Jump to content
phernz

Leica CL is my Plan B

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hey Guys,

 

In a couple of days I have a trip to NYC where I'm set to buy a Q-P. Thing is, now a days I have few opportunities to travel (new dad life and start up entrepreneur life) so I know Q's tend to be backordered pretty much everywhere. I can't purchase online since I want to trade my Fuji kit on the spot. So if I cant get the Q, the CL with either the 23 f2 or 18 f2.8 is my plan b. Just wondering how does the Q and CL compare? I know this may seem ridiculous but those the 18 and the 23 have true leica substance (leica glow and rendering) like the 28 lux in the Q? I know bokeh would be sacrificed a bit but that's no big deal. Not really interested in the 35 1.4, since its too tight and im moving from fuji having the XF 35 1.4, plus I'm not really interested in multiple lenses. 

 

Any help will be highly appreciated!

 

Thanks! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phernz, you will not be disappointed with either of these choices. For me, the Q gives a more pleasant shooting experience but the CL is the heart of a new camera system. CL plus 23mm Summicron is an excellent low-weight low-bulk walk-about camera and could cover most of your travel needs. Although slightly overlapping in focal length,  the CL plus standard zoom is excellent in most shooting conditions. If you decide on the CL plus 23mm lens, see if the CL Street Kit is still available. There is a cost saving. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For travelling the CL is an excellent and easy choice. I often use it for trips, where the SL and now the SL 2 is not a must in combination with the 18-56 and the 55-135 plus a Marumi achromat with 5 diop for the 18-56 for occasional macros of flowers etc.  If you do not need focal lengthes longer than 35 mm and not shorter than 28 mm I would take the Q. The Q 2 would extend this range to 50 mm, because of the higher resolution. I personally want more choice regarding focal lengthes on journeys. But this depends on the kind of photos you intend to make and is only my two cents.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I looked at the Q and very much liked the analog feel to all the controls. It feels substantial like a very densely packed piece of equipment. However I was concerned that a fixed 28mm lens would feel restrictive. In the end I bought a CL with both the 18-56 zoom and the 23mm. I try to take out only one lens at a time - discipline, improvisation and weight being the factors - and enjoy the experience. The 18-56 gets used from 18 all the way to 56 and is a great catch all. The 23mm gives you greater simplicity with a more natural field of view than the 28.

Buying from your nearest AD would be my advice. I’m sure they can arrange to loan you both CL and at least a straight Q to see how you feel. At every point of question or indecision my local AD has been both generous with loans and has provided empathetic suggestions and options. I’m sure I could buy cheaper but I would lose a lot of this help. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got a CL and a Q. Both fantastic cameras although I do find myself taking the CL with me more as it is noticeably smaller. But the Q takes such incredible photos (and the macro setting is fantastic) it is staying in my collection for the foreseeable future. The CL has however got me addicted to M lenses so could get expensive pretty quick......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Used to own a Q, fantastic camera and shares batteries with the CL. It is limited with a fixed focal length but does take incredible photos. I only sold it to fund some CL lenses as I'm unable to fund without sacrifice (otherwise I would of kept both).

 

The CL is light and very good at capturing photos, I have the 11-23, the 35 and the 55-135, I consider that to be a very useful set up for my needs. I cannot see myself changing this camera for many years, I have already had it for 3 years and that is a new world record for me LOL.

I also just acquired an old Mamiya ZD medium format with CCD sensor and a few lenses that I am very much enjoying as I love the images produced by CCD sensors (M8 M9 MM), obviously that is not involved in your decision, but I would say, go with the CL there is not 'THAT' much difference in IQ and I fully recommend the 11-23mm what a stunning lens that is really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, Marac said:

Used to own a Q, fantastic camera and shares batteries with the CL. It is limited with a fixed focal length but does take incredible photos. I only sold it to fund some CL lenses as I'm unable to fund without sacrifice (otherwise I would of kept both).

 

The CL is light and very good at capturing photos, I have the 11-23, the 35 and the 55-135, I consider that to be a very useful set up for my needs. I cannot see myself changing this camera for many years, I have already had it for 3 years and that is a new world record for me LOL.

I also just acquired an old Mamiya ZD medium format with CCD sensor and a few lenses that I am very much enjoying as I love the images produced by CCD sensors (M8 M9 MM), obviously that is not involved in your decision, but I would say, go with the CL there is not 'THAT' much difference in IQ and I fully recommend the 11-23mm what a stunning lens that is really.

Thanks for the useful advice. I'm more of a one camera one lens type of guy and that would be a standard prime. I feel I'm most creative and enjoy the experience more. Sometimes I just go for a walk with my Fuji + 35 1.4 around my neck and see where I land.  The most appealing lens on the CL for me would be the 23, feel like I'm sacrificing a bit with the 18 only been 2.8, but the Plan A is the Q-P or even a Q2. I just want to know if the CL is worth it if I cant get my hands on either Q. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am predominantly an M shooter but bought a Q and took it with me on several trips as a second body. It eventually got sold in favor of a CL.

