Experiences and Opinions about the SL

[Paratom]

I just wanted to share my experience with the SL so far:
For someone owning various Leica lenses from other systems (M, T, S) it is really nice to be able to combine those on one body.
It seems to achieve pretty good focus accurancy with the M lenses on the SL without using magnification, pretty good means nearly nail focus but not 100% nail focus.
I still hope and wish there will also come some smaller a littler slower AF lenses. Like the 1.8 series from Nikon for example.
I do like the 24-90 when shooting outside, but for indoor family shooting it is too big for my taste.
A 35/2.0 and a 50/2.0 would be great.
And also a 70-200/4.0 smaller than the 90-280 would be great for my taste. Or a 180/2.8 prime.
It is ok to use the SL with M lenses and its also ok to use it with T lenses, but in the end I would like to take advantage of that fast AF when owning a body (SL) that can do it. Overall the build, viewfinder and handling of the camera is fun to use.
Best, Tom

 

[Knorp]

Hey Tom,

you seem to be the man to answer my burning question: is there any noticeable image difference when using the same lens on the M and SL ?

TIA

Kind regards.

 

[Paratom]

Hey Tom,

you seem to be the man to answer my burning question: is there any noticeable image difference when using the same lens on the M and SL ?

TIA

Kind regards.

Hi there,
I have only shot very few side by side images in artificial light. I would say the colors come out different and I might very slightly prefer the color from the M in those few shots.
My feeling: Both cameras provide very very good IQ and IQ alone would be the least determing factor for me to choose one over the other. (Except we read that corners of wide angles are still better with the M...I did test myself) Maybe if one wants to go up to 6400 it might make a difference in favor of the SL sensor.

I see it like this: For shooting M lenses I prefer the rangefinder and the M. Except maybe lenses 75mm and longer where the SL should give advantages in accurate framing and focusing.
The nice thing about the SL is that I can use it with either - the 24-90 Zoom and get fast AF (nice for my small kids when they are I action) or with primes. Also having IS in the Zoom and 4k makes it more attractive for movie.

I can try to provide some comparison images, but it will take some days, I am quite busy at work these days.
Which focal length/lenses are you interested mainly?

 

[al2002]

Hi Tom,

Can you comment on the SL's IQ with M wides?

If you have a 24mm Elmarit M or a 35mm Summilux M Asph, your comments on SL vs. M IQ in the corners would be welcomed.

Thanks in advance.

 

[Knorp]

Hi there,
I have only shot very few side by side images in artificial light. I would say the colors come out different and I might very slightly prefer the color from the M in those few shots.
My feeling: Both cameras provide very very good IQ and IQ alone would be the least determing factor for me to choose one over the other. (Except we read that corners of wide angles are still better with the M...I did test myself) Maybe if one wants to go up to 6400 it might make a difference in favor of the SL sensor.

I see it like this: For shooting M lenses I prefer the rangefinder and the M. Except maybe lenses 75mm and longer where the SL should give advantages in accurate framing and focusing.
The nice thing about the SL is that I can use it with either - the 24-90 Zoom and get fast AF (nice for my small kids when they are I action) or with primes. Also having IS in the Zoom and 4k makes it more attractive for movie.

I can try to provide some comparison images, but it will take some days, I am quite busy at work these days.
Which focal length/lenses are you interested mainly?

Hi there Tom,

you're a good sport :thumbs:
I'm not a UWA fan in particular so I'd say, depending on what lenses you have of course, a fast 28 or 50 will do nicely.

Again TIA

All the very best.

 

[Paratom]

Sorry guys, at the moment there is no time left for lens testing, but I have not forgotten.

 

[Knorp]

Sorry guys, at the moment there is no time left for lens testing, but I have not forgotten.

Thanks Tom, don't you worry - I'll keep reminding you ... :grin:

Kind regards.

 

[Godfrey]

you seem to be the man to answer my burning question: is there any noticeable image difference when using the same lens on the M and SL ?

Can you comment on the SL's IQ with M wides?

If you have a 24mm Elmarit M or a 35mm Summilux M Asph, your comments on SL vs. M IQ in the corners would be welcomed.

