CL - Keep or sell

[prismstorm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Being a SL user primarily, I added the CL to pair with the SL 90-280 to entertain a few days of African Safari in May, but found myself not having touched the CL for two months straight thereafter.

I am considering selling off the CL now given that it is sitting idly redundant, and I haven't yet invested in any TL lens thus will be able to make a 'clean exit'. However, my CL is practically like new and the notion of keeping it and adding a few TL lenses down the line to make it a backup / supplementary camera to my SL does sound enticing. Moreover, I can always use my SL lenses on the CL to gain new focal lengths after the x1.5 conversion. For instance, I plan to acquire the SL 90/2 and 35/2 in time, and simply keeping the CL will give me 52.5mm and 135mm primes to use.

Would welcome any insights!  

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

The time will come when you will appreciate the unique virtues of the CL system more readily; notably its lower weight and bulk. Its well-documented performance and versatility are well founded (Just review some of the dedicated and threads and images published in this forum) I would urge you not to act hastily.

[prismstorm]

9 minutes ago, wda said:

The time will come when you will appreciate the unique virtues of the CL system more readily; notably its lower weight and bulk. Its well-documented performance and versatility are well founded (Just review some of the dedicated and threads and images published in this forum) I would urge you not to act hastily.

Thanks, but to make the most of the CL's size and weight advantage means investing in native TL lenses. I do think that SL lenses are a better investment since they are optically superior, weather-sealed, and utilize the entire sensor of both the SL and CL, while TL lenses can only produce 10MP files on the SL. However, never acquiring TL lenses means the compactness advantage of the CL is not being enjoyed. I can't decide, thus why I'm trying to persuade myself to sell off the CL so the above decision does not have to be made. 

[jaapv]

Compared to the SL, TL lenses cost peanuts...

The real risk is that the CL might replace your SL system.

[prismstorm]

Yes they are half the cost, but do not have the same interchangeability (10MP on the SL), and will lock me into the APS-C system further ... 😝

Edited July 26, 2019 by prismstorm

[earleygallery]

It would surely make sense to buy one of the TL lenses for it, probably the 23mm prime, and have it as your carry around/travel camera.

 

[prismstorm]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, earleygallery said:

It would surely make sense to buy one of the TL lenses for it, probably the 23mm prime, and have it as your carry around/travel camera.

 

For TL lenses, I am considering the 11-23 for general travel / hiking (so much lighter than SL 16-35, zoom in to 23mm for a walk around 35mm equivalent); and the 60/2.8 macro (the first 1:1 Leica macro lens).

I was also considering the Summilux-TL 35/1.4 before, but the release of the SL APO 35/2 made it way less attractive now ... 

[danielfrimley]

2 hours ago, earleygallery said:

It would surely make sense to buy one of the TL lenses for it, probably the 23mm prime, and have it as your carry around/travel camera.

 

 

1 hour ago, prismstorm said:

For TL lenses, I am considering the 11-23 for general travel / hiking (so much lighter than SL 16-35, zoom in to 23mm for a walk around 35mm equivalent); and the 60/2.8 macro (the first 1:1 Leica macro lens).

I was also considering the Summilux-TL 35/1.4 before, but the release of the SL APO 35/2 made it way less attractive now ... 

I just spent 10 days in Sicily with the 23mm, 35mm and 60mm TL primes in the bag and that's where the last two stayed. The 23mm didn't come off the camera once and makes for an almost perfect travel kit for me. It was a holiday not a photography trip, I might of worked differently if I was there for the express purpose of making pictures.

[jjk]

Coming from the M 240, I have 2 CLs along with the 18-56, 35f1.4, and the 55-135.  When I travel I carry both CLs and 1 or 2 Ms.  I find that I use one of the Ms with either the 21 or 28, 1 CL with the 35f1.4 or the 18-35 zoom and the other CL with my M90f2 APO.  I am always surprised at how good the 18-35 is on the CL.  It is also very light and compact.  It ends up being my small point and shoot.  Even though the long zoom is more versatile, I love the M90 on the CL.  I just can't work as fast with it as with autofocus.  My next lens will be the SL75f2.  I'm waiting to see what the SL2 has to offer.  Then it will be the SL2 or the S1R with the M21 for handheld cathedral interiors.  To my surprise I found that the CL with the TL35f1.4 works great for that as well.

What works for me, may not work for you, but for travel photography I love my 2 CLs.

[Marac]

Sounds to me like you're ready to sell it, so, sell it. You rate the SL way above the CL and you also rate the SL lenses way above the CL lenses so to avoid further cost and disappointment SELL IT!..

[Le Chef]

I hate weight, having travelled a lot throughout my life: it’s the enemy of progress. And I’m a fan of Colin Chapman. I looked at full frame cameras and felt they would be a burden and inhibit the joy of going out to take pictures. The CL reminds me of a 35mm film camera in its compactness. The IQ is good enough for me to blow up images to A2 and even A1 if I want. 

I just hope Leica resist the temptations of adding more to the CL and running the risk of turning it into an obese lump that loses its original sense of purpose and joy.

[ramarren]

I had (and loved) the SL. After I retired, I found I just didn't carry it any more ... it was more than I needed for my personal work, I found I always grabbed the Leica M-D instead. I sold the SL and the two native zooms I had, but I still needed a TTL camera for macro, tabletop, and copy work. So I bought the CL body-only for that purpose and use it with a combination of Leica M and R lenses. 

It's been so successful in that role, and for general purpose use, that I haven't touched the M-D in a year for more than an occasional snap. I carry the CL most of the time now—when I'm not carrying a Polaroid SX-70 or 6x6 medium format film camera—and I still prefer using my R and M lenses on it. It's compact, light weight, and produces excellent results ... and it actually makes my macro and copy work easier than using the SL because of the smaller format and same pixel resolution.

A win-win situation for me: the CL is now my 'standard' camera. 

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, prismstorm said:

Yes they are half the cost, but do not have the same interchangeability (10MP on the SL), and will lock me into the APS-C system further ... 😝

As you see from the posts above - the SL will have to go...   APS-C is the modern reiteration of the original "Leica" 24x36 format.

[prismstorm]

3 hours ago, danielfrimley said:

 

I just spent 10 days in Sicily with the 23mm, 35mm and 60mm TL primes in the bag and that's where the last two stayed. The 23mm didn't come off the camera once and makes for an almost perfect travel kit for me. It was a holiday not a photography trip, I might of worked differently if I was there for the express purpose of making pictures.

So the supposedly better 35 and 60 didn't come into play at all 😁😁😁

2 hours ago, jjk said:

Coming from the M 240, I have 2 CLs along with the 18-56, 35f1.4, and the 55-135.  When I travel I carry both CLs and 1 or 2 Ms.  I find that I use one of the Ms with either the 21 or 28, 1 CL with the 35f1.4 or the 18-35 zoom and the other CL with my M90f2 APO.  I am always surprised at how good the 18-35 is on the CL.  It is also very light and compact.  It ends up being my small point and shoot.  Even though the long zoom is more versatile, I love the M90 on the CL.  I just can't work as fast with it as with autofocus.  My next lens will be the SL75f2.  I'm waiting to see what the SL2 has to offer.  Then it will be the SL2 or the S1R with the M21 for handheld cathedral interiors.  To my surprise I found that the CL with the TL35f1.4 works great for that as well.

What works for me, may not work for you, but for travel photography I love my 2 CLs.

You seem to be treading across both platforms equally!

2 hours ago, Le Chef said:

I hate weight, having travelled a lot throughout my life: it’s the enemy of progress. And I’m a fan of Colin Chapman. I looked at full frame cameras and felt they would be a burden and inhibit the joy of going out to take pictures. The CL reminds me of a 35mm film camera in its compactness. The IQ is good enough for me to blow up images to A2 and even A1 if I want. 

I just hope Leica resist the temptations of adding more to the CL and running the risk of turning it into an obese lump that loses its original sense of purpose and joy.

Yet after all this is said, I do wish the next CL would have sensor stabilisation, so things like the 55-135 would be significantly easier to use safely.

35 minutes ago, ramarren said:

I had (and loved) the SL. After I retired, I found I just didn't carry it any more ... it was more than I needed for my personal work, I found I always grabbed the Leica M-D instead. I sold the SL and the two native zooms I had, but I still needed a TTL camera for macro, tabletop, and copy work. So I bought the CL body-only for that purpose and use it with a combination of Leica M and R lenses. 

