Leica CL Used CL or used M (262)?

[nightstreet]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All,

 

My first post here, I've only been lurking since I don't have a Leica, yet.

 

I've been contemplating a Leica, hoping to get some friendly advises whether a used CL is a good buy, or a used M 262, and a couple of prime lenses for them.

 

A bit of background.  My first real camera was a Yashica rangefinder with a 41mm lens, a gift from my aunt when I was going overseas to study.  I shot thousands of slides with it, well, that was my only camera.  Looking back, I like the 41mm focal length, and to this day, I still don't shoot at 50mm.

 

I shot for a while with a Nikon D300 and the generic 18-200mm zoom while working and traveling in Europe and Asia, an 85mm for portraits, that's pretty much all I shoot, very little landscape or macro or anything else.  Occasionally, I rent the Nikon 14-24mm to do some interior work.  For wide,the 28mm is not satisfactory for me, I would go 21mm or wider.  I moved to the D810 for full-frame and only own 2 lenses, 35mm/2 and 85mm/1.4.

 

So I want to get something more compact and don't mind APS-C to travel with, a Japan trip is coming up.  I seriously considered the Fuji x100F/T but crossed that out after trying a friend's X-E2, something about the Fuji tone that I do not get excited about.  I considered the Nikon Df but it's not much smaller.  Then I started reading this forum.

 

The M10 is out of my budget, and wonder if the M 262 is still a good buy, I will probably look for a 40mm first before considering a 35mm/2.  Along the way I considered and ruled out the Q, excellent as it is, don't mind a fixed-lens but I think I would not be happy at 28mm.  Yes, I know you can crop to 35mm and 50mm, but it's not the same, if you get my drift.,

 

So the other thought is a used CL, APS-C is fine.  I understand the CL goes well with the 23mm Summincron for 35mm equivalent, the Nokton 40mm sounds good, but that'll be 60mm equivalent.  So would anyone suggest a 28mm to give me a 42mm crop?

 

Sorry for the long-winded post.  Thanks All.

[lct]

Welcome to the forum. There are no 40mm framelines in the viewfinder of M cameras. 40mm lenses will bring up 50mm framelines which are too narrow in my view. Otherwise 28mm M lenses work fine on the CL with a field of view of 28 x 1.5 = 42mm as you say. But you won't get autofocus with them. If you don't need AF there is a wide choice of Leica M lenses available new or second hand: Summilux 28/1.4, Summicron 28/2 and Elmarit 28/2.8 in different versions. Better value for money among them is Elmarit 28/2.8 asph IMO which is the smaller 28 besides the even smaller and very good M-Rokkor 28/2.8 for Minolta CLE and the tiny MS-Optics 28/2 but i have no experience with the latter.

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

Hallo ...

 

I have both M-D typ 262 and CL bodies.

 

- There's nothing wrong with the typ 262 model Ms at all. If that's what you want, go for it and enjoy! It's an M, a rangefinder camera, which means it has its specific range of versatility and capability. I would strongly suggest sticking with lenses for which there are frame lines with the M cameras, not because you can't adapt to others but because it's just easier and, I think, a little more sensible as a starting point. My two most-used lenses on the M-D are an old Summilux 35mm (v2, ca 1972) and a current series Summicron-M 50mm. I have others, acquired over time, but these are the basis of most of what I've done with the camera for the past year.

 

- The CL is a more versatile camera with its TTL viewing, potential for AF and movie capture, and the body is a bit lighter to carry (although mostly the same size as my M-D). I bought it to complement the M-D for macro, tabletop, and telephoto lens use, using the small collection of Leica R lenses I am loathe to let go of. I don't own any of the native lenses for the CL: I use mostly the Elmarit-R 28mm and Summuilux-R 50mm lenses. Fitted with the M Adapter L and R Adapter M, this gives me the ability to use any of the M lenses or R lenses as well as native lenses should the need/desire arise. I tend to prefer the ergonomics of the R lenses, although they are a bit bulkier than the M lenses.

 

Both these cameras perform beautifully and make excellent photos. The M-D has almost no features to speak of; I've configured the CL to operate nearly the same way. It's what I prefer. The CL's lighter body weight and ever so slightly slimmer size fits in a smaller bag that makes it easier to carry when riding my bicycle or traveling.

 

If I could only have one of them, well, that would be a hard choice. Knowing what I do about my photo habits, I'd probably take the CL in a rational frame of mind but I'm always drawn back to using an M anyway, so it's tough to say since I don't have that burden really.

 

Good luck with your decision and choice. Really, it's hard to go wrong with ether.

