SL2 - wide and long lens choices?

[paul_neuthaler]

Alan, if you can add $1,400 to the swap, you've got a deal!

[astral]

Sorry Paul, I sold the kids last week, and I've just this minute bought a 50/2 Summicron-R - so no more cash in

hand at the moment!

 

Paul, I see in another post that you may have a pre-APO 2x Extender? If so, is it any good? A comment on LUG says

something like 'not in the same class as the APO' .... No surprise there. then, but let me guess: Leitz/Leica

made several models, all different ....

[eric_meyer]

To get back to your original question about splitscreen blackout with slower lenses, for me a killer advantage of

an SL(2) is the incredible brightness of the (large) prism viewfinder. My own long lenses are pretty slow, the

80-200/4 and when needed, 350/4.8, yet I can focus just fine even

at 4.8 -- annoying blackout doesn't start until 5.6, which is a stop or two later than most other SLRs I've seen.

(How does that F1 do?) Definitely go for the SL2. Most vendors will state whether a lens is (all) 3 cams. The

complexities of Leicadom are well worth figuring out, and even "budget" lenses like mine are pretty stellar.

[astral]

Eric, thanks. Yes, I gather most of the 'competition' becomes tricky beyond f3.5, especially with wides and telephotos, unless replacement screens are used. I'm aiming at a 180mm f4 (or f3.4 APO if funds allow) for use in summer 2009, so I'm planning ahead somewhat.

[jimsimmons]

You will like the 180mm f/4 lens, Alan. I had one with my SL, and it took some of my favorite landscape images. The fact that it is lightweight on the tripod means you can hike with a slightly lighter tripod and head than for the heavier telephotos. f/4 is usually bright enough to focus in most any outdoor situation.

[paul_neuthaler]

Alan, yes, I have the 2x extender #11237 made especially for the Leicaflexes not the "R" reflexes. It's very good -- not fabulous -

- I use it on my 400 1:6.8 Telyt R to make an 800mm 1:11. Lots of fun. Good for use on a 50 or 90, etc. -- not to be used on

any R lens shorter than 50mm though. Jim is correct IMHO, the 180mm 1:4 Elmar is a great, and reasonably-priced, lens.

[paul_neuthaler]

Alan, here's a shot of my oldest daughter & her husband taken with my 180mm 1:4 Elmar<div></div>

[astral]

Thanks, Paul, Jim. Planning ahead somewhat - I should be back in the Italian Dolomites and Julianske Alps (Slovenia) - and beyond - in 2009 for a month or more. This year's Alpine photos with a D200 haven't delivered just what I hoped for (dynamic range issues), and I didn't make enough use of my medium format gear, or shoot much 35mm film - big mistake.

<br><br>

If I get my hand/eye in with the SL2 and a couple of lenses (back to basics <i>a la</i> 1974) I know I'll be a lot happier - and more careful setting up shots. A 180mm +/- extender would be just right for Hungary (and the Alps, even) and f4 is plenty fast enough for landscapes, etc. <br><br>Thanks for all the info. and sample pic - nice 'bouquet'. -A-

[geoff_r1]

I have the Non-APO 2x Extender, and have found it to be good. Used mainly with a 2.8/60 Macro Elmarit and 2/50 Summicron. You need to be a little more careful when focusing, but the results are very pleasing, and it saves carrying a big heavy telephoto.

 

Apparently the main advantage of the APO version is that it does not soften APO lenses. I think the Non-APO Extender is fine with Non APO lenses, especially considering the price difference. In fact, it is very sharp with the 2.8/60 and retained great bokeh.

[ant_nio_ferreira]

I own a SL2. I just love it. But it demands all the three cams in the lenses. I cannot use my late 90 Summicron on it, I suppose the latest 28, 35 or 19 won't fit either, at least without the proper cams. As a matter of fact, the latest lenses lack the SL cams and just won't fit the camera unless fixed by Leica.

[geoff_r1]

There are three cam versions of the latest 19, 28 and 35. I've never seen an AA 2/90 that wasn't ROM, however, most modern R lenses have been made in 3 cam. They're generally a bit cheaper than the ROM versions second hand too.

[Robin Smith]

Strictly speaking an SL and SL2 only requires 2 cams, but more recent lenses only included the single third cam for

the R models (dropping the first two) and hence need conversion. So it is important to check whether it is 2 or 3-

cam, both of which will work. ROM and third cam only will not - but can be converted.

[Robin Smith]

Reading Doug Herr's note I realize there are some differences SL to SL2, as my three cam lenses work fine on the SL. I don't have an SL2.

[Robin Smith]

"That's one thing that Leitz/Leica never seemed to get a grip on - hoods and filters."

