From Fujifilm to Leica

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So my questions are:

 

- Does the CL focus peaking work well with a M lens in poor light?

- would there be an appreciable difference in A3 image quality between the TL and M 35 lenses?

- if I did decide to buy an M 35 and adaptor, does the sensor on the CL allow me to use the f2 in poor light, or do I need to buy the f1.4?

 

 

 

- Does the CL focus peaking work well with a M lens in poor light? yes but you might prefer magnification

- would there be an appreciable difference in A3 image quality between the TL and M 35 lenses? Yes with a digital M the M lenses would be better then the TL lens on the CL/TL2, but an M lens on the CL/TL2 would be better then the TL lens if the MTA was significantly better

- if I did decide to buy an M 35 and adaptor, does the sensor on the CL allow me to use the f2 in poor light, or do I need to buy the f1.4? Yes, but always better to have 1.4

 

Bottom line, I would plan to use TL lenses, not M ones. If you want to use M ones buy a second hand M240, much better for M lenses IMHO

For the CL (or TL2), buy native lenses

 

Cross system lenses are fun for experimentation and ok for tripod shooting in studio but most of the time are just a pain and you are not getting all the functionality you paid for on both sides ....

Edited September 20, 2018 by colonel

[mdroe]

Thank you for your feedback colonel. Excuse my ignorance but what is the MTA; I’m sure it’s obvious but not tonight! Matthew

Edited September 20, 2018 by mdroe

[Advertisement]

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

[colonel]

Thank you for your feedback colonel. Excuse my ignorance but what is the MTA; I’m sure it’s obvious but not tonight! Matthew

 

more frequently known as MTF:

https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts

 

Leica publishes these in the same format for all its lenses, e.g.:

http://uk.leica-camera.com/content/download/102639/907305/version/2/file/Summilux-M24-TechnicalData.pdf

 

My point above is that whether M or TL lenses are sharper depends on the design of the lens.

I would say that M lenses will generally be better then TL, especially as they are optimised for FF not just APS-C but nevertheless I still prefer to use TL lenses on the TL2/CL as they are made for the camera and work properly with it, e.g. AF

 

Lastly, IMHO, M lenses on a digital M body give far better performance then TL lenses on the TL2/CL. This is mostly due to the cost and design and FF vs APS-C advantages

 

 

rgds

[jaapv]

I don't concur. M lenses will perform better on APS-C as the camera will be using the sweet spot of the lens and cutting off the weaker edges and corners.

Provided, of course, that the APS-C sensor is at a same quality level as the FF sensor. Which, in the case of the CL, it is.

I attribute that to the greater freedom in designing the filter stack.

TL lenses on the CL are hard to distinguish in quality from M lenses on the M. The price difference is mainly due to more rationalized production in Japan, more design freedom because of fewer size constraints and less optical glass used.

[lct]

[...] if I did decide to buy an M 35 and adaptor, does the sensor on the CL allow me to use the f2 in poor light, or do I need to buy the f1.4?

 

I will disagree with some of our colleagues here but the CL, to me, is too noisy at 6400 iso so 3200 iso is the limit for me. I have rather high expectations though as a Sony A7s mod user. Anyway, at 3200 iso you will need f/1.4 if you intend to shoot moving subjects, there is no doubt about this. Now all f/1.4 of f/1.5 M lenses are not overly expensive fortunately. My favorite fast 50 on the CL is the ZM Sonnar 50/1.5 for instance. At 35mm you would have to accept compromises to avoid expensive Summilux-M 35/1.4 asph in either FLE or pre-FLE versions though. Compromise on size with the ZM 35/1.4. Compromise on flare and sharpness at fast apertures on Summilux 35/1.4 pre-asph or CV 35/1.4. The latter suffers from focus shift on rangefinders but not on the CL when focusing stop down. Small lens sitting very well on the CL BTW but beware of flare on the "SC" version and rather sharp bokeh on the "MC" version. FWIW.

[jaapv]

ISO 3200 needs f 1.4? What are you shooting? Black cats chasing mice in a coal cellar?

[mdroe]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thank you for the continued debate and, jaapv, that did make me laugh! Good though to know that 3200 to 6400 is the noise boundary.

[lct]

ISO 3200 needs f 1.4? What are you shooting? Black cats chasing mice in a coal cellar?

 

Normal moving people especially kids indoor. 

[jaapv]

In that case you will find manual focus @ 1.4 a bit of a challenge...

 

Use a Summilux 35 TL @ ISO 1600 Plenty of light for that. Very clean.

[lct]

I don't concur. M lenses will perform better on APS-C as the camera will be using the sweet spot of the lens and cutting off the weaker edges and corners. [...]

 

It is not my experience i must say. When an M lens is soft at corners on my M240 it remains so on the digital CL in spite of the crop factor. Comes perhaps from a thicker sensor stack i don't know. I never did side by side comparos though, just a general feeling on WA M lenses at full aperture like 35/1.4 pre-asph, 35/2 v4, 28/2 v1 or 21/2.8 asph but also longer FL lenses like C 40/2, M 50/1.4 pre-asph or M 75/1.4 pre-asph. Good thing is M lenses keep their character this way though. "Optimized" TL lenses are another story i guess but i have no experience with them.

[lct]

In that case you will find manual focus @ 1.4 a bit of a challenge...

 

Just a matter of practice. The wider DoF of the CL is a bonus there.

[jaapv]

It is not my experience i must say. When an M lens is soft at corners on my M240 it remains so on the digital CL in spite of the crop factor. Comes perhaps from a thicker sensor stack i don't know. I never did side by side comparos though, just a general feeling on WA M lenses at full aperture like 35/1.4 pre-asph, 35/2 v4, 28/2 v1 or 21/2.8 asph but also longer FL lenses like C 40/2, M 50/1.4 pre-asph or M 75/1.4 pre-asph. Good thing is M lenses keep their character this way though. "Optimized" TL lenses are another story i guess but i have no experience with them.

I don’t use M lenses on the CL that much. The SX 24, Summicron C 35 and Summicron 35 ASPH certainly improve .

[ramarren]

It is not my experience i must say. When an M lens is soft at corners on my M240 it remains so on the digital CL in spite of the crop factor. Comes perhaps from a thicker sensor stack i don't know. I never did side by side comparos though, just a general feeling on WA M lenses at full aperture like 35/1.4 pre-asph, 35/2 v4, 28/2 v1 or 21/2.8 asph but also longer FL lenses like C 40/2, M 50/1.4 pre-asph or M 75/1.4 pre-asph. Good thing is M lenses keep their character this way though. "Optimized" TL lenses are another story i guess but i have no experience with them.

I don't get the impression that the CL sensor stack is all that much thicker than the one in my M-D. I see no evidence of this.

 

My Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 works FAR better on the CL's format and on the CL sensor than it does on the SL, M-D262, M-P240, or M9. Same for the Elmarit-R 19mm f/2.8, although not by quite a much. In both cases, there are less edge and color shifting anomalies and improved corner to corner sharpness, even wide open. I have tested and compared them specifically, at least between the M-D and the CL. Same goes for my 'Lux 35 and other lenses, although to greater or lesser degrees.

 

By and large, since the APS-C format eliminates all the troublesome edge rendering of any lens, I don't see any way you can say that the corners and edges of any particular lens' behavior at the corners and edges of an FF sensor can be preserserved on the CL. They're simply not there in the capture.

 

If I test equal quality lenses with matching FoV on the two different formats with M-D and CL, until the ISO is up to 6400 or beyond, the image quality is very very comparable. The CL also offers sensitivity that is unheard of with the M-D, allowing me to obtain photos that are at very least very difficult to get with the M-D.

 

So ... They are different cameras, and may suit different people differently. I like and use them both, and am very pleased with them. For the CL, I have so far been very satisfied with my R lenses and the occasional use of an M lens.

[lct]

There are no problems with R lenses of course.

[ramarren]

There are no problems with R lenses of course.

Why "of course"? My Sony A7 had problems with R lenses, 35mm and shorter. So did the NEX 6 (APS-C) I borrowed to test them on. Same goes for my Olympus FourThirds format cameras...

 

There's no "of course" in this game. You have to test. I have.

Edited September 21, 2018 by ramarren

[lct]

R lenses have not the same issues as M's obviously. I've never got the least problem with any of my R lenses on my Sony A7 bodies, except for my R 21/4 and R 21/2.8 v1 which protrude more or less into the body and even the latters work fine on my A7s mod.

Edited September 21, 2018 by lct

[jaapv]

Protrusion into the body is not the problem. It is about the position of the exit pupil and light-ray angle. So I fear it is not obvious at all.

[lct]

Differences have always been obvious for me on 5D1, A7s mod and A7r2 bodies i've been using since 2008. 

[M.piras]

It is not my experience i must say. When an M lens is soft at corners on my M240 it remains so on the digital CL in spite of the crop factor. Comes perhaps from a thicker sensor stack i don't know. I never did side by side comparos though, just a general feeling on WA M lenses at full aperture like 35/1.4 pre-asph, 35/2 v4, 28/2 v1 or 21/2.8 asph but also longer FL lenses like C 40/2, M 50/1.4 pre-asph or M 75/1.4 pre-asph. Good thing is M lenses keep their character this way though. "Optimized" TL lenses are another story i guess but i have no experience with them.

Hello everyone this is my first post but i read you ask since some weeks and find your discussion very interesting. I have experience over analogical mp, digital m type 246 and since one month with a CL. After a long test i explicitally decided to don't buy L lenses but use M lenses over CL. I thinkL lenses are great but i don't need autofocus and i already have all lenses i need on M system, and think the quality of M on Cl is spectacular. I'm sorry but i can't understand the point of ICL . Optics is not " impression of" , it is physical laws , pure science and i think is not possible you can experience the same flawness on the border experienced on M, on theCL, you are cropping 1.5x that means you are using ONLY THE CENTRAL Part of the glass . I seriously think you got some problem on the lens or the camera if you really see vignette with a M 35mm on CL.

About iso ... I shoted 12500iso and it is naturally and rightly grainy like a slightly pushed film from originary 100 iso to 400 iso... But we are taking about 12500iso men!!! Now way i suggest CL and M lenses with no problem. Go on L lenses ONLY if you need autofocus. Sorry if too long post. Theo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

I do hear what you say, Theo, but i can only share my humble experience here. The rest is up to you but as far as physics is concerned the thickness of sensor stacks plays a big role in sharpness of corners and edges with M lenses, reason why i suspect the CL's is thicker than those of my M8.2 for instance or my Kolari modded A7s. Just a guess from my part but fact is with the same M lenses, i happened to get as sharp and sometimes sharper corner results on FF out of the modded Sony than on APS-C out of the otherwise excellent CL. Welcome to the forum BTW.

Edited September 22, 2018 by lct