Would you trade a Q for the CL / CL vs Q {merged}

[ropo54]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've read good things about the 35 1.4, but how is the ooc rendering or bokeh with the 60 macro?

 

I'll let you be the judge. I think the IQ is equal to the 35 1.4.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ropo54]

TL 60 2.8 macro

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[ropo54]

2 more w TL 60 2.8 macro

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[duckshots]

Nobody has mentioned the macro on the Q. I want the CL, but don't want to give up the macro. Love the size and weight. 28mm a little constricting; like shooting a cell phone. Not sure what to do. Not expecting to get much on a trade. Don't have any leica lenses. 

 

Travel a lot and shoot street. Kit zoom looks great for that. 23 cron is a classic street lens for a cropped Leica.

 

Keep talking about this. Leica Miami doesn't even have one to hold, yet.

[ropo54]

Nobody has mentioned the macro on the Q. I want the CL, but don't want to give up the macro. Love the size and weight. 28mm a little constricting; like shooting a cell phone. Not sure what to do. Not expecting to get much on a trade. Don't have any leica lenses. 

 

Travel a lot and shoot street. Kit zoom looks great for that. 23 cron is a classic street lens for a cropped Leica.

 

Keep talking about this. Leica Miami doesn't even have one to hold, yet.

 

Macro on the Q is great. Look on the Q forum site; you'll find a thread on Macro shots. 

 

Similarly, the 60 TL macro lens is excellent if you want the CL

[Anika]

The Q is already a classic.

Can not agree more - never sell a Q....

[Photon42]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am going to trade the Q for the CL and the WA zoom. It is not that I like to part the the Q but I cannot justify both. The CL hopefully will double as a Q and even more wide angle with the 11-23. The adapter-M gives me the availability to mount normal and tele lenses. A hands on test in the store won me over. This thing is too good.

[Belle123]

The Q is like a great Summilux lens, and oh by the way it has a camera already attached. For the price for a great lens and camera, is a steal. The CL, besides being cropped, cost of camera and a Summilux lens will cost much more than the Q. If I were making this choice, would think of the Q as my 28mm Summilux lens and add the CL with other focal lengths.

[Photon42]

The CL cannot is course replace the Q wide open. For me the Q always was a quick street machine, mainly used at f4+. I also like to use it as a wide angle companion for my M and S. For the latter mainly due to weight reasons. I am hoping the CL does the trick here (for me). Selling the M or the S to fund the CL is not an option for me and I truly think I can bond with this camera. It does not have to be for the rest of my life [emoji51]

[pmendelson]

I am thinking about getting the CL as a companion to my Q but I wouldn't sell the Q.  IMHO the design of the Q is pretty much perfect and the file quality is great.  I have always wanted the Q in different focal lengths, so I think the CL will be as close as I can come, at least in the foreseeable future.  

 

I am thinking about the 11-23mm and 35mm Summilux TL lenses for the CL (and I can also use them on my SL, albeit with much lower resolution).    The CL and the Q in the bag walking around the city would make a fun, relatively light, high quality combo.  I can also use my SL 24-90mm on the CL, although it may look and balance a bit silly. 

 

Still, if I had to keep only one camera and one lens, it would likely be the Q.

[likealot]

The very fact that the Q is used as a benchmark to compare against, is a testament to how good the Q is.

[sblitz]

I have always been an advocate of cropping in the viewfinder before pressing the shutter release, not afterwords in post processing.

 

IMHO, cropping out large chunks of the image in post defeats the purpose of having a full frame sensor - particularly if you want to make exhibit quality prints.

True enough. But if you carrying only a Q and the pic you want is equivalent to a 50 then cropping in post is the only option. Reason why some are thinking of CL as a potential alternative. If there was a 50mm Q for me the whole discussion would be moot

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[SonomaBear]

True enough. But if you carrying only a Q and the pic you want is equivalent to a 50 then cropping in post is the only option. Reason why some are thinking of CL as a potential alternative. If there was a 50mm Q for me the whole discussion would be moot

 

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree that I'd rather"crop" before taking an image.  When not using my Q, I almost always shoot a 24~70 f2.8 on my FF DSLR.

I was taught to compose in three dimensions -- make depth decisions before selecting aperture to guarantee depth of field.

This has driven me to full frame since my cropped cameras do not offer the depth control of FF lenses.

The Summilux f1.7 may be the best lens in my kit.  Even cropped to 50mm the images are sharp when printed even 13"x19".

Remember that not all that long ago the best digitals were 8 to 12 mp and we sold lots of pictures shot at 8mp.

Book mark the calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Consider the desired depth and compare the Summilux 1.7 to the CL lenses or cropped M lenses.

Q with 28/1.7 at 10 feet gives 4.04 feet of DoF.  I usually shoot man cal focus and control then 28/1.7 very accurately on the Q.

Cropped in camera to 50mm keeps that perspective untouched.

Either way, you can get great images by always carrying your camera, whatever the hardware...

 

But if Leica offers a full frame CL or a Q that mounts M glass... they have my money!

Edited November 29, 2017 by SonomaBear

[prk60091]

True enough. But if you carrying only a Q and the pic you want is equivalent to a 50 then cropping in post is the only option. Reason why some are thinking of CL as a potential alternative. If there was a 50mm Q for me the whole discussion would be moot

 

 

which is exactly the reason why the business case for a 50mm Q is not there.. whether it can be made in a usable form factor i do not know-- but you just made the case why Leica won't make it.-- 

[sblitz]

I agree that I'd rather"crop" before taking an image. When not using my Q, I almost always shoot a 24~70 f2.8 on my FF DSLR.

I was taught to compose in three dimensions -- make depth decisions before selecting aperture to guarantee depth of field.

This has driven me to full frame since my cropped cameras do not offer the depth control of FF lenses.

The Summilux f1.7 may be the best lens in my kit. Even cropped to 50mm the images are sharp when printed even 13"x19".

Remember that not all that long ago the best digitals were 8 to 12 mp and we sold lots of pictures shot at 8mp.

Book mark the calculator: http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Consider the desired depth and compare the Summilux 1.7 to the CL lenses or cropped M lenses.

Q with 28/1.7 at 10 feet gives 4.04 feet of DoF. I usually shoot man cal focus and control then 28/1.7 very accurately on the Q.

Cropped in camera to 50mm keeps that perspective untouched.

Either way, you can get great images by always carrying your camera, whatever the hardware...

 

But if Leica offers a full frame CL or a Q that mounts M glass... they have my money!

The Q that mounts M glass is the M10. :-)

 

Appreciate what you wrote. Thanks!!!! As I think more and more about the options and my experience with the Q and reading what you and others have written. I will keep the Q and wait for the Q50 and meantime use film with my M4 and MA and M lenses and be very happy.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Paul Reading]

I love the way the Q works, it is exactly how I like to work. Select the aperture or A, Select the shutter speed or A. Select two A's and you are in programme mode. Perfect.

 

Now the CL does not work this way which is a shame. However I would like a camera to replace my Digilux 2 and the Q is a fixed lens and useless for portraits. The CL will do the job but there are two problems, firstly there is no silver option, secondly I prefer discreet speed and aperture controls. Just look and read every review of the Q it is just loved by everyone and that is because Leica got it right. No funny tilting screens that stick out or break. It is designed for photographers.

 

Personally I think I would like to have see an EVF TL-3 rather than a CL, but I can live with the CL if I can get a silver version. 

[Belle123]

which is exactly the reason why the business case for a 50mm Q is not there.. whether it can be made in a usable form factor i do not know-- but you just made the case why Leica won't make it.--

 

Yes, if they made a 50mm, or even 35mm Q, I would potentially drop all my other Leica gear and they might just go out of business, biting their own tail. The 28mm is a tad awkward as an all round camera, or lens. But I do wish for a 50mm Q! Or a monochrome Q!

[Guest VVJ]

Yes, if they made a 50mm, or even 35mm Q, I would potentially drop all my other Leica gear and they might just go out of business, biting their own tail. The 28mm is a tad awkward as an all round camera, or lens. But I do wish for a 50mm Q! Or a monochrome Q!

 

Spot on...