p.1 #1 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Given the frequent collaboration between Panasonic and Leica, I am curious if anyone has tested Leica M-mount lenses on the new Lumix S1RII. I suspect they might even share the same sensor technology. It seems like a logical move for sourcing and production efficiency, especially considering Leica's smaller manufacturing volume. Has anyone noticed any performance similarities or issues when using M glass on this body?
p.1 #2 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Leica SL cameras are known for having sensors optimized for M lenses, especially when it comes to the microlens design. Panasonic S cameras use a thicker sensor stack, which means you can see more or less noticeable compromises when adapting M lenses, especially below 50mm. Nikon Z, on the other hand, has a thinner sensor stack, but also lacks the specific microlens optimization.
p.1 #3 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Yes, that information has been published. The total thickness of the two layers of cover glass on the SR1 II is 2.4mm. It is designed to work well with L mount lenses. But that is very thick and will result in corner smearing with many M lenses. It is even thicker than Nikon's covers which vary between 1.1 and 2.5mm. Sony's is thought to be around 2.0mm.
The SL line of cameras has a sensor cover glass thickness of less than 1mm and often stated to be 0.8 mm in order to optimize M lenses.
The Leica M11 utilizes an exceptionally thin sensor cover glass stack (typically measuring less than 1 mm) to accommodate legacy wide-angle M-mount lenses. By combining bespoke microlenses with a very thin UV/IR cut filter, Leica minimizes light refraction and corner smearing.
So once again we see that the SL3-P is not a simple rebranding of the S1RII. There are many meaningful differences.
Jul 09, 2026 at 01:06 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #4 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
1bwana1 wrote:
Yes, that information has been published. The total thickness of the two layers of cover glass on the SR1 II is 2.4mm. It is designed to work well with L mount lenses. But that is very thick and will result in corner smearing with many M lenses. It is even thicker than Nikon's covers which vary between 1.1 and 2.5mm. Sony's is thought to be around 2.0mm.
The SL line of cameras has a sensor cover glass thickness of less than 1mm and often stated to be 0.8 mm in order to optimize M lenses.
The Leica M11 utilizes an exceptionally thin sensor cover glass stack (typically measuring less than 1 mm) to accommodate legacy wide-angle M-mount lenses. By combining bespoke microlenses with a very thin UV/IR cut filter, Leica minimizes light refraction and corner smearing.
So once again we see that the SL3-P is not a simple rebranding of the S1RII. There are many meaningful differences....Show more →
Measuring sensor stack thickness is not easy, especially doing so with precision. The 1.1mm for Nikon, however, is almost certainly wrong. That was an early measurement from Kolari that did not include a layer of glass directly on the sensor. They later clarified that. Hopeful Nikon users still quote it, however. Having used Leica M, Sony E, Nikon Z, and Canon RF cameras with Leica M mount lenses Nikon cameras are a little closer to Sony in performance than a Leica M, but Nikon is a little better than Sony. I would say Canon is between Sony and Nikon but it is hard to tell it apart from either. I haven’t used Panasonic but if 2.4mm is right for the sensor glass thickness it is probably in the same range as Canon and Sony.
p.1 #5 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Steve Spencer wrote:
Measuring sensor stack thickness is not easy, especially doing so with precision. The 1.1mm for Nikon, however, is almost certainly wrong. That was an early measurement from Kolari that did not include a layer of glass directly on the sensor. They later clarified that. Hopeful Nikon users still quote it, however. Having used Leica M, Sony E, Nikon Z, and Canon RF cameras with Leica M mount lenses Nikon cameras are a little closer to Sony in performance than a Leica M, but Nikon is a little better than Sony. I would say Canon is between Sony and Nikon but it is hard to tell it apart from either. I haven’t used Panasonic but if 2.4mm is right for the sensor glass thickness it is probably in the same range as Canon and Sony. ...Show more →
I really appreciate Kolari, but they did a disservice with their "1.1mm" measurement, which they later acknowledged was wrong. The damage is done, though, I still see that figure repeated over and over, with no sign of it stopping.
p.1 #6 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Steve Spencer wrote:
Measuring sensor stack thickness is not easy, especially doing so with precision. The 1.1mm for Nikon, however, is almost certainly wrong. That was an early measurement from Kolari that did not include a layer of glass directly on the sensor. They later clarified that. Hopeful Nikon users still quote it, however. Having used Leica M, Sony E, Nikon Z, and Canon RF cameras with Leica M mount lenses Nikon cameras are a little closer to Sony in performance than a Leica M, but Nikon is a little better than Sony. I would say Canon is between Sony and Nikon but it is hard to tell it apart from either. I haven’t used Panasonic but if 2.4mm is right for the sensor glass thickness it is probably in the same range as Canon and Sony. ...Show more →
That is probably why the Nikon measurement has such a large range. In any case it is clear that if you want to use Leica M lenses, you should either get a modified sensor, or stick to Leica cameras.
p.1 #7 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
It seems odd to me that Leica SL and Panasonic would have such radically different sensor glass thicknesses, since they are both members in the L-Alliance. Not saying it is not true; I am just wondering how that happened.
p.1 #8 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
mranger211 wrote:
It seems odd to me that Leica SL and Panasonic would have such radically different sensor glass thicknesses, since they are both members in the L-Alliance. Not saying it is not true; I am just wondering how that happened.
