Jump to content
Paul Reading

Leica CL vs Fujifilm X-Pro 2

Recommended Posts

The 16-55 2.8 is superb. It's also enormous for an APSC zoom and has no IS. I think the CL is more about compact than fast. If I want huge I can use the SL lenses.

 

I'd pay for a 16-80mm 2.8-4 with IS though.

 

Also, many of us don't want or can't switch from ACR/Lightroom. Have you tried processing a 500 image batch in ID? Bloody awful experience.

 

Gordon

 

I use the 16-55mm but it is an outlier. The main reason I use it, it that its my only zoom solution (as I don't have my A7s anymore) and frankly it is superb

 

There are small primes available for the Fuji but they are not that small, although the Leica 35mm f1.4 TL is not exactly small either ...

 

I never thought the Leica T + prime was smaller/less bulky enough then then my M + prime to give it an advantage for primes. Maybe Leica can work harder now they have the CL ???

 

I normally let ID do its stuff whilst I go off and do something else

 

I wonder how the IQ of the X-T2/X-Pro2 with the XF 35/1.4 compares to the CL with the 35/1.4 TL. I still own that Fuji lens because I really liked the rendering. I don’t mean corner sharpness but overall rendering and color balance.

 

The 35mm f1.4 was Fuji's first f1.4 lens and not the best for corners

whilst I wait for the version 2, I use the new 35mm f2

 

In terms of the CL, I need more Leica f1.4 TL lenses and a f2.8 zoom to make it worth whilst. Just saying ....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

I wonder how the IQ of the X-T2/X-Pro2 with the XF 35/1.4 compares to the CL with the 35/1.4 TL. I still own that Fuji lens because I really liked the rendering. I don’t mean corner sharpness but overall rendering and color balance.

 

+1.  I sold the Fuji 35mm but I have often been tempted to buy it back, most recently when the X-E3 came out...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Assuming you've got the Xtrans stuff sorted the TL35mm is somewhat better than the Fuji. Both are lovely but the Leica has essentially no weaknesses except a bit of fringing when pushed. The Leica is better in the corners by a noticeable margin. Having said that the way I shoot a fast 50 I never had any issues with the Fuji. It's only the extreme corners that fall off a bit. I know some people don't like the Fuji 35mm 1.4. I'm not one of them. I think it's a stunning little lens.

 

I prefer the Leica rendering and the Fuji colour. Both are subjective. I still prefer the Fuji controls. Surely Leica could have got Panasonic to add an aperture ring like they do on their own lenses.

 

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like M lenses adapted to Fuji X-Pro2 - the image quality, the rendering, the manual experience of course. The OVF/EVF is a versatile combination with them, as explained in a previous post in this thread; the advantages are not confined to Fuji lenses.

As for the asserted negatives:
* I develop raw files in Raw Therapee or the supplied Fuji Raw File Converter. The latter does a good job of matching the camera JPGs. Both are fine at sharpening, especially RL Deconvolution in Raw Therapee. Of course, you need to learn which slider settings work best for you. Adobe has improved its first versions for Fuji X cameras, but yes, if you are married to Adobe, there might be residual loss of quality and difficulty matching Fuji colors.
* I don't understand corner criticism when you put a full-frame lens on an APS-C sensor. I just haven't seen problems, although your subjects and eye might be different.

You can find samples in my photostream at https://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/

No experience with the CL. I did have an M8 for a couple of years.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leica designed of M series lenses to work on rangefinder cameras and this causes problems with digital sensors. 

Light rays from W/A lenses in particular are very divergent and in the periphery strike the sensor very obliquely.

This causes more vignetting and colour casts than on film due to the sensor construction.

Successive sensors on Leica M, Q and SL cameras have a modified design to counter this ... and the rest of the issue is corrected in firmware via 6 bit coding on the lenses themselves.

With smaller than 35mm sensors only a smaller central area of the light coming from the lens is used so the peripheral problems on the sensor are less, and easier to correct in firmware. The sensors used are probably similar to other camera brands (Leica never discloses the source). 

All Leica cameras ..... CL and TL included have built in firmware corrections for each M (and most R) lenses so these are unaffected.

The situation with other camera bodies varies dependent on a number of other factors.

Theoretically Fuji APS-C should work OK with most Leica M lenses. Most of the problems are with 35mm. 

Edited by thighslapper

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are frequent (but not universal) reports of poor performance of Leica M lenses of 35 mm and shorter focal lengths on Sony FF and Fuji APS-C sensors.  The most likely reason is that both Sony and Fuji put a 2 mm protective cover glass over their sensors, while Leica in the M uses 0.8mm thickness.  That means that at the edges of the sensor the optical path gets a lot longer with the Sony and Fuji than in the Leica chips.  Sean Reid's site is the most careful tracker of these things.  Anecdotal reports (including those on this forum) are not always trustworthy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't speak for Sony, but on Fuji X cameras I have not noticed a soft-corner problem with a 24mm Elmar nor with a 21mm Perar. But I rarely look for it at pixel level and do not print larger than 40 cm.

