Thinking about R zooms for my SL2-S

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been thinking about picking up the 35-70 f/4 and 80-200 f/4 with an R-mount adapter for my SL2-S.

I'm mainly an M photographer, but I own an SL2-S for bad weather, landscape, sports, and low-light color (and also just for fun, for a different experience from my Ms). I've given autofocus L mount lenses a fair shake, but I just don't enjoy the AF experience, even for sports or nature photography. This pair of zooms seems both affordable and high-quality; from a theoretical standpoint, I really like the idea of a two-lens SL2-S kit built around them. One of my favorite lenses on the SL2-S has been the 135mm f/4 Tele-Elmar; I like the combination of reach, manual focus, and a slightly old-fashioned character. And 35-70 feels about right to me, as a useful range for manual focus on an SL camera. (I tend to prefer using the camera with wider lenses; 35mm is about the limit for me when I go wide.)

But I've never actually used an MF zoom lens before, and I've never bought an R lens. So I'm a little wary.

I'd welcome any advice!

[jaapv]

Take care with the 80-200. Most have haze giving the lens an unjust reputation for low contrast. In reality it is an excellent lens after a CLA I.e. window washing. If you want a bit longer the 105-280 R is a magnificent lens, close to the 90-280 L. The zoom ring is always a bit notchy. 

[JoshuaR]

Thanks, @jaapv, this is very helpful! I’ll look into the longer lens. 

What about distortion? Is it addressed adequately by the in-camera profiles?

[jaapv]

Only if you have an insanely expensive Leica adapter and ROM lenses I suppose,if at all. . But don’t worry. These are pre-electronic designs that control distortion as well as possible. And there is always Photoshop. 

[darylgo]

Alternatively the 70-180 Apo is a world class optic, combines well with the SL2 series of cameras with it's excellent ibis.  With use of the 1.4x Apo and 2x Apo converter the lens can be an all in one lens with little loss in quality.  

[jaapv]

Did you see the prices for that one? 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

When I bought the SL, I intended to get the already announced 90-280SL zoom, but it was not then available. Until it was, I bought the 80-200R zoom. I used it to shoot small children running around in a dance class - it produced excellent images but frankly my wrist was sore at the end of the session. When the kiddies slowed down to listen to their leader, I could open up, nail focus, and the bokeh was lovely. Common sense (mine - I realise you may have a different opinion) made me very relieved to receive the 90-280SL and its autofocus.

It's heavy for hand-holding, but then the 90-280 is as well. I can't recall what the focus throw is - perhaps worth checking if you want it small for fast focus, or large for precise focus.

Edited February 3 by LocalHero1953

[Aram Langhans]

no one has commented on your 35-70/4 choice.  I have that lens and shot it with my R8 and then Canon digital and then Nikon's fitted with a new mount.  Amazing lens.  Weakest at the 35 end but still was much better than anything Canon or Nikon put out at the time.  Went to Nikon Z camera finally and it met its match with the new Nikon Z lenses.  They finally caught up at least in sharpness, but I still like the look of the Leica on my digital sensor. 

[MRJohn]

On 2/3/2025 at 7:09 PM, Aram Langhans said:

no one has commented on your 35-70/4 choice.  I have that lens and shot it with my R8 and then Canon digital and then Nikon's fitted with a new mount.  Amazing lens.  Weakest at the 35 end but still was much better than anything Canon or Nikon put out at the time.  Went to Nikon Z camera finally and it met its match with the new Nikon Z lenses.  They finally caught up at least in sharpness, but I still like the look of the Leica on my digital sensor. 

It is a very good lens if you have it, albeit bulky with the adapter and limited zoom. This picture here is taken with it and the SL2.

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!

[jaapv]

I use it regularly. It is an excellent lens with a rather modern look. It easily holds its own on present day digitals. The “macro” setting allows for closeups of high quality. 

[Aram Langhans]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

I use it regularly. It is an excellent lens with a rather modern look. It easily holds its own on present day digitals. The “macro” setting allows for closeups of high quality. 

Yes. Macro is very convenient and very good.  Kind of like the Q cameras of which I've owned the Q2 and now the Q3.

Edited February 5 by Aram Langhans

[Mak67]

Any information regarding the 21-35 on high res sensor ?

I know, due to it's age,  it is probably far from any of the actual L super wide penses, but does this lens have anythings to bring to the table ?

