TL lenses on SL3

[Leicaboy Norway]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, KenTanaka said:

Using Leica TL (and Sigma APS-C L-Mount) lenses on the SL3 (or SL2) is one of the truly wonderful perks of owning this camera.  You will get the same superb image quality but with a smaller file.  Why walk around with a honkin' 24-90 bazooka if you really don't need 60mp images?  Pick-up a used 18, 23, 35, or 55-135 TL lens and you'll be in heaven.  Truth be told, my SL3 hosts TL and M lenses more than full-frame L lenses.  It's a true joy of the system that significantly enhances the Sox cameras' versatility and usability! 

It's interesting as I find my 24-90 way too big and kind of regret switching it for the 24-70 Leica Vario elmar

IQ is great but just too big.

I was surprised by how well the Summilux-M has performed on my SL2. The Summilux-SL though, can't say it is tempting to get something that big,

 

The TL 35 1.4 is tempting as it has AF too, DOF I'm guessing it will be something like a 50 mm f/2.1 ish?

You dont notice anything else than nice Leica optics when using TL lenses on SL2(3)?

[Advertisement]

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

[KenTanaka]

“You dont notice anything else than nice Leica optics when using TL lenses on SL2(3)?”

30mp file size (vs. 60+).  That’s more than large enough for what most people usually need. But the APS-C images from the SL3 are every bit as good as they would be with a full-frame lens.

[geraldc]

I had used a 11 to 23 TL lens on my last trip with the SL3. The pictures and videos were delightful. Excellent travel lens. I have just acquired a Lumix 28-200 (413 gm with OIS), for my next trip in early September. Excellent initial pictures, slightly soft at 200 (but in an atmospheric way). I'll be shooting videos as well. But I will bring a 35 APO, just in case.

[tomasis7]

On 8/19/2024 at 9:19 AM, prismstorm said:

All the technicalities aside, the original intent of this thread was to probe at the viability of mounting TL lenses on the SL3, given that the weight and size savings are huge (e.g. 256g for 18-56 vs 1140g for the 24-90) and the 60MP sensor on the SL3 gives a resolution of 2MP more than even the native APS-C bodies (such as the CL / TL2) at the same APS-C image circle. 

I recall that David Farkas at Red Dot Forum has said in one of their videos that the TL lenses were engineered to 20 more lines per mm than typical APS-C lenses (60), and hence why I largely feel that performance in APS-C mode on SL3 would be equal to or better than on the APS-C-centric bodies. 

It is acknowledged that a lot of pixels are being thrown away this way. However, for serious shoots I have APO-Summicron-SL and M lenses to rely on, the TL lenses are just to find another usage for the SL3 when one wants to travel light and carefree.  

what is a serious shoot? 

You dont need a FANCY lens but a comfortable setup that give you more chance to take better photos. TL are pro stuff, not "carefree". 

[TL3]

Just came back from a trip with 4 TL lenses.  I want to get an SL, but honestly can't imagine carrying SL versions of these lenses on a long hot sweaty family vacation.

[Stuart Richardson]

14 hours ago, TL3 said:

Just came back from a trip with 4 TL lenses.  I want to get an SL, but honestly can't imagine carrying SL versions of these lenses on a long hot sweaty family vacation.

Yes, I think the SL cameras were not really designed as family vacation cameras. They were squarely aimed at the professional hybrid still/video photography market. If you are looking for a camera to bring on a trip, a CL/TL, Q, D-Lux, V-lux or M kit is a better choice. The SL series is probably the worst choice for that in the Leica lineup, other than the S system.

[Leicaboy Norway]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

21 hours ago, TL3 said:

Just came back from a trip with 4 TL lenses.  I want to get an SL, but honestly can't imagine carrying SL versions of these lenses on a long hot sweaty family vacation.

The sigma lenses are smaller in size. The I series. For example the 35mm f2. 

I've seen several videos comparing it to the ten times more expensive 35 mm summicron apo and I can't tell them apart. We're talking small differences.

