The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun with the Leica SL (digital)

Godfrey

Well-known member

Leica SL + Elmarit-R 135mm f/2.8 v2
ISO 3200 @ f/4.5 @ 1/125



Leica SL + Telyt-R 250mm f/4 v1
ISO 3200 @ f/8 @ 1/30 second

enjoy, G
 

aDam007

New member
Fair point. The Canon vII is constant aperture and weighs 800ish gram

The Leica slows as you zoom and weighs 1140 gram

Is the Leica alot better across the frame?

I guess this is where all the landscape photographers would jump in and defend the Leica. For me, I'd rather something with a unique rendering and signature, as I'm mostly shooting wide open close up. Rarely stopped down and at infinity.

It just doesn't scream awesome like the 21SEM or 28Elmarit-asph. And there is no magic like the 21Lux or 28Cron (maybe due to speed). But with speed taken into consideration, it doesn't even have the interesting rendering of the 90 macro-elmar. Maybe I'm just spoiled with my M and S glass.. Maybe I'm not use to the lens yet. It took me a while to warm up to the 100S (now I love it), but the 45S was love at first snap, so who knows.

Performance wise, I haven't taken any bad photos with the zoom. I haven't noticed anything to terrible and it seems sharp enough across the frame. A few people have commented it fails at the tele end. I don't really notice it all that much, but I'd say that maybe 70mm is the sweet spot if you wanted to split hairs. It takes good images, it does. It just doesn't scream Leica.

All in all, I'm not thrilled with the lens. And the sensor has a few quirks that almost makes me worried for the system. Leica really needs to get those adapters ASAP. And the 50LuxL needs to be delivered 6 months ahead of schedule!


IF the S-adapter focuses the lenses faster then the 007 and more accurately then the 006, I'll buy a second SL body and use the 45/100 combo happily. And just keep the zoom for when I need a wide lens, or a very fast lens (it's fast to focus). But by no means will I sell the S-bodies..
 

JorisV

New member
These are all very interesting discussions with my thanks to everybody who contributed.

Owning M, S and T glass but no R glass I have to say that right now I see little to no compelling reason to buy into the SL platform.

That could and most likely will change further along the road when native primes become available.

But right now, and apologies to early adopters and defenders, not really...
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hmm - I thought I posted pictures comparing it with the Sony A7ii (which the SL is considerably better than) - I'm not certain I didn't post an M240 comparison (I do have one), but pretty sure.

FWIW I agree with Sean Reid about the relative performance, but in my opinion these lenses only suffer in the corners, and they're all perfectly serviceable on the SL (unless you happen to shoot landscapes set to infinity wide open - in which case the M240 doesn't do well with all of them either!).

all the best

- - - Updated - - -

View attachment 114544
Morning Glory
SL with 24-90
Jono, sorry to ask a completely nerdish question but was that handheld or on a tripod?

Either way it is awesome but as someone primarily interested in landscape if that was a handheld shot it is even more awesome. Great colour and ambience and a bit of a surprise for a zoom lens.

LouisB
 

jonoslack

Active member
Jono, sorry to ask a completely nerdish question but was that handheld or on a tripod?

Either way it is awesome but as someone primarily interested in landscape if that was a handheld shot it is even more awesome. Great colour and ambience and a bit of a surprise for a zoom lens.

LouisB
Hi Louis
I never shoot with a tripod (unless I'm testing lenses) - this was shot at 1/800th at f7.1 and ISO 50 . . . . . don't need no tripod :)

The minute I put a camera on a tripod all my creativity seems to disappear in a puff of logic . . . I'd rather have blurry than boring!

A bit of background to this (in case you're interested) -
I needed to get the dogs exercised, it was nearly dark and very foggy when I left home - any normal person would have left the camera behind (but I NEVER do that). I had to brave a very big pile of pig poo (which the dogs didn't roll in) to get the shot - it'll be spread on the stubble later.

