Leica CL lens usage statistics

[alainD]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Someone in the forum asked me privately, so I thought I might as well share it here.

I now have 2 CL bodies with all 7 lenses. I started before Christmas with one body, the 18mm, 35mm, 11-23mm and 55-135mm.

I then added the 60mm and 23mm mid-January and the second body with the 18-56mm last week.

 

18-56mm: 309 pictures, 27%

     18mm: 284 pictures, 25%

     35mm: 167 pictures, 15%

11-23mm: 143 pictures, 13%

     23mm: 106 pictures, 9%

55-135mm: 75 pictures, 7%

     60mm: 47 pictures, 4%

 

Total: 1131 pictures

 

Note: those are only the pictures I kept, meaning rated at least 1-star in Lightroom. This counts only the DNG files, not the JPEG or TIFF processed by lightroom.

 

Because the system is so new to me and I added some of the lenses only recently, the numbers are a bit biased, but I believe still relevant.

I'd be curious to see other people statistics...

 

Alain.

Edited February 6, 2018 by alainD

[lct]

M Lenses: 100% 

[Guest VVJ]

Hi Alain,

 

Just of out curiosity what were you shooting before you moved to the CL?

 

Thanks, Joris.

[alainD]

I had a full Fuji system with a GFX and two X-T2 with a number of Fuji lenses. I loved the GFX but it was too much to carry with me all around the world (I flew 300,000 miles last year).

 

Alain.

[Wojtek]

Thank you for that post! It's very informative. It would be great if we could grow out usage statistics base

(I only have 1 lens so right now statistics would be useless, but I'll gladly share them when I'll have something to share)

[jaapv]

Well, it may be interesting to know how one person uses his lenses, however, most if not all individual photographers will have a different usage. I don't quite see what a database would yield.

[Wojtek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sure, this information would be the most telling to the photographer himself. But if (and it's a huge if) we had enough data, there would probably be some common tendencies. I.e. "80% of people who have both 11-23mm and 23mm end up using 11-23mm more than 3/4 of the time", or the other way around, or i.e. that smaller lenses end up taking pictures much more often then their bigger alternatives, or that those bigger alternatives end up making the final "keeper" shots even though there were fewer shots to choose from. Who knows. Or if we'd see that 50/1.4 SL gets used at f/2.0 or above 95% of the time, that'd be quite a reason to think just a second longer about the smaller 50/2 SL (or the other way around, that most of "keeper" shots are from 1.4 etc). Not to change out minds drastically, but to reconsider. Sure we're all special snowflakes, but there are tendencies worth listening to (there's a reason single-lens cameras oscillate around 35mm. But sure there are people who mainly shoot 200mm+)

 

On a personal level it's simpler of course. My most expensive lens is 35mm and the least expensive is 85mm, yet my most often used is 85mm and least used is 35mm (sadly it's a real example ). Acknowledging it might and will influence my future buying decisions, almost certainly for the better.

 

I personally find it interesting! And very nerdy  

[Tobers]

Very good info.

 

On my recent Scotland landscaping trip, I had 6 lenses with me and had the following usage with about 500 frames:

 

L-lenses

18mm: 0%

18-56: 94%

55-135: 5%

M-lenses

24 1.4: 1%

50 1.4: 0%

90 2.0: 0%

 

This is for landscaping primarily, so your mileage may vary depending on what you are shooting. I’m now in Utah for business, but will have a few days skiing, and I have just the CL and 18mm with me in a nice, tidy little package.

[scott kirkpatrick]

In January and February, the CL shots that I have rendered into jpegs are

 

23 Summicron CL  143

11-23 CL 40

18 M  16

60 CL  Macro 66

55-135 CL 12

90-280 SL  3

 

I think I have shot and kept more 90-280's than this count shows, but my clear favorites are the 23 and the 60.

[thighslapper]

Assuming ..... as I do ....... you have a full range of SL and TL lenses then I would be surprised if it was other than 80+% 18-56 and a mixture of the rest plus the occasional M or R lens. Sub 24mm equivalent or more than 90mm is only rarely needed.

 

My figures from years of T and SL use are similar to Tobers. The image quality from the 18-56 TL and 24-90 SL zooms is so good that there is little reason not to use them for general use.

 

Of course some folk may have good reasons to have a Thamber on the camera every day, but for normal non specialist use the mid zooms do everything required .......

[scott kirkpatrick]

I have a pretty full range of primes for multiple cameras, and I tend to use zooms only at the very wide and pretty long end.  Don't have the 24-90 SL and don't miss it.  I do have the 18-56 CL.  It is nice and small, but the 23 CL is even smaller, a little faster, and I kinda know what it is going to do for me.  The 60 CL is not so small, but it has the same feeling.  And I found a used, but not really, 35 CL for a good price recently...  I leave the house with one lens (or go on a trip with only carry-on luggage) and I just see what the camera will see.  To use the Thambar, I'd have to put some vaseline on my glasses.

[lanetomlane]

I've got the three zooms, a 23 and a 35 Summilux, plus a load of M lens. I've not had the CL long (but before that the T) but the vast majority of images have come from the 18-56. It's just so convenient as a 'walk around' lens. Except for an initial trial with the T I've not bothered to use the M lenses as the TL ones are so good. The only M lens I can see using is the Noctilux in low light.

[Guest VVJ]

Assuming ..... as I do ....... you have a full range of SL and TL lenses then I would be surprised if it was other than 80+% 18-56 and a mixture of the rest plus the occasional M or R lens. Sub 24mm equivalent or more than 90mm is only rarely needed.

 

My figures from years of T and SL use are similar to Tobers. The image quality from the 18-56 TL and 24-90 SL zooms is so good that there is little reason not to use them for general use.

 

If you shoot in daylight conditions all of the time then yes, if you however also often shoot in low light conditions then there is a big difference between the SL 24-90 and the TL 18-56.

 

The OIS of the 24-90 is a godsend in that case.  The two reasons to get primes for the SL are probably shallow depth of field and weight.  For the TL better low light performance is also a reason.  

[scott kirkpatrick]

Assuming ..... as I do ....... you have a full range of SL and TL lenses then I would be surprised if it was other than 80+% 18-56 and a mixture of the rest plus the occasional M or R lens. Sub 24mm equivalent or more than 90mm is only rarely needed.

After a day of good sun and light overcast outdoors to keep the shadows in line, my 11-23 has passed the 60 CL macro to move into second place.  I tend to use all the focal lengths available in a wide zoom, but concentrate on the two extremes when using a midrange zoom (which is why primes are just as convenient).  Examples with this lens are at https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/K58C99 .

 

scott