Thinking of downsizing from an SL to a CL. Anyone else done this?

[jamesthurley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, Marac said:

Horses for courses on this one. M lenses work amazingly well on the CL and I am debating getting a couple. 

Which would you get?

[jaapv]

Try the Summicron-C 40 - cheap and very good.

[thighslapper]

On 1/10/2019 at 5:34 PM, jamesthurley said:

Which would you get?

not this hoary old chestnut again   ......  the answer should be 'why would you bother' ............

they are generally more expensive than native CL/TL lenses .... even second hand for the better ones. 

apart from the very fast M lenses they offer little difference in optical properties .... and the fast ones are all biggish and heavy in comparison to the CL.

CL lenses are tuned to the CL body and Leica has stated that they are optically some of the best lenses they have ever produced. Even the zooms give equivalent primes a run for their money. 

you lose AF and auto aperture changing. 

if you have a drawer full of M lenses from previous cameras, then fine, otherwise buying a CL and sticking new M lenses on it is daft. 

there are multiple threads on this forum discussing the use of frequently bizarre lenses on Leica bodies ..... which is fine for amusement and variety, but rarely if ever gives you better ergonomics or image quality than the lenses specifically produced for that camera. The CL/TL/SL are designed to be compatible with R & M lenses ...... and it is a remarkable feat of optical engineering to get them to work as well as they do, but the cameras were not designed with that as the primary concern. 

if your main concern is a streamlined downsized compact life just get the CL and the 3 zooms, and if flush with cash a couple of the primes. that should do you for the forseeable future. unlike a full SL set up it will not break your back or the bank. 

ps. I see Jaap has chipped in with the S-C 40 .... which I have ...  really dinky and works fine ..... till the novelty wears off ..... then you go back to something more sensible. 

Edited January 28 by thighslapper

[jaapv]

The SC40-C is a very compact, relatively fast lens which is not available in the TL line. I use it regularly. As I do the (heavy) Summilux 24 - M A wonderful lens on the CL - but I would never have bought it for this use.

[Marac]

1 hour ago, jamesthurley said:

Which would you get?

Well, I enjoy shooting at 80mm (thereabouts) so the 50mm lux would be nice or even a cheaper option would be a Voigtlander 50mm f1.1

Yes, faster M lenses as the equivalent is not yet available for the CL unless of cause you get the SL 50mm Lux that I had, and sold. 

[jaapv]

True, but I must say that my Summilux 50 asph is relegated to the M9 and rarely mounted on the CL.

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

another owner of both systems.

what I like about the SL:
viewfinder and the feel of the body, the flexibility of the 24-90 with IS. - the 18-56 is fine but missing at the wide end and slow compared to the 24-90.

A zoom starting at 16 and being a bit faster would enrich the CL system IMO.

I do love the 11-23 though. I miss IS in the 55-135 sometimes, but then its really compact.

I also miss weather-resistance of the CL.

Overall the CL is a very flexible and compact system with very good IQ.

On the other side the SL with 24-90 is maybe more flexible than a CL with 3 lenses.

 

[ramarren]

My favorite all-around CL lens is now the Pentax-L 43mm f/1.9 Limited. Expensive, hard to find (only made 2000 of them total for the Japanese market only), but absolutely beautiful imaging qualities as well as small, light, fast, and very easy to focus. Easy to get 40.5mm filters. It's equivalent FoV on APS-C is a longish normal, almost my ideal lens. 

[vikasmg]

9 hours ago, ramarren said:

I get around that by using the R and M lenses, but of course that gives up on autofocus and image stabilization (with the two big zooms) ... Trade off, but it works well for me. 

Yes, M lenses are a godsend when you need more light!

[PeterGA]

Not too much to add to points made by everybody, my personal preference is to use my CL for walk around duties - it is a joy to use. I also use it with some of my SL and M mount lenses when I wish to extend the reach of the lenses -in particular - the 90-280 SL and the 50 SL lux and in manual focus duty - the 90AA M. IF I were to choose one system - it would be the CL - because of its lightweight. However - soon enough the SL2 will be announced and the expected increased megapixels - will demarcate the two systems more significantly - for those who may have need for more megapixels - this future difference as well as current access to fast primes and their rendering characteristics on a so called full frame chip  - is the main difference between the two - for typical happy snaps - the CL is easier because it is lighter and easier usually means more photographs are made.