 

That little Perar does vignette noticeably. Many lenses have vignette and barrel-or-pincushion distortions, whether adapted or on their native cameras. Camera firmware fixes the problems for the JPG. You can correct these in most modern raw developer programs. Do it once by trial and error and save the settings.

 

...reports of poor performance of Leica M lenses of 35 mm and shorter focal lengths on Sony FF and Fuji APS-C sensors.  The most likely reason is that both Sony and Fuji put a 2 mm protective cover glass over their sensors, while Leica in the M uses 0.8mm thickness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Also, many of us don't want or can't switch from ACR/Lightroom. Have you tried processing a 500 image batch in ID? Bloody awful experience.

 

 

 The developer for ID is a nice guy but yes it's really weak on interface and productivity. I love how well I can work an image through but I'm reaching the limit of my patience. I've put off trying Lightroom and C1 for years because I used programmable keyboards  to get around ID's tedious workflow but they don't link well with the palettes and menus as they don't have keyboard equivalent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

Phase One and Leica don't exactly have the best of relationships...

 

I had a license for the 2 previous versions of C1 but their refusal to support the Leica S made me skip the latest upgrade.

 

Also support for the TL2 and the CL is still lacking AFAIK.  Somebody please correct me if that changed in the meanwhile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can someone explain the issue with wide angle lenses and does it affect both the Fuji and CL?

 

Does affect my M wides on the Fuji X-E2 due to the thickness of its sensor stack but less so the same lenses on my recently acquired CL. None of my M wides is sharp in the corners at full aperture on the CL but the latter does not produce smearing in any way. Also softness affects mostly fine details and things improve significantly when i close aperture by one or two stops depending on the lens used. Sorry for the imprecision but i have no experience enough with the CL to elaborate further. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a landscape of foliage taken with a Fuji X-Pro2 and a Summicron 28mm ASPH. Just happened across it. Where is the corner problem?

https://www.flickr.com/photos/29247386@N04/30250570901/

 

Depends on lenses and apertures. On my Fuji X-E2, corners get sharp at about f/4 with the Summicron 28/2 v2 while the CL does the same at f/2.8 more or less but my experience with the latter is limited.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Depends on lenses and apertures.

 

"Depends on lenses" - so it is not lenses generally wider than a certain focal length. "Depends on aperture" - so when I shoot a landscape at f/2, I should expect what might be normal falloff of focus from center to edge, or it might be the notorious but elusive soft corner at f/2.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Depends on lenses" - so it is not lenses generally wider than a certain focal length. "Depends on aperture" - so when I shoot a landscape at f/2, I should expect what might be normal falloff of focus from center to edge, or it might be the notorious but elusive soft corner at f/2.

 

 

Generally, the wider the angle at which light hits the sensor the more issues you get. It wasn't an issue with film but sensors like light to hit the sensor as close to a right angle as possible. So wide angle lenses at wide apertures and closer to the edge of the frame the more likely things are to go weird. Same goes for lenses where the rear element is very small or close to the sensor. So M lenses tend to have more issues than tele-centric designs like SLR lenses where the design already has the light coming in at right angles. Stopping a lens down can also help with incidence angle. Sensors with a thick filter stack (some SOny's for example) have more issues than a similar sensor with a thin filter stack.

 

Many modern wide M lenses are now designed to send light in at a more perpendicular angle, especially at the edges. A more tele-centric design. The new 28mm cron is a prime example of this upgrade.

 

M cameras also have micro lenses to bend the light to closer to 90 degrees incidence. APSC sensors only use the centre of the image circle and so have less issues than 135 sensors.

 

So, in short *generally* longer, slower more modern lenses have less issues than older, wider faster optics. But not always.

 

Gordon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Depends on lenses" - so it is not lenses generally wider than a certain focal length. "Depends on aperture" - so when I shoot a landscape at f/2, I should expect what might be normal falloff of focus from center to edge, or it might be the notorious but elusive soft corner at f/2.