And the sl body, I have the sl2,  have never been cheaper. And they look great, feel great. And they beg to be picked up. More fun to use than my Canon r5 was. Also works great with m lenses.

However truth be told I do think the Canon r5 with those lenses produce better photos. But less fun to use. Almost too easy IMO.

[o2mpx]

As mentioned here on this older thread, using zooms while vacation  travel is the main photo-taking activity, lugging the full complement of SL2 and Leica zooms bulk and weight have driven me to sell all lenses (kept the SL2 for my M lenses), and added setup of Fuji XH2 and Sony A7CR kits. 

The trade-offs are that the tactile experience of shooting with Fuji and Sony are not comparable to the SL. The menu systems are overly complicated and at times the color isn’t comparable to what Leica produces. Have thoughts now and then of going to the SL3 but 3rd party zooms aren’t that much smaller and lighter weight than Leica’s. 

@Stuart Richardson said it correctly, the SL line isn’t designed for family vacations, and frankly Leica has a void between the M and SL line which the Q isn’t filling. Smaller SL or larger M equivalent with EVF and IBIS with a high resolution sensor (to further support cropping to avoid needing heavy teles) will take share from Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon alike if overall size and bulk can be managed. 

Edited December 11, 2024 by o2mpx

[tom0511]

Still sad that there is not CL with IBIS. Specialy since we nowasays see 33 and 40 MP crop sensors

Anyways.

Since I still own my TL lenses and a SL3 this thread made me curious though to check this combo out.

 

 

[KenTanaka]

3 hours ago, tom0511 said:

Still sad that there is not CL with IBIS. Specialy since we nowasays see 33 and 40 MP crop sensors

Anyways.

Since I still own my TL lenses and a SL3 this thread made me curious though to check this combo out.

 

 

I agree, Tom. Fujifilm has long ago won the APS-C sensor wars (against Canon, Sony, Leica, etc.) with their superbly designed X line.  But I still enjoy my CL and my collection of excellent TL lenses.  I, too, would be enthusiastic about a resurrection of the TL-class APS-C cameras but I think the economic opportunities for such a move are long gone.  Honestly, I rarely see -any- dedicated cameras in use anywhere anymore.

[KitW]

This is a thread I made on the CL/TL forum about the potential benefits of using a variable crop when using APSC lenses on a full frame sensor.

Imagine you like to take square images (I do). If you take a 26 megapixel image (6235*4150 pixels, or thereabouts) and reduce it to 4150*4150 pixels, you end up with a 17 megapixel image. However, if you could use the lens's image circle to full effect you could fit in 64% more pixels i.e. you could get a 27 megapixel image. Compare this to the 40 megapixel square image you can get with an SL3 using a full-frame lens and you are getting 2/3 the pixels from a much smaller and lighter lens.

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!

This animation shows how efficiently a full frame sensor could use a TL lens for different aspect ratios. The white area shows the aspect ratio cropped from a full frame lens. The red area shows the area of the same crop on an APSC sensor. The green area shows the area of the largest crop that could be captured from a TL lens by a full frame sensor. It can be considerably larger than the area you can capture from an APSC sensor.

You can also capture vertical images with the same aspect as horizontal images without tilting the camera, which would probably be useful to someone.

Are these gains earth-shattering? No. But given that they could be done easily enough just by making the full frame RAW files available, or you could tweak the interface to prevent people from going outside the image circle.

If I had a small full frame L mount camera I would probably buy some of the smaller full-frame lenses to maximise my use of the sensor, and keep my TL lenses for the extremes (telephoto & wide-angle) where full-frame equivalents start to become heavy. But I won't be buying an SL3 because the body alone weighs more than the CL with the 18-55.

Edited February 12 by KitW

[KenTanaka]

KitW: One of the benefits and pleasures of using Leica's SL3 or SL2 cameras is being able to use small, lighter-weight TL lenses. I have several and they are each optically excellent.  Honestly, I think I use TL lenses on my SL3 nearly as often as L lenses.  The reduction in file size is often not an issue for me.  Plus, the SL3 (and SL2) recognize the lenses, make optical corrections in-camera, and identify them in the file's EXIF data.