It's been so successful in that role, and for general purpose use, that I haven't touched the M-D in a year for more than an occasional snap. I carry the CL most of the time now—when I'm not carrying a Polaroid SX-70 or 6x6 medium format film camera—and I still prefer using my R and M lenses on it. It's compact, light weight, and produces excellent results ... and it actually makes my macro and copy work easier than using the SL because of the smaller format and same pixel resolution.

A win-win situation for me: the CL is now my 'standard' camera. 

It is a lot more compact and light weight, but I can't help but feel that the SL has better ergonomics overall, and I can change settings way faster without getting cramps in my palm from fiddling with the constricted space and controls on the CL ... 

[nicci78]

If you never use it, just sell it and do not look back.

Some people may prefer larger SL system (R or SL lenses + SL body) and do not mind higher cost of ownership and heavy weight 

Other people may prefer smaller CL system (M or TL lenses + CL body) and do enjoy lower cost of ownership and lighter load. 

 

But I am not sure, if these 2 categories of Leica customers can reconcile. I think that they too different. For example, I love my small Q2 and my even smaller CL. But I will never buy the large SL. I will also never consider buying the too large SL lenses.  

TL lenses are perfect in size. Summilux-TL 35 and APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 55-135 are the biggest lenses you can mount with confidence on a CL. Heavier lenses will be too unbalanced though. Even "small" APO-Summicron-SL lenses are way too big to be used with CL.

I am more than happy with Q2 covering 28mm + 35mm (1.25x crop). And CL covering 50mm (Summilux-TL 35) + 75mm (Summarit-M 50) + 90mm (APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60)

What's missing ? May be a Summarit-M 90 for 135mm equivalency. Or a Summicron-M or Elmarit-M 28 for 42mm perfect for hyperfocal street photography. 

Edited July 26, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Very small Summilux-M 35 or ok size Summilux-TL 35 make more sense than quite largeAPO-Summicron-SL 35. 

They are lighter and smaller with larger aperture benefits

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]

Summicron C 40 makes even more sense. 

[RexGig0]

I consider a second camera body to be a desirable level of redundancy. Redundancy is the most-timely form of insurance against drops/spills/theft/absent-mindedness/etc. On two occasions, I was glad to have a second camera available. The first time, I had accidentally pushed a button, on the side of a 7D, which engaged a feature I had never previously used, during a night shoot, while processing a crime scene. I continued the shoot with the remaining 7D. (I used two cameras, normally, one with my macro lens, and the other with a zoom.) I realized/discovered my operator error later, when in a well-lit area.

The second time, I dropped my then-new M10 at the outset of a road trip, and was glad to have a Nikon DSLR with me, even if the only F-mount lens I had was a 40mm Voigtlander. The padded camera wrap had protected the exterior, but the impact had interrupted a circuit, or something to that effect. (The most obvious symptom was a “green screen.”) An extended stay at Leica North America was necessary, during which the rangefinder was also adjusted.

I do, however, understand how a small camera can be beyond a point of diminishing returns, being too “fiddly.”

Edited July 26, 2019 by RexGig0

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

1 hour ago, prismstorm said:

I can't help but feel that the SL has better ergonomics overall, and I can change settings way faster without getting cramps in my palm from fiddling with the constricted space and controls on the CL

The CL is not made for you then. To me the SL has the worst ergonomics because i have smaller hands than yours perhaps i don't know but fact is i don't feel comfortable with it and i prefer smaller cameras generally. I don't even understand how Leica can sell this thing go figure. Matter of tastes as usual. 

[helged]

13 minutes ago, lct said:

The CL is not made for you then. To me the SL has the worst ergonomics because i have smaller hands than yours perhaps i don't know but fact is i don't feel comfortable with it and i prefer smaller cameras generally. I don't even understand how Leica can sell this thing go figure. Matter of tastes as usual. 

Opposite experience on my side. I prefer the SL; it fits my hand and it has back-focus button. The SL also handles highlights better than CL. And the EVF is larger/easier to view. Based on my experience with both systems.

And yes, I would have kept the CL if it had back focus button.