Considering the CL - TL Lens Sharpness

[barnabythebear]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hiya,

For some time Iv'e been considering the Leica Q, the quality of the images I'm seeing online is amazing; the sharpness and 'pop' are incredible.

The CL was a camera that I didn't know much about but now having read plenty of reviews and watched numerous YouTube videos I'm feeling a little torn between the two. I find the form factor of the CL much more appealing than the Q.

I don't plan on buying many lenses if I go the CL route, just a zoom and a prime. Looking at dozens of CL photos with TL lenses they don't seem to quite have that specialness of the Q, particularly in sharpness though I have seen plenty that have a lovely rendered look like the Q.

I'm thinking about the 11-23 or 23-56 plus maybe the 23 prime. The 35 looks nice but it's not really a focal length that appeals as a prime. Are these considered amongst the sharpest L lenses? Are other manufacturers L lenses considered as good as the Leica? Due to cost and no Auto Focus, I'm not really contemplating any M lenses.

Many thanks,

Nige.

[Advertisement]

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

[alainD]

The sharpest lenses I have on the CL are the 35mm (by far), then the 60mm macro, then the 11-23mm, then the 55-135mm and/or the 23mm.
But, to be honest, they are all very good. I would recommend to choose according to your focal length preference and needs (zoom vs prime), not by absolute sharpness.

The other L lenses are either too big for my taste on the CL or not autofocus.

Alain

[LocalHero1953]

I hope you have been downloading raws or high res jpgs, because you will not get a good impression of sharpness from online views.

I have the 11-23 and 35 (and 18-56, 60), and I've had the 23 in the past. My other cameras are the SL with native lenses and Sigma fp. The CL loses nothing in comparison with the other two in general terms, allowing for the age/generation of the sensors. The Sigma is the best of the three, but I have not compared it with Leica cameras of more recent age: SL2, Q2 or M10. I usually forget whether a shot has been taken with the CL or SL, they are so close (I use the Sigma mainly for video). For me at least, my images are limited far more by my ability than by the capailities of these cameras and lenses. At this level of all round IQ, I am more interested in usability for particular scenarios.

[jaapv]

How do you measure sharpness? Degrees of Gilette?  It is a non-existent optical parameter; a fuzzy concept at best.

[LocalHero1953]

3 minutes ago, jaapv said:

How do you measure sharpness? Degrees of Gilette?  It is a non-existent optical parameter...🙄

I don't measure it.
But I know it when I see it!

[jaapv]

I don't. Somebody may have been messing with the contrast (called sharpen in Photoshop).

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know when I post a photo on LUF it is fuzzy in the thread. Click on it and you see a sharp image.

[barnabythebear]

Hi,

Thanks for the input! I certainly feel that I can see a sharp picture, wether my eyes are a good benchmark is another thing. I have downloaded the jpgs and dngs from Dpreview and had a play with them in Aperture and C1-20. I'm tempted with the 11-23 for day to day with the 23 for low light.

Thanks,

 

Nigel.

[LocalHero1953]

In which case see this post:

and the following one 🙂

Remember to click on the images to see them at the best the LUF offers.

Edited May 15, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[alainD]

19 minutes ago, barnabythebear said:

Hi,

Thanks for the input! I certainly feel that I can see a sharp picture, wether my eyes are a good benchmark is another thing. I have downloaded the jpgs and dngs from Dpreview and had a play with them in Aperture and C1-20. I'm tempted with the 11-23 for day to day with the 23 for low light.

Thanks,

 

Nigel.

You can't go wrong with that. Still, I would suggest you to take a closer look at the 35. It is the real gem for the CL.

[Sjz]

Hi Barnaby welcome,

I too like very sharp photo's, and I don't find the CL lacking.

I do not have a Q to compare it to, I do have a SL2 and SL lens' and I am very happy with both systems.  I do not think of my CL as inferior to the SL2, it's a camera like the SL to truly enjoy trying to master.  One day, I will use the SL lens's (is it lens' or lens's for plural?) on the CL and obtain that lovely bokeh.  The reason I have not tried yet, is I am far from having mastered extracting the best images (and bokeh) from my TL len's and they balance the CL beautifully.

I look at the photos in each of the threads here and I see some I like, and others a little less so.  I don't see a difference in sharpness though. 

One problem I have as I look through the threads, is I cannot view without seeing my preconceptions confirmed.  I look through the M photo threads and see a 'style' of photo I love, the same with the SL, which in my eyes is similar to the CL thread but different to the M.  The same goes for the Q.  Maybe I am alone in this.  If so I will just add that defect to the list of my defects.

I truth, I think all the cameras are capable of delivering the photos I like, and there are brilliant photos in the M, SL, CL, Q threads (and the others - D-Lux 7 anyone?) which if taken out of the threads, I would be unable to tell the camera they were taken on.

Good luck with your choice, its a win or win decsiion to make.  (My decision was easier, I knew a fixed lens on a camera of that size would annoy me in the end.)

Edited May 15, 2020 by Sjz

[geoffreyg]

I just don't get the CL. Understand and love medium format, big sensors, reasonably sized pixels. Can understand the full frame Leicas. But this 24mp with a small sensor just shouldn't work as well as it does. Got one, use it, like it, still don't understand how it does it. 

I was going to post a couple of shots, but looked at them as they loaded - and they looked terrible due to the forum's compression software. Not worth showing - but the crispness across a full frame is pretty darn good. 

Edited May 15, 2020 by geoffreyg

[lykaman]

I've looked at the CL and it's lenses, loaded the Cart & even got to the moment of "Yes" - but something held me back.. The price adjustment made me rethink, although my D-Lux7 is not in the CL class, at this time I just feel it is sufficient..  I may still go back and get the CL with some lenses, but I really think it's an out n about camera.. Stuck In..D-Lux 7 works...  L

[barnabythebear]

Hi Geoffrey,

The CL is Leica’s most difficult sell, but there is certainly something special about it. 

Nigel. 

[bags27]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I hope you have been downloading raws or high res jpgs, because you will not get a good impression of sharpness from online views.

I have the 11-23 and 35 (and 18-56, 60), and I've had the 23 in the past. My other cameras are the SL with native lenses and Sigma fp. The CL loses nothing in comparison with the other two in general terms, allowing for the age/generation of the sensors. The Sigma is the best of the three, 

Sigma photos on this site, including yours, really make me sit up and look. I find them the sweet spot of digital without looking clinical. It's a weird camera--no articulating screen and yet the add-on EVF is terrible--and I have resisted getting it. It would be a severe mps penalty for TL lenses and I have no idea how well it would work with wider M glass. As a small back up for L glass, I imagine it would be awesome.

Edited May 15, 2020 by bags27

[LocalHero1953]

8 hours ago, bags27 said:

Sigma photos on this site, including yours, really make me sit up and look. I find them the sweet spot of digital without looking clinical. It's a weird camera--no articulating screen and yet the add-on EVF is terrible--and I have resisted getting it. It would be a severe mps penalty for TL lenses and I have no idea how well it would work with wider M glass. As a small back up for L glass, I imagine it would be awesome.

My comments were concerning image quality. The Sigma has many drawbacks that stop it being drop-in replacement to the CL or SL, though it is nearly identical in size and modus operandi to the TL2 - but with full frame L lenses. I find its menus and interface excellent - again better than those of the CL and SL, though I believe Leica upped its game for the SL2. Accepting its limitations, it is a great minimalistic genuine backup (i.e. in case of failure) for other L cameras.

Edited May 16, 2020 by LocalHero1953

[jaapv]

10 hours ago, geoffreyg said:

I just don't get the CL. Understand and love medium format, big sensors, reasonably sized pixels. Can understand the full frame Leicas. But this 24mp with a small sensor just shouldn't work as well as it does. Got one, use it, like it, still don't understand how it does it. 

I was going to post a couple of shots, but looked at them as they loaded - and they looked terrible due to the forum's compression software. Not worth showing - but the crispness across a full frame is pretty darn good. 

The first image you see is just a preview. Click on it and the image is shown in high quality. The forum  does not compress the images in the photo box, which you get by clicking on the plus symbol.

 

 

[Einst_Stein]

Too sharp, I have to blur it.

 

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]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

20 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

Too sharp, I have to blur it.

 

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!

Agree, I often give between 0,1 and 0,3 gaussian blur to take the harsh edge off the images.