Favorite lens with your CL?

[Michael Markey]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I really like my CL .

Light ,compact and the lenses are great plus I can use my M lenses .

I`v sold just about everything else with the exception of my old AR72 and its Zeiss glass.

Still have my M film bodies of course.

It would be a shame if Leica didn`t continue with APS-C ... 

[nicci78]

This is why APS-C is still relevant for Leica.
The price, weight and size difference are too great to ignore.   
 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[nicci78]

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!

[Kim Dahl]

8 hours ago, cj3209 said:

I personally, would like to see smaller, more portable TL lenses and I would sacrifice speed.  For instance, a pancake 28mm f3.5 TL.  The 35 1.4 is too big IMHO to use on a portable CL body - for under $2K, hopefully.

I have been thinking a bit the same.  But I really need one (24/28) that is bright.  I could buy a Q and supplement the CL for longer focal lengths.  (But why when I have a CL system?  - is that not why you buy a system with replaceable lenses?  and wide angle / and normal lenses are the most commonly used.  So there should be choices) The quality of the camera and lenses is very importen. It must be a professional system.  I can see that several of my colleagues buy Q(2) as a supplement to eg Nikon / Canon / Sony.  Because the camera - the craft - and image quality are professional.

Edited February 26, 2021 by Kim Dahl

[nicci78]

@Kim Dahl Just buy the Q2. No need to wait for a potential fast 16-18mm. IQ wise nothing come close to the Summilux-Q 28mm f/1.7 

I am using for years two cameras side by side.   
2015 : Q + M Monochrom  
2017 : Q + M10
2018 : Q + CL 
2019 : Q2 + CL   
2021 : Q2 + CL2 ? 
 

Q/Q2 and CL are made for each other. 

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!

[jaapv]

I tend to stick with the cameras I have. I find it improves my photography. Abraham Lincoln was right about changing horses in mid-stream.

[Torpille]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

What a nice combo😍

[EUSe]

vor 6 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

This is why APS-C is still relevant for Leica.
The price, weight and size difference are too great to ignore.   
 

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!

Thank you for this reminder! Yet things look differently when you plan to use M-lenses you already have or desperately need good low-light quality or are planning longtime exposures. I like my CL, itˋs a great travel companion, but the image resolution is nowhere near my old M 240.

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Leica did not think like that. 
In their mind APS-C line-up is a bargain. A third of the price of SL2 and SL lenses. 
So you got 50% the frame for 33% of the cost. 
 

So CL + TL lenses is the least expensive entry point into Leica world. Take it or leave it. 
 

Obviously there are many cheaper APS-C options. Just like there are many less expensive full frame ones. 
 

That was not my point.

[lct]

2 hours ago, EUSe said:

I like my CL, itˋs a great travel companion, but the image resolution is nowhere near my old M 240.

I use those two bodies with the same M lenses and did not notice such a resolution difference so far. I never did side by side comparos though and i'm not much interested by resolution to be honest so i may have missed something. Would you have an example by chance? Just curious.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, EUSe said:

you plan to use M-lenses you already have or desperately need good low-light quality or are planning longtime exposures. I like my CL, itˋs a great travel companion, but the image resolution is nowhere near my old M 240.

Actually, the resolution is identical. - 24 MP.

[EUSe]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

Actually, the resolution is identical. - 24 MP.

In theory. But the results are not.

[EUSe]

vor einer Stunde schrieb lct:

I use those two bodies with the same M lenses and did not notice such a resolution difference so far. I never did side by side comparos though and i'm not much interested by resolution to be honest so i may have missed something. Would you have an example by chance? Just curious.

I did not do any scientific comparisms and never use the two side by side - I do have some examples with the Q1, but it is a  distinct and repeated feeling of dissatisfaction after several years of use. I like the contrast and colors of the CL files, but when it comes to critical detail in landscape photography, far away forests with their branches and twigs are not as well resolved. It is also a matter of precise focus (I often focus manually in critical situations). On the German forum, the standard TL Zoom has been criticised for its unreliable autofocus by many (although I think that it is an underrated lens).  Manual focus helps in my opinion. As for tele shots, seeing conditions are of course crucial. Motion blur occurs more easily in APS-C shots compared to FF.

To me, 24 megapixel M and Q shots have something easy and smooth about their sharpness while APS-C files appear a little more grainy. Not a big deal, but I can see it.

I might search for an example for download if you give me some time.

Edited February 26, 2021 by EUSe

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, EUSe said:

Motion blur occurs more easily in APS-C shots compared to FF.

 

This, especially if you compare at similar resolutions.

For landscape medium format or stitching is preferable,  for both APS-C and 135 formats. Another essential in high-quality landscape is focus stacking.

[EUSe]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

This.

For landscape medium format or stitching is preferable, both in APS-C and 135 formats. Another essential in high-quality landscape is focus stacking.

Ah, medium format. I wish I could afford it or lug it around. A longtime wish, far away... I do have the hope that a stabilized CL2 may have something to offer. Actually I am not after megapixels. I am only finding that I am applying TopazDenoise far more often when processing CL files than M or Q files, which of course also has to do with the fact that I rely on 1/3f or even 1/4f on APS-C, which is one reason for noise because it has an effect on auto ISO. I should not be a problem in good light. Todays new sensors should also be more sensitive and less noisy.

But, to come back to the original topic - my favourite lenses for Leica CL are: 60 mm Apo Macro, 55-135 mm TL and 35 mm Summilux TL. I also love the VOigtlaender Apo-Lanthar 90 mm f/3.5 (old screwmount lens, adapted) because of its sharpness and 3D character.

Edited February 26, 2021 by EUSe

[jaapv]

Well, it is correct that the larger the format, the less noise, everything else being equal. But noise is not resolution.

[EUSe]

vor 1 Minute schrieb jaapv:

Well, it is correct that the larger the format, the less noise, everything else being equal. But noise is not resolution.

No, I agree. I think there are several problems with the (my?) CL. I am simply not that happy after all those years and right from the start. I do like my macro and medium distance shots. 

[jaapv]

in my experience there are two causes for this kind of problem:

1. AFC tends to hunt slightly

2. The low body mass cannot prevent shutter slap at all shutter speeds.

Setting the camera to AFS whenever possible and using Electronic Shutter usually sharpens up the results considerably.

[LocalHero1953]

I had a M240 and M lenses, and my system evolved with the addition of a CL and SL and L lenses. Eventually I was finding the M240 was squeezed out of my usage: the SL for events, portraits etc, and the CL for travel, leisure and social. I found the CL to be as good a performer (usability and IQ) as the M240 for similar scenarios, and it was smaller, lighter and more discreet. I sold the M240 and all except one lens, and have no regrets.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[EUSe]

vor 31 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

in my experience there are two causes for this kind of problem:

1. AFC tends to hunt slightly

2. The low body mass cannot prevent shutter slap at all shutter speeds.

Setting the camera to AFS whenever possible and using Electronic Shutter usually sharpens up the results considerably.

I almost never use AFC. But even tripod shots do not come out the way I want (shutter shock? Must try the electronic shutter). It is not about big panoramas, but the detail and sharpness in shots around and above focal lengths of 90 mm. I am finding that M 240 or Q shots can be looked at with pleasure even at 200 or 300 % on my iMac. Although 100 % should be enough, there is a difference,. Now when I think about my little Dlux7 - forget it. Horrible.

Edited February 26, 2021 by EUSe