Jump to content

Peter Wright

Members
  • Content Count

    53
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Peter Wright

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Country
    Canada

Recent Profile Visitors

98 profile views
  1. Just last week, I traded my M246 mono (which was one of my most used cameras of all time) for a Q2M. Most of my photography is in the 28-75mm zone and especially around 35mm, so the Q2M is a perfect fit for me. I use my CL a general purpose camera, and yes, sometimes I convert to B&W from the files it produces, but I don’t think I would be in the market for a CL mono. Perhaps we will see a CL2 with IBIS, better eye detect AF and other improvements, and I would certainly consider that.
  2. Interesting response. Just the kind of experience I was looking to hear about. Thanks,
  3. If you shoot in the 28mm to 50mm range almost all the time, is there any logic to moving to a Q2M from the M Monochrom? I am wondering if someone has done this and what the experience has been.
  4. Thanks all for the replies so far. I will take my time in making the decision. I don't like large cameras or looking after tons of gear: it was the simplicity of the Leica M system that got me into those cameras to start with. The M240 and M246 are about the most used cameras I have ever owned, (and I started using range finders back in the late 1960's 😳). I have also done some of the work I am most pleased with using the M246. So big decision, but I suppose I could always bite the bullet and get an M10M, if I turn out to be making a mistake. I won't be selling my M lenses or Leica MP.
  5. I got a CL about a year back to use as a supplement to my M system. (I have a M 240, M246, a film M and a good collection of lenses.) I got the CL for those times when zoom, electronic viewfinders, and AF are useful. I have still predominately used my M cameras over the last year, but I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the CL is all that I really need, and might trade out the M240 for a CL2 when it arrives if I like the additional features. I am also thinking of trading out the M246 for the Q2M as almost all my mono work is between 28-50mm, and if I need to get outside that range th
  6. These are the areas in which the CL is at its weakest. You would be better off with just about anything from Olympus, Panasonic, Nikon etc. Hopefully they will get an improvement in a future CL, but unlikely to be a reason to select this camera even then.
  7. I bought a couple of Watson batteries (also from B&H) for a quarter the cost of the Leica versions. I am sure they came from the same factory originally.
  8. Yep! I owned the 105/2.5. Can't remember why I sold it. Looks like Sigma should change the name of this series from "Contemporary" to "Nostalgic" 😊.
  9. Your journey sounds very similar to my own. I started in the early 60's shooting as much film as I could afford (which was actually not much at all). I even owned the Vivitar Series 1 zooms later on: 24 - 70 and 70 to 210, if I remember right. So I too shot a huge amount on standard lenses (one of which was a 45mm), but where you as a result seem to have turned more to zooms, I find that I most enjoy, and do my best work I think, with fairly standard primes. I find that (on full frame) I can do just about everything I want if I have a fast 35mm and a 90mm or thereabouts. If I add in a 21
  10. I am surprised you pay shipping from b&h. I am in Canada, and they ship here for free as long as the order is over $99 even if the order has to come in separate shipments due to availability. (It isn't hard to get over $99 πŸ™‚). I find b&h much faster than Amazon prime - almost always arrives in 2 days, even in these covid times. I don't know how they do it.
  11. Hi Marac, Interesting that most people seem to find the 16 as the most compelling of the set. I have never found a need for a wide that was also fast up to now. My wide lenses in my M system are a 15mm Voigtlander and a 21mm Leica SEM. Neither is remotely 'fast'. So I will have a bit of discovery to do. You mentioned the close focus, and that is something that I found quite striking as well. Certainly some different effects are possible. Another feature I noticed is how easy it is to instantly override the AF by turning the very big focus grip, at which point the CL helps out with its f
  12. You are correct. I took a look at my invoice and I had reversed the two prices in my head, but it didn't matter much to me as I was getting all three 😊. It takes me a while to really get to know a lens, but so far these are really promising. Peter.
  13. Look on B&H. The 16mm is $289, the 30mm is $399 and the 56 is $429. That qualifies as a screaming bargain to me. Especially in Leica land!! In my case, the 16 is a lens I didn't really want, but at that price, how could I resist. The sales tax on most of my M lenses was more than that! Peter.
  14. Here you go. A family group! The 56 is about the same size as the 18-56 I included here for comparison. The 30mm is slightly larger, and the biggest is the16mm. I found that this lens handled best with the CL hand-grip attached. Peter.
  15. Here are some more. The first two were shot using the 16mm (all at 1.4) and the third was shot using the 56mm. I particularly wanted the 56 because there is no direct Leica version of this lens. The nearest is the 60mm 2.8 - two stops slower. I could use my 50 Summilux or my 75 Summicoron but then I don't have AF, and those lenses do not focus particularly close. I added the 30mm 1.4 as that is right in my favourite range at 45mm (effective). Again, I could use my 35 Zeiss 1.4 ZM, but again loose AF. I have no real interest in a 16 (24 effective)mm lens, but it gets a good reputation on
Γ—
Γ—
  • Create New...