Leicaflex SL vs. SL2

[johnastovall]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've started picking up some R glass to use on my FF Canon bodies and got to thinking I need a film body to use them on.

 

What are the pros and cons of the SL and the SL2?

 

Will all 2 and 3 cam lenses work on these bodies?

 

What about batteries?

[luigi bertolotti]

I think (not by direct experience... have none) that for using SL is a better buy than SL2... SL2 used to be overvalued for being "the last of the classics-all Wetzlar SLRs" and for was produced in rather small numbers. SL2 has indeed a practically valuable addon (meter more sensitive at low lights) , but one must evaluate if this justifies the additional cost. All R lenses can be used on them, afaik.

[Advertisement]

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

[Martin K]

I have used both over many years, the SL2 was a bit more refined for me. The more sensitive lightmeter was nice to work with. Otherwise the SL is a super camera. Not all 2 and 3 cam lenses will work on the SL, the Minolta based trio of 16mm fisheye, 24/2,8 wideangle and the first 80-200mm zoom will only fit the SL2 and not the SL. The later 75-200mm zoom again fitted both. Obviously R-cam only lenses will not fit. If you think of using the 400 and 560/6,8 Telyt-R lenses, some SL2s were vignetting - the mirror did not lift high enough. This fault can be rectified by Leica service.

[RPS]

What about batteries?

 

John,

 

I use an SL2 that I inherited from my Dad, along with his Leica glass. While I cannot compare my camera to the SL since I've never held an SL, I can say that the SL2 is a wonderful camera to hold and use. I will never dispose of it -- and that's not sentimentality speaking.

 

As for batteries, I learned here and elsewhere that the WEIN Cell PX625 Replacement Battery is a good solution. While this cell doesn't have a long life once the battery is exposed to the air, if you place the green sticker back over the air holes when the camera's not in use you should experience a reasonable battery life.

 

Good hunting.

Edited April 27, 2009 by RPS
corrected punctuation error

[Guest Posto 6]

I can honestly say from experience (still have 3 SL2 MOTs) that in terms of useability, the SL2 is not only far superior to the SL (think MP vs MK1 M6 in rangefinders), but, if you are looking for an all-mechanical camera, almost impossible to beat if kept in good condition (far better than R6 and R6.2, due to the lack of shutter lag, as well as exceptional viewfinder). Additionally, the SL2 will take all Leica 3-cam lenses without restriction, unlike the SL. It can also be converted easily to use alkaline or silver oxide batteries (I have tried both, and prefer the durability of the latter)

 

Finally, ergonomically, it is far more pleasing to handle, due to the narrower shape, extra features as well as more convenient knobs. Well worth the small amount of extra $ that you will have to pay over the SL.

Edited April 27, 2009 by Posto 6

[Guest suilvenman]

The SL2 may have extra features but that can result in more things to go wrong. I read on the French Summilux site that in contrast to contemporary Japanese cameras, the SL was deliberately designed to minimise the number of additional features in order to keep it as trouble-free as possible.

 

As soon as I bought my SL, I had it fully serviced and converted to take silver oxide batteries. I have several other more modern Leica/non-Leica cameras but without hesitation I have most confidence using the SL - truly one of the last cameras of its kind.

 

Cheers, Ken.

[Joop van Heijgen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is a misunderstanding that the SL 2 is a better camera than the SL!

The SL 2 is technically a more complex camera than the SL that can give special technical problems!

 

Nowadays you can buy a good SL for about €200,- The SL 2 you can buy for about €450,-

Both are excellent mechanical cameras with a very big clear viewfinder!

[SteveYork]

Check those old viewfinders though. Some are yellowing and spotting because the prism is desilvering, but when they're in good condition, they're great.

 

And I've heard conflicting reports on the high shutter speeds of the SL2. Some people say there is a problem at 1/2000, others don't seem to have any.

 

All things being equal, I would go for the SL2 because of the more sensitive meter and the bigger shutter speed dial (my fingers like that better).

 

But all things are never equal. As someone mentioned, because of only a 2 year production period the SL2 is more expensive then the SL.

[SteveYork]

I can honestly say from experience (still have 3 SL2 MOTs) that in terms of useability, the SL2 is not only far superior to the SL (think MP vs MK1 M6 in rangefinders), but, if you are looking for an all-mechanical camera, almost impossible to beat if kept in good condition (far better than R6 and R6.2, due to the lack of shutter lag, as well as exceptional viewfinder). Additionally, the SL2 will take all Leica 3-cam lenses without restriction, unlike the SL. It can also be converted easily to use alkaline or silver oxide batteries (I have tried both, and prefer the durability of the latter)

 

Finally, ergonomically, it is far more pleasing to handle, due to the narrower shape, extra features as well as more convenient knobs. Well worth the small amount of extra $ that you will have to pay over the SL.

