Non APO L Mount vs APO M Mount

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

There’re multiple forum posts the APO L mounts are better than their M mount counterparts when used on the SL. What about non-APO L mounts vs APO M’s?

The non-APO L mounts also weigh about 40% less than their APO counterparts. So for the 35/50/75/90mm equivalents, from an IQ perspective L or M mount?

[Advertisement]

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

[keeping_a_balance]

I am far from an expert, but from my findings (I am sure many will disagree):

-Non apo SL lenses are 85-95% of apo IQ depending on the lens.

-APO Ms are great but I believe that almost all SL non APO SL lenses will have equal if not superior image quality if you were to shoot a chart...  

You also forget to mention the cost of APO SL vs non APO SL lenses is massive.  Weight is also a consideration...

comes down to what you want/what you do/willing to spend etc......  I am still trying to figure this out after spending far too much money... maybe gear is not my problem... 🤔

 

[Stuart Richardson]

5 hours ago, o2mpx said:

There’re multiple forum posts the APO L mounts are better than their M mount counterparts when used on the SL. What about non-APO L mounts vs APO M’s?

The non-APO L mounts also weigh about 40% less than their APO counterparts. So for the 35/50/75/90mm equivalents, from an IQ perspective L or M mount?

I think it is hard to say on a generalized basis, as that covers so many lenses. One thing, however, is that APO is APO...there are degrees of apochromatic correction as it is a descriptive designation rather than an immutable standard, but on balance I would expect that APO M lenses will be more free of chromatic aberration than non-APO SL. My guess is that the performance of M APO lenses will be better than most non-APO SL lenses, particularly the zooms. I say this because I have a 90mm APO M lens that is better than the 90-280mm APO  at 90mm.

I think the biggest difference here is that the SL APO Summicrons are otherworldly...they just outperform most anything else. Some people don't like the weight or the price, but there are really not many credible arguments regarding their optical performance. Certain people preferring a more classic look is another story. Tastes vary, but in terms of objective technical considerations, the APO Summicrons are incredible. That said, the non-APO SL lenses have some great lenses too. A lot of it is about what you value most in a lens. For my work, I love the complete absence of chromatic aberrations: nothing on backlit branches, no longitudinal CA in the bokeh, pure white specular highlights and extremely high contrast and detail from edge to edge. I feel like it removes so many distractions from the pictures and makes it look more natural But a lot of people are not so bothered by that, and would rather a lighter, smaller lens at a lower price, even if it does not have quite the same performance. 

[jaapv]

The point is that M lenses are restricted in size which limits the options for optical correction. So SL lenses can (and will) give the designer more scope - and it shows. APO means one thing for one correction - Chromatic aberration is zero on three points of the spectrum - nothing more. That implies but not guarantees that is a well- corrected lens. But there is so much more to lens performance that the question as such is meaningless.

[Babylonia]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb jaapv:

But there is so much more to lens performance that the question as such is meaningless.

Agree.

The first question to take into account is "what kind of photos" you want to take with a lens.
For example, high-quality advertising and product photography, where every subtlety of colour and detail is important.
Under "profiled" light and colour conditions, shot in a studio environment.

- Like fine tone "Wedge-wood" crockery / tableware.
- Silverware / cutlery, jewellery.
- All kinds of metal parts / products.

I should definitely choosing APO corrected lenses for that.

For atmosphere photos of people / models / fashion, sport photography, completely different requirements are important,
to quickly and easily achieve best results for those kind of subjects.
Event and e.g. wedding photography - another kind of business, with different needs.

Everything related to how much money you want and "can" spend on it, taking into account work and profit - or just a "hobby".
Please note that many optical errors within certain margins, can be highly corrected by today software post processing options.
But takes more time spending in editing.

Also important when choosing lenses. To which size images will be used/printed?

For "web" (social media) - TV content.
Or large billboards, wall art in modern offices, hotels, stands at business fairs, exhibitions?

Where lie one's own demands / level, that correspond to someone's own personality?
-

Edited yesterday at 12:09 PM by Babylonia

[jaapv]

Leica’s “APO” designation is a hallmark for “corrected to the maximum of our ability” as well as a strictly technical term. The Summilux 50 M  is an example of a lens that is APO corrected but not engraved as such because the non-APO Summicron of the time performed slightly better overall. 

Given that M lenses limit the design parameters by size restrictions, it is no more than logical that some lens designs without those restrictions in a wider mount will be better corrected than M lenses, even if they do not carry the APO designation because there are lenses of an even higher correction level in that mount. So it is quite possible that some SL lenses will surpass the M APO lenses overall despite not being fully APO corrected or not APO designated because of the existence of a comparable APO SL lens. 
 

Another effect of this situation is that Leica can easily clone L lenses from Sigma and Panasonic as the optical design meets Leica standards. 

The long and the short of this is that you can only compare the quality of a a lens on an individual level, not in general. 
 

Babylonia rightly points out that the technical quality of a lens is quite unimportant without context The thing that matters is whether it can help you attain your photographic objective. Leica SL APO lenses are needed if you want/need ultra-precise rendering for your subject or a nerdy level of precision regardless of the look of your image. If you are intending to create a personal photographic vision, it may well be that you need a “lesser” lens that fits the goal better.
Leica has always been very good at that. Think of Noctiluxes, specialized in wonderful imagery in the right hands, but by no means anywhere near a modern APO in optical specification, or a Thambar, purposely built to be unsharp and low resolution. 
 And consider Leica C series for film making, specified to a level that none of their photographic counterparts attain, albeit at a price that no photographer would pay. 

