Mr.Q Posted December 28, 2017 Share #1 Posted December 28, 2017 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm enjoying shooting the CL with my M lenses. I'm probably going to get the 11-23 and 55-135 eventually to compliment my M10 and Q, but I'm on the fence on whether to get any of the primes. Besides autofocus, will I be gaining anything over my M lenses? I'm a bit intrigued by the 23 cron and 35 lux, and I wonder how they compare to my 21 sem and 35 fle on the CL. Edited December 28, 2017 by Mr.Q Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 28, 2017 Posted December 28, 2017 Hi Mr.Q, Take a look here Is it worth getting the TL primes?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted December 28, 2017 Share #2 Posted December 28, 2017 23 Summicron T, 35 Summilux T , 21 Super-Elmar M , 35 Summilux FLE M. Sorry, I could not restrain myself. This Turbo-Talk is nails scratching on a blackboard to me. Anyway, if you are not particularly interested in AutoFocus, I don't see that it would be worth it to spend your money on T lenses. The results would be pretty similar. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tobers Posted December 28, 2017 Share #3 Posted December 28, 2017 I've been having the same thoughts as the OP. I have some lovely M lenses, but there are times when I want autofocus and simple convenience of zooming, so I've got the 18-5 and 55-135 which are very good indeed. For low light or bokegasm shots I can use my M primes. I'd like an 18mm TL prime when I can get my hands on one. Why - because it's so small it will round off the CL as the perfect portable camera for me. I'm not that bothered about the 23 and 35 primes as I have a 24 Summilux which is amazing on the CL (at approx 35mm). Also, the 35 prime is not as small as I'd like. So, I'd say it depends on what lenses you already have and what gaps you need to fill. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share #4 Posted December 28, 2017 23 Summicron T, 35 Summilux T , 21 Super-Elmar M , 35 Summilux FLE M. Sorry, I could not restrain myself. This Turbo-Talk is nails scratching on a blackboard to me. Anyway, if you are not particularly interested in AutoFocus, I don't see that it would be worth it to spend your money on T lenses. The results would be pretty similar. No worries and thanks for the clarification. If the results are similar I guess there's not much merit. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 28, 2017 Author Share #5 Posted December 28, 2017 I've been having the same thoughts as the OP. I have some lovely M lenses, but there are times when I want autofocus and simple convenience of zooming, so I've got the 18-5 and 55-135 which are very good indeed. For low light or bokegasm shots I can use my M primes. I'd like an 18mm TL prime when I can get my hands on one. Why - because it's so small it will round off the CL as the perfect portable camera for me. I'm not that bothered about the 23 and 35 primes as I have a 24 Summilux which is amazing on the CL (at approx 35mm). Also, the 35 prime is not as small as I'd like. So, I'd say it depends on what lenses you already have and what gaps you need to fill. You're right. The 18 makes sense due to it's size. Maybe I'll pick one up. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2017 Share #6 Posted December 28, 2017 I've got an X-2 for that. At lower ISO is comes close enough in IQ to be ample for casual photography. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted December 28, 2017 Share #7 Posted December 28, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Hard to get small & fast M wides for APS-C. Either lenses are small and slow (CV 15/4.5, SEM 21/3.4...) or they are faster and bulky (ZM 15/2.8, Lux 21/1.4...). I like much "Lux" BTW. Sounds clear to me. I like "Cron" as well. Neat and funny. "Rit" sounds good as well but may be difficult to comprehend for a couple of newbies . I wonder if i won't be using this turbo-talk systematically on the LUF in 2018 . Anyway i miss a small fast wide for the CL. The Cron 23 was my first idea but it looks like a bulky lens with its lens hood on. Remains the tiny Rit 18 but the hassle to remove the Leica adapter each time i use it makes me hesitate a lot. And what happened to focus and aperture rings on those TL lenses? Any other idea? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 28, 2017 Share #8 Posted December 28, 2017 I think that the primes are well worth the cost of ownership. They're different from their M counterparts, and I think they work well, with fast AF and great results. Not just the 23 'cron and the 50 'lux (sorry Jaap), but also the 60 macro 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2017 Share #9 Posted December 28, 2017 No sorry needed -at least you added an apostrophe-, Jono, but between the 50 Summilux asph on the M9/MM and DG 25 Summilux on Panasonic, I don't think the TL one would add much Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted December 28, 2017 Share #10 Posted December 28, 2017 No sorry needed -at least you added an apostrophe-, Jono, but between the 50 Summilux asph on the M9/MM and DG 25 Summilux on Panasonic, I don't think the TL one would add much I quite agree - depends on what you have (it's a nice lens though!).. . . but you haven't told me whether I should buy a G9 with the 100-400 . . . . Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 28, 2017 Share #11 Posted December 28, 2017 Hard to get small & fast M wides for APS-C. Either lenses are small and slow (CV 15/4.5, SEM 21/3.4...) or they are faster and bulky (ZM 15/2.8, Lux 21/1.4...). I like much "Lux" BTW. Sounds clear to me. I like "Cron" as well. Neat and funny. "Rit" sounds good as well but may be difficult to comprehend for a couple of newbies . I wonder if i won't be using this turbo-talk systematically on the LUF in 2018 . Anyway i miss a small fast wide for the CL. The Cron 23 was my first idea but it looks like a bulky lens with its lens hood on. Remains the tiny Rit 18 but the hassle to remove the Leica adapter each time i use it makes me hesitate a lot. And what happened to focus and aperture rings on those TL lenses? Any other idea? OK, I have a few tors... not to mention a ron and gon. And am looking for a tar. I would like to have a max, though. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 28, 2017 Share #12 Posted December 28, 2017 OK, I have a few tors... not to mention a ron and gon. And am looking for a tar. I would like to have a max, though. I'll put in a word for my 'ton 50/1.5 and my several 'ars. What should I call the old Canon 35/2.0 that I used on my M2, it's just a "lens?" Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
grahamhoey Posted December 28, 2017 Share #13 Posted December 28, 2017 Seems to me if you want autofocus and a fast lens you need to get the TL primes but since I’m a newbie correct me if I am wrong. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 28, 2017 Share #14 Posted December 28, 2017 You're right. The 18 makes sense due to it's size. Maybe I'll pick one up. Eventually you will most likely need to choose between the CL+18mm and the Q though. I have both as well and IMO it makes little sense to keep both. I am planning on selling the Leica Q. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Q Posted December 29, 2017 Author Share #15 Posted December 29, 2017 Eventually you will most likely need to choose between the CL+18mm and the Q though. I have both as well and IMO it makes little sense to keep both. I am planning on selling the Leica Q. Well there has been moments over my 1.5 years of ownership that the Q has met it's competition, most recently the 28 'cron-M and Fuji 16/1.4. Neither of them were able to dethrone the Q as my daily carry because none of them had the combination of fast AF, relative small size, fast aperture and macro capability. Likewise the CL+18mm will provide the small size, but it can't shoot macro and has a 2.5 stop disadvantage in low light (5 stops against static subjects with OIS) I'm actually on my way to the Palawan Island for New Years and I'm taking the X-T2 and 16/1.4 due to it being 1) cheap and 2) weather resistant. So they all serve a different purpose and the Q is probably the last one to leave my stable. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 29, 2017 Share #16 Posted December 29, 2017 Well there has been moments over my 1.5 years of ownership that the Q has met it's competition, most recently the 28 'cron-M and Fuji 16/1.4. Neither of them were able to dethrone the Q as my daily carry because none of them had the combination of fast AF, relative small size, fast aperture and macro capability. Likewise the CL+18mm will provide the small size, but it can't shoot macro and has a 2.5 stop disadvantage in low light (5 stops against static subjects with OIS) I'm actually on my way to the Palawan Island for New Years and I'm taking the X-T2 and 16/1.4 due to it being 1) cheap and 2) weather resistant. So they all serve a different purpose and the Q is probably the last one to leave my stable. I probably could have guessed from your alias... All of what you say is true though. I personally just don't use the Q enough anymore to justify keeping it in addition to the SL and TL2/CL. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted December 29, 2017 Share #17 Posted December 29, 2017 (edited) About 18mm pancake. I have doubts that the results will be same as with 28mm M on M or Q. It is tempting for autofocus though but iPhone works great for selfie. Sean Reid should do some comparison tests for pixel peepers. Edited December 29, 2017 by jmahto Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted December 29, 2017 Share #18 Posted December 29, 2017 About 18mm pancake. I have doubts that the results will be same as with 28mm M on M or Q. It is tempting for autofocus though but iPhone works great for selfie. Sean Reid should do some comparison tests for pixel peepers. Sean Reid did a review of TL 18mm/2.8 Elmarit, TL 35mm/1.4 Summilux, and M 28mm/2.8 Elmarit (on CL). I highly recommend subscribing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest VVJ Posted December 29, 2017 Share #19 Posted December 29, 2017 About 18mm pancake. I have doubts that the results will be same as with 28mm M on M or Q. They are not. I don't believe anybody ever claimed they were though. The 28mm M-lenses and the 28mm Q are all very different as well. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.