It happens because the thicker glass works perfectly with the designs used for native L mount glass. Leica is also dedicated to its users getting top quality results with M Mount lenses. So, they use a thinner glass layer to optimize for that.
Panasonic and Leica collaborate on certain things. But their goal is not to make identical cameras and lenses.
mranger211 wrote:
It seems odd to me that Leica SL and Panasonic would have such radically different sensor glass thicknesses, since they are both members in the L-Alliance. Not saying it is not true; I am just wondering how that happened.
"Did some tests today with a few different M lenses 21mm SEM, 28 Lux, 35 Lux, and 50 Lux on S1R II. As expected, there is some smearing at the long edge visible in wide-angle lenses. SL3 and M11 do much better."
p.1 #10 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
mranger211 wrote:
It seems odd to me that Leica SL and Panasonic would have such radically different sensor glass thicknesses, since they are both members in the L-Alliance. Not saying it is not true; I am just wondering how that happened.
p.1 #11 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Just FYI the Sony IMX455 sensor in the M11 has nothing by the way of bespoke microlenses and Leica have not made any statement to that effect. Offset microlenses aren't really needed with BSI sensors.
p.1 #12 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
thrice wrote:
Just FYI the Sony IMX455 sensor in the M11 has nothing by the way of bespoke microlenses and Leica have not made any statement to that effect. Offset microlenses aren't really needed with BSI sensors.
I can definitely attest to this in practice. I have a Sony A7CR that's been Kolari-modified (matched to Leica's sensor stack thickness), and all M lenses perform exactly as they would on the M11, since both cameras use BSI 61MP sensors. The only differences I notice are in color rendering, not in optical performance, not even slightly.
p.1 #13 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
I wonder why sensor stack thickness varies so much though... everything else in modern camears has been optimized to death, but sensor stacks vary quite significantly in thickness.
It goes beyond adapting M-lenses. For example, recently I took 3 native E-mount wide-angle Voigtlander lenses and carefully exposed the same scene using the Sony and Nikon bodies (via the adapter). And - lo and behold! - despite being native E-mount lenses, they performed better on the Z, supposedly due to the thinner stack. I posted screenshots in the Z-forum here.
If thinner is apparently better, why even bother making thick sensors? Is it cheaper?
p.1 #14 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
old-gregg wrote:
I wonder why sensor stack thickness varies so much though... everything else in modern camears has been optimized to death, but sensor stacks vary quite significantly in thickness.
It goes beyond adapting M-lenses. For example, recently I took 3 native E-mount wide-angle Voigtlander lenses and carefully exposed the same scene using the Sony and Nikon bodies (via the adapter). And - lo and behold! - despite being native E-mount lenses, they performed better on the Z, supposedly due to the thinner stack. I posted screenshots in the Z-forum here.
If thinner is apparently better, why even bother making thick sensors? Is it cheaper?...Show more →
I can only guess that thicker is more durable and shouldn't result in a significant penalty, if any, if lenses are designed for it. I thought I read ages ago that the original 4/3 sensor stack specification was 4mm.... which would be super thick. But one of the design criteria for that system was long exit pupil distance because the cameras were DSLRs. Thicker also keeps dust specs farther away from the sensor and may make them less noticeable as a lens is stopped down. There might be something to this last point because other than my M9 and M240 sensors being dust magnets, small dust specs become quite noticeable in images, whereas my Canon R system cameras rarely show any obvious dust spots, even stopped down a fair amount, unless the dust spot is pretty massive. What I'm not sure about is whether the sensor stack glass is bonded directly onto the sensor's own cover glass, and if so, if all manufacturers do this. Would a thin stack with a bit of an air gap between it and the sensor result in the same optical benefits as one directly bonded to the sensor? The advantage of an air gap would be reduction of noticeable dust spots. But it would be more easily damaged by forceful contact (such as sensor cleaning).
Your results with Voigtlander FE mount lenses on Z kind of doesn't make sense because I've read complaints about FE lenses performing worse (peripheral image smearing) when adapted to Z with the assumption that the FE lens optimization for a thicker stack had consequences on the thinner Nikon stack.
One explanation for your experience could be that if those FE mount lenses, if also available in Z mount, Cosina may not have FE optimized them as carefully as we have thought was the case.
Also, sensor stack difference between Leica SL and Panasonic would seem to suggest that a generic L mount lens, such as from Sigma, may not perform optimally on one of the two systems. Unless L mount lenses are designed with long exit pupil distances to minimize performance differences. It makes me wonder if Leica's 'reskinned' Sigma lenses are further optimized for SL sensor stack specifications. Has anyone used a demanding WA or UWA L mount lens on both SL and Panasonic bodies and noticed any differences? I can't recall coming across any such comments, but I also haven't closely followed L mount discussions.
p.1 #15 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
Somewhere I once read a discussion (including test results) about SL APO Summicron lenses still performing well on Panasonic bodies, but losing that little extra something — the “magic” of the APOs, so to speak.