 

It is a fair point for the first set of R lenses - they followed the continental style - series filters and special hoods like

Contax/Zeiss/Hasselblad, but most of the later models (starting c 1976) have built-in hoods and are well designed, so

much so that I find returning to use Canon or Nikon with their clunky or flimsy (often enormous) hoods and fiddly

caps an ergonomic nightmare in comparison.

[paul_neuthaler]

1, 2 or 3 Cams for Leicaflex Standard; 2 or 3 Cams for SL or SL2; 3 Cams (or 3rd Cam only ) for R cameras R3-R7; 3 Cams, R

Cam or Rom for R8-9 cameras. Think I got that right -- Doug will correct me if I'm wrong!

[astral]

Having used LTM and M Leicas for a while I am used to the quirkiness of older Leitz hoods and filters, though to

be fair this applied equally to many European marques too. Indeed, the major change was the ascendance of

Japanese gear in the early 70s with the ubiquitous 49/52/55 etc filters and hoods. But that approach has its

limitations too, particularly the use of circular hoods when rectangular ones were/are often so much better ......

 

Yes, there are a number of "3rd cam only" lenses around to trap the unwary like me, and matters are not helped by

some sellers not being any more knowledgeable than I am .... but I'm learning reasonably quickly. Thanks for all

the help - I'm off to size-up the 180/4 market and possibly sniff out any pre-Christmas mega-bargains ... (Ha!)

Regards, AC

[astral]

The SL2 arrived today and looks, feels, and works fine. I just need to get used to the metering pattern - it

seems a little different to my Nikon F2 & F3, etc, but no problem. A 28mm/2.8 arrived at the same time, so the

camera is now in service - and a very cheap, late model 50/2 is on its way from Vienna by carrier pidgeon.

 

Thanks to everyone for the invaluable information and advice. Alan

[nee_sung]

My very first Leica "R" series was an SL2. The meter has to be precisely aligned for the proper exposure to be rendered. Any slight up or down of the needle, even if it's still within the bracket, will mean an over/under-exposure by about one stop. This I learned through rather painful experience.

 

As I write, it just occurred to me that it would be a good a idea to bracket your shots for the first roll and then check the results to see if the meter is properly calibrated.

[steve_hinds1]

I just purchased an SL2- 50Jahre at an estate sale, here in Florida. I also purchased the 35mm lens with it. What other lens would you recommend for a longer focal length? The camera came with the case, but I need to get a battery for it. I understand that the new batteries have a higher voltage, so I'll have to recalibrate the meter, is that correct?

Steve Hinds

[doug herr]

"<I>I understand that the new batteries have a higher voltage, so I'll have to recalibrate the meter, is that correct? </I>"

<P>

That's what I've done.

[astral]

Well, my 'new' SL2 came already adjusted for alkalines. But I'm told (by my repairer) that silver oxides are just

outside the adjustable range ... though the suggestion is that this varies a little with individual cameras. I'd

prefer

silver oxides in the longer-term, but alkalines are cheap enough to replace every few months. However, the

camera has a minor issue with the ISO setting cam which wasn't spotted during the checks, etc. So I'll be

without it for a week or so.

 

In the UK the cheapest 'longer' lenses at present seem to be the 135/2.8 and 180/4 - so I placed a 99GBP ($146)

bid - you-know-where - on a clean 180/4, and it's mine: no other bidders. According to a London dealer I know,

Leica R prices generally appear to be slowly falling, especially so for R bodies. I'm almost tempted to look for

a cheap R5/6 body while the SL2 is in dry-dock ...... AC

[doug herr]

"<I>But I'm told (by my repairer) that silver oxides are just outside the adjustable range ... </I>"

<P>

Leica USA calibrated my chrome SL2 for silver-oxide cells and likewise DAG adjusted my black SL2 for silver-oxide

cells.

[astral]

That's interesting Doug .... I wonder if that was just an adjustment, or if it involved installing a Schottky

diode. I'm planning modifications for my Nikkormat's at some point, but it's arguably a better solution to

buy/make a battery adapter that can be switched between cameras, rather than modifying several cameras. I'm still

'chewing' on this issue. In the meantime I still have some original batteries in cold storage.

 

Back on the subject of 'longer' lenses: while the 90 Summicron is clearly very good, is there much difference

(image-wise) between the 135/2.8 and 90/2.8? Both lenses are/were rated highly on wilidlightphotos ... "gone but

not forgotten" ;-)

[doug herr]

My experience with the 90mm Elmarit-R is very limited, but I didn't find enough difference between the 135mm Elmarit-R and the 90mm Summicron-R to keep both. The 90 'cron is a stop faster, focusses closer and weighs less and their imaging character is very similar so I sold the 135. The 135 is much better than the 90 'cron with extension tubes, but then the 90 Elmarit-R is too.