[CharlesL]

For APS-C sensor size and auto-focus, I see no advantage of the CL over a Fuji X camera - XPro or XE. In addition to the several excellent Fuji lenses, the Zeiss Touits made for these cameras are very good, too.

[ramarren]

... except that with the Fuji X series cameras, you have to deal with that quirky X-Trans sensor setup. I tried mightily to like it but just found it too irritating to work with. The CL sensor is much, much nicer to work with when processing raw files. 

[CharlesL]

4 minutes ago, ramarren said:

... except that with the Fuji X series cameras, you have to deal with that quirky X-Trans sensor setup. I tried mightily to like it but just found it too irritating to work with.

When did you try Fuji? The post-processing situation is quite good now. Naturally, there is a period of adjustment whenever you take on a camera from a manufacturer new to you.

[PDP]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb CharlesL:

When did you try Fuji? The post-processing situation is quite good now. Naturally, there is a period of adjustment whenever you take on a camera from a manufacturer new to you.

I have the Fuji X100F and the sensor setup and the colors drove me close to madness, that camera is fine for family and street. But colors at landscape.... I remember looking on the raw-file of first shot with the CL (and the great 11-23), bang, they were back, the great Leica colors. I don't know why and if I am perhaps mistaken, but the CL-files even beat my Q-files and often I am happy with the jpg's even.

[nicci78]

How can colors be good with X-Trans sensor. Color filters layout makes no sense at all. Too many greens. So few reds and blues. That cannot be accurate in fine. 

This crazy layout uses too much processing power and only CaptureOne gives good results.

I really hope that Fujifilm will drop for good useless XTrans. 

[jaapv]

16 hours ago, CharlesL said:

For APS-C sensor size and auto-focus, I see no advantage of the CL over a Fuji X camera - XPro or XE. In addition to the several excellent Fuji lenses, the Zeiss Touits made for these cameras are very good, too.

Sensor size is irrelevant. I vastly prefer the Sony sensor with Leica-specified Bayer filter and processing.

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, CharlesL said:

When did you try Fuji? The post-processing situation is quite good now. Naturally, there is a period of adjustment whenever you take on a camera from a manufacturer new to you.

The basic nature of the sensor's color filter arrangement is the problem. Tools have improved, but the XTrans layout is sparse red/blue sensing with an abundance of green channel and, as such, has such nasty inflection points if you get just a hair off the absolute ideal curve it's a real pain. 

I spent more than enough time trying to work it with different tools to know what I like and don't like. Never mind that I don't like Fuji's menu design and ergonomics, in general. Leica gets those two things more right than most others, most of the time. 

And also never mind that I have all the lenses I need/want already in mounts and with lens profiles that work absolutely beautifully with the CL, M-D, SL, etc., without needing to buy into a whole different lens line. Never mind all the close up accessories, et cetera. Buying a Leica CL over any Fuji saved me thousands of dollars.

 

[CharlesL]

I showed how Fuji colors and Leica colors can be interchanged by taking a grand landscape, processing it quickly, and putting before and after up side by side with a challenge to guess which was the original. Unfortunately, I violated copyright by using a photo on Flickr that was tagged with copyright. jaapv removed my post as is correct, so all I can do is assert that the interchange can be done.

[ramarren]

2 minutes ago, CharlesL said:

I showed how Fuji colors and Leica colors can be interchanged by taking a grand landscape, processing it quickly, and putting before and after up side by side with a challenge to guess which was the original. Unfortunately, I violated copyright by using a photo on Flickr that was tagged with copyright. jaapv removed my post as is correct, so all I can do is assert that the interchange can be done.

Since it's fundamentally all mathematics when it comes to digital imaging, sure you can make one thing into a very close to resemblance to another with enough transformations. But why go through all that fuss and bother when you can simply get the thing that operates the way you want in the first place?

If what you like and want is a Fuji camera, good on you: enjoy it and make great photographs. I do not, and am FAR more pleased with what I get from my Leica cameras, more easily, having tested both to my satisfaction. 

[CharlesL]

1 minute ago, ramarren said:

... all that fuss and bother ...

If what you like and want is a Fuji camera, good on you   ... I do not ...

There was little fuss and bother in this instance. I originally mentioned Fuji, perhaps with adapted M-mount lenses, as a choice for the person who started this thread and who wants to downsize from his SL. Enough.