CL - 1 year in

[Brian C in Az]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not obvious to everyone when so many people use the wrong terminology.

[EUSe]

vor 3 Stunden schrieb Brian C in Az:

I agree that some of the newer lenses are more sterile in their image. I compared the DNG files of pictures shot with my SL 24-90 and the same shot with my R 70-180 f2.8. There was a noticeable difference in colors, both in saturation and accuracy. The R lens also pulls details out of the shadows and shows them better with less noise.

I think the Summilux lenses you mentioned may be optimized and brought to market for the typical M user that prefers B&W. There are different needs and requirements of a lens that is designed primarily for B&W than for color. There is a topic in the M section comparing shots taken in B&W vs those converted later in post processing. 

Summilux-M 35 image

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!

The 35 mm Summilux-M asph FLE is known for its warm colors, that's why I love to use it for fall landscapes on the M 240 - smooth, yet crisp.

Yes, of course these lenses are optimized for FF: it is the creamy look that I like and the R-Lenses are in the same league. They give an illusion of space, almost 3D that I yet have to find in CL pictures. Somehow I am getting a boring look from the Summilux-M on the CL. I have not tried B/W. The 50 mm Summilux FLE  is a classic portrait  and street lens, maybe both are not the best choice for landscape at all. I wonder how much resolution these M lenses can provide on even larger sensors.

I did some focus tests with the M 240 and my Summarit-M 35 mm f/2.5 today - rangefinder against EVF (I wanted to find out which method gives the best results). The difference was negligible with a small advantage for the rangefinder - despite my eye problems. I had no idea though what I was framing, and I was more or less guessing where the focus was. The images could be enlarged up to 300 % on a 27 inch 5k iMac without loss.  I am digressing - what I wanted to say is that the Summarit has a modern, contrasty rendering, much closer to the CL than my Summiluxes. There may be sharper lenses, though.  

Maybe it is the large number of small pixels that makes noise more obvious - I am guessing here. The main problem still is high ISO because of the missing stabilization in low light situations.

I am not saying that the image quality the CL provides is bad. It isn't and it highly depemds on the lenses. I have witnessed a comparism between the 18-56 zoom, the Summicron-M 35 mm and the Summilux TL 35 mm - the Summilux was by far the best - bright image, good colour, best contrast.

[Advertisement]

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

[frithjof.b]

On 11/16/2018 at 8:01 PM, Tobers said:

I've had my CL for a year now. That's a long time for me to keep a camera.

It's been all over the place with me, and I've put together a nice little kit with the 23, 18-56 and 55-135 which work very nicely together indeed. I've written up my thoughts, plus also the pros and cons versus the M10 (which I sold after I bought the CL). Enjoy - lots of pics if you don't like reading 🙂

http://tobinators.com/blog/2018/11/gear-and-kit/leica-cl-lenses-1-year-on/

Thanks for your nice summary of your experience. Your blog convinced me at the end to buy the CL with the 18-56mm.  I only had it a few days now and am not ready yet for drawing a final personal conclusion but I am highly impressed by the Vario zoom: with the correct lighting the subject shines and the sharpness is incredible. The lens appears well balanced with excellent edge to edge sharpness. Once you zoom in to a 100% you see a very shallow DOF as expected from the pixel size that changes once you view on a monitor or printed out.

I need to buy a lens adapter for my Nikon, Zeiss ZF and Zeiss Contax glas and do some tripod testing with the CL but after a few shots I can said already that the 18-56 outperforms my old Nikkor 2.8/17-55mm. I expect that it could be in the same league as my Zeiss 2/100mm Macro Planar which would be impressive. 

As a long time Nikon shooter I like the layout of the CL. The simplicity of the design concept is convincing.