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think it is hard to say on a generalized basis, as that covers so many lenses. One thing, however, is that APO is APO...there are degrees of apochromatic correction as it is a descriptive designation rather than an immutable standard, but on balance I would expect that APO M lenses will be more free of chromatic aberration than non-APO SL. My guess is that the performance of M APO lenses will be better than most non-APO SL lenses, particularly the zooms. I say this because I have a 90mm APO M lens that is better than the 90-280mm APO  at 90mm.

I think the biggest difference here is that the SL APO Summicrons are otherworldly...they just outperform most anything else. Some people don't like the weight or the price, but there are really not many credible arguments regarding their optical performance. Certain people preferring a more classic look is another story. Tastes vary, but in terms of objective technical considerations, the APO Summicrons are incredible. That said, the non-APO SL lenses have some great lenses too. A lot of it is about what you value most in a lens. For my work, I love the complete absence of chromatic aberrations: nothing on backlit branches, no longitudinal CA in the bokeh, pure white specular highlights and extremely high contrast and detail from edge to edge. I feel like it removes so many distractions from the pictures and makes it look more natural But a lot of people are not so bothered by that, and would rather a lighter, smaller lens at a lower price, even if it does not have quite the same performance. 

Have been using a SL3 with M lenses without any native L mount. From watching prices of the APO21 in the used market, there hasn’t been any movement for close to a year; broke down and got one from B&H in great condition recently. 

Shooting landscapes only, typically with cropping, have been carrying a light weight M kit with 21SEM/APO35&50/90Elmar/occasionally APO135 telyt. I recall reading @Stuart Richardson having all the APO’s but costs and weight are powerful deterrents. Current thinking is to exchange out the 90/135 M with APO90 L; thus with APO L’s for wide and tele along with the 35/50 M’s. 

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, o2mpx said:

Have been using a SL3 with M lenses without any native L mount. From watching prices of the APO21 in the used market, there hasn’t been any movement for close to a year; broke down and got one from B&H in great condition recently. 

Shooting landscapes only, typically with cropping, have been carrying a light weight M kit with 21SEM/APO35&50/90Elmar/occasionally APO135 telyt. I recall reading @Stuart Richardson having all the APO’s but costs and weight are powerful deterrents. Current thinking is to exchange out the 90/135 M with APO90 L; thus with APO L’s for wide and tele along with the 35/50 M’s. 

I don’t have them all! I have two SL APO primes: the 35mm and 50mm, and the 90-280 zoom. In the M I have the 75 and 90. Helped by the fact that I bought the 75mm when it was announced and it was 2000 new, lol. All of them are superb and I can recommend them without hesitation. If I were starting from zero and was on a budget, I would most likely look to the Sigma art primes instead, for their performance to price ratio. 

Edited 18 hours ago by Stuart Richardson

[LeicaR10]

O2mpx,  I read your post #7 and frankly you have an excellent M lens kit for landscapes.  I agree with Stuart's post, but IMO, you are looking at apples and oranges when it comes to lens rendering; M lenses render different to SL lens primes.  You have spent a good amount of money and one of many things that I learned over 50 years with nearly all Leica systems, the one thing you really should try to avoid is selling/trading any Leica lens unless you really don't use it.  Why?  Because often one will find themselves regretting selling the lens and rebuying it.  If you are patient, you can find mint SL Apo primes for about 25 to 35% off the orginal price.   I don't know where you are located, but in the USA, take a look at KEH, Camera West, Leica Store Miami, or Official Leica Classic Marketplace, etc..   I offer these two links to illustrate the rendering of a a 90mm M Apo Summicron vs 90 SL Apo.  I suggest you keep your M lenses and simply save up for a SL 90 Apo if you can't settle your case of GAS.  r/ Mark

Try:  M 90 Apo Cron:  https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=388&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Try:  SL 90 Apo Cron:  https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=1386&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

[o2mpx]

@LeicaR10…try to avoid is selling/trading any Leica lens unless you really don't use it….

Indeed, thanks for the sage advise. Have no intention of selling any of the M lenses, as they remain in use with the M10-R. The used prices of APO L mounts do fall, for some reason, the 21mm tend to depreciate much less than the others. In my case, the strongest deterrent on adding more APO L’s beyond the 21 remain the size and weight. The 21mm will be used a lot, the 90mm much less so will watch for one to surface at the right price. 

[Jon Warwick]

14 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If I were starting from zero and was on a budget, I would most likely look to the Sigma art primes instead, for their performance to price ratio. 

Just got one myself, a (used but mint) Sigma DG DN 50mm 1.4. Absolutely superb, even ignoring the price. Very clean, very detailed, but with a “calm” rendering. Versus the Ms, I’m getting better edge sharpness off this lens on my SL2S than I get with an M11/50 APOs, albeit that might possibly be something to do with the M11 generally (I reckon I got sharper edges with my M240/50 APO). Tempted by the DG DN 85mm that I can see used too, Reid Reviews did a nice report on that one recently.

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, o2mpx said:

 the 21mm tend to depreciate much less than the others. 

It was only released two years ago, and it is a less common focal length for most people than 35mm or 50mm in particular. I think there are just a lot fewer out there, and the people who have them are probably unlikely to sell them unless they leave Leica entirely.