non-existent). I have thus been wondering about a M10-R, so as to carry film and digital bodies, and lenses that fit both. So I understand your comment quoted above!

I doubt I would consider a SL lightweight kit (whatever the lens, I find the body too big and angular for lightweight use), but I look forward to other comments here.

[jankap]

My opinion is, that the best thing to focus is: manual AND along the optical path. That means the LCD screen and/or the EVF (electronic viewfinder).

[hoolyproductions]

44 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I doubt I would consider a SL lightweight kit (whatever the lens, I find the body too big and angular for lightweight use), but I look forward to other comments here.

Thanks for your thoughts. On this one - I agree and will likely continue to keep a smaller camera, but in parallel am still interested in a 'lighter' SL kit - although I am fairly sure that the prime route I use (24+50) is the best compromise for me as I don't like the idea of using lower quality zooms - I tend to buy them and never use them 😀

Edited July 11, 2024 by hoolyproductions

[hoolyproductions]

2 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

 I find the Q2 frustratingly slow in AF (not AF speed, but just getting it to pick the right subject - face AF is almost non-existent). I have thus been wondering about a M10-R, so as to carry film and digital bodies, and lenses that fit both. So I understand your comment quoted above!

Oh and I see that while I (for a second time) think about replacing my M with a Q(3) you are thinking to go the other way. I sold the Q2 long enough ago that I have started to forget some of the minor things that I did not like so much (lack of BBF, less good EVF...). Writing this thread and thinking about it more I convinced myself that my current lightweight prime kit is the best compromise for now, and I will probably hold on to the M11 to avoid going in circles 😀

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I would say the (tiny) elephant in the room would be M lenses. If you are considering using an M anyway, you can get three small M mount primes and call it a day. The voigtlander APO Lanthar's are exceptional and not priced like their Leica equivalents, so offer a good route to SL APO Summicron performance in a compact package.

If you want AF, then the 20-60 does seem like a good choice. Personally I would avoid any of the APS-C lenses. If you are going to use APSC, you might as well just buy a used CL which will be much more compact and lighter.

[la1402]

My preferred lightweight Kit is a M11 + 21SEM + 35Lux FLE V2 + 90/2.8 Tele-Elmarit. For going even lighter, the M11+35 Ultron. But my wife recently aquired a CL with a bunch of lenses, and the CL+23 is really nice and compact. Choices Choices.

My "Compact" walkround with the SL3 is the Summlux M 35. It still is very chunky.

Edited July 11, 2024 by la1402

[Stefan Herzberg]

I am having similar thoughts( owing SL2, CL,24-90 and the sigma 18-50 apsc lens). I bought the cl to have a back up for the Sl 2, but now I am contemplating to change it for a used SL2-s or a Lumix S5ii . This would give me the possibility to travel with two bodies and two zoom lenses (70-200; 90-200) for landscape - in August to Iceland. No need to change lenses in harsh environments.

If I would like to change this heavy equipment for a lighter one I would use the S5ii with the Panasonic 20-60. The lens is a bargain used. And with the S5ii you have also a lighter body and some of the advantages of the SL3 (low light / focus). Only the menu system would be different.

[Apparitus]

5 hours ago, hoolyproductions said:

Thinking about it now, the 20-60mm seems to make a lot more sense than the 18-50mm and I am thinking about doing a trade it to try it out. However I wonder how often I would really use it versus 50mm + 24mm, which would give me a very similar range.

I've been using the SL601 and the 20-60 for hiking and just as a walk around lens. Although it is not pocketable at all, still a very capable combination. Not overly sharp, AF is fast and back button focus works without issues. The focal range is superb, the change from 24 to 20 mm is noticeable in terms of field of view. Aperture range is quite linear, it goes to f5.6 only after around 58 mm. Sure, there are better lenses out there, but for me, as a general lightweight lens, fit my needs very well.

Edited July 11, 2024 by Apparitus

[hoolyproductions]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I would say the (tiny) elephant in the room would be M lenses. If you are considering using an M anyway, you can get three small M mount primes and call it a day. The voigtlander APO Lanthar's are exceptional and not priced like their Leica equivalents, so offer a good route to SL APO Summicron performance in a compact package.

If you want AF, then the 20-60 does seem like a good choice. Personally I would avoid any of the APS-C lenses. If you are going to use APSC, you might as well just buy a used CL which will be much more compact and lighter.

Thanks Stuart.

The M lenses are more compact indeed but in most cases are not lighter. My 50mm summilux + adaptor weighs about the same, or a little more than,  my SL 50 ASPH. Even my tiny Elmarit 28mm is about the same as the Sigma 24mm once the adapter is added. 

[rcusick]

I’m waiting for the Panasonic 28-200.  It’s almost the same size as the 20-60. 