[KitW]

It's nice to hear that the TL lenses still have value.

I have given up all hope of a CL2 but am still hoping for a small hi-resolution full-frame camera and... there is a rumour that Leica is coming out with a 'small M style camera' with an electronic viewfinder. If it takes 'L' lenses then please Leica, give it a square crop mode. A miniature medium-format camera!

Rather than castrating a full-frame sensor with a small lens, we would be getting something out of our TL lenses that a CL2 would not have offered. Psychologically I think this would make a big difference to the sense of abandonment that many T/CL owners clearly feel.

It would also be possible to make cameras with squarer, larger sensors that would get considerably more out of existing full-frame lenses. A lot of people like square or 5:4 formats.

Edited February 12 by KitW

[LD_50]

On 12/10/2024 at 8:45 PM, o2mpx said:

As mentioned here on this older thread, using zooms while vacation  travel is the main photo-taking activity, lugging the full complement of SL2 and Leica zooms bulk and weight have driven me to sell all lenses (kept the SL2 for my M lenses), and added setup of Fuji XH2 and Sony A7CR kits. 

The trade-offs are that the tactile experience of shooting with Fuji and Sony are not comparable to the SL. The menu systems are overly complicated and at times the color isn’t comparable to what Leica produces. Have thoughts now and then of going to the SL3 but 3rd party zooms aren’t that much smaller and lighter weight than Leica’s. 

@Stuart Richardson said it correctly, the SL line isn’t designed for family vacations, and frankly Leica has a void between the M and SL line which the Q isn’t filling. Smaller SL or larger M equivalent with EVF and IBIS with a high resolution sensor (to further support cropping to avoid needing heavy teles) will take share from Fuji, Sony, Canon, Nikon alike if overall size and bulk can be managed. 

Sigma 10-18 f/2.8 is pretty small (67mm front filter, 260 g). 

Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 is pretty small (55mm front filter, 290g). 

Panasonic 28-200 f/4-7.1 is pretty small for the focal range (67mm front filter, 480 g).

There are a number of small primes available. 

Are you sure you can’t put together a FF L-mount system that works for vacations? 

[o2mpx]

Unfortunately APS-C with a 47mp FF and with likely cropping on top would be too much of a IQ trade off. The SL3’s 60mp certainly better; but frankly the solution of using APS-C lenses with a FF sensor is a trade off of IQ for reduced weight, and doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of the SL line is too bulky.

The Panasonic 28-200 has mixed reviews even when used at mid aperture so may not be a viable option either. 

First world problems for sure…

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb o2mpx:

and doesn’t solve the fundamental problem of the SL line is too bulky.

The SL is bulky and heavy coming from my Q2, but honestly not really more bulky than my D800 or similar pro grade cameras.
I hauled the D800, 4 pro grade zoom lenses and all the gear around the world and honestly don't want to do that again.
From when i bought the Q2 i can make 90% of the photos of my style with her, the other 10% is either macro or 110°+ wide angle for landscape. For this i bought the SL2 but depending where i go maybe carry the SL2 only with the 14mm as i don't really need the 105mm macro in holidays. or i decide to just go light and use the Q2 as i learned to use her from 2019 on.

Chris
 

[swatch]

TL lenses on SL3.  Why not if

1) bad feeling of financial lost in selling TL lenses

2) light weight FF lenses from Sigma & Panasonic are not much better than TL lenses in terms of image quality 

The key to me is to maximise the pleasure of using Leica gears in taking pictures in terms of comfortable to carry and good distribution of weight with well balance on hand instead of maximise the usage of the 60mp sensor of SL3.

[Markey]

On 2/14/2025 at 3:34 PM, swatch said:

The key to me is to maximise the pleasure of using Leica gears in taking pictures in terms of comfortable to carry and good distribution of weight with well balance on hand instead of maximise the usage of the 60mp sensor of SL3.

Exactly.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear