TL/CL system needs way more native lens

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 hours ago, AdHox said:

...

I'd be interested in a compact 28mm - the 23mm is a nice size but too wide, the 35mm is faster and hence bigger than I need want, and too long - and also a compact short telephoto. For the 28mm, I should look at adapted M options, but I don't know the ecosystem well enough to know which options are a good match on the CL. 

The Voigtländer Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 is teensy, sharp even wide open, and has lovely rendering qualities. They never made it in M-bayonet, only LTM, so you need that adapter as well as the M Adapter T. I code with the Summaron 28mm f/5.6 lens profile and it produces lovely results straight out of the CL. They sell for around $500-$600 in near-MINT condition on Ebay; there are several available at present.

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

[robgo2]

12 hours ago, Peters said:

Agree. I think we have to take into account context. The 55-135mm may be a little cumbersome on the CL, but in comparison to other 70-200 lenses of similar quality (at the same aperture) it is incredibly small. You could easily carry around a 16-35, 35 prime, and 70-200 TL set in one bag up a mountain. It's much more of a struggle with a full framed equivalent. 

I don't use zoom lenses, but your point is well taken.  Of course, zooms are bigger than primes, but life is full of trade-offs.  You have to give something to get something.

[robgo2]

On 5/19/2020 at 11:55 PM, nicci78 said:

This is why Leica cannot leave APS-C, it is where most of the sales are made.  But they should embraced the system with more lenses. 

Leica should sell way more CL than Q2, M10 or SL. Not the other way around. An underperforming TL/CL only means lost sales for Leica. They should sell 3-4 APS-C for one full frame body. 
 

I agree with you on this.  There are several reasons why the CL is an "underperformer" in terms of sales volume, the main one being price and the second being target audience.  The two are actually linked inextricably.  The CL and associated TL lenses are far more expensive than competing APS-C cameras and lenses from other manufacturers. We Leicaphiles might argue that you get what you pay for, but the fact is that more than a few Leica owners are snobs who look down upon the smaller sensor as being beneath them. Hence, the CL has not caught on with most users. (If only they knew what they are missing.) At the same time, devotees of other brands want better value for their hard earned money and recoil at Leica's prices.

A solution would be for Leica to lower the prices for the CL and its lenses, not all the way to Sony and Nikon levels, but close enough to draw in potential buyers who lust for the cachet of owning a Leica camera. Of course, lowering prices might taint that cachet to a certain degree, which Leica probably wants to avoid.  It all comes down to marketing decisions, which are beyond the realm of any of us users.

[cp995]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb FrozenInTime:

...The TL 23 was a bit below par - never really excelling...

What do you mean with this?
What's the "problem" with the 23mm Cron beside the price)?

What better alternative do I have?
23mm (+/- 1mm), tiny and minimum f2.

No AF needed!

[cp995]

Am 20.5.2020 um 07:55 schrieb nicci78:

...This is why Leica cannot leave APS-C, it is where most of the sales are made...

Only numbers, not revenue!
Do you have the exact data for Leica?

And another question.
Canon, Nikon and Sony acually sell more APS-C units than FF.
But there APS-C lens system is comparable sparsely equipped as it is at Leica.
The reasons why are the same, everywehre.
There is enough for basic requirements, who needcs more, canon use FF equipment.
I can fully understand this arguments, as all these companies focus on FF and don't need to have two expensive lines of lenses.
 

 

Edited May 21, 2020 by cp995

[robgo2]

7 hours ago, FrozenInTime said:

The TL 23 was a bit below par - never really excelling; the 11-23 superb, but like the 55-135 rarely used or carried, so all three were sold on.

The TL 35/1.4 shines wide open indoors. A top grade fast 18mm would be an ideal APS-C compliment and if it was coma free to the corners, would encourage a 2x CL body carry during the darker months. Both are large but the even larger SL sized lenses are out of any consideration even in targeted situations.

I am very happy with my TL 23 and think that it holds up well against my Summicron-M 35/f2 ASPH (on an SL).  It's only weakness is a propensity for chromatic aberration at wide apertures, almost always fixable in post-processing.

The TL 35 is a true gem, approaching the level of the best SL lenses. Though it is large, it is much lighter than SL lenses and balances well on the CL, IMO.

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Just to compare - I don't see much difference in separation, if at all. The bokeh is smoother. Yet this is the 18-56 on the CL.

Nice pic but i was at f/8. Below at f/4. For those interested, i was at the hidden "macro" position (40mm, MFD = about 0.4m) of the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50/4 v1. On digital CL of course. FWIW

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Leica-digital-CL-Leica-28-35-504-v1/i-d9sS7Bt/0/bf40f74e/X5/C1080370_si-X5.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Leica-digital-CL-Leica-28-35-504-v1/i-HKLnRWS/0/16706811/X5/C1080350_si-X5.jpg

Edited May 21, 2020 by lct

[jaapv]

Thanks - that is a good example that shots at this distance will always have a narrow DOF - the same reason why aperture/DOF considerations are irrelevant on long lenses.

[FrozenInTime]

47 minutes ago, cp995 said:

What do you mean with this?
What's the "problem" with the 23mm Cron beside the price)?

What better alternative do I have?
23mm (+/- 1mm), tiny and minimum f2.

No AF needed!

I felt the 18-56 was the better performer all round including at 23mm , especially for CA , so I did not see a need to keep the 23 and the 28 Summicron covered f/2 at my preferred ~ 40mm like view. 

I was also doing a lot of liquidation to fund a M10M. Interestingly the TL 23, 11-23 and 55-135 lenses sold very quickly , well before the M lenses. I kept the TL 18, 18-56 and 35.

[FrozenInTime]

59 minutes ago, robgo2 said:

I am very happy with my TL 23 and think that it holds up well against my Summicron-M 35/f2 ASPH (on an SL).  It's only weakness is a propensity for chromatic aberration at wide apertures, almost always fixable in post-processing.

The TL 35 is a true gem, approaching the level of the best SL lenses. Though it is large, it is much lighter than SL lenses and balances well on the CL, IMO.

The first TL 23 I bought used has horrendously bad CA, so I returned it. The second one a few months later was a lot better.

Agree the TL 35 is very good ; works well for indoor candid shots of friends and family.

[Mr.Prime]

5 hours ago, ramarren said:

The Voigtländer Color Skopar 28mm f/3.5 is teensy, sharp even wide open, and has lovely rendering qualities. They never made it in M-bayonet, only LTM, so you need that adapter as well as the M Adapter T. I code with the Summaron 28mm f/5.6 lens profile and it produces lovely results straight out of the CL. They sell for around $500-$600 in near-MINT condition on Ebay; there are several available at present.

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!

I have the 25mm version of this lens and it's absolutely superb - it looks the part, feels the part, small and lightweight. I have nothing to complain about in terms of the image quality. It's not only sharp as hell but the colours are really good too.

It's great lenses like this that prevent me buying the Leica zooms - they inspire no passion from me as a buyer or user. They maybe technically correct but if that's all I wanted I would for sure be shooting a Canon DSLR instead with it's far better GUI.

And perhaps this is why the CL is not selling better - Leica don't want it to sell too well so it's slightly crippled by it's price and eccentric GUI because there far too many people like me buying non-Leica lenses, they being better value for money as well as being darn pretty.

Edited May 21, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[wda]

4 hours ago, lct said:

Nice pic but i was at f/8. Below at f/4. For those interested, i was at the hidden "macro" position (40mm, MFD = about 0.4m) of the Tri-Elmar 28-35-50/4 v1. On digital CL of course. FWIW

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Leica-digital-CL-Leica-28-35-504-v1/i-d9sS7Bt/0/bf40f74e/X5/C1080370_si-X5.jpg

https://photos.smugmug.com/Diverse/n-QFBj4/Leica-digital-CL-Leica-28-35-504-v1/i-HKLnRWS/0/16706811/X5/C1080350_si-X5.jpg

I am intrigued by your reference to a hidden macro setting. A search only brings up your posting. Can you share any further information? Thank you.

[ramarren]

2 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I have the 25mm version of this lens and it's absolutely superb - it looks the part, feels the part, small and lightweight. I have nothing to complain about in terms of the image quality. It's not only sharp as hell but the colours are really good too.

It's great lenses like this that prevent me buying the Leica zooms - they inspire no passion from me as a buyer or user. They maybe technically correct but if that's all I wanted I would for sure be shooting a Canon DSLR instead with it's far better GUI.

And perhaps this is why the CL is not selling better - Leica don't want it to sell too well so it's slightly crippled by it's price and eccentric GUI because there far too many people like me buying non-Leica lenses, they being better value for money as well as being darn pretty.

"GUI"? Do you mean the user interface?

Hmm. I find the Leica user interface on the SL, SL2, and CL far better (simpler, easier to use, easier to learn and remember) than the user interface was on my Canon and Nikon cameras, never mind any of my Sony or Fuji cameras. A matter of opinion, certainly. 

Still, I own a good number of Leica lenses ... because they're superb. Some of the Voigtländer lenses are very good quality too, but few really compete with the performance of the Leica lenses IMO. How pretty a lens might be, to me, is completely irrelevant. How useable it is and what it performs like is what I care about. If a lens is pretty as well, that's nice.

I don't own any TL lenses because I already had in M and R lenses everything I wanted. That's probably the only reason: I could not see any point to spending oodles of money to buy again what I already had, considering that I don't really care one way or another about autofocus. I like that my current lens kit is completely useful on Leica M film cameras (excepting the Leica R lenses), Leica R film cameras (excepting the Leica M lenses), Leica M digital cameras (all), Leica SL and CL digital cameras (all), and even my new Hasselblad 907x (not all but most). I have bought a couple of new lenses for the Hasselblad ... It makes sense to do so because of the larger than FF format sensor. 

Why is the CL not selling better? I think it comes down to a simple thing: the price is too high for how people perceive it. People looking for an "entry level" camera look for something quite a lot less expensive. People looking for a Leica usually think they must have an M with a FF sensor. I think more people would buy the CL if the price of the body was $1500 rather than nearly $3000, but whether Leica could make a profit on it at that price I have no idea. I know that every single person I show photos to who asks about the camera, and who then sees the camera loves it, and then all but one has said, "Oh, $3000? I can't afford that, not for an APS-C sensor. I'd rather pay $2000 more, if I could afford that, and buy the M10."

It's hard to argue with them on that. As much as I tell them that I HAD three digital Ms, and the SL, and chose the CL as the best fit for what I use a camera for because it not only does as good or better a job but also because it's much more versatile, they just look at me funny and say, "Yeah, but you're a professional..." Makes no sense, even if it were still true. 

G

Edited May 21, 2020 by ramarren

[lct]

54 minutes ago, wda said:

I am intrigued by your reference to a hidden macro setting. A search only brings up your posting. Can you share any further information? Thank you.

See:

 

[nicci78]

Nice to read all points of view. Thanks for contributing. 

Of course it depends of how we see the CL : a full fledge system or a wingman to M, SL or Q cameras. Maybe a little bit of both.

As a sole system with only AF lenses. CL is clearly lacking some key lenses : ultra wide angle, classic portrait and telephoto.

If used alongside a full frame camera with a staple of M and R lenses. CL is a joy. The 24x36 will give you ultra wide angle and shallow depth of field. CL will provide  more telephoto reach. Acting as a 1.5x extender without the 1 stop light penalty.

 

My CL is my Q2 wingman and vice versa. They are made for each other. But Q2 proved me that several TL lenses became redundant. No need for TL 2.8/18, 2/23, 3.5-5.6/18-56. It also enter in competition with TL 3.5-4.5/11-23 and 1.4/35. They still got their place, but they are less relevant, when used alongside Q2. That's why I sold 11-23 long ago. 

That's why, I decided to sell my Summilux-TL 35, my very last TL lenses. After owning all of them at one point. I will be back to square one : no AF lens; only manual ones. So far I did not miss any TL lenses sold. They are good to excellent, but not amazing enough (range, aperture wise, usefulness and optical quality wise) 

I am currently enjoying the duo Summicron-R 2/50 and APO-Macro-Elmarit-R 100 (+APO-Extender-R 2x when needed) By the way AMER 100 is a way better lens than APO-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60. Real manual focusing is a must for any macro lens. TL 60 is stupid with its focus by wire without any distance/magnification engraving. 

I just need to find a nice ultra wide angle lens for the CL. A very difficult task, between huge, but not wide enough R lenses and tiny but very slow Voigtländer VM lenses. 

 

My last complaint about TL lenses : lack of aperture ring (quite silly for Leica) and focus by wire without hard stop nor digital distance scale. Some manufacturers provide both. And weather sealing would have been nice for the price. 

 

Edited May 22, 2020 by nicci78

[Mr.Prime]

16 hours ago, ramarren said:

"GUI"? Do you mean the user interface?

Hmm. I find the Leica user interface on the SL, SL2, and CL far better (simpler, easier to use, easier to learn and remember) than the user interface was on my Canon and Nikon cameras, never mind any of my Sony or Fuji cameras. A matter of opinion, certainly. 

Still, I own a good number of Leica lenses ... because they're superb. Some of the Voigtländer lenses are very good quality too, but few really compete with the performance of the Leica lenses IMO. How pretty a lens might be, to me, is completely irrelevant. How useable it is and what it performs like is what I care about. If a lens is pretty as well, that's nice.