But I miss it. The Q felt much more like an M in terms of shooting mechanics to me than the CL does (even with M lenses mounted). And there's a simplicity to shooting with the Q—don't need to think about what lens is on or what button/dial does what. I took some excellent photos with the Q and even got along reasonably well with its AF.

I had no problem throwing just the Q in my everyday bag for happenstance shooting. But I'd have a hard time taking just the Q on an extended trip (admittedly this is more a problem with me than with the camera.) Every once in a while we take a trip to a place where I know I will want more range in focal lengths. On an upcoming trip I have a very strict weight allowance—25 lbs ( due to a small plane). So the CL and a couple of zooms and I'm all set and don't feel like I'm constraining myself photographically.

I don't think of the CL as a small M; it's its own thing. I did come to think of the Q as a simplified M, though, and that was its greatest merit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 10:06 AM, wda said:

Phernz, you will not be disappointed with either of these choices. For me, the Q gives a more pleasant shooting experience but the CL is the heart of a new camera system. CL plus 23mm Summicron is an excellent low-weight low-bulk walk-about camera and could cover most of your travel needs. Although slightly overlapping in focal length,  the CL plus standard zoom is excellent in most shooting conditions. If you decide on the CL plus 23mm lens, see if the CL Street Kit is still available. There is a cost saving. 

Thanks!

 

I cant seem to find the kit with the 23, just the 18 and the kit zoom, but I'll ask if the Q is out of stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, bandrews said:

I've got a CL and a Q. Both fantastic cameras although I do find myself taking the CL with me more as it is noticeably smaller. But the Q takes such incredible photos (and the macro setting is fantastic) it is staying in my collection for the foreseeable future. The CL has however got me addicted to M lenses so could get expensive pretty quick......

 The flexibility of the Q with the macro ring + evf are the main reason why I wont go for a M with a 35 1.4. 

 

Thank you!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, nryn said:

I am predominantly an M shooter but bought a Q and took it with me on several trips as a second body. It eventually got sold in favor of a CL.

But I miss it. The Q felt much more like an M in terms of shooting mechanics to me than the CL does (even with M lenses mounted). And there's a simplicity to shooting with the Q—don't need to think about what lens is on or what button/dial does what. I took some excellent photos with the Q and even got along reasonably well with its AF.

I had no problem throwing just the Q in my everyday bag for happenstance shooting. But I'd have a hard time taking just the Q on an extended trip (admittedly this is more a problem with me than with the camera.) Every once in a while we take a trip to a place where I know I will want more range in focal lengths. On an upcoming trip I have a very strict weight allowance—25 lbs ( due to a small plane). So the CL and a couple of zooms and I'm all set and don't feel like I'm constraining myself photographically.

I don't think of the CL as a small M; it's its own thing. I did come to think of the Q as a simplified M, though, and that was its greatest merit.

Simplicity and versatility is what has me sold on the Q. I love the "limitations", I feel like I push myself to another level. CL is just a plan b if BH or Leica Soho are out of stock on the Q's.

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, phernz said:

Simplicity and versatility is what has me sold on the Q. I love the "limitations", I feel like I push myself to another level. CL is just a plan b if BH or Leica Soho are out of stock on the Q's.

You really can't go wrong with either camera. They are both excellent.

But just so I am clear, I went with the CL for versatility. With the CL as an M backup I have a pocketable AF point-and-shoot, can use M lenses on both bodies, and can also do things that an M cannot do easily (e.g. AF/Zoom for wildlife).

If simplicity were my priority I absolutely would have stuck with the Q (or the M). That said, the Q's macro was very good (though very limited--working distance was short) and I could leave my 28 Summicron-M at home.

You should be able to find a Q pretty easily at this point. A Q2 on the shelves seems hit-or-miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, phernz said:

Thanks!

 

I cant seem to find the kit with the 23, just the 18 and the kit zoom, but I'll ask if the Q is out of stock.

That is a pity. It has also disappeared from Leica UK'London store.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a Q and a CL and love them both. With the best lenses mounted on the CL (35TL and 23TL), there is surprisingly little difference in IQ compared to the Q. (The 60TL Macro is also supposed to be top notch.) However, there is a special pleasure to shooting with the Q, and I have come to see it as a world class 28mm Summilux lens with a FF camera body attached. I tried the 18TL (27mm equivalent) on the CL, and it is nowhere close. Carrying the Q in a day bag is not much of a burden, and it gives me speed and macro capability. So for me, a CL+35TL and a Q make for a very nice shooting kit. Alternatively, I sometimes take a CL+23TL and Voigt Nokton 50 f1.2, which is also a phenomenal lens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking forward to having my CL system by this next weekend, picking up the outfit before the new prices kick in January 2 here in the U.S.. CL body, 11-23, 55-135 and an SF-60 flash with the off-camera radio commander.

