Thoughts on Leica SL2 with M-lenses (landscapes)

[anyone]

Hi there,
I'm contemplating on the thought of adding a Leica SL2 to my kit. I'd like it for landscapes primarily, shooting M glass, but also adapting Canon EF lenses. The camera would complement my medium format Hasselblad CFV kit.

Camera:
What are your thoughts on the camera? Is it (still) worth buying? I'm hoping for better colors compared to my GFX100s, while not losing on other aspects (apart from the resolution, but that's okay for me).

How about the battery life?
How about IBIS with adapted lenses?

Lenses:
I primarily think of adapting my beautiful M-lenses. What‘s your experience here? Will the wide angles like the Voigtländer 15 III work well?

How about adapting Canon EF glass? There is the Leica MC-21. I have L glass across the whole range which I really like, so it would be nice to use it. Any experiences here? Does the AF work? How about manual focussing aids?

Edit: if anyone searches for a Sigma MC-21 lens compatibility list, I just found this: https://www.tttphotography.com/sigma-mc-21-ef-l-lens-adapter-compatibility/

Thank you!

 

[Bill Caulfeild-Browne]

I've never owned the SL2 but I'm delighted with the SL3. Initially I used it with my M lenses, primarily the APO 35 and APO 90. They both balance nicely on the SL3 despite the front-heavy weight of the 90mm. I imagine they would be the same on the SL2.

The APO 135 is much more usable on the SL because it's much easier to focus than using the M's rangefinder - and you get IS. However, wide angle M lenses are are better focussed with the rangefinder. I use the Voitglander VM 15 mm exclusively on the M.

Two further thoughts. Get the Leica L to M adapter because that transmits the lens' focal length to the SL which in turn chooses the right IBS for the lens. Second - beware of GAS! I thought I'd only use my M lenses but the lure of AF and the L mount range (considerable) caused me to get a bunch of L lenses too. The Leica L mount APO lenses are the best I've ever used and I say that as a former Phase One owner.

Of course, if you're exclusively using a tripod and manual focus, the AF and IS will be irrelevant to you.

I can't comment on EF glass on the SL as I've never tried it but I don't see why it wouldn't work well. The great thing about the L mount is that it is infinitely adaptable. Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[Epstar83]

The SL2 and M lens combination has been really good for me! It's such a versatile camera, you will have no trouble adapting your Canon lenses to it. I use my 35/1.4 FLE, 21 SEM and 50 Cron (V5) on it frequently. If you have the Leica branded adapter it will automatically detect your 6-Bit coded lenses. I've also adapted a lot of Nikon F lenses to it. IBIS works well provided you remember to input the correct focal length.

47 megapixels is heaps of resolution for pretty much everything. I use this camera to scan film up to 4x5 with multi shot. The results are marvellous. For me at least I don't feel the SL3 is a big enough upgrade so I will be sticking to the SL2 for the foreseeable future. That being said if you getting into the SL system for the first time then perhaps the SL3 is the better choice.

In terms of battery life I do think a spare battery is well advised.

If you looking for good autofocus lenses for the system I've found the Sigma Art series to be outstanding. I have the 14-24, 50/1.2 and 105/2.8 Macro, all three are highly recommended.

 

[anyone]

It does sound very good. The SL2 is most likely soon discontinued, so there is the possibility to make a ‘bargain’ (well, relative to the Leica world). 47mp is enough for me, hence the SL2.

When it comes to M-glass, I have a small and humble collection: Voigtländer 15-III, Voigtländer 21/4, Zeiss 35/2.8, Zeiss 50/1.5 & 50/2, Leica 90/4. None of them coded, so I’d need to manually select the focal length. A Novoflex adapter would do in this case?

 

[Manoli]

… None of them coded, so I’d need to manually select the focal length. A Novoflex adapter would do in this case?

There was an earlier thread on this, with a self-coding solution:

Coming back to Leica

All my lenses are uncoded, either old Leicas or newer Voigtländers. I find it worthwhile to set the lens manually to get the right FL in the metadata and remind me which lens was used. Like you I usually don't go out with many lenses but I tend to forget which ones after some time and this helps me.

www.getdpi.com

 

[Epstar83]

It does sound very good. The SL2 is most likely soon discontinued, so there is the possibility to make a ‘bargain’ (well, relative to the Leica world). 47mp is enough for me, hence the SL2.

When it comes to M-glass, I have a small and humble collection: Voigtländer 15-III, Voigtländer 21/4, Zeiss 35/2.8, Zeiss 50/1.5 & 50/2, Leica 90/4. None of them coded, so I’d need to manually select the focal length. A Novoflex adapter would do in this case?

Yeah, the Novoflex adapter will work well. You'll need to manually input the focal length when you fit a lens. I have the menu for that set to a custom function button so it is really quick. A nod to the SL2's superb ergos. The Zeiss 50/1.5 will be so good on the SL2/3! It takes the focus shift concerns out of the equation.

 

[anyone]

When I adapted M lenses to the GFX, the corner sharpness was mediocre at best, also in crop mode. Will that be different with the SL2?

 

[Paul Spinnler]

I've never owned the SL2 but I'm delighted with the SL3. Initially I used it with my M lenses, primarily the APO 35 and APO 90. They both balance nicely on the SL3 despite the front-heavy weight of the 90mm. I imagine they would be the same on the SL2.

The APO 135 is much more usable on the SL because it's much easier to focus than using the M's rangefinder - and you get IS. However, wide angle M lenses are are better focussed with the rangefinder. I use the Voitglander VM 15 mm exclusively on the M.

