Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male / Männlich
  • Location
  • Country

Recent Profile Visitors

300 profile views
  1. OK, here some further information and personal views on the LUMIX 4.0 16-35. Lens is relatively light and compact and I have not faced any issues in communication with my SL2. I found the respective lens-profile on all pictures when opening LR. What I really like is the so called manual focus clutch allowingyou to focus manually. x The SL2 automatically provides a larger view of the focus area. Lens has no image stabilization, but who need that wide-angle. Aurofucus is precise and fast, but not such an issue for my use of the lens. Lens is made of plastics, but feels quite robust. My focus with this lens is wide-angle, meaning 16-21mm, for 28 and 35 I have M-lenses. I am happy with image quality. Attached a picture I made at F8 with 16mm. I reduced size to upload it here, but in fact one can count bricks on the wall and leaves. I have not made more than some auto-adjustments in LR. When it comes to 16mm I noticed some minor IQ-issues. For example leaves when having light behind them are not perfectly sharp at the edges of the picture. But when stopping down to F8 the image quality is really fine. I noticed that IQ in edges and corners is by far better than with the 18mm M-lens, by far better! I expect to make landscape with tripod anyhow, so my standard will be F8 and I am on save side. By the way: I bought the peak design travel tripod (all version) and I am really impressed. Colors are quite close to what I expect from a Leica-lens. I would not say that the lens has any kund of character or offers pictures where people see a specific look. For me it is a simple workhorse for landscape. I do not have an issue with F4, do not need more and I am not keen to carry more when climbing up to some locations. For sure the lens is not a Bokeh-champion and I would never use it for portraits, but F8 and short distance to subject are quite OK. Closest distance to a subject is 25cm, that is not so bad when shooting some flowers. The attached picture is handheld at 35mm against the sun, no piece of art, just a stupid test shot. But again result is OK. I've read positive reviews of this lens. Thus, the rationale for this lens was weight and compactness. The competitors from Sigma and Leica are heavier. I expect the Leica 16-35 to perform better, I saw pictures where it manages tricky situations quite well, but it simply does not feel balanced on the camera, at least not for me. For my demand the lens is a good choice and it performs by far better than M-super wide-angle on my SL2 (I do not have a M-camera). I would recommend it for that specific use, but for 28 or 35mm the M-lenses have more character.
  2. Thanks for all these helpful comments and hints. Finally I gave back the 18mm, fair approach from Leica! Really! I tested the 16-35 from Leica, the above mentioned Sigma and the Lumix 16-35. Finally the Lumix made the race for one simple reason: weight. The Leica and the Sigma might be slightly better, but 1.2 kg are too heavy. The Lumix is certified by Leica (whatever that means), it is relatively compact and price is also ok. As I will use it anyhow between 16-21mm, which means not always, the money per picture rate seems good. There is one nice feature: the manual focus clutch. IQ? It is good, really good, sharp, good contrasts and colors close to those of Leica. My SL2 handles the lens quite good, no issues with communication camera to lens.
  3. Thank you very much for this answer, it helps. I once had this lens wirh my M9 and loved it, later sold it and now tried again with SL2 (I have no M anymore, does not work with landscape), good thing: I can give it back. Most probably I move to SL 16-35 or the Sigma you mentioned.
  4. I have a SL2 which really delivers, perfect pictures, good handling. I use it with M lenses only, the SL lenses are in my view too large and too heavy. But with my 18mm lens I have a problem, the upper part of pictures is not really sharp, perhaps 10-15%. Lens was at Leica, it is fine. Camera delivers with all other lenses. But this combo fails, does anyone here can help me? Same experience perhaps?
  5. I have discussed the issue with Leica and learned on informal basis that the CL has a severe issue, the sensor seems to be quite static and „collecting“ dust when changing lenses. During first days of a workshop this made me mad and I have used a complete pack of swabs. A solution is to switch of the camera and wait for a while before changing the lens (or having just one lens per day). The SL2 does not have this issue…
  6. I have it multicoded and love the size and handling. Wide open the lens delivers vintage style, stopped down it turns into good standard 35. In fact in terms of its style you will have 2 lenses at least. I really love it.