[grahamhoey]

Welcome to the forum, always great to have new questions. I have owned both M cameras and now have CL. I have severalof the T auto focus lenses as well as M, R and Voigtlander lenses. My view is that the CL is much more versatile as you have the option of AF or anyof the Leica lenses or M mount lenses from other manufacturers. I know you said you mostly take portraits but it sounds like you travel a lot to so do you do a lot of street photography.

I find the 18-56 T lens very versatile. Results on the TL are as good as anything Leica makes in my view except perhaps for the T 35 1.4 which is truly exceptional. For a very small and inexpensive lens the Voigtlander 21mm f4 is a great street lens with a huge DOF if set at say f8. A little wider than the 40mm you like but a great lens for a low price.

If you really like as you say the 40mm equivalent focal length the 28mm mentioned above would be the answer or the 18-56 zoom if you prefer AF, don’t mind a slower lens and a zoom.

Happy hunting for your new equipment and welcome to Leica, you will love the image quality of either choice.

[HeinzX]

Welcome zo the forum !

Both cameras are a good buy, provided they are in good shape and the price is OK. I had different Ms and now a CL in additon to my SL. In my opinion for your requirements a CLwould be the better solution together with the 18-56.

Edited September 1, 2018 by HeinzX

[oldwino]

For ease of use, the CL with the 18-56 wins. Super versatile, autofocus, auto everything...you can enjoy your vacation and come home with great photos.

The M requires a bit more thought and user participation...but it’s really hard to beat a M and a 35mm lens as a photographer’s tool. Not as versatile as the CL setup, but you will learn so much!

[JayBird]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For a trip to Japan, I would recommend a lens with a wide FOV. Good low level light capabilities are important too as many of the good shots will be indoors or at night. If you choose the CL, I would take the  TL18 mm f2.8 lens with you. The 11-23 mm lens would be good but it is almost impossible to find now. If you opt for a M, go wide as possible. I have had my Nikkor DX 18-55 f2.8 in Japan before. While it was good for most instances, there are other times where I wish I had the 10-24. That is why I would want the 11-23. 

[nightstreet]

Thank you all for your responses.  Will mull over for a couple of weeks.  The CL does sound a bit more practical for now, maybe until I can afford, and justify, the M10.

 

@grahamhoey et al:  Yes, I shoot a fair bit of travel stuff, a lot at night and low-light inside and think the 18-56mm would be too slow, so will also read up on something a bit faster.  I do like 40mm on a rangefinder but will go with 35mm for practical reasons as pointed out above.

 

@JayBird:  Yes, my old DX +18-200 wasn't quite wide enough at times in Europe, and used a Tokina 11-16mm at times, so I would look for something similar in fixed focal and fairly fast.

[Guest]

The 18-56 zoom on the CL is surprisingly good in low light with the CL’s sensor. Even 12,500 ISO cleans up nicely. I just traveled on vacation and didn’t change the lens much at all. I am very impressed and satisfied. It grabs focus - even at 56mm in low light. Bravo.

[nightstreet]

Also @JayBird:  Thanks for the reminder/recommendation about being wide in Japan.  Maybe even get something like 20mm or 21mm for the D810. or mount the 85mm on the D810 and CL+18 or M+something in the 20mm-24mm range.  Also I started looking at a used M240. 

[nightstreet]

Hi All,

 

After mulling over what everyone said, and how and what I shoot, I decided not to get the CL, as good as it is.  I also looked at the T/TL2 images, that system appears excellent as well, but I dislike touch-screen and prefer tactile buttons.  I decided I want to get back to shooting an RF, manual focus is not new to me.  So will save up for an M 240, maybe a 262 if I can find it, and a couple of lenses.  An M10 is on the list for when I win the lotto, or when my rich long-lost relative in Nigeria sends me my money...just kidding.

 

On a different subject,  I may trade in my D810 for the Z6, for the smaller form, if it gets good feedbacks, I can keep my Nikkor lenses (I think there is even an adapter to mount Nikkor lenses on an M body).  Too bad the Z6 is not available before my Japan trip this November.  Renting an M + lens for 12 days gets a bit expensive.

 

Thanks All.

Edited September 5, 2018 by nightstreet

[jaapv]

Good choice, but then, either choice would have been good. Personal preference is always the main consideration.

[firoze]

On 9/1/2018 at 10:58 PM, JayBird said:

The 11-23 mm lens would be good but it is almost impossible to find now.

Why is the 11-23 so difficult to find? Is it out of production now?

[JayBird]

1 hour ago, firoze said:

Why is the 11-23 so difficult to find? Is it out of production now?

I have heard several theories / speculations. The first is Leica did not expect the demand that it is seeing for the lens. As such, the production run cannot meet demand. The second is there have been manufacturing issues. Possibly something to do with the equipment or a fire at the factory. As far as me purchasing one, I will try to order one once we have decided to go on our next big trip. That would give me at least 6 months to get it.

[firoze]

13 hours ago, JayBird said:

I have heard several theories / speculations. The first is Leica did not expect the demand that it is seeing for the lens. As such, the production run cannot meet demand. The second is there have been manufacturing issues. Possibly something to do with the equipment or a fire at the factory. As far as me purchasing one, I will try to order one once we have decided to go on our next big trip. That would give me at least 6 months to get it.

The 55-135 is also in short supply. I hope it is simply that Leica underestimated demand, and that we will see stocks of these lenses soon. I do hope Leica do not plan to discontinue them. Presumably the 18-56 is also made in the same factory, and that lens is not in short supply,  so the reason for short supply of the other zooms probably would not be an issue like fire etc at the factory (just speculation on my part of course).

[colonel]

On 8/31/2018 at 10:42 PM, nightstreet said:

Hi All,

 

My first post here, I've only been lurking since I don't have a Leica, yet.

 

I've been contemplating a Leica, hoping to get some friendly advises whether a used CL is a good buy, or a used M 262, and a couple of prime lenses for them.

 

A bit of background.  My first real camera was a Yashica rangefinder with a 41mm lens, a gift from my aunt when I was going overseas to study.  I shot thousands of slides with it, well, that was my only camera.  Looking back, I like the 41mm focal length, and to this day, I still don't shoot at 50mm.

 

I shot for a while with a Nikon D300 and the generic 18-200mm zoom while working and traveling in Europe and Asia, an 85mm for portraits, that's pretty much all I shoot, very little landscape or macro or anything else.  Occasionally, I rent the Nikon 14-24mm to do some interior work.  For wide,the 28mm is not satisfactory for me, I would go 21mm or wider.  I moved to the D810 for full-frame and only own 2 lenses, 35mm/2 and 85mm/1.4.

 

So I want to get something more compact and don't mind APS-C to travel with, a Japan trip is coming up.  I seriously considered the Fuji x100F/T but crossed that out after trying a friend's X-E2, something about the Fuji tone that I do not get excited about.  I considered the Nikon Df but it's not much smaller.  Then I started reading this forum.

 

The M10 is out of my budget, and wonder if the M 262 is still a good buy, I will probably look for a 40mm first before considering a 35mm/2.  Along the way I considered and ruled out the Q, excellent as it is, don't mind a fixed-lens but I think I would not be happy at 28mm.  Yes, I know you can crop to 35mm and 50mm, but it's not the same, if you get my drift.,

 

So the other thought is a used CL, APS-C is fine.  I understand the CL goes well with the 23mm Summincron for 35mm equivalent, the Nokton 40mm sounds good, but that'll be 60mm equivalent.  So would anyone suggest a 28mm to give me a 42mm crop?

 

Sorry for the long-winded post.  Thanks All.

We see these threads all the time

these cameras are so different it’s impossible to give you any advice

the general IQ of the 262 (despite wails here) is much better, the lenses are sharper and you get FF DOF. In addition there are many M mount lenses in the market, new and used, which are a real fun way to shoot. However it’s manual focus, bigger, heavier and much more expensive.

you first have to decide whether you want FF or would be satisfied with APS-C, before even thinking of the camera

 

Edited March 22, 2019 by colonel

[jaapv]

15 hours ago, colonel said:

 

the general IQ of the 262 (despite wails here) is much better, the lenses are sharper [...]. In addition there are many M mount lenses in the market, new and used, which are a real fun way to shoot. 

This is simply untrue, any quality difference is marginal, as has been amply demonstrated by users owning both. M lenses do very well on the CL. The only real difference is DOF, which is appreciated by users having difficulty focusing a rangefinder. Actually most CL lenses are as good or better than M lenses. For instance, the 55-135 outperforms the APO-Telyt.

The only real choice here is between two widely different systems, and that is a matter of personal preference.

The film size battles have been fought long ago, halfway last century...

[nicci78]

Actually the CL has better IQ than M 240/262

I used to own both. But my wife found the 262 images dull in comparison to CL. So I let it go. 

To sum up : wider dynamic range + higher and cleaner ISO in favour of CL. 

And CL electronic shutter allows you to shoot Noctilux wide open at noon in the desert. Something impossible without an ND filter with an M. 

 

Don’t assume that full frame is always better than APS-C. It is not true, you have to factor in the technology generation. 

 

Edited March 23, 2019 by nicci78

[LocalHero1953]

I agree with this, as an owner of the CL and M240 (more than a year at the same time). I can't answer for the M262 or M10.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[nicci78]

By the way I really enjoyed the M 262 : lightweight digital M, as it should be and stellar battery life. You can go on holidays for one week with only one battery and no charger. You will still have energy left. Awesome. 

Image quality of 262 is very good at lower ISO, but plagued by banding at 6400. Not cool 

Use it with fast Summilux