 

It's not the shutter lag on the R6 or R6.2. It's how far you have to press the button down to engage the shutter. The shutter lag is about the same.

 

The viewfinder on the SL2 is only slightly brighter then the R6.2. It is, however, much clearer. The viewfinder on the R6.2 is much more grainy. I recently had both these cameras side by side and I couldn't tell much of a difference (other then the aforementioned graininess).

[JBA]

I chose the SL2 over the SL because of the mirror clearance issues with several lenses I wanted the option of using. In fact, I use the 24 Elmarit a lot, so the SL would be of limited use to me.

 

The only problem with my SL2 is that 1/2000 never works properly and even 1/1000 appears to be spotty. I'm not yet sure if this can be fixed with a CLA. If you opt for the SL2, check it thoroughly before you buy.

[Guest Posto 6]

I have never actually had any problems with the high (1/2000, 1/1000) speeds on my SL2MOTs. All have, however, been regularly serviced, which is anyway a good idea as compared to Leica Ms these are more complex cameras. The viewfinder prism seems to have a useful life of around 25-35 years, but is quite easy (and surprisingly cheap, as exchange ones are available) to replace when doing a CLA.

 

I still would argue that, overall, the SL2 is the more practical, versatile and useable camera.

[spydrxx]

I won't tell you one is better than the other. I've owned both, and eventually sold the SL, keeping the SL2. Both were great cameras but I found the SL2 more ergonomically comfortable and, as others indicated, the meter is more sensitive. Here's a link you might find interesting, particularly the chart on which lenses (by cam configuration) can work on which Leica reflex cameras (http://www.photoethnography.com); however there are some lenses which present other issues. I got my SL2 CLA'd right after I got it, the SL I purchased had been CLA'd right before I bought it. Given their ages, I think the CLAs were a good idea. I also own an R8, and find that I typically use the SL2 much more often than the R8, even though the R8 is a much more sophisticated camera. My only disappointment, using either the SL or SL2, was that there wasn't a grip as many more modern designs have, and given the weight of many of the R lenses, I wanted a grip, so finally I made one out of an L bracket which attaches in conjunction with an Arca-Swiss type tripod bracket and a piece of leather surrounding my hand. WOW, what a difference. I'd show a picture of it, but, alas, mine is in the shop with DAG for some adjustments right now. IMHO you can't go wrong with either the SL or SL2 if you like manual cameras.

[wildlightphoto]

... the SL2 ... is far more pleasing to handle, due to the narrower shape....

 

The SL2 is not narrower. It's actually thicker at the ends giving it a flatter back.

 

A couple of the differences have been mentioned, such as the mirror box clearance specs and meter sensitivity.

 

Along with the minolta-sourced lenses there are several others that will fit (or can be made to fit) the SL2 and not the SL, such as the 2x APO-Extender-R, E60 50mm Summilux-R, and I believe (not certain) the 90mm APO-Summicron-R.

 

OTOH the aperture display in the SL2 viewfinder requires the first metering cam to function; the SL2's (and Leicaflex Standard's) cam follower for reading this cam would damage ROM contacts so ROM lenses have an R-only bayonet flange. The SL does not have this problem so it can be easily and inexpensively modified to accept many ROM lenses that don't have mirror box clearance problems, and where the second cam can be added to the lens it will meter on the SL at full aperture. My 180mm APO-Elmarit-R is a ROM lens and works perfectly on my modified SL.

 

Another difference is the mirror pivot. The SL's mirror is pivoted so that with long-focus lenses like the f/6.8 Telyts part of the image slips past the mirror and is not seen in the viewfinder. (Called mirror cut-off, the top of the image isn't visible in the viewfinder. This does not affect the picture on the film.) On the SL2 the mirror is positioned and pivoted differently to reduce mirror cut-off at the cost of illumination for the SS and aperture displays in the viewfinder; in other words the mirror cut-off is shifted from the top of the picture to the SS/aperture display.

[johnastovall]

I want to thank everyone for their input. I got an SL2 Jarre. Because it fell into my lap. I contacted a friend who has moved to Texas from having retired from the L.A. Times. Last fall he had said he had a Leicaflex but I had forgotten it. While researching this question, I remembered he had one. I contacted him with some questions. And, he came back with a reply that he wasn't using it. It had a CLA a couple of years ago and he was looking for a rifle to shoot at a gun club he had joined. I had just what he wanted so I swapped him a rifle for the SL2 with a 50mm 'Cron on it.

