CL as companion to the SL ...

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The gods know I need another camera even less than I need a hole in my head, but I have been getting tempted to try a CL as a companion camera to the SL. The fact that it could use all of the same lenses, including my beloved Bazooka (SL90-280), my M, and my R lenses makes it interesting. I did a quick analysis of the equivalent focal length field of views based on my existing collection of M lenses and it turns out that it just means dropping one down one focal length to get my usual working FoV ... aside from the 15mm on the SL (cropped square) it's pretty much the same system in a much much smaller body.

 

Anyone else thinking of the same thing?

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Godfrey,

 

I can say that the TL2 is an excellent companion for the SL, so if you like the haptics of the CL, I'm sure it would work for you.  The user interface is a bit different (in cameras using the same mount, I'm amazed that Leica didn't take more effort to standardise the controls - a joystick would have been great).

 

In terms of lenses, the CL/TL2 gives everything more reach, so taking the SL and 24-90, with the CL in your bag, gives you 24-135 (equivalent range) with one lens.  You do increase dof, but at at 135 I don't find this a problem.  Extending the reach of the 90-280 out to 420 is also useful.

 

The wide end gets a little problematic, and the APS-C lenses aren't really much use unless you get the 11-23 zoom with your CL (roughly 18-35 field of view).  I'm off to stay with my partner in Wellington (a 45 minute flight) for the weekend.  I like to just take carry on luggage, so I have taken to packing the TL2, 11-23 zoom and 35mm Summilux-TL.  Useful, light and compact package, compared to taking the SL and other lenses.

 

Cheers

John

Edited November 30, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[thighslapper]

Yup ..... a much better fit for me than the TL as a complementary system .... and at very similar image quality. My TL2 will unfortunately have a very short lifespan ....

 

I have the advantage of already having most of the TL lenses, so it does provide a system with very broad capabilities ..... the 90-280 then reaches 420mm .... with OIS .... so it certainly plugs gaps and extends use. 

 

I'm afraid the Visoflexes ... in all their incarnations .... are a bit of an achilles heel for Leica 

Edited November 30, 2017 by thighslapper

[Jeff S]

Not weather sealed and, as noted, no joystick. SL controls would have been nice.

 

Jeff

[Peter H]

Why do cameras need companions?

 

Maybe you should be more friendly to them and they wouldn't feel so lonely.

[LocalHero1953]

Why do cameras need companions?

 

Maybe you should be more friendly to them and they wouldn't feel so lonely.

My father used to visit his old aunt who had a live-in companion. After she died he discovered the 'companion' was actually his cousin - the consequence of the aunt's 'misfortune'. Companions are not always what you think they are.

 

Apologies to Godfrey for the diversion!

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

LOL! Hardly a diversion, just some amusement.. :-)

 

I wouldn't buy any more lenses, other than maybe a Voigtländer 10mm, because I have more than enough focal length diversity in M, SL, and R lenses. I'm thinking that the WATE, the 35 and 50, and the Bazooka (for 135 to 420 mm FoV equivalent) would do me fine most of the time. Given that I've spent maybe six months now shooting only with the M-D and either the 50 or 35 mm lenses, I really need much less than I fantasize I do.

 

The differences in control operation don't bother me, I adapt pretty quickly to whatever is in my hands as long as it's reasonably sensibly designed.

 

Ah well. It's still in the thought experiment stage of interest. I've been known to cancel a lot of thought experiments just before plonking down the money so I'm not worried. Yet.

[IkarusJohn]

If you mount a tank bag on your Scrambler, the CL and a couple of TL or M lenses fit very nicely ...

[ramarren]

If you mount a tank bag on your Scrambler, the CL and a couple of TL or M lenses fit very nicely ...

 

 

Actually, I sold the Scrambler in October: It just didn't want to work with me. I bought this lovely little Moto Guzzi V7III Racer to replace it:

I'm in love with this bike. It is awesome. 

 

I can carry my cameras and lenses either in my tank bag, my tail bag, or in a Peak Design Sling bag. At present, I prefer the Sling bag for casual stuff, I'll use the tail bag when I'm traveling distances. I use the Sling bag when I'm riding my bicycle too—it'll even handle the SL with 24-90 fitted, although that's a big load to carry.