I've used the SL mostly with R lenses since I received it, haven't had much time for testing/comparing the M lenses and SL zoom lens very much as yet. However I did some quickie tests just to get a feel for corner and edge sharpness with the Elmar-M 24mm and Summilux 35mm v2, and can compare them loosely with their results on the M-P typ 240 which is what I use those lenses on 99% of the time I use them...

To my eye, there's extremely little difference in terms of sharpness or rendering (presuming you've used the lens codes) with either of them: both lenses work on the SL much as they do on the M-P with very similar corner and edge performance. Small differences in color and/or noise between the cameras are apparent but even those aren't big standout differences to my eyes.

That said, I'm most inclined to just keep using them fitted to the M-P as they feel a bit small and unbalanced on the SL. The SL fitted with Elmarit-R 24mm or Summicron-R 35mm seems more comfortable and balanced in my hands.

G

 

[Paratom]

The more I use the 24-90 on the SL the more I wish it was f2.8 constant. I even would accept a little shorter focal range.
For shooting indoors ISO is going up to fast, even if light is kind of bright.

 

[Paratom]

Today I shot the following lenses at medium distance on both the M and SL:
21/3.4
28 Summicron asph
35/1.4 FLE
50 APO
Tri Elmar 28-35-50
SL 24-90

I will post images if I find the time but here are my unscientific impressions:
I shot all wide open, 1 stop down, and f5.6

The 35 and 50 APO seem to work nearly as good on the SL as on the M. I would use them without hesistation on the SL if I need the speed at any f-stop.
The 21 and 28 are sharp in the center but the edges are not as good on the SL like on the M, still fine IMO

Except maybe the 50 APO with its color and contrast the 24-90 seems just as good as the 35 FLE, and clearly better than the 28 Summicron (again, medium distance). I also compared the 24-90 at 35mm on SL to the Leica 45mm on S007 and found the Zoom to be surprisingly good.

The Tri-Elmar seems to be not that great on the SL, a litlle better on the M.

My main conclusion is that the 24-90 seems a very very good lens. Not much if anything to be desired compared to primes, except the slower f-stop and the size.

I also have used the 35FLE and 50 APO sometimes on the SL when I needed the speed and it worked very well.
Still - if I wanted to use just M lenses I would use the M.

I will try to post images in the next days.

Regards, Tom

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

The more I use the 24-90 on the SL the more I wish it was f2.8 constant. I even would accept a little shorter focal range.

Especially since the R and M lens catalogs have excellent, fast 80, 90, 100, 135 mm lenses that all work well on the SL and were hard to use on the M. But Leica probably has market information from their S customers that suggest the importance of solving all wedding situations with a single lens.

scott

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Today I shot the following lenses at medium distance on both the M and SL:
21/3.4
...
I will post images if I find the time but here are my unscientific impressions:
I shot all wide open, 1 stop down, and f5.6
...
The 21 and 28 are sharp in the center but the edges are not as good on the SL like on the M, still fine IMO

Since the 21/3.4 sharpens up at the edges when you go to f/5.6 (as seen on the M9 and M240), that's where I use it if possible. I didn't see any problems on the SL at f/5.6, nor did Thighslapper in his table of results.

scott

 

[Paratom]

Especially since the R and M lens catalogs have excellent, fast 80, 90, 100, 135 mm lenses that all work well on the SL and were hard to use on the M. But Leica probably has market information from their S customers that suggest the importance of solving all wedding situations with a single lens.

scott

I think they also try to do something different than the competitors.
I might change my mind as soon as there is a 50 prime with AF available.
But for my taste it would be nicer if the 24-90 was f2.8 at least at 50mm.
Or they wanted to make sure that the zoom owners still feel a need to buy fast primes later on

 

[Paratom]

Since the 21/3.4 sharpens up at the edges when you go to f/5.6 (as seen on the M9 and M240), that's where I use it if possible. I didn't see any problems on the SL at f/5.6, nor did Thighslapper in his table of results.

scott

I just looked at the images again at f5.6 and agree with you, at f5.6 the 21SEM seems very close to the M in the corners.