Favorite lens with your CL?

[NERICSSON]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

DOF is dependant of aperture and distance to subject only  

If you want to keep the same composition as 28mm with 35mm crop. You will have to get further away from the subject. Hence altering the depth of field. 

"Of course distance to subject and composition have to be identical. " 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

And sensor format. Which relates to focal length to retain framing.

[lct]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

DOF is dependant of aperture and distance to subject only

In no way sorry. Again you're forgetting CoC values which take the crop factors into account. 

 

 

[lct]

Ouch!... Covid and arthritis don't help to control my bad temper these days. My apologies for that. Circle of confusion (CoC) calculations are no rocket science but average CoC values can be found in the exif data of your pics if your Q2 behaves the same way as my CL: 0.024 for the Q2 at 35mm and 0.02 for the CL. Suffice it to enter those values in a DoF calculator to compare. Shows little DoF difference between a 23mm lens on the CL and the 28mm lens of the Q2 at 35mm as expected. Half a stop more or less.

[cj3209]

This is getting technical; makes me hungry for my favorite dessert...

 

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!

[nicci78]

18 hours ago, lct said:

Ouch!... Covid and arthritis don't help to control my bad temper these days. My apologies for that. Circle of confusion (CoC) calculations are no rocket science but average CoC values can be found in the exif data of your pics if your Q2 behaves the same way as my CL: 0.024 for the Q2 at 35mm and 0.02 for the CL. Suffice it to enter those values in a DoF calculator to compare. Shows little DoF difference between a 23mm lens on the CL and the 28mm lens of the Q2 at 35mm as expected. Half a stop more or less.

CoC depends of too many factors :      
- print size.  
- viewer vision acuity.  
- viewing distance of the print. 
- sensor size. 
 

Too hard to calculate. Too open to subjective interpretation. So I don’t know. I can use simple equivalency based on crop factor. Easier and my test shots proved that it is accurate : you get the same depth of field at a given aperture/focal length equivalency. 
 

Photopills gives Full frame 0.030mm CoC vs APS-C 0.020mm CoC. 
For the same print size, vision acuity and viewing distance 

Edited August 3, 2020 by nicci78

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

And on image content too...   

[nicci78]

If I dare paraphrasing Peter Karbe : each time you close down the aperture, you are better of using a smaller sensor.  

 

[jaapv]

That makes the case for a variable size sensor. AKA "Honey, I shrunk my camera"

[Guest]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Photopills gives Full frame 0.030mm CoC vs APS-C 0.020mm CoC.

Don't know Photopills but these numbers are too large for today's pixel peepers. A CoC of 0.03mm was traditionally used for 35mm photography. The depth of field scales on Leica lenses are based on this value.

Peter Karbe recently mentioned in a video that Leica now internally uses a CoC of 2 pixels. In this new digital world of pixel peepers, CoC just depends on pixel pitch.

It turns out that a CoC of two pixels is about the same for Q2 (0.0086mm) and CL (0.0078mm). 

[lct]

Average CoC values (0.03 for FF, 0.02 for APS-C, etc.) are still mentioned by Leica in the exif data of M10, CL and probably SL2 and Q2.

[Guest]

That does not mean much.

[lct]

Made for prints as usual.

[huwm]

I like the 23 most tbh, smaller than the Q which I'd been thinking about, and you can dig out the 11-23 and 55-135 when need really wide or a tele.

Don't really need ibis with Q i'd have thought but i would really like it with CL 55-135 combo

I do like the 55-135, terrific range for its size and lovely iq but struggle a bit some days with focus/shake and am wondering about Lumix or Sigma alternatives

At the moment I'm holding onto it in anticipation of a CL2 but for how long?

 

[bags27]

11 minutes ago, huwm said:

I do like the 55-135, terrific range for its size and lovely iq but struggle a bit some days with focus/shake and am wondering about Lumix or Sigma alternatives

At the moment I'm holding onto it in anticipation of a CL2 but for how long?

 

Are you using single or multiple focal points? I found that when I switched to multiple focal points the focus snapped into place quite quickly

[cp995]

vor 14 Minuten schrieb huwm:

...Don't really need ibis with Q i'd have thought but i would really like it with CL 55-135 combo...

I'm wating for further 3rd party L-Mount telelenses with OIS.
Would be much more effective than IBIS.

Something in the range 55-250 oder 70-300 is still missing!
The sigma 100-400 is to big to carry around for general purpose

[huwm]

18 hours ago, bags27 said:

Are you using single or multiple focal points? I found that when I switched to multiple focal points the focus snapped into place quite quickly

I presumed that spot or single field bette, I will give it a go

 

[geoffreyg]

21 hours ago, cp995 said:

The sigma 100-400 is to big to carry around for general purpose

Rented this for a week - mixed feelings. Its a lovely lens, great image quality, works very well. Creamy background is very nice. Has IS, but was't easy under say 1/focal length shutter speed. If you don't mind taking a bunch of shots, one will be sharp (I was fiddling at 1/80 at 400mm). But its a hefty lens. On the plus side, its fantastic having a tele of that length, AF, and IS. On the down side, its a bit much for the camera. Only for specialized use - birds, wildlife, and race cars. Not buying one tho. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Marac]

20 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

Rented this for a week - mixed feelings. Its a lovely lens, great image quality, works very well. Creamy background is very nice. Has IS, but was't easy under say 1/focal length shutter speed. If you don't mind taking a bunch of shots, one will be sharp (I was fiddling at 1/80 at 400mm). But its a hefty lens. On the plus side, its fantastic having a tele of that length, AF, and IS. On the down side, its a bit much for the camera. Only for specialized use - birds, wildlife, and race cars. Not buying one tho. 

I had trouble getting a sharp shot on the CL with OIS and it was frustrating but, according to Jaap, if you shoot with electronic shutter your tally of in focus shots will improve greatly.

I tried it and it worked like a charm. I had no such issue with the S1R

[geoffreyg]

It was better with electronic shutter, but still a bit of an issue. You can take a bunch of shots and one will be sharp. Also, its easy to get fooled on shutter speed. Shadows, even on a good day at ISO 1600 sometimes can get less than 1/100, and that isn't ideal. Its a lovely lens, however it seems more like a DSLR type arrangement (biggish lens), not quite how the CL works for me.