Jump to content

TL/CL system needs way more native lens


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Minuten schrieb Boojay:

I loved the X-Vario, don't remember any worries about "slow lens"  I just never really like adding the EVF which was why I moved to the CL and sold mine.  Often look back at images from it and think I should have kept it.

 

 

Same here, except that I don't miss the thing at all. I sold it to a friend who now likes it as much as I did. But then, I also gave away my Digilux 2 which I regret from time to time. They should relaunch that one with a modern sensor and processor.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Boojay said:

I loved the X-Vario, don't remember any worries about "slow lens"  I just never really like adding the EVF which was why I moved to the CL and sold mine.  Often look back at images from it and think I should have kept it.

 

 

Jayne, yours is an oft-repeated story. You are not alone is regretting the sale of the X-Vario. For different reasons I kept mine and, unsurprisingly, it still sees almost daily use on home territory. the

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Boojay said:

I loved the X-Vario, don't remember any worries about "slow lens"  I just never really like adding the EVF which was why I moved to the CL and sold mine.  Often look back at images from it and think I should have kept it.

 

 

Jayne, yours is an oft-repeated story. You are not alone is regretting the sale of the X-Vario. For different reasons I kept mine and, unsurprisingly, it still sees almost daily use on home territory. The EVF was its Achilles heel; yet I still find it acceptable for framing, if not manual focusing. Its results are on a par with the CL and standard zoom. but not its flexibility. In all respects the CL is a more congenial camera in use, but I still have a soft spot for the XV as indeed, I do, for my M8 and D2 and X1. They all get an airing and remind me how lucky we are with our digital products.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked the image quality produced by the X-Vario. Of course the  EVF2 is not up to today‘s standards. While I used to get a lot of blurred images due to shaky hands,  I regularly see myself stopping down fast lenses because the depth of field is simply too shallow. If a fast lens is needed, the Summilux -TL is completely sufficient for me. I also often stop down adapted M-lenses on an APS-C body to at least f/3.5. For me the main advantage of the CL and TL2 is their size and weight. I often have a bad time choosing the lens or lenses to bring for the day (not to speak of holidays).  Even more lenses would make the bag too heavy and bulky. But this is just me. It is most often the underrated Vario TL 18-56 that comes along, with the Elpro 52 for occasional macros, unless I have a special plan for the day. I can  see that some may want longer lenses than the 55-135, I would hate the ergonomics, though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

This is the first time I have heard the MATE being advocated as a suitable lens for shallow-DOF photography.  And certainly a first to have this rather unusual optical property being ascribed to any lens.

I’ve never had a lens go “limp” on me. I guess lct has? LOL...

Edited by Gregm61
  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

This is the first time I have heard the MATE being advocated as a suitable lens for shallow-DOF photography.  

Could be worse. Is there any bokeh with your erectile f/5.6 lens :D? Just kidding ;).

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!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If the value of a lens is measured by how much you can blur the background, well, I just don't know whether you're looking at lenses the same way I do.

BTW: bokeh is not the amount of blur ... it's the quality of the blur that you get. Any/every lens produces blur on elements in the field of view that are not on the focus plane, and not within the perceptual limits of sharpness decided upon as the 'depth of field': bokeh refers to the quality of that blur, whether it is pleasing or harsh. How much blur there is depends upon the distance, focal length, size of the iris, etc etc. "Good" bokeh is pleasing and enhances the subject, "harsh" or "bad" bokeh is distracting. 

To me, a lens that allows me to gently soften the background such that it is not distracting and enhances the subject is the goal while providing enough DoF to render the range of what I want in focus sharply. I don't need an f/0.95 lens to do that. In most cases, I need about f/4 on FF and about f/2.8 on APS-C. A lens with good sharpness, contrast, and bokeh at those speeds is fine by me. :) 

G

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Added to which, Leica designed the 18-56 for smooth bokeh, a department where present-day summiluxes tend to fall slightly short. it is one of the reasons that Mandler lenses have such a dedicated following.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, pop said:

Same here, except that I don't miss the thing at all. I sold it to a friend who now likes it as much as I did. But then, I also gave away my Digilux 2 which I regret from time to time. They should relaunch that one with a modern sensor and processor.

I had the X113. Was the first digital camera I loved. Great image quality, great lens, and the engraved aperture and shutter speed dials on the top plate were so damn simple it was genius. I hope the CL2 follows suit. That tiny LCD is just too early 2000s for my liking, and the unpredictable, ever-changing easily knocked dials...they do not inspire confidence while I'm finding my way through bustling markets and streets...

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Peters said:

I had the X113. Was the first digital camera I loved. Great image quality, great lens, and the engraved aperture and shutter speed dials on the top plate were so damn simple it was genius. I hope the CL2 follows suit. That tiny LCD is just too early 2000s for my liking, and the unpredictable, ever-changing easily knocked dials...they do not inspire confidence while I'm finding my way through bustling markets and streets...

I must be doing something right, if only by accident: I have never, not once in 2+ years of using it, "knocked" the CL's control dials off their setting accidentally. I have accidentally pressed a control button on the back of the camera, until Leica added the simple "lock/unlock everything but the shutter release" toggle using a long press on the left hand control dial button in one of the firmware updates. The infamous "wandering AF point" has never been an issue because I have only manual focus lenses.

Thank the gods for my happy accidents! :) 

G

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 22 Stunden schrieb Mr.Prime:

The 18-56 on paper would be ideal for me as a walk about. I just can't bring myself to use a lens that physically extends when I change focal length...

I don't have a problem with the extension of zoom lenses.
But for my taste these zooms are a lot too big and chunky for such a small and pretty camera.
I'd prefer small primes only!

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

Even if they are as compact as other APS zooms -and of better quality

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. 

Having said that. More faster primes are very much welcomed!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, cp995 said:

I don't have a problem with the extension of zoom lenses.
But for my taste these zooms are a lot too big and chunky for such a small and pretty camera.
I'd prefer small primes only!

I like the look of small primes on my CL, but with any camera, it's not the look of the camera that counts. 😎

If I want a small camera, the CL fits the bill, even with the massive (and erectile 🤐) zooms. I have the 18-56 and 55-135 zooms, and that suits my use case for a kit I can take with me without attracting that look from my partner - I'm sure some of you are familiar with the look that says "Oh, you're bringing all of that on our holiday?"🙄

If I want 24x36, or more MPx, or faster primes, or f/2.8 zooms, or super telephoto, then I have other systems that provide that.

BUT ... as to whether we need more CL lenses ...

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. For the short telephoto, there are SL options, but I'd be paying for more, for a chunkier lens than APS-C needs.🤔

Edited by AdHox
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 2 Stunden schrieb AdHox:

If I want 24x36, or more MPx, or faster primes, or f/2.8 zooms, or super telephoto, then I have other systems that provide that.

BUT ... as to whether we need more CL lenses ...

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..

Same with me! My main system is FF with Zoom lenses etc.

Actually I'm interested in a Leica CL as a small camera with maybe three primes.
If I would buy Zooms, it will be no longer an alternative to my FF System.

For me the Summicron 23mm (APS-C) could be my standard walk-around lens, as I prefer its angle of view and there is no other small lens in the 23/24mm range with min. f2.

28mm shouldn't be a problem for you, as there are several options with M-Mount. The Elmarit 28 asph. is the smallest.
Acutally I use a Voigtlaender Ultron 2/28mm VM on my FF Body - should work great on the CL too!
For me, 28mm are too long @APS-C

In general, it doesn't make sens to produce every possible lense for a small system with low numbers in sales; nobody would like to pay the prices ...
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, AdHox said:

I like the look of small primes on my CL, but with any camera, it's not the look of the camera that counts. 😎

If I want a small camera, the CL fits the bill, even with the massive (and erectile 🤐) zooms. I have the 18-56 and 55-135 zooms, and that suits my use case for a kit I can take with me without attracting that look from my partner - I'm sure some of you are familiar with the look that says "Oh, you're bringing all of that on our holiday?"🙄

If I want 24x36, or more MPx, or faster primes, or f/2.8 zooms, or super telephoto, then I have other systems that provide that.

BUT ... as to whether we need more CL lenses ...

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. For the short telephoto, there are SL options, but I'd be paying for more, for a chunkier lens than APS-C needs.🤔

That's interesting - the 28/40/90 classic film CL lens set translated to APS-C one again seems like the sweet spot.

To date, after the versatile 18-56 , the adapted  M 28/2 Summicron is my most used lens on the CL and unlike the 18-56 is fast enough all year round and indoors.

I now have the TL 18, and before lockdown, was planning to test out the TL18 , M28/2 combo on a few trips; adding occasionally the VC 40/1.2 as a short tele.

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, AdHox said:

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.

Elmarit-M 28/2.8 asph v1 if you like contrasty lenses. Compact, very sharp, bit busy bokeh but not too much. Not too expensive. Matches very well the digital CL.

LeicaM_2828_11606_spec.pdf

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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, lct said:

Could be worse. Is there any bokeh with your erectile f/5.6 lens :D? Just kidding ;).

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
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.

×
×
  • Create New...