Jump to content

Recommended Posts

In anticipation of a coming CL body with a M-adapter, since my wide M lenses are only a 21/f2.8, a 35/f1.4, and thinking a prime wide TL lens for the CL...

 

For those who have the experience, which one do you think is worthy to get into, the 18mm/f2.8?  Or the 23mm/f2?   (budge limit, only one could be considered)

 

Or nothing, but just use the M 21/f2.8?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have both the 18-56 and the 23. Both are really superb lens. If I were to only get a single prime, it would be the 23. I know you have the M 35 but I think you always need a native lens that takes advantage of the autofocus. FWIW

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 23/2.0 CL lens is quite nice, notably sharper than the 18/2.8 CL and of course a little faster.  And it handles well, focuses fast, etc.  Unless you really need the smaller, less visible 18/CL, I would go with the 23.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In anticipation of a coming CL body with a M-adapter, since my wide M lenses are only a 21/f2.8, a 35/f1.4, and thinking a prime wide TL lens for the CL...

 

For those who have the experience, which one do you think is worthy to get into, the 18mm/f2.8?  Or the 23mm/f2?   (budge limit, only one could be considered)

 

Or nothing, but just use the M 21/f2.8?   

Neither. These M lenses work perfectly with the CL.  In some ways better than on the M10.

Get the 18-56 as a walkaround lens. Only buy lenses as you need them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It comes down to what is upmost important for you (which you did not disclose).

 

The CL + the Japan-Zoom is very versatile, and the lens is small - for a zoom lens. It is also "slow" in terms of maximum aperture and you won't win any background dissolution contests with it.

 

The CL + 18 is the most compact set-up you can get. The lens focuses instantaneously, but is only 2.8. Subject separation through large apertures is not the prime discipline of that lens. I cannot comment on the image quality, though.

 

The 23 in my eyes is the best first lens for the CL if you like larger apertures. I suggest this also because you seem to like the 35mm field of view, which I would then cover with a native lens. AF is fast and while f/1.4 would have been better, I think you could live with it for a while and maybe add a used 50 (Zeiss Planar M, Nikon F 1.2 or 1.8 etc) at some point with an adapter. Nice two lens kit and if you feel like 50 field of view, you still have your 35.

 

the 35 also has a useful 52mm filter thread for all kinds of applications, e.g. a snap-on close-up lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the poster already has a fastish lens in that focal range, 21/2.8, and a 50-equivalent 1.4, which produces far more narrow DOF.  AF does not add much at those focal lengths.

 

The 18-56 is a versatile walk-around lens of true Leica quality and can still can give decent subject separation, especially at the long end. 

 

It makes no sense to be redundant if you are budgeting yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but the poster already has a fastish lens in that focal range, 21/2.8, and a 50-equivalent 1.4, which produces far more narrow DOF.  AF does not add much at those focal lengths.

 

The 18-56 is a versatile walk-around lens of true Leica quality and can still can give decent subject separation, especially at the long end. 

 

It makes no sense to be redundant if you are budgeting yourself.

 

 

All depends on whether the OP wants to go with a zoom lens and its advantages and disadvantages. The 21/2.8 on the CL is nothing special (no AF, meh "speed", meh size for a prime with that focal length), and if it is my most used focal length, I would want the best prime for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be curious...  

 

Wondering how would be the comparison results between the Leica 24mm/f1.4 ASPH-M on a CL (equivalent 35mm) vs a Leica 35mm/f1.4 ASPH-M on a full frame body?

Edited by yst

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to be curious...  

 

Wondering how would be the comparison results between the Leica 24mm/f1.4 ASPH-M on a CL (equivalent 35mm) vs a Leica 35mm/f1.4 ASPH-M on a full frame body?

Maybe Jaap wants to comment ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 24/1.4 was my absolute favorite lens on the M, and is even better on the CL, but I have no 35/1.4 to compare it to. It is a bit of a lump, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your question is about 1.4 lenses, I have the 21/1.4, the 28/1.4 and the 35/1.4 and use them on an M body.  I would say my favorite is the 28/1.4, which is also the newest design of all that series.  The 35/1.4 is the oldest, and doesn't excite me.  Since the CL uses the center half of the full frame's area, the occasional artifacts seen at edges in the 21 and 24/1.4's in bright light should not be a problem.  If you don't need 1.4, some of the older Elmarit-Ms (my favorite is a 24-asph) can produce surprisingly clear and contrasty images.  But for work (events, for example), the convenience of the 23/CL is pretty appealing, and it also does a fine job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Between the 18 and 23, I had the 18 but replaced it with the 23. I found the 18 to be a bit too wide, and the 2.8 aperture restricted any “creative” bokeh opportunities. The 23 however is much nicer as a sole prime lens. While it is a little bit larger than the 18, I find it a much nicer lens in terms of angle of view and bokeh potential.

 

I do have the 18-56 as well which did influence my decision as well, as that lens at 18mm is very similar to the 18mm prime.

 

I also had the 24 1.4 M lens which was WONDERFUL on the CL. But as said above it is a relatively large and heavy lump. With the 23 prime, the 24 was relegated to the shelf and eventually sold.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In anticipation of a coming CL body with a M-adapter, since my wide M lenses are only a 21/f2.8, a 35/f1.4, and thinking a prime wide TL lens for the CL...

 

For those who have the experience, which one do you think is worthy to get into, the 18mm/f2.8?  Or the 23mm/f2?   (budge limit, only one could be considered)

 

Or nothing, but just use the M 21/f2.8?   

 

 

I would buy nothing, just use the lenses you have already, unless you want AF and all that. Once I knew what did it better for me, I'd buy the lens that suited that. 

 

I'm buying the CL body-only and plan to use my existing lenses on it. I have everything I need for it from the WATE to a 600mm mirror tele lens in Nikon mount. If I find I want one compact, AF, etc, lens, I'll start with the 18mm and probably end there too. Looks like a fine piece for happy snaps, and with it fitted I can still put the whole camera in my jacket pocket if I want.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The 23/2.0 CL lens is quite nice, notably sharper than the 18/2.8 CL and of course a little faster.  And it handles well, focuses fast, etc.  Unless you really need the smaller, less visible 18/CL, I would go with the 23.

im sold 23 ,as it not contrasty without hood poor colors,and compared to my 18 im very like 18- nice colors contrast and similar sharp,no distortion,stopped to f4 very sharp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

Both the 18mm and 23mm are good lenses.

 

The 18mm is probably the obvious choice if you want your CL to be pocketable or if you are looking for the combo with the smallest size and weight.

 

Despite some criticism in this forum I find it also has good optics.

 

There is a lot to be said as well for the 23mm as first ( and only) prime. 

 

I personally tend to use the 18mm more because of its small footprint and because IMO it complements the 35mm (which I use most of the time) better.

 

Both lenses should however serve you well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both the 18 and the 23, when measured on image quality, suffer by comparison with the 11-23.  But they are very handy.  I seldom wear a coat with pockets big enough for the "pocketable" 18.  So what I hope to see in the next wave of lenses for the TL and CL family is a 14 or 16 f/1.4 of super quality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest VVJ

Both the 18 and the 23, when measured on image quality, suffer by comparison with the 11-23.  But they are very handy.  I seldom wear a coat with pockets big enough for the "pocketable" 18.  So what I hope to see in the next wave of lenses for the TL and CL family is a 14 or 16 f/1.4 of super quality.

 

The 18mm is not designed to give the highest image quality.

 

It is designed to be small and light while still maintaining a high level of image quality though and for me it meets those criteria.  

 

Whenever I use the 18mm image quality is not the main concern although I still want good image quality and I personally am more than pleasantly surprised by what the 18mm gives me.  

 

Pocketable as in easier to put in a bag that is not designed for cameras or in a small cycling backpack, although it easily fits in the pockets of my coat as well.

 

I would also like to see a faster wide-angle lens although for me personally it doesn't have to be f1.4.  That would probably make it too big.  I would like to see a 23mm f1.4 in addition to the current 23mm though.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuji's line of lenses for the XT series of cameras provides a good example.  F/1.4 lenses of high quality at 58,35,23 and 16 mm.  Nice small  and weather sealed f/2.0 lenses that don't block the optical viewfinder on the X-Pro2 at 23 and 35 and, as I recall, 50 just recently.  There is also a pancake in the mix somewhere.  Leica's design tastes seem to enforce a big gap between the fastest and the sharpest wide angle lenses, so that the M line currently offers a large 21/1.4 and a fairly small 21/3.4.  My thinking is that the 11-23 already covers the high quality wide angle used in good light requirements, so the next wide angle CL lens to expect is either a smallish 2.0 or a largeish 1.4.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given the lenses you already have, the 18mm may be the better match. Optically, it’s the weakest of the TL lenses, but it’s still quite decent, has quick AF, is flare resistant, and is reasonably sharp at f/4 and f/5.6.

 

The 23mm is better optically and would give you more flexibility with regard to depth of field control. But it’s not as small, and it is pretty close in focal length Tina lens you already have.

 

My vote would actually be for the 11-23 if you don’t mind the bulk. Better than either of the primes. If you really want a compact lens, though, I’d take the 18mm in your place since you already have a 21mm.

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...