Which manual lenses create the most interesting looks or effects on your Leica SL (Orig/2/2s/3/3s) camera?

[CaliforniTexican]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I plan to purchase a used Leica SL2s camera, for several reasons. But one reason is I want to use adapters to play with interesting looks or effects from older manual lenses.

For those of you who use manual lenses on your SL camera (whether orig/SL2/SL2s/SL3/SL3s), which lenses do you find produce the most interesting, unusual, or imperfect looks, renderings, or effects?

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience and expertise -- I really appreciate it!

[Advertisement]

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

[frame-it]

5 minutes ago, CaliforniTexican said:

I plan to purchase a used Leica SL2s camera, for several reasons. But one reason is I want to use adapters to play with interesting looks or effects from older manual lenses.

For those of you who use manual lenses on your SL camera (whether orig/SL2/SL2s/SL3/SL3s), which lenses do you find produce the most interesting, unusual, or imperfect looks, renderings, or effects?

Thank you in advance for sharing your experience and expertise -- I really appreciate it!

 

[harbelot]

Very interesting topic!

I can’t help，as I’m following the same path with leica R lenses，just beginning，it’s exciting !

[jaapv]

Why specifically on an SL camera? These lenses work well on other cameras too. There are great threads on this theme on this forum.

Like this one:

[AdjusterBrett]

OK I'll bite...  I have a collection of NON-Leica vintage - mostly cheap.  Have SL and S1 (and TL2).  A couple that stick out off the top of my head...  That are easily grabbed for under 60 bucks...

Pancolar 50 f2 - exakta mount Mine is 6 blade zebra with the focus thingy sticking out (diaphragm control lever).  This lens looks great on the SL (color)- even better (B&W) on the TL2, and decent on the S1.  It has a filmic look of someone using on film on the beach in Havana Cuba is the best way to describe.  99% of my use if for portrait of people.  If you are patient and willing (exakta), you can get one under 60 (or at least used to be able too).

Oreston 50/1.8 - having some of the magic Russian sauce of the Helios swirl - but not so much as to deter (swirls)- its a great lens on all -  It has easier handling than my Biotar or Helios.  It's just a nice balance.  This is my THIRD - the first two would not have made this list, this one does, and it's the most beaten of the three.  

Mamiya Seker 55/1.4 - soap bubble heaven in B&W on all.  Nightime at Christmas - this thing is glued on my SL or TL2 shooting in B&W.

FD 135/2.5  (NOT marked SC).  I have the 2.0, the 2.5SC, and the 2.8 - and have all the versions of the FL as well - this one just has something special on modern digital for portraits - but weighs a TON.  As I sell/trade off the rest, my two copies of this (and the FL in the same version - with lesser coatings) will likely stay around.  Its NOT as sharp as the MD version - not even close - but for portraits - its a great balance.

I have many pancolars - sought after are the eight blades (1.8), but I have a six blade that does better than all my eight blades - again portraits with popping colors and NOT bitingly sharp wide open.  There are a ZILLION versions if you chase pancolars they are not el-cheapo like some of the others I mention (but nowhere a Leica).  I do not regret anytime I take out one (regardless of which one).  The 1.4s tend to outpace comparative Leica lenses - and that to me would be hard to believe on the basis of IQ vs collectability.

Honorable mention - the canons - FD 50/1.4s.  I have several - but only the chrome nose and the first SSC.  Both are better than most - and better than my Nik ai/ais 50/1.4.  The Nikors are better built but the cannons shoot better.  These can be had for under 60 - and even the Nikkors are good, better than the FL, just not as good as the FD's (IMO).  Easy to obtain.

Nik 200/4 - for non portraits has a nicer rendering and its heavy but thin, making steadying the SL easier.  Shoot it quite a bit at or near sundown, as the sunstars have a reflective something that gives some pretty cool flares...

I have a few higher value ones - several 55/1.2, the 58/1.4 topcor, several styles of Zeiss - Plethora of them - but they just don't get used much because of those above (ant some of the 1.2's are a PITA to nail focus).  I will say, I've had two Konica 57mm/1.4 and likely buy another - of all the fast 50s - it is one I reach for, and I have most of the Taks.  If I grab for a 50 - for walk around, not knowing what I might find - it's a tak 50/1.8 (or 2.0) or an older MD 50/1.7, and I'd also suggest the Konica 40/1.8.  Enough uniqueness and all very easy handling.  I have at least two dozen 1.4's and rarely use them these days.

I've had most of the tele nikons (105, 85) and they are all great (but I have the sigma and didn't find any liking of the pictures over the AF sigma) - the NIKs tend to have rough backgrounds and CA as well...  Most are very sharp, and very good - they just don't get use at that length when I have a reference lens at that length or in the case of the 100's - I've two (fighting) in my rotation that are SUBSTANTIALLY smaller; the zuiko 100/2.8 (small, light, great handling) and the topcor 100/2.8 (bigger, sharper, but bigger and slightly sharper to the zuiko, way smaller than the Nikons).  The colors between them is hard to distinguish and the 'character' - well its a toss up.  I did have a short stint with the monster helios (85) - but it's a boat anchor (although really cool output) and made the Nikkors seem like a tiny M lens...

One notable - Vivitar 24/2.8 (Cosina build) - FUN and decent images, as mine will focus pretty close (closer than marked), but I've not found a heliocoil for it (yet).

I've only three M lenses - the only one that sees much usage is the 90/2.8 (German one).  But the CA is pretty firm - I just wish all my other stuff handled like it does - hell, it feels better in hand than a new lens - just SMOOTH - but doesn't get used much due to the sigma or the Zuiko/Topcor 100's.

What you are shooting is a more important question.  I started on 50 and usually take at least one on every outing.  I also usually take one of the smaller 100's with me.

Most of the under 50 glass I have is not in the cheapo range, and I've not shot enough to suggest this or that.  Over 55 - we get into a realm where there are all kinds of stuff - but again - lots of experience on the bigger nikkors (85 and 105) and I've found myself shifting to a smaller lighter option for when I pull that focal length out.

Outside of the el-cheapos - I have a couple Voigtlanders - with absolutely no complaints (all in M or VM mount).  But they are not cheap.  I do have a 40/1.4 I got under 250 and I take that tiny thing everywhere.  

If you jump into the land of interesting flares - the sky is the limit - but you will find even the cheapest of zooms have a use in certain situations.  Much of this comes down to look - a look YOU like.  My idea for you is to PLAY on cheapo glass first - figure out what you like and then go down the rabbit hole of 'flikr' and look for what you like.

$0.02 from the cheap seats on the dark side.

[jaapv]

11 hours ago, AdjusterBrett said:

OK I'll bite...  I have a collection of NON-Leica vintage - mostly cheap.  Have SL and S1 (and TL2).  A couple that stick out off the top of my head...  That are easily grabbed for under 60 bucks...

Pancolar 50 f2 - exakta mount Mine is 6 blade zebra with the focus thingy sticking out (diaphragm control lever).  This lens looks great on the SL (color)- even better (B&W) on the TL2, and decent on the S1.  It has a filmic look of someone using on film on the beach in Havana Cuba is the best way to describe.  99% of my use if for portrait of people.  If you are patient and willing (exakta), you can get one under 60 (or at least used to be able too).

Oreston 50/1.8 - having some of the magic Russian sauce of the Helios swirl - but not so much as to deter (swirls)- its a great lens on all -  It has easier handling than my Biotar or Helios.  It's just a nice balance.  This is my THIRD - the first two would not have made this list, this one does, and it's the most beaten of the three.  

Mamiya Seker 55/1.4 - soap bubble heaven in B&W on all.  Nightime at Christmas - this thing is glued on my SL or TL2 shooting in B&W.

FD 135/2.5  (NOT marked SC).  I have the 2.0, the 2.5SC, and the 2.8 - and have all the versions of the FL as well - this one just has something special on modern digital for portraits - but weighs a TON.  As I sell/trade off the rest, my two copies of this (and the FL in the same version - with lesser coatings) will likely stay around.  Its NOT as sharp as the MD version - not even close - but for portraits - its a great balance.

I have many pancolars - sought after are the eight blades (1.8), but I have a six blade that does better than all my eight blades - again portraits with popping colors and NOT bitingly sharp wide open.  There are a ZILLION versions if you chase pancolars they are not el-cheapo like some of the others I mention (but nowhere a Leica).  I do not regret anytime I take out one (regardless of which one).  The 1.4s tend to outpace comparative Leica lenses - and that to me would be hard to believe on the basis of IQ vs collectability.

Honorable mention - the canons - FD 50/1.4s.  I have several - but only the chrome nose and the first SSC.  Both are better than most - and better than my Nik ai/ais 50/1.4.  The Nikors are better built but the cannons shoot better.  These can be had for under 60 - and even the Nikkors are good, better than the FL, just not as good as the FD's (IMO).  Easy to obtain.

Nik 200/4 - for non portraits has a nicer rendering and its heavy but thin, making steadying the SL easier.  Shoot it quite a bit at or near sundown, as the sunstars have a reflective something that gives some pretty cool flares...

I have a few higher value ones - several 55/1.2, the 58/1.4 topcor, several styles of Zeiss - Plethora of them - but they just don't get used much because of those above (ant some of the 1.2's are a PITA to nail focus).  I will say, I've had two Konica 57mm/1.4 and likely buy another - of all the fast 50s - it is one I reach for, and I have most of the Taks.  If I grab for a 50 - for walk around, not knowing what I might find - it's a tak 50/1.8 (or 2.0) or an older MD 50/1.7, and I'd also suggest the Konica 40/1.8.  Enough uniqueness and all very easy handling.  I have at least two dozen 1.4's and rarely use them these days.

I've had most of the tele nikons (105, 85) and they are all great (but I have the sigma and didn't find any liking of the pictures over the AF sigma) - the NIKs tend to have rough backgrounds and CA as well...  Most are very sharp, and very good - they just don't get use at that length when I have a reference lens at that length or in the case of the 100's - I've two (fighting) in my rotation that are SUBSTANTIALLY smaller; the zuiko 100/2.8 (small, light, great handling) and the topcor 100/2.8 (bigger, sharper, but bigger and slightly sharper to the zuiko, way smaller than the Nikons).  The colors between them is hard to distinguish and the 'character' - well its a toss up.  I did have a short stint with the monster helios (85) - but it's a boat anchor (although really cool output) and made the Nikkors seem like a tiny M lens...

One notable - Vivitar 24/2.8 (Cosina build) - FUN and decent images, as mine will focus pretty close (closer than marked), but I've not found a heliocoil for it (yet).

I've only three M lenses - the only one that sees much usage is the 90/2.8 (German one).  But the CA is pretty firm - I just wish all my other stuff handled like it does - hell, it feels better in hand than a new lens - just SMOOTH - but doesn't get used much due to the sigma or the Zuiko/Topcor 100's.

What you are shooting is a more important question.  I started on 50 and usually take at least one on every outing.  I also usually take one of the smaller 100's with me.

Most of the under 50 glass I have is not in the cheapo range, and I've not shot enough to suggest this or that.  Over 55 - we get into a realm where there are all kinds of stuff - but again - lots of experience on the bigger nikkors (85 and 105) and I've found myself shifting to a smaller lighter option for when I pull that focal length out.

Outside of the el-cheapos - I have a couple Voigtlanders - with absolutely no complaints (all in M or VM mount).  But they are not cheap.  I do have a 40/1.4 I got under 250 and I take that tiny thing everywhere.  

If you jump into the land of interesting flares - the sky is the limit - but you will find even the cheapest of zooms have a use in certain situations.  Much of this comes down to look - a look YOU like.  My idea for you is to PLAY on cheapo glass first - figure out what you like and then go down the rabbit hole of 'flikr' and look for what you like.

$0.02 from the cheap seats on the dark side.

Canon LTM lenses are pretty good. 

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

This is a topic for the lens section. nothing to do with cameras

Leica Thambar-M 90mm /f2.2 Lens

[MikeZ]

Like harbelot,I'm looking to adapt my small stable of R lenses to my SL3-S.  Since these lenses are non-ROM (all 3-cam) I'm considering the Novoflex adapter and would appreciate any input/experiences anyone can relate.

[harbelot]

32 minutes ago, MikeZ said:

Like harbelot,I'm looking to adapt my small stable of R lenses to my SL3-S.  Since these lenses are non-ROM (all 3-cam) I'm considering the Novoflex adapter and would appreciate any input/experiences anyone can relate.

For now I use a strange combo of Urth L/M + Pholsky M/R adapters in the SL2-S body.
All I can say is it works.

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!

[CaliforniTexican]

15 hours ago, AdjusterBrett said:

OK I'll bite...  I have a collection of NON-Leica vintage - mostly cheap.  Have SL and S1 (and TL2).  A couple that stick out off the top of my head...  That are easily grabbed for under 60 bucks...

Pancolar 50 f2 - exakta mount Mine is 6 blade zebra with the focus thingy sticking out (diaphragm control lever).  This lens looks great on the SL (color)- even better (B&W) on the TL2, and decent on the S1.  It has a filmic look of someone using on film on the beach in Havana Cuba is the best way to describe.  99% of my use if for portrait of people.  If you are patient and willing (exakta), you can get one under 60 (or at least used to be able too).

Oreston 50/1.8 - having some of the magic Russian sauce of the Helios swirl - but not so much as to deter (swirls)- its a great lens on all -  It has easier handling than my Biotar or Helios.  It's just a nice balance.  This is my THIRD - the first two would not have made this list, this one does, and it's the most beaten of the three.  

Mamiya Seker 55/1.4 - soap bubble heaven in B&W on all.  Nightime at Christmas - this thing is glued on my SL or TL2 shooting in B&W.

FD 135/2.5  (NOT marked SC).  I have the 2.0, the 2.5SC, and the 2.8 - and have all the versions of the FL as well - this one just has something special on modern digital for portraits - but weighs a TON.  As I sell/trade off the rest, my two copies of this (and the FL in the same version - with lesser coatings) will likely stay around.  Its NOT as sharp as the MD version - not even close - but for portraits - its a great balance.

I have many pancolars - sought after are the eight blades (1.8), but I have a six blade that does better than all my eight blades - again portraits with popping colors and NOT bitingly sharp wide open.  There are a ZILLION versions if you chase pancolars they are not el-cheapo like some of the others I mention (but nowhere a Leica).  I do not regret anytime I take out one (regardless of which one).  The 1.4s tend to outpace comparative Leica lenses - and that to me would be hard to believe on the basis of IQ vs collectability.

Honorable mention - the canons - FD 50/1.4s.  I have several - but only the chrome nose and the first SSC.  Both are better than most - and better than my Nik ai/ais 50/1.4.  The Nikors are better built but the cannons shoot better.  These can be had for under 60 - and even the Nikkors are good, better than the FL, just not as good as the FD's (IMO).  Easy to obtain.

Nik 200/4 - for non portraits has a nicer rendering and its heavy but thin, making steadying the SL easier.  Shoot it quite a bit at or near sundown, as the sunstars have a reflective something that gives some pretty cool flares...

I have a few higher value ones - several 55/1.2, the 58/1.4 topcor, several styles of Zeiss - Plethora of them - but they just don't get used much because of those above (ant some of the 1.2's are a PITA to nail focus).  I will say, I've had two Konica 57mm/1.4 and likely buy another - of all the fast 50s - it is one I reach for, and I have most of the Taks.  If I grab for a 50 - for walk around, not knowing what I might find - it's a tak 50/1.8 (or 2.0) or an older MD 50/1.7, and I'd also suggest the Konica 40/1.8.  Enough uniqueness and all very easy handling.  I have at least two dozen 1.4's and rarely use them these days.

I've had most of the tele nikons (105, 85) and they are all great (but I have the sigma and didn't find any liking of the pictures over the AF sigma) - the NIKs tend to have rough backgrounds and CA as well...  Most are very sharp, and very good - they just don't get use at that length when I have a reference lens at that length or in the case of the 100's - I've two (fighting) in my rotation that are SUBSTANTIALLY smaller; the zuiko 100/2.8 (small, light, great handling) and the topcor 100/2.8 (bigger, sharper, but bigger and slightly sharper to the zuiko, way smaller than the Nikons).  The colors between them is hard to distinguish and the 'character' - well its a toss up.  I did have a short stint with the monster helios (85) - but it's a boat anchor (although really cool output) and made the Nikkors seem like a tiny M lens...

One notable - Vivitar 24/2.8 (Cosina build) - FUN and decent images, as mine will focus pretty close (closer than marked), but I've not found a heliocoil for it (yet).

I've only three M lenses - the only one that sees much usage is the 90/2.8 (German one).  But the CA is pretty firm - I just wish all my other stuff handled like it does - hell, it feels better in hand than a new lens - just SMOOTH - but doesn't get used much due to the sigma or the Zuiko/Topcor 100's.

What you are shooting is a more important question.  I started on 50 and usually take at least one on every outing.  I also usually take one of the smaller 100's with me.

Most of the under 50 glass I have is not in the cheapo range, and I've not shot enough to suggest this or that.  Over 55 - we get into a realm where there are all kinds of stuff - but again - lots of experience on the bigger nikkors (85 and 105) and I've found myself shifting to a smaller lighter option for when I pull that focal length out.

Outside of the el-cheapos - I have a couple Voigtlanders - with absolutely no complaints (all in M or VM mount).  But they are not cheap.  I do have a 40/1.4 I got under 250 and I take that tiny thing everywhere.  

If you jump into the land of interesting flares - the sky is the limit - but you will find even the cheapest of zooms have a use in certain situations.  Much of this comes down to look - a look YOU like.  My idea for you is to PLAY on cheapo glass first - figure out what you like and then go down the rabbit hole of 'flikr' and look for what you like.

$0.02 from the cheap seats on the dark side.

Thanks so much for sharing your experience -- I really appreciate it!

[CaliforniTexican]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Canon LTM lenses are pretty good. 

Thank you!

[CaliforniTexican]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

This is a topic for the lens section. nothing to do with cameras

Leica Thambar-M 90mm /f2.2 Lens

Thanks for your suggestion!

[harbelot]

1 hour ago, CaliforniTexican said:

Thanks for your suggestion!

I hope you won the lottery recently.

[PhotoCruiser]

I bought a cheap SL to LTM adapter to use the 3 Leica lenses from about the 50's to do some tests.

Elmar 9cm
Sonnar 5,8cm
Hector 13.5 cm

Works good to get old school photos with my SL2 without doing it in post editing, but i am not that much excited about them.

The Hector 13.5 is surprisingly sharp and also the Elmar 9c would work reasonable for old school portrait photos, but i don't do portraits.
What all have in common that color shift and dof varies much more than in modern lenses and all have theeir own sweet spot where the distort less, distortion and color color, but both can be used as artistic effect. 
Chris

Edited Saturday at 04:42 PM by PhotoCruiser

[CaliforniTexican]

On 9/26/2025 at 2:07 AM, jaapv said:

Why specifically on an SL camera? These lenses work well on other cameras too. There are great threads on this theme on this forum.

Like this one:

I am asking about lenses on SL cameras because I am buying an SL2-s. I know people use vintage lenses on other cameras. But I specifically am asking here about photographers' experiences with vintage lenses on SL cameras, particularly lenses they really like or find interesting or unusual, because I'm interested in lenses that will work well on the camera I am buying.

[jaapv]

My point was that there won’t be a real difference in lens performance between an SL or any other camera other than the general differences between the cameras themselves 

[AdjusterBrett]

I can say, the cheap amazon adapters do "work".  They are not always aligned so well, but they do work.  My primary issue is the Exakta mount - even the 65.00 one I bought has a 2 cent hook/latch, not much different than the 15.00 ones.

As to the lens output looking different on different bodies - I'm an SL fan (601) over the SL2-S - but the difference is NOT that significant.

If you want to shoot JPEG out of camera - get the MD 50/1.7 and try it first - cheap test (you should be out the door, adapter and lens) under 40 bucks - the MD shoots pretty well (color wise) as the adjustments with the xrite (color calibration passport) is about the lowest of any of my vintage.  Then if you want to plunk down some cash for a great adapter and a great lens - you will have a benchmark and will have been down the road before.

I hate to say it - but if I had the money (to burn) and I was going to be shooting coded old M lenses - I'd pay for the Leica branded, then buy a cheap close focus adapter (if that is your thing) from a mid-tier (100-150 range).

EXIF is my PET PEEVE - but today I take a picture of the lens with my phone - then I take a picture of the phone - so it's sequenced in the camera roll.

Last note - NONE of the SL's handle (on vintage - non-leica) as well as the 601 - but it lacks low light/high iso and IBIS.

Have fun with it.

LAST NOTE - one of the most fun things to do with an OLDEN lens - go buy any of the typical brands (including Vivitar) - will be between 50-60mm, and between 3.5-4.0 - buy an older macro (too often has the name micro in it) - and shoot with it - its a blast (and I'm NO macro guy) - but then what you will find is they are pretty darn sharp (albeit slow).  They are inexpensive as well.  The TAK and the Zuiko are probably the best, I had the tak and the Zuk - have two copies of the Viv and one of the Nikon.  NOT that much difference (and nowhere near my sigma 105, but almost nothing is).  They still take great shots of stupid stuff - I found myself taking really really close pictures of all kinds of nonsense.  Warning though - gateway drug into bellows...

 

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!

[RobertS]

I have numerous M and R lenses that are great on my SL2-S, but my Summilux R 80 mm f1.4 on a Metabones adapter has the most creative possibilities and in many ways is the most exciting.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

Sorry. TAK ? ZUK? Are they East Asian combat sports? 

[costa43]

The same lenses that I like on the M11-P, I like on the SL2-S. I don’t really notice a difference in performance between the two bodies. Just a different shooting experience. My favourite on the SL2-S at the moment is my 90mm f4 Minolta.