You guys already dissected already that horrible Tony Northrup video. I am always amazed to hear so much nonsense on optics from people who obviously have a lack of understanding of the basis physics behind it. But this equivalence crop myth is multiplied on the internet millon times and at the end people end up buying into that. They do not understand that the f-stop was introduced to normalized the light gathering ability of the lens independent of the focal length and independent of the film size. The exposure only depends on the illumination of the subject and not one the film(sensor) size given the same sensitivity.  Hence a 2.8 lens is a 2.8 lens on a crop, a 35mm or a medium format sensor; the lens never changes, as you guys already pointed out. In addition the DOF depends more one the effective CoC of the display or print media. The  pixel-pixel distance only gives you a lower boundary.

best

  Frithjof

P.S. fun reading this interesting forum. I learned a lot!

 

 

[Merv-O]

I am considering selling my CL as it's not up to what I expected after 4 months. I like the APS-c format and the adapter let's me use my M lenses albeit in 1.5x factor, but the controls are not as intuitive as my M9 and the programmable buttons are not fast.....the camera itself is fine, but I question the Programmable modes and the AF. I notice when using the M glass in aperture priority mode with focus peaking on, I get my best results...maybe the Japanese Leica glass is more Lumix/Panasonic than Leica, but I see a difference. (I have the full tele spectrum of L lenses: 11-23mm, 16-56mm & 55-135mm). Even my manual Voigtlanders outperform the DOF and clarity on these lenses.

Anyone else see a problem or differential with the CL and M glass?

[jaapv]

Not really, the18-56 is good, the 11-23 and 55-135 spectacular. Nor have I any problems with the interface or AF. And yes, I have an M9, and it sits mostly unused. And I use expensive modern Summilux M lenses on the CL.

In other words: I cannot confirm your experience, sorry .

 

BTW, I am not convinced these lenses are built by Panasonic (not that that would be a problem, the Leica M4/3rds lenses are real Leica quality) but more likely by Kyocera, who have built lenses for Leica before, like the renowned Vario-Elmar 80-200 R. 

[Le Chef]

1 hour ago, Merv-O said:

I am considering selling my CL as it's not up to what I expected after 4 months. I like the APS-c format and the adapter let's me use my M lenses albeit in 1.5x factor, but the controls are not as intuitive as my M9 and the programmable buttons are not fast.....the camera itself is fine, but I question the Programmable modes and the AF. I notice when using the M glass in aperture priority mode with focus peaking on, I get my best results...maybe the Japanese Leica glass is more Lumix/Panasonic than Leica, but I see a difference. (I have the full tele spectrum of L lenses: 11-23mm, 16-56mm & 55-135mm). Even my manual Voigtlanders outperform the DOF and clarity on these lenses.

Anyone else see a problem or differential with the CL and M glass?

I think if you're unhappy you might find other people on this forum (me included) who might be interested in taking your CL kit off your hands!

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Not really, the18-56 is good, the 11-23 and 55-135 spectacular. Nor have I any problems with the interface or AF. And yes, I have an M9, and it sits mostly unused. And I use expensive modern Summilux M lenses on the CL.

In other words: I cannot confirm your experience, sorry .

 

BTW, I am not convinced these lenses are built by Panasonic (not that that would be a problem, the Leica M4/3rds lenses are real Leica quality) but more likely by Kyocera, who have built lenses for Leica before, like the renowned Vario-Elmar 80-200 R. 

If I recall correctly Karbe stated that the TL line of lenses were some of the finest optically that Leica had designed ........

I use the SL and CL interchangeably and often simultaneously for landscape use whilst waiting for the SL's LNER to finish ..... there is little to choose between them in image quality once processed. My only gripe is having different filter sizes for all 3 zooms ..... unlike the SL lenses where they are all the same...... and the limit on long exposure time. 

I find the disgruntlement about the dials a bit specious ..... it is quite easy to configure the camera to weed out all the junk you don't need and create a selection of profiles that have consistency of use. Leica gives you a lot of configurability options and if you don't make full use of them you really can't complain....