Why is the CL not selling better? I think it comes down to a simple thing: the price is too high for how people perceive it.

G

Sorry - yes, I mean UI rather than GUI !

I've used a Canon DSLR for so long that it's 2nd nature, so for me the CL interface is often irritating but I love the results from my CL. It has the ideal features of being just the right size and weight, has an excellent EVF and takes lenses I want to own. For me the price was reasonable for what it brings to the table and it produces results that are a pleasure to work with. 

I'm the first to admit that my skill levels are really nowhere up to the capability of my gear. I'm a part-time hobbyist at best.  I got into Leica because I love the pretty lenses associated with old style manual focus cameras, I love that film is still available and can be used in what I consider to be the holy grail of cameras - the M3 (which I also now own). In short, the physical appearance of the gear I use is part of my pleasure in using it. It's a very different priority than other people so I'm expecting some criticism for my choices - no offense will be taken. It also means that for me, the reputed difference in image quality between Voigtlander and Leica is simply irrelevant  - my skill levels and usage will never reveal the differences to justify the massive price differences, especially as I choose my lenses after a careful review of on-line reviews to identify the cream of the crop. Affordability is not an issue, but I do wince at the cost of lenses I can't fully exploit.

fyi - I do own two Leica lenses, both Elmars and both were reasonably priced for a Leica.

Edited May 22, 2020 by Mr.Prime

[ramarren]

We come from very different sides of the game, Mr.Prime. I've been doing photography since I was six or seven, have been in and out of business doing photography most of my life. To me, the cameras are tools first, fascinating onto-mechanical-electronic devices second, attractive things third. It took me 25 years of doing photography to see clearly enough that I know why I prefer a Leica, or Zeiss, lens over most others ... and once I could see it, I could no longer NOT see it. Price always matters, to me at least, but I'm willing to pay the price when it satisfies me AND I can afford to.

But there's nothing to say that my perspective is the only perspective. And believe me, there are a few Cosina-Voigtländer lenses that hit way above their price target. The little 28mm f/3.5 is definitely one of them, IMO.

On a camera style aesthetic, I've gotten responses to this photo of my latest camera that range from "That's the ugliest camera I've ever seen!" to "I Just Want One!"

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!

Just Don't Call Me Stubby - Hasselblad 907x + XCD 45mm f/4 P

 

Life's too short: there are plenty of different opinions about what looks good and what does not. Enjoy it all!

G

Edited May 22, 2020 by ramarren

[Mr.Prime]

I guess I just like old Leica's in the same way I like old cars. But the interface is important, if I were wanting to guarantee myself good results then I'd gravitate back to Canon DSLR. I took my CL out yesterday, but results were not good - the issues were all related to the user interface. It's quite a horrible camera to use, unfortunately. I knew going-in that it was a camera that divides opinions and I was hoping that I would love it, but alas it's generating more frustration than pleasure. I will give a bit longer, after that I may have to look elsewhere for a solution.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[lct]

7 minutes ago, Mr.Prime said:

I guess I just like old Leica's in the same way I like old cars. But the interface is important, if I were wanting to guarantee myself good results then I'd gravitate back to Canon DSLR. I took my CL out yesterday, but results were not good - the issues were all related to the user interface. It's quite a horrible camera to use, unfortunately. I knew going-in that it was a camera that divides opinions and I was hoping that I would love it, but alas it's generating more frustration than pleasure. I will give a bit longer, after that I may have to look elsewhere for a solution.

Matter of tastes or skills i guess. I don't find my digical CL more difficult to use with manual lenses than my Canon 5D1. I don't use either with AF lenses though.

[jaapv]

18 hours ago, Mr.Prime said:

I guess I just like old Leica's in the same way I like old cars. But the interface is important, if I were wanting to guarantee myself good results then I'd gravitate back to Canon DSLR. I took my CL out yesterday, but results were not good - the issues were all related to the user interface. It's quite a horrible camera to use, unfortunately. I knew going-in that it was a camera that divides opinions and I was hoping that I would love it, but alas it's generating more frustration than pleasure. I will give a bit longer, after that I may have to look elsewhere for a solution.

Surprising. The interface is universally praised as one of the most intuitive on the market. But if it doesn’t mesh with the user, I guess it is better to move on. 

I love old cars. never happier than driving a vintage British sports car. But I equally like my Mitsubishi PHEV computer on wheels smooth soundlessness, beeps and complicated automation and all.