 

As Gordon said above. On the practical side i have no problem with 50mm and longer focal lengths when i use M lenses on the Fuji X-2. Problem is wides due to the thick sensor stack of the Fuji as well as other non Leica cameras at the exception of few of them like Ricoh GXR or my Kolari modded Sony A7s the sensor filter of which is as thin as that of M cameras more or less. And of course apertures play a major role in corner rendition. At f/8 all my M wides have normally sharp corners on the Fuji. Compared to my M240 and Fuji X-E2, the CL is a compromise sort of. Its sensor filter is thicker than M's but thinner than Fuji's as i understand it. As a result of this, the CL has less moiré and IR issues than my M240 and modded Sony but small details are always soft at full aperture in the CL corners, on my M wides at least. It is a well thought compromise though in that all things equal, the CL gets sharp corners on M wides at faster apertures than the Fuji. Hope it makes sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both and much prefer the Fuji X-Pro 2, I even find it better with my M lenses than the CL is and I greatly dislike the CL's Menu system which I regard as a non too clever go at reinventing the wheel, or rather two very naff wheels. Shame because such as the CL's Viewfinder is far better than the Fuji's, and I do like it in most other ways, it is just that I find the Fuji to be the more versatile and handy photographic tool. Don Morley

 

 

That is astonishing. May I ask you to post a photo taken with the M lenses? What lenses did you use?

Thank you 

 

 

In terms of image quality, the Fuji X-Pro1 was ok with midrange M lenses (say, 35mm an above) and useless with almost all wide angles. This, in my personal experience, has not changed with the X-Pro2. 

 

. . . .  snip

 

Bottom line: if you only use a Summilux-; 50, then I a can imagine you being happier with the X-Pro2 than the CL.

 

 

 

HI There

I've not used the X-Pro2, but I spent a month shooting the X-T2 daily (same sensor etc.) and I did some thorough comparisons between SL / CL / M10 and X-T2 with M lenses . . principally the 28 summicron (because it's considered to be 'difficult') and with the 50 summilux Asph (because it's considered to be 'easy'). Tests were done at about 6 metres of a flat detailed subject (a hedge in fact). They were done at f1.4 (50) f2, f4, f5.6 and f8. I used the proper Fuji M adapter. 

 

Basically I was just astonished that anyone could even consider using the Fuji with M lenses - the results were dreadful - even with the 50 'lux stopped down to 5.6; smeary corners and edges, often reaching well towards the centre of the frame. . . I guess it  would be do-able for shooting street, where you usually aren't interested in anything much off centre. 

 

I discussed this at some length with Sean Reid, who is convinced that it is a function of the thickness of the cover glass on the Fuji (same goes for Sony. 

 

It really isn't meant as a criticism - why on earth should Fuji bend over backwards to make it easy to use someone else's lenses? they want to sell their own!

 

As far as the cameras were concerned, I thought the Fuji was fine - but as I use Lightroom the results (as detailed elsewhere here) were not fantastic - I know Iridient does really well with the files, but for me it's another layer of hassle.

 

I was shooting the CL alongside, and to be honest I was expecting to like the Fuji better . . but I didn't.

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HI There

I've not used the X-Pro2, but I spent a month shooting the X-T2 daily (same sensor etc.) and I did some thorough comparisons between SL / CL / M10 and X-T2 with M lenses . . principally the 28 summicron (because it's considered to be 'difficult') and with the 50 summilux Asph (because it's considered to be 'easy'). Tests were done at about 6 metres of a flat detailed subject (a hedge in fact). They were done at f1.4 (50) f2, f4, f5.6 and f8. I used the proper Fuji M adapter. 

 

Basically I was just astonished that anyone could even consider using the Fuji with M lenses - the results were dreadful - even with the 50 'lux stopped down to 5.6; smeary corners and edges, often reaching well towards the centre of the frame. . . I guess it  would be do-able for shooting street, where you usually aren't interested in anything much off centre. 

 

I discussed this at some length with Sean Reid, who is convinced that it is a function of the thickness of the cover glass on the Fuji (same goes for Sony. 

 

It really isn't meant as a criticism - why on earth should Fuji bend over backwards to make it easy to use someone else's lenses? they want to sell their own!

 

As far as the cameras were concerned, I thought the Fuji was fine - but as I use Lightroom the results (as detailed elsewhere here) were not fantastic - I know Iridient does really well with the files, but for me it's another layer of hassle.

 

I was shooting the CL alongside, and to be honest I was expecting to like the Fuji better . . but I didn't.

 

MERRY CHRISTMAS EVERYONE

When I bought the TL2 I still had a Fuji X-T2 and I did a quick comparison of images at ISOs in the 800 to 6400 range - both with their respective 18-56 and 18-55 zooms. I found the TL2 images a little sharper and I preferred the colour from the Leica. I now have a CL and I have since sold both the X-T2 and the TL2 so I can’t be sure, but I assume the CL performance is very similar to that of the TL2. The CL is producing beautiful results on this, my first real day of using it, both with native lenses and the M90 summarit, though I have done no real pixel-peeping. And the camera is extremely easy to use.

 

Unfortunately I’ve only been taking family Christmas-morning pictures which no one wants me to post on-line. Maybe in a day or two.

 

Merry Christmas!

 

- Vikas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...