Advise about a new lens.

[hector_jorge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I´m a new (and proud) owner of a CL. I already have the following M lenses: 1:2,8/28, 1:2,8/35, 1:2/35, 1:2/50, and 1:2,8/90. I want to buy now a TL fixed focal and a zoom lens to use the automatic settings of the camera.

I use the camera mainly for travel and street and family pictures. I´ almost discarded the 18mm lens because the non favorable comments about it in this forum, so what lens must I buy next ( a fixed and a zoom)? Many thanks for your advise. 

[grahamhoey]

I have been doing a lot of traveling with the CL. By far my most used lens has been the 18-56. My most used prime has been the 1.4/35. I also have the 11-23, find the 18-56 IQ as good but the focal length of 18-56 most useful.

[Advertisement]

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

[ropo54]

If it was only 2 lenses: the 35 1.4 TL (50mm equivalent) and the 11-23 (17mm-35mm).  You'd cover most of the bases with those, and you certainly can cover a wider angle than what you have at present. Unless you really need a compact choice, I'd sell the 18mm and get the 11-23.   Or, skip the 35 1.4 TL because you have a 50mm M lens, and get the other T zoom, the 55-135.

Plenty of good choices.

Rob

[jaapv]

I have been doing a lot of traveling with the CL. By far my most used lens has been the 18-56. My most used prime has been the 1.4/35. I also have the 11-23, find the 18-56 IQ as good but the focal length of 18-56 most useful.

Quite agree; the 18-56 is a standard zoom and the most versatile. I combine it with the 55-135 and Summilux-M 24. The Summilux 50 asph is an occasional visitor.  I use the Vario-Elmar 105-280 R to supplement the long end, and am considering a Voigtländer Hyperwide (10 mm) at the short end. At the moment that is covered by the M9 + Super-Elmar 18.

[Guest VVJ]

If it is your first native lens and given the M glass you already have the 18-56mm probably makes most sense in my opinion.  

 

One comment though, it is slow, so if you are doing a lot of low light shooting you might be better off with a faster prime.

[JTLeica]

If I were you maybe the 23mm F2. It give you a lazy mans walkaround camera with a 35mm lens... Some days AF is nice.

[hector_jorge]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have several Leica R lenses too: 28, 50, 90 and 100 mm, and a 35/70 mm zoom. I haven`t mentioned them because I don´t have the R adaptor yet, and because the comments in the forum about the R lenses in the CL aren´t good for its weight and size. 

[ropo54]

I have the R 80 1.4 and used it on my CL.  Very manageable and great results.  I use the Novaflex adapter.

[JTLeica]

I have several Leica R lenses too: 28, 50, 90 and 100 mm, and a 35/70 mm zoom. I haven`t mentioned them because I don´t have the R adaptor yet, and because the comments in the forum about the R lenses in the CL aren´t good for its weight and size. 

 

What are the Leica R lenses you have? Summicron / Summilux etc?

[Erikvw]

I’m also new here. Recently i bought the CL with the 18-56 lens as a package deal. Plus the TL 35mm 1.4 especially for the bokeh effect. The last one really gives you the Leica look. The zoom lens is practical when travelling.

I’m gooing to sell my Olympus gear and buy the 11-23 and 55-135 to cover the whole range.

The image quality is simply better.

[hector_jorge]

What are the Leica R lenses you have? Summicron / Summilux etc?

My R lenses are: Elmarit 28, Summicron 50, Elmarit 90, Macro Elmar 100 and Vario Elmar 35/70. The last one seems to be very big and heavy for the CL when travelling, so I will try the 18-56.

In my country there aren´t Leica authorized sellers, so I will wait until August when I will fly to Germany to see the lens. 

Edited June 29, 2018 by hector_jorge

[LocalHero1953]

I´m a new (and proud) owner of a CL. I already have the following M lenses: 1:2,8/28, 1:2,8/35, 1:2/35, 1:2/50, and 1:2,8/90. I want to buy now a TL fixed focal and a zoom lens to use the automatic settings of the camera.

I use the camera mainly for travel and street and family pictures. I´ almost discarded the 18mm lens because the non favorable comments about it in this forum, so what lens must I buy next ( a fixed and a zoom)? Many thanks for your advise. 

When reading comments on lenses here on the forum, engage your own critical brain before accepting them.

Some people have criticised the IQ of the 18mm based on their own detailed testing, and I don't doubt that they are correct. Others have expressed similar opinions simply because they repeat what they read - they either don't have the lens or haven't checked it.

 

I have the lens and I would simply say that there is no alternative (other than a smartphone or compact digital) if you want the smallest possible lens to carry around with you. If I didn't have that lens, I wouldn't have taken this picture, because I wouldn't have had the camera with me.

 

Also, whatever is wrong with that lens, I challenge you to find it in that shot - such concerns are irrelevant for that sort of photography, and swamped by all the other issues around low light, high ISO shots.

 

So, if you want a lens for landscape photography or anything where wall-to-wall perfect IQ is a must, then you may wish to look at something better (I wouldn't know - I haven't tested or used it for those applications). If you want a lens that you can put on the CL and be sure you'll have it with you with family, out at dinner, in your briefcase.......then think about the 18mm.

 

Edit: FWIW I have the 18mm and the 60mm, and I know exactly why I want those lenses and what I want to do with them: casual shots and portraits/macro respectively. I'm about to get the 18-56 on the same basis (all purpose single travel lens, now I no longer use my M240 for that).

Edited June 29, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[Photon42]

If it was only 2 lenses: the 35 1.4 TL (50mm equivalent) and the 11-23 (17mm-35mm).  You'd cover most of the bases with those, and you certainly can cover a wider angle than what you have at present. Unless you really need a compact choice, I'd sell the 18mm and get the 11-23.   Or, skip the 35 1.4 TL because you have a 50mm M lens, and get the other T zoom, the 55-135.

Plenty of good choices.

Rob

 

 

I am in Rob's camp. 1.4/35 + 11-23. The WA has no alternative. The 35 would, but I just love the fact it is AF to obtain critical focus at close distances late in the evening easily. The op's 50 and 90 round out the kit.

[Guest VVJ]

When reading comments on lenses here on the forum, engage your own critical brain before accepting them.

Some people have criticised the IQ of the 18mm based on their own detailed testing, and I don't doubt that they are correct. Others have expressed similar opinions simply because they repeat what they read - they either don't have the lens or haven't checked it.

 

I have the lens and I would simply say that there is no alternative (other than a smartphone or compact digital) if you want the smallest possible lens to carry around with you. If I didn't have that lens, I wouldn't have taken this picture, because I wouldn't have had the camera with me.

 

Also, whatever is wrong with that lens, I challenge you to find it in that shot - such concerns are irrelevant for that sort of photography, and swamped by all the other issues around low light, high ISO shots.

 

So, if you want a lens for landscape photography or anything where wall-to-wall perfect IQ is a must, then you may wish to look at something better (I wouldn't know - I haven't tested or used it for those applications). If you want a lens that you can put on the CL and be sure you'll have it with you with family, out at dinner, in your briefcase.......then think about the 18mm.

 

Edit: FWIW I have the 18mm and the 60mm, and I know exactly why I want those lenses and what I want to do with them: casual shots and portraits/macro respectively. I'm about to get the 18-56 on the same basis (all purpose single travel lens, now I no longer use my M240 for that).

 

+1.  Couldn't agree more.