(I've seen one at a very good price and questioning myself about that opportunity.

 

[davidmknoble]

I use a bunch of R lenses on the SL2 and SL3.  The 35-70 f/4 is a lot like the Tri Elmar MATE 28-50-35 for the M.  The 21-35 has great color and clarity, albeit a little distortion.  The 70-180mm f/2.8 zoom is incredible as is the R 80 f/1.4.   The R lenses were made to shoot color well through the glass for film and are consistent.  I have not found an R lens that doesn’t show well with the adapters.

[masjah]

I use my 21-35 and 28-90 R zoom lenses on my SL2. Both are some of the most recent R designs before R production ended, and so both were made only as ROM versions. These  lenses are not cheap on the second-hand market, but as an existing R user, I had them already. Because they are ROM lenses, my own view is that it is definitely worth biting the bullet and buying the Leica branded adapter. However, If I was starting ab initio without my existing R lenses, I would have simply bought the native SL zoom(s).

 

 

[jaapv]

On 2/8/2025 at 6:50 PM, Mak67 said:

Any information regarding the 21-35 on high res sensor ?

I know, due to it's age,  it is probably far from any of the actual L super wide penses, but does this lens have anythings to bring to the table ?

(I've seen one at a very good price and questioning myself about that opportunity.

 

It is not a weakest link situation. The better the sensor the better the lens will perform. 

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, masjah said:

I use my 21-35 and 28-90 R zoom lenses on my SL2. Both are some of the most recent R designs before R production ended, and so both were made only as ROM versions. These  lenses are not cheap on the second-hand market, but as an existing R user, I had them already. Because they are ROM lenses, my own view is that it is definitely worth biting the bullet and buying the Leica branded adapter. However, If I was starting ab initio without my existing R lenses, I would have simply bought the native SL zoom(s).

 

 

I had the 28-90 on the R9 with film and the DMR, and I loved that lens. Probably expensive for what it is today, but it is a great lens. I am not sure how it will hold up to 47mp though...

I agree that I would get the adapter if I were to use a manual R zoom with ROM. Having the focal length indicated and the stabilization adapted to the right focal length makes a real difference. Then again, I would also probably be using the 24-90mm L mount lens if I wanted a zoom.

[Per P.]

I was going back and forth on the R-zooms, so I bought and sold the 35-70. I bought and sold both the 21-35 and the 80-200. Twice! Always with ROM and always with the Leica adapter on the SL 601. My girlfriend has asked me to log my buy and sell actions with a rationale, so I can go back and see why I did this or that before making the same mistake again. It obviously does not work every time, but it means I can share some of my views 😀

They are all really good lenses. I can well imagine how impressive they would have been compared with their contemporaries. I gave up on the 80-200 because when you add the adapter it is a lot smaller, but the weight is not all that much lower than the current 70-200 f/2.8.

Personally, if I started from scratch, I would buy the current 24-70 and 70-200 f/2.8 set. 

And, as good as the old boys are, these are better lenses optically and technically. With autofocus if you want it, but you can just disable it.

However, if you really do not want to go down the modern route then, by all means, shop with confidence. They are lovely tools and I have a beautiful photo in 65 x 100 cm over my sofa made with the 35-70. I bought my copies in Germany, Japan, and at Red Dot in London and paid a bit of attention to relatively recent serial numbers. I would use the Leica adapter to get the full ROM advantage (shameless plug - I even have one for sale - PM me if interested).

 

Edited February 27 by Per P.
Clarification

[jaapv]

And always give them a CLA to bring out their full potential.  Haze is not always visible. 

[JoshuaR]

@Per P., many many thanks for your incredibly informative post. 

Despite finding some good examples of the zooms, I still haven't moved forward with a purchase. Mainly because I find myself wondering if I'd be better off either (a) going with a small, affordable, and modern autofocus zoom like the Sigma 28-70 or Lumix 20-60, or (b) just moving away from the SL platform altogether to return to M-only shooting. 

I'm going to try to track down one of the R zooms in person to find out what it feels like on the camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Per P.]

The market is still fairly active so It's relatively low risk to try out with one and see how it feels. I'd think twice before returning to M only. Working with M lenses on the SL system does have many advantages. But, that said, the M system and feeling of working within it is a unique experience. Also, a wise professor once taught me that if it is very difficult to choose between different options then it probably does not matter so much which of the options you choose. You can make either of them work.