Is there much difference between using native versus M lenses on the CL?

[geetee1972]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Other than AF is there much difference between using native versus M lenses on the CL? I am quite taken with the size and compactness of the CL and really want something smaller and more easily carried for day to day use. I already have the SL and have a Zeiss 35mm 1.4ZM and the SL50 that I use on that. One option is to use the Zeiss 35 on the CL but ideally I would like to have a 35mm FOV option; do the native lenses work materially better than the M mount lenses as I have found to be the case on the SL or is the difference less noticeable?

[jaapv]

Native lenses have some advantages, like AF and camera-controlled aperture, but from an image quality point of view there are no general differences, just different renderings. And the crop factor, obviously. Lens size too.

I would say you are in personal preference territory here. Use either or both without hesitation

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[geetee1972]

Thanks Jaap

[lct]

I was tempted by the TL 23/2 but it's flare put me off. See https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/282940-ugly-lens-flare/

[scott kirkpatrick]

The CL's 23/2.0 (35-eff) mm is quite small and  fast in operation as well as in aperture.  The problem with using M lenses as wide angles on the CL is that they have to be extra wide to start with, and the best of them are designed to be 3.4 or smaller wide open.  The last M 24 Elmarit is quite sharp and contrasty, not too large, but the 21 and 24 1.4's are big and heavy.  You might like the Zeiss 21 Biogon (f/2.8) but really the CL 23 is probably the most sensible choice for an all-day medium wide angle.

[jaapv]

I really like using the Summilux 24 on this camera - yes, it is a lump, but it balances well with the handgrip and it rivals the Summilux 35 FLE on the M10. Actually, I like the rendering of the 24 better.

 

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!

 

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I managed not to be bothered by the 23-flare thread.  I haven't seen that myself, but I don't usually do the things that can provoke it.  I'll have to check it.

 

I have the 21 Summilux and used it on my M9 for a while, but decided that I preferred the 21/3.4 Super Elmar.  The Summilux kept giving me purple edges to branches at the edges of the frame.  But I do like the 24 Elmarit-asph, although I haven't used it much.  I remember when it came out, Sean Reid noticed (and I agree) that it had the ability to provide surprisingly sharp and contrasty images in relatively mild light.

 

So comparing the 23 CL and 24 M is an interesting proposition, both on the CL of course.

[jaapv]

I have no problem with that flare either - it would not stop me getting that lens, it seems to be very good.

[thighslapper]

Like a fair few of us I use the CL and SL interchangeably depending on how old and weak I feel.

 

Apart from having to learn to multiply by 1.5 the lenses ..... both M and L mount work equally well...... if anything the wider lenses avoid the minor peripheral softness and vignetting that some have on the SL/M and behave like their equivalent focal length M lenses.

Edited June 9, 2018 by thighslapper

[scott kirkpatrick]

I really like using the Summilux 24 on this camera - yes, it is a lump, but it balances well with the handgrip and it rivals the Summilux 35 FLE on the M10. Actually, I like the rendering of the 24 better.

 

sx.jpg

 

sx2.jpg

 

For comparison, here's how the 24 Elmarit-asph M looks on my CL.  The 21 SX is alongside for comparison. 

 

R1020165 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr SL with SX 80 R @f/5.6, 1.8 sec

 

Two more stops are nice to have, but with the CL's and M10's high ISO performance, the big 21 hasn't gotten much work.  And I am more of an all-in-focus than a creamy bokeh shooter.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I managed not to be bothered by the 23-flare thread.  I haven't seen that myself, but I don't usually do the things that can provoke it.  I'll have to check it.

 

So comparing the 23 CL and 24 M is an interesting proposition, both on the CL of course.

 

 

I have no problem with that flare either - it would not stop me getting that lens, it seems to be very good.

 

OK, now for a small horror show of sunstars and small efforts to produce the 10:1 Angenieux zoom cinema look by having the sun peek through stuff straight into the lens.  Theories abound.  I don't know what's right, but here are a few more facts:

 

First, it's really hard to make the SL with its new 16-35 flare, but you can get it to tell you how many blades the aperture iris has:

 

S1020394 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr SL, 16-35@35/ f/11

 

The (Made in Germnany) CL 35 behaves well on this test, too, even with a UV filter on the front:

 

C1050640 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr CL 35/ f/11

 

But if you go full sun, things fall apart:

 

C1050642 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr CL 35/f/11

 

So being made by Germans doesn't protect you.  It's not the result of putting a UV filter on.  I tried this with and without a nice high quality BW filter, and saw no change.

 

Maybe using an M ("real Leica") lens gives protection.  Here's my 24 Elmarit, taking the same stupid picture of a nice clear morning sun:

 

C1050650 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr M24/2.8 @ f/16

 

and finally, the CL 23:

 

C1050654 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr CL 23@f/16

 

So it's not the UV filter.  It has little to do with the country in which the lens is designed, but most likely is a consequence of the chip making some strong back reflections.  Be careful at the beach today!

 

scott

 

PS:  does anyone know if Flickr has stopped showing Exif data?  

[lct]

[...] most likely is a consequence of the chip making some strong back reflections.  [...]

 

Do you mean the culprit would be the CL's sensor?

[Boojay]

 

scott

 

PS:  does anyone know if Flickr has stopped showing Exif data?  

 

 

 

As far as I know it is still up to you whether your exif data shows on flickr - you can opt in or out in your account settings.

 

I'm a bit weird maybe - I really like all that flare in the last image.

Edited June 9, 2018 by Boojay

[scott kirkpatrick]

 

 

scott

 

PS:  does anyone know if Flickr has stopped showing Exif data?  

 

 

 

As far as I know it is still up to you whether your exif data shows on flickr - you can opt in or out in your account settings.

 

I'm a bit weird maybe - I really like all that flare in the last image.

 

OK, so I'll have to see where my account settings are located.  And I like a little stray light and color on occasion, too.  I particularly like the cinema effect of a long string of colored blobs from the sun towards the center of the image, that sweeps across as you pan the camera.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Do you mean the culprit would be the CL's sensor?

Yes.  It's not the lens, although the lens plays a role in how bright the result is.

 

However, unless you shoot straight into the sun a lot more often than I do, it doesn't seem like a problem.

Edited June 9, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[lct]

I see this as a major issue personally. The CL is not my main camera so i never did tests like you did with but i will have to investigate further before deciding what to do. Thank you for sharing.

[jaapv]

It is a very personal call. Given that any lens can be provoked into flare ( the arguably best tele lens Leica ever built, the APO Telyt 280/4.0  R, will pick up sensor reflections from almost any digital camera, for instance), I see this more as information about which light situations to avoid than as a reason to avoid certain lens-camera combinations.

[lct]

It is a very personal call. Given that any lens can be provoked into flare ( the arguably best tele lens Leica ever built, the APO Telyt 280/4.0  R, will pick up sensor reflections from almost any digital camera, for instance), I see this more as information about which light situations to avoid than as a reason to avoid certain lens-camera combinations.

 

I've used all sorts of R lenses, including my R 280/4, and i've never seen that. Simply inexcusable to me. I just hope that those horrors don't come from the camera. I'll check this when i have some time with hope that i've not made an error in choosing this camera.

[jaapv]

There was an interesting thread on the subject not too long ago, specifically on the SL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

I've used all sorts of R lenses, including my R 280/4, and i've never seen that. Simply inexcusable to me. I just hope that those horrors don't come from the camera. I'll check this when i have some time with hope that i've not made an error in choosing this camera.

Maybe just return to film for peace of mind.