Two further thoughts. Get the Leica L to M adapter because that transmits the lens' focal length to the SL which in turn chooses the right IBS for the lens. Second - beware of GAS! I thought I'd only use my M lenses but the lure of AF and the L mount range (considerable) caused me to get a bunch of L lenses too. The Leica L mount APO lenses are the best I've ever used and I say that as a former Phase One owner.

Of course, if you're exclusively using a tripod and manual focus, the AF and IS will be irrelevant to you.

I can't comment on EF glass on the SL as I've never tried it but I don't see why it wouldn't work well. The great thing about the L mount is that it is infinitely adaptable. Good luck and keep us posted.

All SL APO lenses are beyond reproach, truly. If you zoom to 200% in C1 I sometimes am fooled to think it is 100%.

 

[Epstar83]

When I adapted M lenses to the GFX, the corner sharpness was mediocre at best, also in crop mode. Will that be different with the SL2?

Yes. The SL series sensors have been tuned to play well with rangefinder lenses. Sean Reid from reidreviews.com covers these issues in detail. His site is paid subscription but it is not expensive and has been a very helpful resource in this regard. The wide angle lenses will not be quite as good as native L-mount lenses but the performance is still far better than any other mirrorless camera with M-mount lenses adapted. A few years ago he also looked at Nikon Z cameras with rangefinder lenses as their sensor cover glass is also very thin, about 1mm... but it seems the issue is more than just cover glass thickness, the micro lenses on the sensor also have to be designed for it.

I believe the SL3 may be an even better performer than the SL2 due to its BSI sensor. But the difference hasn't been big enough to motivate me to change.

 

[anyone]

Thank you very much for your help to decide! I now ordered a Leica SL2 and am very curious indeed to see how it performs!

 

[bab]

Second SL2 vs SL2s however also consider what lenses you might need to do landscapes, I would think a 24-105, 16-35 and a 100-400 would cover anything. then boil it down to simple 24-105 and super wide or tele.
then rethink keeping your canon glass or getting a camera with the best IBIS for hand held shooting where you could shoot at 1/20 sec hand held
If the Leica still fits in then go that route...I think a better solution is out there!

 

[anyone]

It's too late, I chose already.

And my primary goal is to enjoy great color, M-lenses, simplicity in the UX, and also to adapt other glass. While there may be good or better cameras around, I hope I made the right choice

 

[anyone]

Quick heads-up after using the Leica SL2 for a few weeks: I am very happy with the color the camera produces. The files are nice, although by far not as malleable as e.g. GFX or Hasselblad files. You see some noise fairly quickly. Shadow recovery is only limited.

Concerning the use of lenses, I started out with Canon EF lenses and exclusively used the 50 1.2 during my latest travel to the North. It worked very nicely with accurate AF. I also now bought a Minolta MD adapter and used the 85/1.7 on it, very nice as well. And just yesterday I got finally the M-adapter. I went for the Novoflex version, the Leica was too expensive in my opinion.

Obviously, there is not yet too much experience with the M-mount lenses, but initial tests show that my M lenses work a lot better on the SL2 than on the GFX100s (in 35mm crop mode). The only lens that is not quite up to the standard is my very old Voigtländer 21/4, and perhaps the Elmar-C 90/4. Voigtländer 15 III, Carl Zeiss 35/2.8, 50/2, 50/1.5 work fine.

 

[anyone]

Does anyone have experiences with the Zeiss C-Biogon 35mm 2.8 on the SL2? How should the corners look like? I observed a bit sub-standard corners and wondered about my lens sample.

I should add that I was shooting at f8.

 

[Epstar83]

I have used it on the original SL and an M240. In the centre it is almost as sharp as the APO 35's from Leica and Voigtlander but the corners do fall off a little. The 35/2.8 Biogon is a challenging lens for most mirrorless cameras, even the SL line that was designed to play well with M glass. It's a beautiful lens, and I do at times regret selling mine. I replaced it with the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 and that lens served me well for quite a few years until I worked my way up to a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE and that's currently my 35mm of choice.

Reid Reviews has also covered this lens on various different Leica bodies and I think his findings echo what I saw, and probably what you're seeing too. To get the corners to render meaningfully it needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 or f/8.

 

[anyone]

I have used it on the original SL and an M240. In the centre it is almost as sharp as the APO 35's from Leica and Voigtlander but the corners do fall off a little. The 35/2.8 Biogon is a challenging lens for most mirrorless cameras, even the SL line that was designed to play well with M glass. It's a beautiful lens, and I do at times regret selling mine. I replaced it with the Voigtlander Ultron 35/2 and that lens served me well for quite a few years until I worked my way up to a Summilux 35/1.4 FLE and that's currently my 35mm of choice.

Reid Reviews has also covered this lens on various different Leica bodies and I think his findings echo what I saw, and probably what you're seeing too. To get the corners to render meaningfully it needs to be stopped down to at least f/5.6 or f/8.

Thank you for your insight! I should add that I was shooting at f8 and while not horrible (and a fair bit better than on the GFX), it’s not that good in the corners. I’ll give it a try with f11. I like this lens on film a lot..

 

[Epstar83]

Yeah it is stunning on film! Most of the frame on digi is excellent too. But if you need the corners to be sharp it might not be the best option. The APO Lanthar 35/2 is probably the best value. It's not cheap but it's IQ is right up there with the Leica APO 35.