Ive been shooting with the SL2 for about six months now mainly using the Vario-Elmarit 24-90 but Im really feeling the itch to move into the APO primes for that legendary clinical look. I've got a trip to the Scottish Highlands coming up in three weeks and I really want to nail some landscape and environmental portrait stuff while Im out there. I did a ton of digging on the forums and the general consensus seems to be that the 35mm APO-Summicron is basically the pinnacle of optical engineering but then I see people on Fred Miranda arguing that the 50mm APO has better micro-contrast and that Leica glow whatever that actually means these days.
Im looking to spend around 5000 dollars maybe a bit more if I can find a good deal on a used copy here in London but Im just torn. Is the 35mm actually sharper in real world use or is it just lab tests? Some guys say the Sigma 35mm Art is just as good for way less money but I worry about the autofocus speed and that huge weight on the SL2 body. I just want the absolute best image quality possible for this sensor since Im planning on making some massive prints for a gallery show later this year.
Which of these primes actually offers the absolute best image quality on the SL2?
I've been shooting L-mount glass for years and honestly, the obsession with the 35mm APO being the absolute pinnacle is a bit of a trap if you're trying to be smart with your money. While the Leica APO-Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 ASPH is a masterpiece with basically zero chromatic aberration, you can get essentially the same results for your gallery prints using the Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art L-Mount. I've run side-by-side tests and at f/5.6 for landscapes, the resolution difference is negligible on a 47MP sensor like the SL2. In my experience, the Panasonic Lumix S Pro 50mm f/1.4 is the real sleeper hit for this system. It carries the Leica Certified badge and the MTF data shows it performs better than almost anything in the 50mm range besides the actual APO-Summicron. Tbh, if you drop your whole 5000 on just one lens, you're really limiting your kit for that Scotland trip. Consider looking for a used Sigma 24mm f/1.4 DG DN Art L-Mount for the wide vistas and then finding a deal on a non-APO Leica Summicron-SL 50mm f/2 ASPH. You'll save thousands and still have glass that holds up for massive gallery prints. That "glow" people talk about is usually just a fancy word for uncorrected aberrations... for large prints, you want clinical perfection, and you dont always have to pay the red dot tax to get it.
Re: "I've been shooting L-mount glass for years and..."
- I definitely agree that those APOs are a massive investment. You might want to consider saving your budget for the gallery show prints instead. Be careful with third-party weight distribution tho. The following alternatives are worth looking at:
- Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG DN Art L-mount
- Sigma 50mm f/1.4 DG DN Art L-mount Make sure to check used copies for element alignment before buying.
To add to the point above: I went through a similar dilemma before a trip to Iceland last year! I was totally set on the Leica APO but then realized I could buy a whole set of lenses and a backup body for that price. Honestly, for your trip to Scotland, you want something thats reliable and wont make your neck snap after a day of hiking. I've been using these lately and they are fantastic for the price:
- Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary L-Mount
- Sigma 65mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary L-Mount
- Sigma 24mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary L-Mount The build quality on these I series lenses is amazing... all metal and they feel so solid on the SL2! I made some huge 40x60 prints from the 65mm and the detail is just mind-blowing. Plus, if it starts pouring rain in the Highlands, Im way less stressed about a $600 lens than a $5000 one. Definitely check the used market for these, you can find some absolute steals and save thousands for your gallery show! Let me know if you need any more tips on the L-mount stuff, love talking gear.
My buddy told me the exact same thing last week. Guess he was right lol.