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!
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?
Jono, sorry to ask a completely nerdish question but was that handheld or on a tripod?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
Hi LouisJono, 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
Can you point us to these comparisons, pls? Why do you prefer the Leica over the Sony, eg?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.
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 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).
This is whyCan you point us to these comparisons, pls? Why do you prefer the Leica over the Sony, eg?
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.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: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
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: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.
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.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.
My understanding is that the SL sensor is not exactly the same as the Q sensor, but they're the same technology family....
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). ..
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.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
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.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