Leica CL is my Plan B

[sblitz]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I had the Q switched to the CL because I wanted the longer reach for a safari -- and therein lies the difference. IF you are happy with 28 and cropping, which by the way the results are incredible on the Q, then go with the Q. Think of the Q2 as the SL2 with a fixed mount 28mm lens  And there is something to be said for tuning everything inside the camera to optimize one lens and one lens only. BUT if you want lens flexibility,  pick the CL. The IQ is great, and personally I prefer the results with M and R lenses vs the zoom that came with the camera. It sits in the drawer. So that's it -- you want to change lenses or are you a one lens photographer. This the choice, either camera will more than adequately fit the bill.

 

[phernz]

On 1/12/2020 at 5:13 PM, albert said:

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💁

Thanks for the feedback! I bought the Q-P and I'm in love, it all comes down to the needs and the 28 lux is the perfect lens for my vision and style. I briefly considered the CL if I wasn't able to find a Q but that was relatively easy. 

[Advertisement]

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

[SoarFM]

On 1/12/2020 at 5:47 PM, sblitz said:

Think of the Q2 as the SL2 with a fixed mount 28mm lens  And there is something to be said for tuning everything inside the camera to optimize one lens and one lens only. BUT if you want lens flexibility,  pick the CL.

Or both... I know, that can be a lot of money. I have too many cameras. I had the Q and now the Q2, both fantastic cameras. I also have a CL with 18-56 and the 23 and 35 for lower light applications with a CL. They are all fantastic. I kinda wish I would part with one of the cameras from a "simplification" point of view. When I pick one for the day and leave the other behind I always finish thinking this is quite all I need. And when I pick up the other on a different day I end the day thinking the same thing... Help!

[jaapv]

8 minutes ago, SoarFM said:

Or both... I know, that can be a lot of money. I have too many cameras. I had the Q and now the Q2, both fantastic cameras. I also have a CL with 18-56 and the 23 and 35 for lower light applications with a CL. They are all fantastic. I kinda wish I would part with one of the cameras from a "simplification" point of view. When I pick one for the day and leave the other behind I always finish thinking this is quite all I need. And when I pick up the other on a different day I end the day thinking the same thing... Help!

Fairly typical Leica-owner behaviour.

[PMCG]

On 1/31/2020 at 10:57 AM, jaapv said:

Fairly typical Leica-owner behaviour.

I started with a CL with the 23 f2.0 and and 35 f1.4 lenses, and then moved to Q for simplicity.  I found the 28mm length to limiting, so switched to M10-P with 35mm and 50mm Summilux lenses.  As much as I love the M10 Summilux combination, I do miss autofocus when I need to catch a moment or portrait shot quickly.  I'm on the list for an SL2, but am concerned about the weight (as a 72 year old woman).  My ideal would be a camera the size and weight on the M10, but with autofocus and weather sealing -- not an option in the Leica universe.  I'm interested in your thoughts on the CL vs. SL2, knowing that they are 2 very different cameras.  I don't feel the need for the SL2's huge sensor, but I also don't want to compromise too much on IQ.

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, PMCG said:

  I don't feel the need for the SL2's huge sensor, but I also don't want to compromise too much on IQ.

For "normal" use the difference is marginal. If you are in this game for full-wall prints and 100% crops on 4k monitors, you will certainly see a difference.

[PMCG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

For "normal" use the difference is marginal. If you are in this game for full-wall prints and 100% crops on 4k monitors, you will certainly see a difference.

I certainly don't do full wall prints, but I do enter photography shows and enlarge, although usually not more than 60" total perimeter.  Sounds like you think IQ would be fine for that purpose.  I am most definitely an amateur, but I take my photography seriously and love the M lenses.  I'd love weather sealed so I can shoot in the dusty desert, but I saw your comment in another thread about the CL being reasonably weather resistant.  Sounds like you're a CL fan.  Do you have favorite lenses for the CL?  I loved the 35 1.4 but found it quite heavy.  The 23 f2 is a great lens.  I generally stay away from zooms because of the potential for sucking in dust, but I might reconsider if the IQ is close to the primes.  I do family, landscape, and street photography.

[rob_w]

I have the CL plus TL23 and TL35 lenses and don't find a loss of IQ compared to my previous Leica M kit.

The TL35 in particular is highly praised for its quality.  If you find that lens too heavy, I wouldn't suggest contemplating an SL.  (For better balance with the lens, I added the Leica handgrip to the CL and that works just fine for my particular situation.)

The CL will also play nicely with your Summilux-M lenses, allowing for the 1.5 change in effective field of view, of course.  The M-adapter-L works very well.

Regarding zooms, these are also highly regarded.  I picked up a TL18-56 zoom recently for walk-around use.   No sign of dust and no sacrifice in IQ for any of the pics I have taken so far.  The only real reason to swap it out is for wider aperture or even more compact travel (e.g. I sometimes slip the CL+23 into my briefcase on business trips.)

I don't own an SL but I did agonise over the choice for a long time before settling on the CL.  I shot a lot of comparison photos on borrowed equipment and searched a lot of examples on photo sites.  I guess for some circumstances and some subjects, it is always possible to get a pic with the SL which is just a knockout.  But most of the time (99.99% of the time in my case) it's impossible to detect any difference.  I saw some stunning examples e.g. in marketing literature but did not myself produce any pics which showed a difference between SL and CL -- both were equally wonderful.  

I made my peace with the CL and continue to be impressed by how well it does everything I expect of it, and more.

[jaapv]

On 2/10/2020 at 9:32 PM, PMCG said:

I certainly don't do full wall prints, but I do enter photography shows and enlarge, although usually not more than 60" total perimeter.  Sounds like you think IQ would be fine for that purpose.  I am most definitely an amateur, but I take my photography seriously and love the M lenses.  I'd love weather sealed so I can shoot in the dusty desert, but I saw your comment in another thread about the CL being reasonably weather resistant.  Sounds like you're a CL fan.  Do you have favorite lenses for the CL?  I loved the 35 1.4 but found it quite heavy.  The 23 f2 is a great lens.  I generally stay away from zooms because of the potential for sucking in dust, but I might reconsider if the IQ is close to the primes.  I do family, landscape, and street photography.

Actually my favourite lens is the 24 Summilux M. Heavy, expensive, but I think it is in the same league as the Summilux M FLE on full frame. For the rest, I cannot find fault with any of the native lenses. Normally I will have the 18-56 mounted, the 55-135 is spectacular, if I want to go small I have the old Summicron 40 - C.