alainD Posted February 7, 2018 Share #41 Posted February 7, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) The CL body was smaller than I had anticipated and rather difficult to use in my large hands. Surprise! I had been considering lens size rather than body size, which from photos looks closer to the M dimensions than it actually is. Did you try the CL with the grip? It changed everything for me. I too found the body a bit on the small side, especially with the larger lenses like the 35mm or 60mm. Alain. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 7, 2018 Posted February 7, 2018 Hi alainD, Take a look here 23 TL vs 35 TL - best prime to start with?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
rob_w Posted February 7, 2018 Author Share #42 Posted February 7, 2018 (edited) Good thought. Thanks Alain. When I return I will ask to try the CL with the grip attached. Edited February 7, 2018 by rob_w Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
microview Posted February 9, 2018 Share #43 Posted February 9, 2018 Did you try the CL with the grip? It changed everything for me. I too found the body a bit on the small side. +1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photon42 Posted February 9, 2018 Share #44 Posted February 9, 2018 I do agree the grip makes quite a difference with larger / heavier lenses 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoutman Posted February 9, 2018 Share #45 Posted February 9, 2018 (edited) OT but for obvious reason adding both the hand grip plus Thumbs Up do make the CL more bulky. This is noticeable in small bags like the Billingham Hadley for Leica. Thumbs Up is more curved than than the Leica thumb support. Now trying Leica half case with Thumbs Up Edited February 9, 2018 by mhoutman Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reynoldsyoung Posted February 10, 2018 Share #46 Posted February 10, 2018 The 11-23 and 35 are magic together. No need for much else. Just stunning images. And, skip the hoods on both. Put a B&W 007 on and good to go. "Heavy"? Not! With the thumb support, they both are in good balance. Have fun, everyone!! 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mhoutman Posted March 23, 2018 Share #47 Posted March 23, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I just got the 23mm yesterday an I am impressed. The CL and the 23 mm ar such a sweet combo. If I had bought a CL body only, the 23mm really would have bene my first lens 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 24, 2018 Share #48 Posted March 24, 2018 The 11-23 and 35 are magic together. No need for much else. Just stunning images. And, skip the hoods on both. Put a B&W 007 on and good to go. "Heavy"? Not! With the thumb support, they both are in good balance. Have fun, everyone!! Rob, as others have mentioned do try the grip and/or the thumb support. Makes all the difference in the world on the handling of the CL. For someone with larger hands it is positively hard to hold onto without some support, but with either the grip or the thumb support it becomes a different camera. The grip is more secure, but it is also more of a hassle since it covers the battery door, SD slot, and tripod mount. Try them before you give up on the CL. Reynolds, I agree with you regarding the 11-23 and 35, but I would add the 60mm as well. I find the 35mm is great for environmental portraits and the like, but there are still to many subjects that require a bit more focal length, and the macro capabilities on the 60 provide a whole additional view on the world. While it doesn't seem to have quite the "sparkle" that the 35mm has (sorry, wish I had a better word or could describe the results more technically), it's also a superb lens. These three are, in my view, a clear notch above the 23 and the other two zooms and a couple notches above the 18mm. While I'm happy to have the 18mm since it makes the camera so compact, there is a bit more compromise there than I would like. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
reynoldsyoung Posted March 24, 2018 Share #49 Posted March 24, 2018 The 35mm is the better lens but the 23mm wins on size, weight, price and convenience. Amen....35 is a winner! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted March 24, 2018 Share #50 Posted March 24, 2018 A description by those who say the 35 1.4 TL is "huge" must be considered in context. Certainly bigger than many lenses but not in the league of the SL lenses which might more aptly be considered quite large and heavy. Again, the 35 is not 'that heavy' that it is burdensome in the least. IMO, very manageable and not a problem to carry around all day. Some photos below. How does it compare to a M 35mm Lux? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted March 25, 2018 Share #51 Posted March 25, 2018 How does it compare to a M 35mm Lux? Samir, It is certainly larger, but I find it quite manageable as I had mentioned. I'm not sure whether these comparison photos help you get a sense of the difference. Rob 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! Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/281303-23-tl-vs-35-tl-best-prime-to-start-with/?do=findComment&comment=3487136'>More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted March 25, 2018 Share #52 Posted March 25, 2018 Thanks. It looks significantly larger. I have had super results using the M 35 Lux on the CL. I see you use it on the SL. How is that working for you and how does it compare to leica M10 or M240? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted March 25, 2018 Share #53 Posted March 25, 2018 The 35mm 1.4 FLE is very sharp and renders beautifully. It is more compact. As between it and the the TL 35, if you do not care about the AF option, nor about price, the 35 1.4 FLE would be my preferred option. Further, the 35 will give also give you 50mm on APSC and is likely easier to re-sell if and when you choose. The TL 35 is a terrific lens as well and if you want AF and a less expensive choice, I doubt you would be disappointed. Rob Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldwino Posted March 25, 2018 Share #54 Posted March 25, 2018 Sorta kinda off topic a little...but has anyone tried the Zeiss Distagon ZM 35/1.4? It’s about the same size as the Summilux-TL, maybe a little lighter even, and obviously missing the AF. Price is about the same. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 25, 2018 Share #55 Posted March 25, 2018 The 35mm Summilux-TL may be a bit larger than the 35mm Summilux-M, but the weight difference is only about 10%. 428g for the TL and 390g for the M lens with the adapter. I’d take the TL any day of the week on the CL. You get autofocus plus, frankly, a sharper lens, both on axis and near the edges. The 35TL is easily the better lens. Really, the only downsides to the 35TL on an APS-c camera vs. the M equivalent are a little extra bulk and focus by wire for those who prefer manual focus. Optically, it’s actually a better lens than FLE in my experience. Now if I also needed the full frame aspects of the M lens for use on another camera, that’s another discussion. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 26, 2018 Share #56 Posted March 26, 2018 I've compared the 35CL, the 23 CL and the 35 FLE on my CL and agree with Jared's conclusions about the two 35s. The new CL 35 is a 10 years newer design, and has a slightly easier job to do, covering APS-C only. The focus by wire feels so much like manual focus that I do sometimes use it. The M50s (Summilux-asph and APO Summicron) are interesting possibilities for use as medium telephotos on the CL, except that the APO CL 60 Macro is so good that there really is no need for a 50 unless I require f/1.4. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted March 27, 2018 Share #57 Posted March 27, 2018 (edited) Here's how the 35 sees a cityscape from the roof of my offices. I posted a panorama of the same scene in the image thread. It took 8 shots (at 135 mm focal length) to cover 6 of the 8 cranes in this one. C1000017 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr Edited March 27, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samir Jahjah Posted March 27, 2018 Share #58 Posted March 27, 2018 So far I have been very pleased using the M 35mm LUX on my CL. At this level of quality what matters most is how comfortable we are with the tool. I’ll give the new 35 a try. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 6, 2018 Share #59 Posted April 6, 2018 (edited) I'm just wrapping up six days in the Scottish Highlands with my CL. I took 11-23, 35 and 60. Never unwrapped the 60, used the other two lenses for three days each. (I left an M10 backup at home.) Each did their thing nicely. I encountered only mild weather, so the camera and lenses had drops of water on them most of the time, but never got a soaking. No problems. Here's a 35 mm view of the world (Clava Cairns ~2000 BC): C1040276 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr and here's a 14 mm view (Kinlochlevin): C1040098 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr Edited April 6, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick 7 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jdphoto Posted April 10, 2018 Share #60 Posted April 10, 2018 Is anyone shooting portraits and strobes with the 35mm 1.4 T? 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.