I'll pass on commenting on 'modern lens sterile rendering' and some of the statements made about how wonderful and 'natural' some old lenses are. We've had all these arguments before in the forum and it just serves to put my blood pressure up and drink too much whilst hammering the keyboard ........

[jaapv]

Yes, P.K. compared them favourably to M lenses, which is saying quite something. I always wonder at such pejorative statements about the country of origin of lenses. Even in the 1950-ies some Canon and Nikon lenses were as good or better than Leitz ones, and it is not for nothing that Leica had quite a few lenses built by other companies abroad. As it is, we can choose our lenses from the TL series, the M series, the R series or the SL line. Or third-party ones. All according to our liking of the rendering, without even having to think about the intrinsic quality. What is there not to like?

As for the user interface of the CL, it is one of the best thought-out and simple to use ones of all modern cameras. Obviously it is something different from the stripped-to-basics approach of the M9. That is Leica's product differentiation. If the M series'  basic controls are one's nec plus ultra, no camera from this century will be satisfactory.

[PeterGA]

I am thinking of a CL to be used to extend the reach of the  90-280SL and as a back-up to my SL.  I had a first look at the CL at the Leica store in Sydney and attached the 90-280 to it - there was some/a little but noticeable lateral 'play' between the two after mounting - is this normal? Both 'sales people' who were young enough to maybe get a drivers license thought that was 'normal'. I'd appreciate any feedback from those who may have some experience with both.

 

TIA

Pete

[EUSe]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb thighslapper:

If I recall correctly Karbe stated that the TL line of lenses were some of the finest optically that Leica had designed ........

...

I find the disgruntlement about the dials a bit specious ..... it is quite easy to configure the camera to weed out all the junk you don't need and create a selection of profiles that have consistency of use. Leica gives you a lot of configurability options and if you don't make full use of them you really can't complain....

I'll pass on commenting on 'modern lens sterile rendering' and some of the statements made about how wonderful and 'natural' some old lenses are. We've had all these arguments before in the forum and it just serves to put my blood pressure up and drink too much whilst hammering the keyboard ........

Yes, I have heard about the TL lens quality, too, I think it was about lpm resolution, which has been denied in some third party tests (I cannot tell who is right), so in the end we will have to judge it ourselves. Lpm resolution doesn't say much about overall rendering. Even the TL lenses render individually.

Dials - do you think people complain about them just for the sake of complaining? I don't think so. 

As for the rendering, it is a matter of taste and should not make your blood pressure rise. Although I did not use the term sterile myself, there is a certain way of contrasty rendering typical for many new lenses, which is neither good nor bad. Older lenses do not all render naturally and smoothly and there is more to consider, bokeh, color etc.. I would not prinicpally recommend using older lenses. It depends on your purpose and taste. The CL works with all types, TL, M and R lenses.You decide.

[EUSe]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

.... As it is, we can choose our lenses from the TL series, the M series, the R series or the SL line. Or third-party ones. All according to our liking of the rendering, without even having to think about the intrinsic quality. What is there not to like?

...  If the M series'  basic controls are one's nec plus ultra, no camera from this century will be satisfactory.

Exactly. As for the second statement, if you find that an M or XVario interface is exactly what you want, why should you want it to be changed? The CL interface is getting into my way every day. I got used to it, but it is frustrating. It is a personal thing just like the rendering of lenses. Nobody can tell me what to like and not to like. I happen not to like it.

[jaapv]

The differences are caused by the concept of the camera.

If you like to have the pure M experience, only a user interface based on shutter, aperture and ISO with as little automation as possible will do.

If you want to use a camera with more present-day options things do get more complicated, although Leica managed to restrain themselves on the CL, as they usually do.

Choice is good

 

[nicci78]

Sadly the TL zooms are too slow. Gave up on them and shoot only with fast TL or M primes.

18-56 is a way too slow at 56mm f/5.6 , a shame especially without stabilization  

F/2.8 without OIS is the absolute minimum for the CL. 

TL zooms trigger very high ISO indoor. What a bummer. But image quality are stunning, outdoor only or with a tripod indoor. 

 

 

Edited November 20, 2018 by nicci78

[Le Chef]

I find the notion of the dials being complicated a little strange. A few months ago I borrowed a CL from my local AD. I read the instruction book the night before, and the next morning spent 15 minutes setting up the camera to work as I wanted it to. If I can do it based on one reading of the instruction manual it should be straightforward for others with longer ownership to figure out how to get it to do what they want it to do. 

The dissent might be between traditional physical controls vs. electronic ones and the preference for a more tactile approach. But in terms of operation the CL is thankfully not at the Sony level of frenzied button-fest and has a nice simplicity to it.

[carbon_dragon]

Regarding image stabilization, I'd certainly like it in the M10, BUT, the M10 can shoot at ISO 6400 which usually means that my shutter speeds are high and I don't need it, which is why I haven't been envious of this feature. Haven't tried the CL yet, but I have the OLD CL. Curiously it's currently in for repair (bad meter). 

[frithjof.b]

10 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

I find the notion of the dials being complicated a little strange. A few months ago I borrowed a CL from my local AD. I read the instruction book the night before, and the next morning spent 15 minutes setting up the camera to work as I wanted it to. If I can do it based on one reading of the instruction manual it should be straightforward for others with longer ownership to figure out how to get it to do what they want it to do.

I fully agree with you. I only have the CL for a weekend now. For a Nikon shooter who is more or less exclusively using aperture priori or M modes, the dials are very intuitive. I can control the aperture with the right dial  while looking through the EVF. In addition, ISO is also changed much faster than on my Nikon. I only miss the focus look back button, but when I can freeze the exposure setting as well a half pressed shutter will do. Overall, the rather simple user interface is one of the two reasons, I went for a CL. 

Label free dials are only a problem for people who often like to switch between the different modes.

[Tobers]

21 hours ago, Merv-O said:

Anyone else see a problem or differential with the CL and M glass?

A while back I did a comparison of the TL 18-56 with the 24 Summilux-M and 50 Summilux-M which you will find interesting I'm sure. 

And just for good measure I compared the TL 55-135 with the 50 Summilux-M and 90 Summicron-M APO ASPH. 

It was these comparisons that prompted me to sell those lenses and net several £000 with which I bought an extremely fast motorcycle 🙂

Note I was comparing these for landscaping primarily, which is what I mainly do, so bear that in mind before posting about f/1.4 etc etc.

 

[tombre]

I have the same combination of Leica CL, 23mm, 18-56mm and 55-135mm lenses. I just put together my thoughts after twelve months over at Macfilos if anyone is interested.

http://macfilos.com/photo/2018/11/15/leica-cl-australia-pernululu-watarrka-kata-tjuta

 

 

 

 

[ramarren]

On 11/20/2018 at 10:28 AM, Tobers said:

A while back I did a comparison of the TL 18-56 with the 24 Summilux-M and 50 Summilux-M which you will find interesting I'm sure. 

And just for good measure I compared the TL 55-135 with the 50 Summilux-M and 90 Summicron-M APO ASPH. 

It was these comparisons that prompted me to sell those lenses and net several £000 with which I bought an extremely fast motorcycle 🙂

Note I was comparing these for landscaping primarily, which is what I mainly do, so bear that in mind before posting about f/1.4 etc etc.

But how many LP@mm does it resolve? And how's the bokeh?

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!

"No matter where you go, go there on a Moto Guzzi."

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[papimuzo]

On 11/20/2018 at 9:20 AM, jaapv said:

The differences are caused by the concept of the camera.

If you like to have the pure M experience, only a user interface based on shutter, aperture and ISO with as little automation as possible will do.

[..................................]

Choice is good

Yes, so don't forget the M10-D: here you are! 😋