So it seems that not every L-mount lens delivers exactly the same quality on Leica SL and Panasonic S bodies. Unfortunately, I can’t find that discussion anymore.
p.1 #16 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
gammarART wrote:
Somewhere I once read a discussion (including test results) about SL APO Summicron lenses still performing well on Panasonic bodies, but losing that little extra something — the “magic” of the APOs, so to speak.
So it seems that not every L-mount lens delivers exactly the same quality on Leica SL and Panasonic S bodies. Unfortunately, I can’t find that discussion anymore.
leica is very serious about referring to the SL cameras as "system" cameras. The bodies and the lenses are designed from the bottom up to produce optimal results when used together. I believe them.
Jul 10, 2026 at 02:49 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #17 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
old-gregg wrote:
I wonder why sensor stack thickness varies so much though... everything else in modern camears has been optimized to death, but sensor stacks vary quite significantly in thickness.
It goes beyond adapting M-lenses. For example, recently I took 3 native E-mount wide-angle Voigtlander lenses and carefully exposed the same scene using the Sony and Nikon bodies (via the adapter). And - lo and behold! - despite being native E-mount lenses, they performed better on the Z, supposedly due to the thinner stack. I posted screenshots in the Z-forum here.
If thinner is apparently better, why even bother making thick sensors? Is it cheaper?...Show more →
Can you provide a link to this test? I can't seem to find it.
I have used a lot of Sony E mount Voigtlander lenses on Nikon bodies and never found them to perform better on Nikon. They mostly performed the same. Some performed very slightly worse on Nikon. I would like to see your tests because it does not match with my experience.
p.1 #18 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
M lenses, designed for M bodies, seem to almost always perform optimally. Why not just do that?
Jul 10, 2026 at 02:57 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: Off
p.1 #19 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
1bwana1 wrote:
M lenses, designed for M bodies, seem to almost always perform optimally. Why not just do that?
I did for a number of years. It is a great approach, but I decided to sell my Leica M10 and simplify my camera kit. In doing so, I also got to use focus aids based on the AF system of the camera which I actually prefer to even the rangefinder patch and they work with all focal lengths. Further I can build a great kit with M lenses that perform the same on mirrorless as they do on Leica M cameras. I would have more options for lenses on Leica M, but I have more than sufficient options using mirrorless and I can add in a few mirrorless lenses and old SLR lenses that either can't be used on a Leica M camera or would be a lot harder to use.
p.1 #20 · Has anyone tested M-mount lenses on the Lumix S1RII
rscheffler wrote:
I can only guess that thicker is more durable and shouldn't result in a significant penalty, if any, if lenses are designed for it. I thought I read ages ago that the original 4/3 sensor stack specification was 4mm.... which would be super thick. But one of the design criteria for that system was long exit pupil distance because the cameras were DSLRs. Thicker also keeps dust specs farther away from the sensor and may make them less noticeable as a lens is stopped down. There might be something to this last point because other than my M9 and M240 sensors being dust magnets, small dust specs become quite noticeable in images, whereas my Canon R system cameras rarely show any obvious dust spots, even stopped down a fair amount, unless the dust spot is pretty massive. What I'm not sure about is whether the sensor stack glass is bonded directly onto the sensor's own cover glass, and if so, if all manufacturers do this. Would a thin stack with a bit of an air gap between it and the sensor result in the same optical benefits as one directly bonded to the sensor? The advantage of an air gap would be reduction of noticeable dust spots. But it would be more easily damaged by forceful contact (such as sensor cleaning).
Your results with Voigtlander FE mount lenses on Z kind of doesn't make sense because I've read complaints about FE lenses performing worse (peripheral image smearing) when adapted to Z with the assumption that the FE lens optimization for a thicker stack had consequences on the thinner Nikon stack.
One explanation for your experience could be that if those FE mount lenses, if also available in Z mount, Cosina may not have FE optimized them as carefully as we have thought was the case.
Also, sensor stack difference between Leica SL and Panasonic would seem to suggest that a generic L mount lens, such as from Sigma, may not perform optimally on one of the two systems. Unless L mount lenses are designed with long exit pupil distances to minimize performance differences. It makes me wonder if Leica's 'reskinned' Sigma lenses are further optimized for SL sensor stack specifications. Has anyone used a demanding WA or UWA L mount lens on both SL and Panasonic bodies and noticed any differences? I can't recall coming across any such comments, but I also haven't closely followed L mount discussions....Show more →
old-gregg was talking about wide-angle Voigtländer lenses for e-mount, I guess that could be 10/5.6, 12/5.6, 15/4.5, 21/3.5, 21/1.4. From those only 15/4.5 has also made it to Z-mount and it was 7 years later (2016 for E, 2023 for Z). I believe Z-mount would not have been a consideration at all when these were made for E-mount. However, there are VM versions of all of these lenses too and especially with 10/12/15 the VM versions work well on E-mount too and there might have not been so much system specific optimization at that time (these 3 were the very first E-mount native releases from CV in 2016) while the optical design could have taken both sensor stacks (E and M) into account.