I used the brush and raised the exposure in the foreground by nearly 2 stops - then I added about 30 points clarity in the sky to bring the clouds out a bit . . . and that's it, no cropping, no overall exposure changes.
 

jrp

Member
Hmm - I thought I posted pictures comparing it with the Sony A7ii (which the SL is considerably better than) - I'm not certain I didn't post an M240 comparison (I do have one), but pretty sure.
Can you point us to these comparisons, pls? Why do you prefer the Leica over the Sony, eg?
 

jonoslack

Active member
I guess this is where all the landscape photographers would jump in and defend the Leica. For me, I'd rather something with a unique rendering and signature, as I'm mostly shooting wide open close up. Rarely stopped down and at infinity.

It just doesn't scream awesome like the 21SEM or 28Elmarit-asph. And there is no magic like the 21Lux or 28Cron (maybe due to speed).
I remember when the 28 Elmarit Asph was release ( a lens I also love ) everybody was REALLY rude about it (clinical, too sharp, blah blah). I haven't tried the 21'lux or the 21 SEM, as I continue my enduring love affair with the WATE. The 28 'cron has always seemed like a 'blah' lens to me, with several vices and no real virtue (poor microcontrast, sloppy corners, big curvature of field and no zing). Spending hours and hours in Venice comparing all the 28's together I came out absolutely certain that the 28 'lux is the one to have - on every level - it's as sharp as the elmarit, but not so brutal . . . but I suspect that these characteristics are the same as the 21 'lux?

I've had the 24-90 on two separate occasions now, and I've come to love it's reliable lack of vices . . it's a modern lens, but it certainly seems to me to have the Leica 'feel' about it. . . . but I've sat in front of an enthusiastic Peter Karbe discussing the design of the new zoom lenses, and everything colours one's opinion of a lens.

Perhaps time is needed
 

jonoslack

Active member
Can you point us to these comparisons, pls? Why do you prefer the Leica over the Sony, eg?
This is why
These are all shot at f4, on a tripod, from a distance of a couple of km - this is a 100% crop from the bottom left corner of the images.

50lux asph at f4.jpg
35 cron at f4.jpg
28 elmarit at f4.jpg
35 lux at f4.jpg

There will be more later (I'm doing an article on it) , but this probably answers your question
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
That's certainly a clear (and on the other hand, fuzzy) answer.

Makes me wonder how a 35mm R lens would look in comparison.

Kirk
In reality there shouldn't be much differences with R (or any SLR) lenses when mounted on mirrorless systems when compared to their native bodies. You'll have the benefit of EXIF on the SL, M, or T though.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
That's certainly a clear (and on the other hand, fuzzy) answer.

Makes me wonder how a 35mm R lens would look in comparison.

Kirk
This is a quickie test shot with the Summicron-R 35mm f/2 v2 fitted to the SL. Focus distance about 6 feet on the YELLOW film boxes in the center:



Nipping to the corner @ 1:1 display, here's the lens at f/2 and at f/5.6:



(Right click the above to see full resolution in a separate window.)

The Summicron-R 35 is a little soft at the extreme corners wide open, gets to excellent 1 to 2 stops down, and produces peak corner sharpness at f/8. Center and well out to the corners is excellent throughout. There's no smearing on the SL (this is one of my lenses that smeared at the corners on the A7). The behavior I see in this quickie test on the SL matches its behavior on film exactly ...

Smearing in the corners with this lens, the Elmarit-R 24mm, and smearing plus significant vignetting/artifacts with the Elmarit-R 19mm v1 are what led to my disappointment with the Sony A7. These lenses perform better on the M-P typ 240; with the SL, they image as well as they do with the R8.

G
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
In reality there shouldn't be much differences with R (or any SLR) lenses when mounted on mirrorless systems when compared to their native bodies. You'll have the benefit of EXIF on the SL, M, or T though.
I would say that "In theory there shouldn't be much difference with R (or any SLR) lenses when mounted on mirrorless systems when compared to their native bodies, but in practice there is." :toocool:

The Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 AI-S images in the corners FAR better on a Nikon D750 body than it did on other bodies; you'd swear it was a different lens. It's quite strikingly different. I haven't tested it on the SL yet. Comparing it on the D750 and on the SL to the Elmarit-R 19mm v1 on the SL is one of those tests I'm interested to get to sometime soon.

G
 

biglouis

Well-known member
Hi Louis
I never shoot with a tripod (unless I'm testing lenses) - this was shot at 1/800th at f7.1 and ISO 50 . . . . . don't need no tripod :)

The minute I put a camera on a tripod all my creativity seems to disappear in a puff of logic . . . I'd rather have blurry than boring!

A bit of background to this (in case you're interested) -
I needed to get the dogs exercised, it was nearly dark and very foggy when I left home - any normal person would have left the camera behind (but I NEVER do that). I had to brave a very big pile of pig poo (which the dogs didn't roll in) to get the shot - it'll be spread on the stubble later.

I used the brush and raised the exposure in the foreground by nearly 2 stops - then I added about 30 points clarity in the sky to bring the clouds out a bit . . . and that's it, no cropping, no overall exposure changes.
Incredible dynamic range. One of the things which drew me into the Sony camp was the dynamic range of the sensors which was better than any other digital camera I had owned. But this sensor seems as good.

I've just got the Leica Q and is it the same sensor as the SL? My first impression of developing Q images in LR6.3 is that the sensor also has and incredible dynamic range. Well done Leica (or whoever it is who supplies the sensor).

Thanks for the answer

LouisB
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
...
I've just got the Leica Q and is it the same sensor as the SL? My first impression of developing Q images in LR6.3 is that the sensor also has an incredible dynamic range. Well done Leica (or whoever it is who supplies the sensor). ..
My understanding is that the SL sensor is not exactly the same as the Q sensor, but they're the same technology family.

G
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
I would say that "In theory there shouldn't be much difference with R (or any SLR) lenses when mounted on mirrorless systems when compared to their native bodies, but in practice there is." :toocool:

The Nikkor 18mm f/3.5 AI-S images in the corners FAR better on a Nikon D750 body than it did on other bodies; you'd swear it was a different lens. It's quite strikingly different. I haven't tested it on the SL yet. Comparing it on the D750 and on the SL to the Elmarit-R 19mm v1 on the SL is one of those tests I'm interested to get to sometime soon.

G
Thats probably a more accurate statement. I guess I was thinking more in line in comparison to rangefinder lenses in general. Even the Micro 4/3 cameras had issues with many wide angle rangefinder lenses using the "optimum" center portion of the lenses. SLR lenses worked much better there as well.

Thanks everyone one for sharing your SL images. It's probably not a camera in my future (mostly due to me not wanting to switch primary systems anymore with my shifts from Canon->Micro 4/3->Leica M->Sony FE within the last 7 years) but I do like that Leica seems to have revisited and tweaked color on the Q and SL more similar to what I liked about the M9 with that "pop" to images straight out of the camera.

For all of the complaints about the FF mirrorless cameras not being absolutely perfect with rangefinder lenses they've still come a long way from where we were 5-7 years ago (when even Leica wasn't sure that a FF Rangefinder could be made at a semi-reasonable price.) I've found for most pictures that's aren't purely landscape it doesn't matter if the extreme corners are slightly smeared but color casting can ruin a color image.
 

ashwinrao1

Active member
Not Ashwin, but I had the 24-90 out for a bit earlier. It is still big and heavy, but once you get used to dealing with larger lenses (R system lenses tend to be heavy and some are quite large), it's not so extreme as it feels at first coming from an M or E-M1. A bit more time and the 24-90 will just feel a bit big, to me :)

G
Hi guys, sorry for the delay. Have been busy posting impressions on FB, less here. The 24-90 is still quite big, as I continue to go between it, M lenses, and R lenses. Ergonomically, the R lenses seem to be best balanced despite the 2 adapter fit, though the Noct feels perfect. The 24-90 is rapidly easily to get used to, but the camera does feel like an SLR with that lens mounted. Optically, it's worth it's price in gold, every bit as good as the legendary 28-90 R, so in summary, I am happy to have it.
 

D&A

Well-known member
Ashwin, do those first two images repreaent the new offensive "impenetrable bubble" being deployed, thus preventing defensive schemes from succeeding :). Love the creativity in those images and as expresssed previously by others, color output/pallet of both thr SL and Q in many ways is similar to the M9. Its definitely tempting and I can see where its primary strenght would be with both native system AF and R lenses.

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to post both comparitive images as well as artistic ones. Love to see more.

Dave (D&A)
 
Last edited:
Top