Jump to content

Recommended Posts

i'd forgotten about the hoods. Unless there's a demonstrable impact on image quality, their only function for me is to protect the front element from fingers and casual knocks. On the 18 and 60 at least, the front elements are deep within the body and so are well protected. I don't think the 18 has a hood; that for the 23, when I owned it, lived in its box, as does that for the 60.

 

 

No hood with the 18mm (no need, either, I would say).

 

I tested the 23mm without hood in quite direct/hard light some days ago (images will follow). This test told me that the hood can safely be left home, at least for me. Without the hood, the 23mm is a small lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it isn't... and there was me thinking I'd said goodbye!  Of course, without the hood it's more reasonable, but it's still a lot bulkier than the cron.  Same applies to the 70-200.  It's the same length as the 135 A-T but much wider.  I know that the TL lenses are AF, and I know that they're lighter than the M lens - but the bulk makes a huge difference for me in the way I work with a camera...

 

attachment=427008:001_IMG_1794.jpg]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me the CL + kit zoom seems close to ideal as a travel and quick photo camera. It is close enough to an SL with the 24-90 lens for the lack of weight to compensate for reduced image quality. I will keep my SL but don't see me taking it along for a travel camera in the future. The last time I travelled with the SL, 24-90, Noctilux, 18SEM and the 90-280 lens plus a large Pro iPad and an M7 film camera in my hand luggage, I could barely lift it into the overhead locker on a plane and I was dreading anyone asking to weigh my hand luggage. I am travelling again in two weeks time and will be taking the CL, 18-56, 11-23 lenses plus an M7, 50 Summilux III and M to T adapter. The Summilux will be fast enough for night use on the CL without having to resort to my Noctilux. The little Summilux III weighs about half the weight of the Noctilux, even in brass/chrome form. If my ordered SF-40 arrives, I will take that as well, otherwise it is an antediluvian SF-24D (came as a package with my Digilux 2). 

 

Has anyone tried to see if the 11-23 needs its hood? Given how far the front element is recessed into the 18-56, I am far from convinced it needs its hood either. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To me, the 55-135 is a relief to use - the alternative is the 80-200R, quite a different proposition in weight and size (and that was a small lens when it was introduced! )

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve never used a hood on the 11-23 zoom and the results are always fantastic. That’s a fantastic travel lens because of its size and range.

Edited by DGP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

But it isn't... and there was me thinking I'd said goodbye!  Of course, without the hood it's more reasonable, but it's still a lot bulkier than the cron.  Same applies to the 70-200.  It's the same length as the 135 A-T but much wider.  I know that the TL lenses are AF, and I know that they're lighter than the M lens - but the bulk makes a huge difference for me in the way I work with a camera...

 

attachment=427008:001_IMG_1794.jpg]

 

002_IMG_1795.jpg

Yes, the 23 without a hood is still larger in size than some M lenses. I had the 23mm with the TL2, though, and found the combination much lighter than an M+lens. 

Bulk, weight, feel in the hands, the usefulness of AF - we all have our own choices. Given just one system I would pick the M every time - I'm happy to have both, though.

I also get photos with the CL I wouldn't get with the M, partly because I will take it where I would not take an M, and partly because there are times when EVF+AF are quicker than OVF+framelines+MF (vice versa is also true).

Edited by LocalHero1953

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a very slim, screw-in, 3rd party hood on the 23/2, primarily for physical protection, and have not had a problem on the T or CL.

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a very slim, screw-in, 3rd party hood on the 23/2, primarily for physical protection, and have not had a problem on the T or CL.

 

Interesting thank you. Would you mind to show how it looks like on the lens?

Edited by lct

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

But it isn't... and there was me thinking I'd said goodbye!  Of course, without the hood it's more reasonable, but it's still a lot bulkier than the cron.  Same applies to the 70-200.  It's the same length as the 135 A-T but much wider.  I know that the TL lenses are AF, and I know that they're lighter than the M lens - but the bulk makes a huge difference for me in the way I work with a camera...

 

attachment=427008:001_IMG_1794.jpg]

 

002_IMG_1795.jpg

 

The dimensions are 63.5 x 38.1mm versus 53 x 35.7, so the TL-23mm is slightly larger but it is 102g lighter and with battery the CL body is 257g lighter than the M10 body.  

 

So you are gaining 359g in weight with the TL-23mm, with the TL-18mm even 433g. 

 

More than 400g for a compact travel combo is IMO significant.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know that the 18-56 is marketed as a kit lens, and that was the reason I got it -only a kit available, normally I wouldn't have- but it is really, really good; full Leica quality. I find it so good that I gave up my original plan to use the CL with M lenses.

As for the 55-135, I find it no problem to shoot hand-held, but I use it outdoors and I am used to shooting (very) long lenses freehand. Quality is superior as far as I can see now - we have miserable shooting weather at the moment.

Exactly how I feel too, except that miy CL came with the 18.   I had the 18-56 previously and used it on a SL.  At this point I am satisfied with the CL and will keep it.   But it is not replacing either my M10 or SL.   I took it with me on vacation because I knew it was not going to be a photo oriented trip (beach) and the trade offs in favor of weight and size tipped towards the CL.   That is the way it worked out too.  Chris, the good thing is that the investment for a CL kit is far lower than other Leicas, so it is less of a problem if -- as you have -- you change your mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe there'll be a small group of those of us for whom the magic went. However - a Nocti's a bit of a serious on-the-rebound purchase! Have fun with that one

The initial plan was to compliment the M10 and Q with a CL, and I was hoping that it would work because frankly that was the cheaper route, but I realized that it just makes more sense to keep building around the M10. Now with the Visoflex I'll reacquire the WATE and 90 Macro-Elmar to complete the M stable. Everything else I'll shoot with my Fuji, which I feel is a much more mature APS-C system than what Leica offers at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use a very slim, screw-in, 3rd party hood on the 23/2, primarily for physical protection, and have not had a problem on the T or CL.

 

Tony

 

A quick picture, in very low light,  which I hope shows what you need. 

 

 

 

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds like a plan! The 90 macro Elmar is a gem. If I want to go light I take the 35 cron asph and the 90 elmar

OMG are you still here??? Get back on that M10 forum 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously doing something wrong. How do I include a picture using a Mac?

 

Thanks.

 

Tony

Edited by cornbarn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm obviously doing something wrong. How do I include a picture using a Mac?

 

Thanks.

 

Tony

If you have the picture locally in your file system, attach the photo with the advanced editing tools and then add it to the post:

 

 

If you have the picture on a picture server, like Flickr.com, obtain a URL for the photo and use the BBCode tag IMG around it. (That's {IMG}url...{/IMG} using square brackets ("[") instead of braces.)

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...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy