Leica TL Zooms or M-Adapted Lenses?

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

All;

 

So, I have assembled a pretty good CL kit, consisting of a CL body and the 23mm F2, 35 F/1.4, 18-56 and 55-135. I do also have the free Leica M-L adapter,

and was wondering if a few M-Series primes would round out the kit?

 

I can pick-up a 50mm F2 Summicron, a 28mm F/2.8 Elmarit or a 90mm F/2.8 Elmarit at not too bad of a price.

 

Would there be any advantage or just duplication? Should I just stick with the newer TL AF lenses?

 

-Brad

[FrozenInTime]

Are you unhappy with the performance, speed or size of any of the native TL lenses ?

A 28mm M lens works well as a one lens travel outfit for me.

[Advertisement]

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

[V23]

Are you unhappy with the performance, speed or size of any of the native TL lenses ?

A 28mm M lens works well as a one lens travel outfit for me.

 

+1

[bherman01545]

On the contrary, the TL lenses that I've used so far are actually very good. I am trying to figure out if there are any inherent advantages of some M series primes

[jaapv]

I would say that the native lenses are so good that it only makes sense to use M (and third party) lenses if you have a valid reason to do so:

1. For the size: e.g 90/40 M macro instead of 55-135 TL

2. For the speed: e.g. Noctilux, Summilux 21, etc.

3. For the character: e.g.Thambar, Apo-Summicron, many vintage lenses

4. For a focal length that is not available

5. You already own them and feel like using them. M and R lenses shine on the CL.

[ramarren]

I bought only the CL body because I already had a full complement of excellent Leica R and M lenses.

 

Given the quality and performance of the T/TL native lenses, if I didn't own the M and R lenses already, I'd have bought the camera, the 35/1.4, the 11-23, and the 60 Macro, and called it a day.

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 21/3.4 Super-Elmar-M is compact, very highly regarded and would give you an equivalent field of view of 30mm (but very close to your 23/2). I prefer wides, and like Godfrey above, have found that the 11-23 zoom and 35/1.4 is a great combination.

Edited September 15, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[hteasley]

All;

 

So, I have assembled a pretty good CL kit, consisting of a CL body and the 23mm F2, 35 F/1.4, 18-56 and 55-135. I do also have the free Leica M-L adapter,

and was wondering if a few M-Series primes would round out the kit?

 

I can pick-up a 50mm F2 Summicron, a 28mm F/2.8 Elmarit or a 90mm F/2.8 Elmarit at not too bad of a price.

 

Would there be any advantage or just duplication? Should I just stick with the newer TL AF lenses?

 

-Brad

 

The TL lenses are, in a word, fantastic. I had planned on adapting M lenses when I first got a T (and then replaced with a CL), but the TL lenses are just too good, especially the 35mm Summilux. I just don't know why anyone would bother, really.

 

The only lenses I adapt to the CL are the Elmarit-R 60mm f2.8 Macro and the 80-200mm f4 Vario-Elmar-R. I don't really have a burning desire to mount my M lenses on it.

[ramarren]

...

The only lenses I adapt to the CL are the Elmarit-R 60mm f2.8 Macro and the 80-200mm f4 Vario-Elmar-R. I don't really have a burning desire to mount my M lenses on it.

Yes: Although I have both R and M lenses, I tend to use only the R lenses on the CL. I like their more consistent controls and ergonomics; the M lenses are really best on an M body.

[RickP]

I have used all of the TL zooms. They are all really extremely good lenses. I also use Zeiss 35 f 2.8 and an 18 f 4 ZM not because they are better than the Leica zooms, but because I enjoy the manual focus as well as the fact that the Zeiss lenses produce a high contrast image that I prefer. The Zeiss ZM’s look vs the Leica look has been a long standing issue that really comes down to personal preference.

[grahamhoey]

I have been using the TL zooms, particularly the 18-56 a lot in my travels. However I really like the control of manual focus and find the continuous focus ring on the TL primes really annoying.

So 2 advantages I see from M primes;

 

1. The focus ring stop at infinity

2. The size, not necessarily the weight, of the M primes

 

I have the 21mm M f2.8 ASPH lens which I find great for street photography. I am now thinking of getting a 35mm or 50mm which I would use for travel, city and landscape, and portrait.

Would appreciate comments and suggestions as to 35 or 50mm and also which M lens to get of the various options in that focal length.

[ropo54]

Graham,

 

The M 35 1.4 FLE was one I sold but have regretted doing so.  Very sharp.  I will likely re-buy one. On the CL, it makes for a great 50mm. Some are critical of it having bokeh that's a bit harsh, but I enjoyed the lens.  

 

I'm pretty sure that many will recommend the M50 summilux, apo, or summicron, as well.  If you want to save some money, consider the Zeiss 50 planar and/or the new Voigtlander 50 1.1 (which has gotten nice reviews, but I have no experience with it).

 

Rob

 

These are from the T w 35 1.4 FLE

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!

Edited September 26, 2018 by ropo54

[grahamhoey]

Thanks Rob, great images. Appreciate the feedback. Is the 50mm APO ASPH Summicron really as amazing a lens as it seems. If so may treat myself.