Edited December 1, 2017 by ramarren

[jaapv]

The gods know I need another camera even less than I need a hole in my head, but I have been getting tempted to try a CL as a companion camera to the SL. The fact that it could use all of the same lenses, including my beloved Bazooka (SL90-280), my M, and my R lenses makes it interesting. I did a quick analysis of the equivalent focal length field of views based on my existing collection of M lenses and it turns out that it just means dropping one down one focal length to get my usual working FoV ... aside from the 15mm on the SL (cropped square) it's pretty much the same system in a much much smaller body.

 

Anyone else thinking of the same thing?

Yes, I am thinking the same thing, substituting M240 and 105-280R for SL.

[helged]

The SL has served me very well, and I strongly believe that the CL will complement the SL, particularly for longer reach. But also as a pocketable L-mount alternative. I let TL2 (and possibly M246) go. I don't plan to add to many of the TL-lenses but I foresee that I will end up with either the 18mm or 23mm TL primes, plus one of the TL zooms. Time will tell...

[vikasmg]

The gods know I need another camera even less than I need a hole in my head, but I have been getting tempted to try a CL as a companion camera to the SL. The fact that it could use all of the same lenses, including my beloved Bazooka (SL90-280), my M, and my R lenses makes it interesting. I did a quick analysis of the equivalent focal length field of views based on my existing collection of M lenses and it turns out that it just means dropping one down one focal length to get my usual working FoV ... aside from the 15mm on the SL (cropped square) it's pretty much the same system in a much much smaller body.

 

Anyone else thinking of the same thing?

 

 

I saw and handled the CL at the local Leica Store today.  I actually like my TL2 a lot except for the lack of a viewfinder, so I went expecting not to be as excessively impressed with the CL and perhaps canceling my early order for one.  But having handled the camera, even though briefly, I have to say it felt very good.  I already have someone willing to take over my TL2 and I will make us both happy by replacing my TL2 with the CL.  In fact after seeing the CL I'm wondering whether I should also let the <gasp> Q go! 

 

I see it more as an addition to the M.  I can carry both bodies and a couple of lenses in a reasonably compact camera bag.

 

- Vikas

[FlashGordonPhotography]

My CL is most definitely a companion to my SL. It’s primary use will be either as a teleconverter for the SL lenses and as a wide solution with the 11-23. I’m sure I’ll use it for many other things but these two are the purchase points.

 

Gordon

[meerec]

My CL is most definitely a companion to my SL. It’s primary use will be either as a teleconverter for the SL lenses and as a wide solution with the 11-23. I’m sure I’ll use it for many other things but these two are the purchase points.

Gordon

+1 exactly

[Guest VVJ]

My CL is most definitely a companion to my SL. It’s primary use will be either as a teleconverter for the SL lenses and as a wide solution with the 11-23. I’m sure I’ll use it for many other things but these two are the purchase points.

 

Gordon

 

Adding weight to this.  The SL and its current native lens line-up is just to heavy to carry everywhere.  If the TL-zooms had OIS I personally would be very tempted to go TL2/CL all the way.

[ramarren]

My CL is most definitely a companion to my SL. It’s primary use will be either as a teleconverter for the SL lenses and as a wide solution with the 11-23. I’m sure I’ll use it for many other things but these two are the purchase points.

The 11-23 would make my ultrawide spec, BUT isn't useable on the M-D or on the SL for full-frame capture. I figure the Voigtländer 10mm f/5.6 would be a better choice for my particular insanity. I mean, who really need autofocus with a 10mm lens ... really?

 

Never mind that it's also only half the price...

[Guest VVJ]

I have never used the Voigtländer on Leica APS-C but on the SL it is crazy wide and excellent as far as I am concerned.  Not nailing focus because of shallow depth of field is not really a concern...   

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The 11-23 would make my ultrawide spec, BUT isn't useable on the M-D or on the SL for full-frame capture. I figure the Voigtländer 10mm f/5.6 would be a better choice for my particular insanity. I mean, who really need autofocus with a 10mm lens ... really?

 

Never mind that it's also only half the price...

 

I have the WATE and CV 12mm. For my use  a zoom and AF are useful. And I have the lens. Since I'm not getting close to a narrow DOF option no matter what I choose I don't think there will be that much difference between the SL and CL IQ.

 

I'm more thinking of the money I won't have to spend on the 16-35SL. I may still carry the 12mm for the SL though.

 

Gordon

[badmuts32]

I have bought my CL as a companion to my SL workhorse. The joystick is being missed.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

I have bought my CL as a companion to my SL workhorse. The joystick is being missed.

Agree. But the 4-direction button is not too bad. I miss a back-focus option, though. It could have been the center part of the 4-direction button - I would think.