Some time shortly an M to L adapter will add the 35mm f1.4 FLE I already have to bridge the two zooms and complete the setup.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/29/2019 at 6:47 PM, robgo2 said:

I have a Q and a CL and love them both. With the best lenses mounted on the CL (35TL and 23TL), there is surprisingly little difference in IQ compared to the Q. (The 60TL Macro is also supposed to be top notch.) However, there is a special pleasure to shooting with the Q, and I have come to see it as a world class 28mm Summilux lens with a FF camera body attached. I tried the 18TL (27mm equivalent) on the CL, and it is nowhere close. Carrying the Q in a day bag is not much of a burden, and it gives me speed and macro capability. So for me, a CL+35TL and a Q make for a very nice shooting kit. Alternatively, I sometimes take a CL+23TL and Voigt Nokton 50 f1.2, which is also a phenomenal lens.

The raving about the Q lens seems to be all over the web. Yet it does optically not perform at the level of the better M-lenses. There is a lot of in camera corrective software intervention going on to make the faux Q Summilux eventually look good. (I own the Q, since release, but the CL&M adapter are the one I use mostly these days).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Summilux-Q 28 asph is better than Summicron-M 28 asph and better than Elmarit-M 28 asph. And on par with Summilux -M 28 asph. 
 

All three M lenses received  software correction by Leica’s bodies in order to perform correctly.

I think that the rave about the Q and Q2 is right. 
Even with its innovative way to use a 26mm lens combined with slightly larger than 24x36 sensor cropped into 28mm to remove all corner imperfections and distortion. 

Edited by nicci78

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Ecaton said:

The raving about the Q lens seems to be all over the web. Yet it does optically not perform at the level of the better M-lenses. There is a lot of in camera corrective software intervention going on to make the faux Q Summilux eventually look good. (I own the Q, since release, but the CL&M adapter are the one I use mostly these days).

That has been done to death on the forum. An integral design with the optical part corrected optimally for the aberrations that are best corrected by glass and the deliberate residual aberrations  shifted into digital corrections which are better suited, like the Q*, is a hybrid design and not a bad design that has been "improved". The digital bit is an extra degree of freedom for the deisigner, without it the lens is incomplete, just as if you were to remove one glass element from the formula. A hybrid lens will always produce better results in IQ than an equivalent pure optical design.

M lenses that are corrected digitally are different matter. There the design is as good as possible with optical means and the digital profile is just a refinement made possible by present-day technology.

* with a single sensor-lens unit like the Q it is even possible to incorporate corrections for sensor aberrations into the lens design, giving an even better result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Ecaton said:

The raving about the Q lens seems to be all over the web. Yet it does optically not perform at the level of the better M-lenses. There is a lot of in camera corrective software intervention going on to make the faux Q Summilux eventually look good. (I own the Q, since release, but the CL&M adapter are the one I use mostly these days).

I could not care less that the Q's lens is corrected digitally. All that matters to me is the final output, and the Q's output is absolutely stellar. I have owned a Summicron-M 28 ASPH and an Elmarit-R 28, both of which I used on an SL. Neither of them is superior to the Summilux-Q, and maybe not as good, IMO. I must mention that the Elmarit-R is a different kind of beast that has its own special rendering. I'm sorry that I sold it, as it would be great on my CL.

Edited by robgo2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/22/2019 at 7:16 AM, phernz said:

Hey Guys,

 

In a couple of days I have a trip to NYC where I'm set to buy a Q-P. Thing is, now a days I have few opportunities to travel (new dad life and start up entrepreneur life) so I know Q's tend to be backordered pretty much everywhere. I can't purchase online since I want to trade my Fuji kit on the spot. So if I cant get the Q, the CL with either the 23 f2 or 18 f2.8 is my plan b. Just wondering how does the Q and CL compare? I know this may seem ridiculous but those the 18 and the 23 have true leica substance (leica glow and rendering) like the 28 lux in the Q? I know bokeh would be sacrificed a bit but that's no big deal. Not really interested in the 35 1.4, since its too tight and im moving from fuji having the XF 35 1.4, plus I'm not really interested in multiple lenses. 

 

Any help will be highly appreciated!

 

Thanks! 

I really wanted a Q but a dear friend on the forum, a retired pro, said that I would be unhappy because I’m a dog, macro, and landscape shooter. He suggested the CL 18-56. I listened to him and have never looked back. I’ve since added the TL 35  mm 1.4 . Very Happy. I had an X once and found it too restrictive. My 2 cents💁

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy