Is There a Hierarchy Among Leica SL APO Lenses in Terms of Optical Performance?

[dennis12]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi everyone,

I'm currently considering which SL APO lens to get next. I know the 35mm APO is widely regarded as the top performer in terms of sharpness and overall rendering, so I chose it as my starting point. Now, I’m more curious about the relative optical performance of the other SL APO lenses.

I don’t have a particular focal length that I consistently rely on, so it's hard for me to decide based on shooting needs. If budget weren’t a concern, I’d happily collect them all — but since I need to take it one lens at a time, I thought it might make sense to follow the general optical ranking.

Do most people base their ranking on MTF charts, real-world usage, or some combination of both? I’d love to hear your thoughts or personal experiences.

Thanks in advance!

[Advertisement]

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

[hoolyproductions]

From my perspective, whilst there are likely small performance differences, from a practical perspective they are all fabulous. I would choose based on whatever focal length I use the most (but I guess this does not help you as you don't have a particular focal length in mind)

I have used the 50mm and 90mm APO's extensively and find them absolutely fantastic. The 50mm is my main lens, almost always on my SL cameras. I also adore the 75mm but tend to opt for the 90mm so have used it a bit less. Some people say the 50mm is not at the level of e.g. the 35mm. Maybe they are right but it is still an outstanding lens, and it is 50mm, which the 35mm is not 😄

For wide angle I tend to prefer lighter options (or my 24-90mm if I am doing outdoor/landscape, particularly in bad weather) but I do have a 21mm APO that I picked up for astrophotography and northern lights (haven't used it much yet as I live in Finland and it does not really get dark right now).

I also bought a 28mm APO last year but I am planning to sell it, simply because I realised I prefer a lighter option at this (for me) occasional focal length (in my case the fantastic Sigma 24mm 3.5 and a non-APO SL summicron 35mm).

[dkCambridgeshire]

34 minutes ago, dennis12 said:

Hi everyone,

I'm currently considering which SL APO lens to get next. I know the 35mm APO is widely regarded as the top performer in terms of sharpness and overall rendering, so I chose it as my starting point. Now, I’m more curious about the relative optical performance of the other SL APO lenses.

I don’t have a particular focal length that I consistently rely on, so it's hard for me to decide based on shooting needs. If budget weren’t a concern, I’d happily collect them all — but since I need to take it one lens at a time, I thought it might make sense to follow the general optical ranking.

Do most people base their ranking on MTF charts, real-world usage, or some combination of both? I’d love to hear your thoughts or personal experiences.

Thanks in advance!

SL APO lenses are all excellent. I'm interested in looking at MTF graphs to marvel at how lens designers have improved performance in recent years compared to yesteryears' designs – but I'm not planning to buy APO lenses just because they're allegedly 'the best' optics. Image quality is subjective and often an older lens design can produce more 'characterful' images, and which for some photographers, are less 'clinical' looking. I've recently acquired two ancient Leica R Angenieux zoom lenses – they're challenging to use (make me 'think' before pressing the shutter) and their colour rendering is allegedly better than modern optics. I do not have the resources to buy SL APO lenses and I'm more than happy with my SL 24-90mm ASPH – which also generates excellent MTF curves – even if the MTF 'plots' are not as close together as those of SL APO optics.  Unlikely I'd obtain better prints using SL APO prime lenses and even if I did acquire same, unlikely anybody would realise from my prints unless I told them. For many photographers it's the potential 'print quality' they're thinking of when selecting a subject – and how they're going to expose and process the image – regardless of the lens' MTF graph. BTW, my favourite 'wide angle' is my Leica R 19mm Mk II which is used on my SL 601 via an adapter – and which surprisingly, produces printed results which others do remark on. 

BW, dunk 

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, dennis12 said:

I know the 35mm APO is widely regarded as the top performer in terms of sharpness and overall rendering, so I chose it as my starting point. Now, I’m more curious about the relative optical performance of the other SL APO lenses.

That's one of the unique things about the APO-SL lenses, they are extremely consistent from lens to lens, and aperture to aperture. You used to have to buy a six-figure cinema set to have that level of consistency. 

I know that Mr Karbe famously declared the 35 to be his favorite, but reading back that interview I think he meant that it has the most elegant design. 

Unfortunately none of this helps you to choose a second lens. 

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, BernardC said:

I know that Mr Karbe famously declared the 35 to be his favorite, but reading back that interview I think he meant that it has the most elegant design. 

 

He also stressed that the 35 provided the most space (compared to the 90, 75 and 50) to optimize performance, since without standardization of barrel size, it could have been the smallest of the group.

[pgh]

Really tough question that, depending on one's goals, I think flies wide of what we hope for in the pursuit of good photographs.

I get the focal length I need because all of the lenses are so good that the marginal differences in sharpness are immaterial to the content of the images. But, I've only ever rented the APO lenses and have not found a reason to purchase. They are amazing and also make my photography itself 0% (okay, 0 to 0.05%) better compared to a standard summicron, for example. 

If you've got the money for an APO lens may I humbly suggest you consider spending it on time off/a trip/etc to make photographs and prints and figure out what focal length(s) it is that best helps compliment the way you see the world?

[Eoin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I highly rate the Super APO Summicron-L 21mm, I've never had a 21 on any system even come close, this lens has incredible rendering, both in detail and rectilinearly for such a wide angle. 

The APO 35 & 90 are flawless and the Summilux 50 despite its size and heft is the star of the lineup, it seems to paint with light like no other lens.

MTF charts are only part of the story, the reality is the resolution and rendering shown on screen during post processing. But the hard truth, in print and once the subject has a story to tell, all optical qualities of a lens are only relevant... to the photographer.

[hansvons]

On 7/22/2025 at 12:58 PM, dennis12 said:

real-world usage,

I don‘t care about MTF curves but I do care a lot how a lens renders images at open aperture. One could argue that making a fast and truly great wide angle lens is the big challenge in lens design. In that regard, I‘d get the 28mm or even 21mm. However, if you were me, I‘d stick with the 35mm APO for now and explore it until I exactly know what I miss. In my case that would be nothing.

As @BernardC pointed out, Leica‘s SL APO Series is similar to the best cine lens sets money can buy, in performance and consistency. The 35mm APO SL at f/2.4 is beyond any other 35mm still lens—at any distance. 
—-

If I were shooting close-up portraits for a living, I‘d take a closer look at the 75mm APO.

[beewee]

It’s safe to say that every SL APO lens is the most optically performant lens they have ever made for that focal length. The SL lens designs have less size constraints over M lenses which give Leica the ability to correct for more aberrations and to a better degree than any M lens.

With that said, a 21mm is not a 28mm, 50mm, 75mm, or 90mm. They are all different focal lengths with different fields of view so it’s kind of strange to try to decide say between a 21mm via 90mm. If you need a 90mm, get a 90mm. If you want a 21mm, get a 21mm. If it’s an SL APO, it will out perform any other lens in Leica’s line up for that focal length. The key point is that we’re talking about a specific focal length.

[Jeff S]

10 minutes ago, beewee said:

They are all different focal lengths with different fields of view so it’s kind of strange to try to decide say between a 21mm via 90mm. 

Well, technically, different angles of view, while field of view can be altered by the user.

[misteracng]

I have the 35 and 75 apo SL lenses and I concur, they are extremely sharp with very mouth OOF areas and the drop is quick just like there literature says. I bought them used to try and I was surprised how well they perform. It’s not just sharpness, which for example canon and Nikon have, they just render different with that sharpness and quick falloff.

[BillCB]

I first bought the APO 35 which so impressed me I got the APO 75 and then the Super APO 21. To me, they are simply the best one buy. I used the 75 on a trip the Patagonia and found myself wishing for a little more reach so I have just traded it for the Apo 90. I shoot all the APOs at F2 unless I need DOF. The roll-off between point of focus and the rest of the field is particularly impressive.

Comparing it the 24-90mm zoom the Apo 90 is way better, though I'm not giving up the versatility of the zoom.

[robb]

Six way tie… all impressive.  

50 may be the best and I have and use regularly all of them.

Robb

[LocalHero1953]

I bought three: 35, 75 and 90, but eventually sold the 90 for lack of use, and replaced it with the Summilux-SL 50, which is a totally different animal - so I suggest it is better to buy a lens in the FL you will use, rather than look for a tiny difference in IQ that you will only see with perfect lighting and an appropriate subject. And unless you are cropping the images from every lens to an equivalent 90mm and shooting the same subject, comparing the IQ of each would be a fool's game. That's not why I take photos.

[Leicaboy Norway]

Am I the only one struggling to create magical images with the Apo SL 35?

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

Am I the only one struggling to create magical images with the Apo SL 35?

I have no idea what your photography is like, but a cast iron rule is that magic comes from the photographer, not the lens.

I struggle to create magical images all the time. 

Edited August 11 by LocalHero1953

[hansvons]

5 hours ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

Am I the only one struggling to create magical images with the Apo SL 35?

It shines at f/2.4. From f/2.8 onwards it’s another very good 35mm lens. 

[Leicaboy Norway]

It should shine from f/2. It's probably not in my top 5 lenses. 

But I'm not saying this is the objektive truth it's just my opinion. 

In terms of rendering and ability to create beautiful images I'd rank the Voigtlander 40 1.2, Summilux M 50 1.4 asph, Leica Apo-R 100 mm 2.8 and maybe even summicron-m 50mm v5 and a few others above it. 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Leicaboy Norway]

16 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I have no idea what your photography is like, but a cast iron rule is that magic comes from the photographer, not the lens.

I struggle to create magical images all the time. 

And don't put too much emphasis on phrasing, regarding the use of the word: "magical".

 

You're in Cambridge for Pete's sake. I speak many languages, when the English go abroad they mostly except / hope everyone else to speak English.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Leicaboy Norway said:

And don't put too much emphasis on phrasing, regarding the use of the word: "magical".

 

You're in Cambridge for Pete's sake. I speak many languages, when the English go abroad they mostly except / hope everyone else to speak English.

I didn't expect my response to lead us into national stereotypes.

Perhaps you could help us overcome the language problem by explaining what you mean by 'magic' and giving us examples of where you think you haven't achieved it.