  7. Hi Murat, there is one thing all Leicas have in common and that is image quality, colors (I love the blue…) and logic of use. You will find good and bad views on each and every camera here… My way along decision path: 1) I have learned via several reviews that the monochromes are not visible better than color plus conversion. But some simply like the reduction. 2) Ask yourself if Rangefinder is your thing, even wideangle, if yes and you love the size go for whatever M. 3) If you cannot manage Rangefinder, because you are wearing glasses or you love EVF, move to SL system. 4) You love night and perhaps video, go for SL2S. And if you love extra pixel go for SL2. 5) do not be afraid about size of SL lenses, the SLs work great with M lenses. 6) Go to Leica shop and have cameras in your hand, you should feel good with your tool. Enjoy your journey! I will not tell which camera I have 😀 Philipp
  8. I gave up to wait for CL2, instead I bought SL2 for the „big things“ and will keep my CL for family and street. Both having same mount plus using M-lenses mainly I am flexible. And the SL2 is an encouraging beast…
  9. thanks for all these good advices! I believe I will either go for the 18/3.8 or the 16-35. Funny, because I once owned the 18, but I sold it when leaving M-system towards CL (need EVF, original SL does not attract me). But looking at the crazy high prices for used 18 I may go to 16-35 as flexible solution for landscape. about the CV 21: it is a great lens, perfect on my CL. The test shots with the SL2 show an incredible IQ in the center, really incredible, but the IQ falls after 2/3 from center to edges, still OK, but visible due to the difference to the IQ in the center. One may not see it on 24MP sensor, but with SL2 it is visible.
  10. hi everyone, as proud new owner of the sl2 i am looking for the best or most suitable super wide angle lens for it. Best for me means IQ for landscape, IQ in terms of sharpness, pop, microcontrast, over the entire frame. I consider the famous WATE, the M18 or any other. I tested the CV 21/3.5, but it is too good in the center an lacks relative IQ to the edges. Any suggestions? Thanks PDP
  11. Good evening community, this are my first ideas on the question if it is worth to invest into the big sister the SL2 or better not. I know that here are some discussions on that, ok, this is mine. My question is not to get rid of the camera I loved the most (my CL), it is more if it is worth to make use of the same system and buy the SL2. I have bought one, no I check it, finally I decide. There is nothing to say about quality, EVF, intelligent handling and all those things of the SL2 (they are all great, full stop) and its weight compared to CL (2.5 times or so), my question is based on results, on comparison of the pictures leaving the SL2 compared to CL. Simple things first: Answer 1: handling with the two major wheels is equal, but the SL2 offers more FN-buttons. Answer 2: you can use all TL lenses on SL2, quite good in handling and you still end up with reasonable MPs, the 11-23 might even be a great deal. Answer 3: I do not like the original SL lenses because of their seize and weight, but the SL2 works well on M-lenses. In fact it works better on M-lenses than the M due to its fantastic EVF and focus peaking. EVF of SL2 beats the one of CL. On SL2 you can use M-lenses within their character, it is so great! Answer 4: the SL2 offers some special items and modi, I've read about but do not used so far. There is for example a multi-shot-mode, but Leica Academy Australia said it works in big prints only. These aspects I do not need do not count, I am an old-fashioned photographer. BUT BUT BUT, SL2 offers build in IS, and oh my god it works so well with M-lenses (it is about 2 stops I guess, or more). Answer 5: It has 2.5 times the weight, but it works well, now after 2 days with both I feel the CL too light, ohoh, not fully true, the CL is still the beauty, the modern Barnack. And now the crucial master question, does the SL2 makes better pictures? Yes it makes, clearly it makes, but what counts is what lenses I have and what I want: Answer 6: CL is APS-C, SL2 is FF and SL2 has twice the pixels on twice the sensor, in other words (oh shit) they are almost equal in terms of MPs per cm2. Now everything depends on the lenses you have (or willing to use) you have TL-Lenses, the use on SL2 does not make sense at it internally crops to APS-C, so you carry 2.5 times for almost same result BUT I can use TL-lenses on both you are willing to invest in SL-lenses; they seem to be the best in the world, the largest, most expensive, good luck, not my world; so this is not my point, full stop you have M-lenses (I have a lot, each chosen carefully): The CL works well with them, really well, OK crop, but it works well; and now the SL2: it keeps me speechless, the handling with magnified EVF plus focus peaking, they work so well, so precise (in fact with CL preciseness is lower)! AND the M-lenses are used as designed by Leica Summary: I love my CL and I will keep it, for its size and weight and image quality and versatility with TL-, L-mount and M-lenses. It will be my camera for family, for street and travelling. But I probably/may keep the SL2 for my fine art landscape and those moments I want to us a M-lens perfectly Reasonable, any comments welcomed
  12. WOW, what a massive response on my little „ohoh“, hope they read it at Leica. I do not know sales figures, I can only answer with a photographer‘s ❤️. The SL system might be fantastic in terms of technology, but it is by far too heavy and too large. Do not want to walk for hours with this camera and these lenses. When shooting street or portrait with my CL people love the size of camera and lens, they do not feel attacked. Look at the fantastic pictures of Louis, he is so close to the people. Finally a secret for Leica: I have a CL and no M and buy M lenses, cross-selling…
  13. Today I was invited to participate in a survey on future interfaces, screens etc. for Leica. Upfront I was asked, which camera I use. And the CL was not on the list…
  14. I use the excellent APO Macro 100/2.8 with superb results
  • Create New...