[hlansing]

My lightweight kits for my SL2 are simply 1 or 2 lenses only...

1 Lens Kit - 28 APO, 50 Lux-SL, or 90 APO

2 Lens Kit - 28/90 APO

Zoom Kit - Sigma 24-70/2.8 II and Sigma 70-200/2.8 plus 1.4 TC

If I really want simple and lightweight, Q3.

 

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The 20-60 is OK. My copy is decent at f8 and I love the range. It’s not as good as Sony’s 20-70 (I wish it were) but I still like it as a city walk around.

The issue is you do have the 24-90 and there’s no way not to compare. The Sigma i primes are excellent as is the SL non APO, as you are aware. But most zooms will be compared to the 24-90 and you’ll wish you carried it.

I had basically resigned myself to a 20/50/90 kit in either Sigma or Sigma/Leica/Panny(100) three prime kit but I’ve been using the new Sima zoom a lot and I like it.

I have been testing the new Sigma 24-70II. So far it seems the closest to the 24-90 IQ wise while still saving a huge chunk of weight and cost. I’m liking it a lot, so far. And it’s just smaller/lighter than the 24-90 to be enough to make you prefer it to the larger lens. It also matches well with the excellent 70-200 Sigma for a moderate 2 zoom kit. I basically haven’t been tempted to carry the 20-60 since I got the Sigma. It’s that much better. Sometimes I’ll just add the SIgma DGDN 20mm if I think I want the wide ed as well. You can use either wide open and be happy. The Sigma 24-70 wide open is still better than my 20-60 at 5.6.

I’m not sure, as a 24-90 owner, you’ll be happy with the 20-60. I’d try the Sigma 24-70 and see if that’s enough weight savings.

Gordon

[swatch]

I would wait for Panasonic 18-40 which is the second lens on the product roadmap for their S9 camera.  Expect this 18-40 lens to be video centric design meaning distortion and vignetting needs software ( lens profile ) to correct but it will be light and compact.

Fingers crossed.

[hoolyproductions]

11 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I’m not sure, as a 24-90 owner, you’ll be happy with the 20-60. I’d try the Sigma 24-70 and see if that’s enough weight savings.

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, I think you might be right about this and that the 24-70mm would be a better option. I also have the 17mm Sigma f4 that I sometimes carry when I want something wider.

I think this thread has mainly been some useful GAS therapy for me, sorting out my thoughts. The 24-70 would indeed give me a zoom that weighs no more than an APO summicron (and only a little more than my Sigma 24/Leica 50 combo), but I will resist. I think the most likely outcome would be having then to decide which zoom to take (and defaulting to the 24-90 in most cases). I'll continue using my light primes when I want to keep the SL-weight down and also continue 'agonising' over my preferred smaller camera (Q, M, CL etc)  😁

[WvE]

Bought the Panny 20-60 second hand and it stayed on my SL2-s during a twee week trip. It's a perfect EDC lens, compact, light, nice reach, and very good optical quality.

[Jim B]

On 7/12/2024 at 5:37 AM, hoolyproductions said:

Thanks a lot for your thoughts, I think you might be right about this and that the 24-70mm would be a better option. I also have the 17mm Sigma f4 that I sometimes carry when I want something wider.

I think this thread has mainly been some useful GAS therapy for me, sorting out my thoughts. The 24-70 would indeed give me a zoom that weighs no more than an APO summicron (and only a little more than my Sigma 24/Leica 50 combo), but I will resist. I think the most likely outcome would be having then to decide which zoom to take (and defaulting to the 24-90 in most cases). I'll continue using my light primes when I want to keep the SL-weight down and also continue 'agonising' over my preferred smaller camera (Q, M, CL etc)  😁

I think the elephant in the room is the 24-90, let’s face it it’s beast of a lens. (1140g )

I decided to go with the Leica 24-70 2.8, and I am happy with the weight & the image quality. (856g)  but I find it manageable.

I remember picking up the SL and 24-90 at the dealer. My initial thought was this is the biggest and heaviest full frame camera, what a tank. I would consider selling the 24-90, it’s just too much.

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[AZach]

1 hour ago, Jim B said:

My initial thought was this is the biggest and heaviest full frame camera, what a tank. I would consider selling the 24-90, it’s just too much.

My thoughts as well, I traded it - now I regret, the image quality plus reach are unique. 

[hoolyproductions]

16 hours ago, Jim B said:

I would consider selling the 24-90, it’s just too much.

 

Nope, not me! As I mentioned in my post I love using the 24-90mm and don't find it at all burdensome in use when doing a 'photocentric' activity. The quality, focal range, and weather sealing (I shoot a lot in the Finnish winter) make it an amazing lens.

Someone will have to take it from my cold dead hands 😁