 

I get it this Sunday when we hook up to do the swap and have a big lunch of No Teeth Barbecue.

 

So I've got an SL2 now. Next thing is to send it to DAG for full CLA and check out.

[SteveYork]

I have never actually had any problems with the high (1/2000, 1/1000) speeds on my SL2MOTs. All have, however, been regularly serviced, which is anyway a good idea as compared to Leica Ms these are more complex cameras. The viewfinder prism seems to have a useful life of around 25-35 years, but is quite easy (and surprisingly cheap, as exchange ones are available) to replace when doing a CLA.

 

I still would argue that, overall, the SL2 is the more practical, versatile and useable camera.

 

 

I got a quote from a repair person that a new prism would cost $400 US. A re-silvered prism is much less expensive, but they're hard to find these days. I'm surprised that Leica still has these parts in stock, but they do. In my mind, the only reason to have an SL or SL2 is because of the big, bold, beautiful viewfinder. So this would definitely be a strong considerations, along with a CLA, if I was getting an old one.

[SteveYork]

I got a quote from a repair person that a new prism would cost $400 US. A re-silvered prism is much less expensive, but they're hard to find these days. I'm surprised that Leica still has these parts in stock, but they do. In my mind, the only reason to have an SL or SL2 is because of the big, bold, beautiful viewfinder. So this would definitely be a strong considerations, along with a CLA, if I was getting an old one.

 

The resilvered prisms are also a little darker then the original. I recently had the opportunity to compare, side by side, a Leicaflex SL Mot with a resilvered prism installed a couple of years ago, and a Leicaflex SL with an original prism in very good shape. The original prism was much brighter and easier to focus, albeit with a few cloudy spots off to the side. The subjects just popped into focus with the original prism, but didn't as much with the resilvered prism, because it was a shade or two darker. This isn't a big deal if you're shooting with plenty of light, but otherwise it could be the difference between knowing something is in focus and guessing that it is.

Edited June 5, 2009 by SteveYork

[EJohnE]

This is a bit off-topic, but Martin K writes..."Not all 2 and 3 cam lenses will work on the SL, the Minolta based trio of 16mm fisheye, 24/2,8 wideangle and the first 80-200mm zoom will only fit the SL2 and not the SL."

 

I have an 80-200 f4.5 zoom which has been fitted with all 3 cams (Leicaflex Std, SL, and R.

That presumably was retrofitted at the request of some previous owner who found that particular lens was a gem.

 

Surely that must be so, as Leitz would not have fitted all three cams if the lens was only to be used on the R series?

 

John.

[wildlightphoto]

I have an 80-200 f4.5 zoom which has been fitted with all 3 cams (Leicaflex Std, SL, and R). That presumably was retrofitted at the request of some previous owner who found that particular lens was a gem.

 

Surely that must be so, as Leitz would not have fitted all three cams if the lens was only to be used on the R series?

 

The 80-200mm f/4.5 R was initially sold as a 2-cam lens for the SL2 only (the SL2 uses both the first and second cam). Whether your particular lens was originally a 2-cam or 3-cam lens is hard to say. Once the R3 became available Leitz offered a 2-cam to 3-cam conversion for about US$34 IIRC.

 

The lens was also sold as a 3-cam from 1976 when the R3 was introduced to 1978 when the 80-200 f/4.5 was replaced with the 75-200 f/4.5, which fits all Leica reflex cameras.

[SteveYork]

The resilvered prisms are also a little darker then the original. I recently had the opportunity to compare, side by side, a Leicaflex SL Mot with a resilvered prism installed a couple of years ago, and a Leicaflex SL with an original prism in very good shape. The original prism was much brighter and easier to focus, albeit with a few cloudy spots off to the side. The subjects just popped into focus with the original prism, but didn't as much with the resilvered prism, because it was a shade or two darker. This isn't a big deal if you're shooting with plenty of light, but otherwise it could be the difference between knowing something is in focus and guessing that it is.

 

The "resilvered prisms" aren't actually covered with silver, but another metal that holds up to time better. That's why they are a shade or two darker.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[wildlightphoto]

The "resilvered prisms" aren't actually covered with silver, but another metal that holds up to time better. That's why they are a shade or two darker.

 

The other metal is probably Aluminum.

 

http://www.mellesgriot.com/pdf/CatalogX/X_05_26-34.pdf