Used SL vs used CL?

[Baysto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, I am a new member. But been a long time Leica enthusiast. Been planning for a while to buy my first Leica, only thing that have held me back has been the price. I've been doing photography for only 1-2 years, so still a long way to go for calling myself a "photographer". There is so much to learn and understand for me still. This forum has been a great help for me, as I have probably used 100s hours reading trough the different subjects on SL, M, CL and so on.

I have been shooting with a fuji xt20 until now, recently sold it. Leica has always been the dream, the SL and M bodies are almost a piece of art design wise for me. I now had to take a choice to invest in a brand with cameraes and lenses. For me a SL and a CL might be "too much" camera, but tought it would be smarter to start investing in it now, instead of buying alot of fuji gear and end up with a Leica later on anyway. I shoot Raw, and heard Leica is easier with that.

I have decided now to buy a used Leica for entry in to Leica family (finally :)) 

My question is I am considering a used Leica SL or a CL. Both have their pros and cons. I shoot mostly landscape, arcitecture, city scape, use alot of Wide angle. Dont shoot much portrait, but will start and try it.

1. Now that the SL2-s is out, would prices of used SL (601) drop more? I prefer a FF to try, to compare with APS-C.

2. What lenses could be recommended her? Was thinking Sigma 14-24 combined with 24-70, or Panasonic 16-35 with 24-70. Can not aford Leica glass yet, but thinking my first would be a M-glass to try on a SL. Any pros and cons between the Sigma Art line or Panasonic?

3. Anyone who would reacommend a CL over an SL?

4. Any other lenses or recommondations?

 

All advice is appriciated. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Wideangle? SL.

[P1505]

I just bought a original gen SL and blimey, I’m in love. Coming from M it’s a beast, but wonderful to use. I have a Q also and they are very similar, basically the same EVF and image quality from what I can tell. But the noise on the SL feels film like, it’s wonderful. I shoot fully manual with M lenses and the SL is fantastic for this. Having in camera crop modes for 1:1 and 3:1 etc is magical.

It’s shown me the future. Get it.

[hillavoider]

ive got a SL and a SL2 only because the used price of a SL is so cheap i may as well keep it, its alot of camera for the money 

[P1505]

Forgot to say I am shooting with a 21mm lens currently and it’s amazing.

[nicci78]

Just like jaapv said :

• Ultra wide angle = SL
• telephoto = CL

If you can be happy with only one UWA : TL 11-23mm + CL. Otherwise, there is only one solution for your wide angle landscape needs : SL. 

[Baysto]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for the answers. I am also interested in starting with nightstar photography. Read that this could be difficult because of Max exposure of 30 sek (LENR cant be disabeled?). Dont know if this would be a big obstical tough, since I have not tried it.

So far in my photographer journey, I have used zooms because of versitality when traveling. Thats why I was thinking of 2 zooms and a M prime.

Have any here tried the sigma zooms and compared them to the Panasonic zooms?

[graeme_clarke]

I have both an SL (601) with 24-90 and 90-280 lenses, and a CL with an L 18-56 lens.

The SL and its lenses are heavy and because it is larger it is more noticeable for street type photography.  If I'm visiting cities the smaller CL goes with me - its APSc sensor is 24mpx and lens is 28-80 equivalent.  I find both give me super photographs. It boils down to what kind of weight do you want to carry,  and if you want to be less obtrusive then the CL is the obvious choice. Its autofocus is fast and reliable for street and travel photography.   I've not wished for a wider lens than the 18-56  on the CL though I understand that in a confined space it will have its use!

If I use the 90-280 on the CL it chews through batteries much more quickly than with the 18-56 because it has a lot of glass to move when focusing as well as run the image stabilisation system,  and that lens alone is quite a heavy item!  I don't have the 55-135 TL lens but I've used one - it is large enough to make the combination much more noticeable as well as adding a bit more weight!

Hope this helps,

Graeme

 

[Danno_photoguy]

1 hour ago, Baysto said:

Have any here tried the sigma zooms and compared them to the Panasonic zooms?

I have a SL, M10, and CL with many Leica (L, M and R) lenses.  In regards to everyday shooting, I grab my CL about 80% of the time.  It is light, small, and so easy to just have with you.  Yes, if I am going to a planned shoot I tend to take the SL with reflectors etc, but I almost never just walk around with it.  That being said, we are all different and you may have a totally different way of shooting.

 

I have not used any of the Sigma zooms (but I love the Sigma 45mm 2.8 on my SL and CL), but I have the Panasonic 16-35mm f 1.4.  It is a very good lens and I was surprised to see that in my view, it out performed my Leica R 19mm f 2.8 ROM which I love.

 

I expect that you will be happy with any Leica camera that you get, but as will all cameras, each one is more suited to one situation/style than another.  Most likely you will get more than one Leica with time and you will find the one that just feels like a part of you.  Do your homework, but shoot more and read less.            

[topcat28]

I've had an M10 and a Typ 246 Monochrom for a while now - having finally made the jump form an XT2.

I absolutely love the Ms.  The experience is fantastic, and reminds me of why I (try to) take photographs.

However, I missed long lenses.  So I have recently acquired a used SL and the Sigma 100-400.  I'm really impressed.  So much so that I've bought the Sigma 24-70 as well, just so that I had a single lens I could walk around with.  I've only really played with it so far, but it seems good.  It's not tiny, but it's comfortable and light enough.  It seems to get good  reviews, and from what I've seen - they seemed entirely justified.

I think I'll always pick up one of the Ms if I'm 'just going out'.  But, having tried the SL with my 12mm Voight and 18 and 24mm Super-Elmars, it's REALLY impressive.

My recommendation - obviously - would be the SL and 24-70 from experience.  I may well look at the 14-24 in the future.  As well as the 105 macro...

If I didn't already have 12, 18 and 24mm lenses for the M, I'd probably already have the 14-24...

But, in short.  Do it.  

[Torpille]

On 12/12/2020 at 12:10 PM, Baysto said:

Hi, I am a new member. But been a long time Leica enthusiast. Been planning for a while to buy my first Leica, only thing that have held me back has been the price. I've been doing photography for only 1-2 years, so still a long way to go for calling myself a "photographer". There is so much to learn and understand for me still. This forum has been a great help for me, as I have probably used 100s hours reading trough the different subjects on SL, M, CL and so on.

I have been shooting with a fuji xt20 until now, recently sold it. Leica has always been the dream, the SL and M bodies are almost a piece of art design wise for me. I now had to take a choice to invest in a brand with cameraes and lenses. For me a SL and a CL might be "too much" camera, but tought it would be smarter to start investing in it now, instead of buying alot of fuji gear and end up with a Leica later on anyway. I shoot Raw, and heard Leica is easier with that.

I have decided now to buy a used Leica for entry in to Leica family (finally :)) 

My question is I am considering a used Leica SL or a CL. Both have their pros and cons. I shoot mostly landscape, arcitecture, city scape, use alot of Wide angle. Dont shoot much portrait, but will start and try it.

1. Now that the SL2-s is out, would prices of used SL (601) drop more? I prefer a FF to try, to compare with APS-C.

2. What lenses could be recommended her? Was thinking Sigma 14-24 combined with 24-70, or Panasonic 16-35 with 24-70. Can not aford Leica glass yet, but thinking my first would be a M-glass to try on a SL. Any pros and cons between the Sigma Art line or Panasonic?

3. Anyone who would reacommend a CL over an SL?

4. Any other lenses or recommondations?

 

All advice is appriciated. 

 

Hi, the 2 cameras are very different but the results in image quality are finally quite close.

the CL manages better the ISO rise
The size and weight factor is the real advantage of the CL on the SL and makes it a camera that you can really have with you all the time.

The EVF of the CL is good but the SL is really more spacious.... 

The SL's ergonomics are also to the point.

There's already a nice price difference on the housing: 1250 € for the CL and 2000 € for the SL.

But for me, what makes the decision is the price we are willing to pay for optics.

If we want to stay on all Leica :

For the CL I find that all the optics are good and a real highlight is the TL-35 summilux.

I'm not too zoom typed, but on my CL the 18-56 mm combo works really well and it's the combination I appreciate the most when you have enough light.
The 11-23 is excellent too but redundant with the 18-56mm

You may be interested in a TL 11-23 mm combo with the 35 or 60 TL...

For the CL the price of the T 11-23 mm is quite acceptable as a second hand but for the SL it's another story...

For the FF if you want to use zooms, I would rather go on an S1 with the associated Panasonic zoom lenses...

The SL is perfect in my opinion for the Prime Lens : Leica SL/TL, Sigma Serie i and 85 DG DN and of course the Leica M lenses.

Cheers
 

[chris_tribble]

Don't forget that neither the CL nor the SL1 have IBIS.  For me this was a huge limiter.  I tried the CL with M lenses and the APS sensor just didn't work for me.  The native CL / T lenses are beautiful, but the absence of image stabilisation reduces the value of the longer lenses in my use.  I also tried the SL (twice) and again, it just didn't work for me with M glass - and at that time I didn't have the stabilised SL lenses. The SL2 changed all that and has become a favourite tool (alongside M10).  However - that isn't the question you're asking.

If budget is tight, I'd not buy either of the bodies you've mentioned, but would recommend investing in glass.  If you want to use M lenses up to 35mm  the SL1 might work for you -  and the budget could be brought down by using earlier iterations of M lenses - there are some bargains out there - and there are the lovely, under-rated Summarits too. If you want to go for telephoto, I'd not recommend M, CL or SL1.  If you still want to get into L mount, I'd agree with Torpille and go for S1 + some of the excellent Sigma or Panasonic glass that is out there.  Leica is a name with a lot of charisma - but there are other makers and other excellent lenses and bodies to be had for sensible prices.

If you're still driven by the lust to buy Leica, you could consider a used M8.2 and a 28mm M lens + IR cut filter.  You would then have a camera / lens combination that could meet your needs for years to come. and give you that "Leica look"... You'd then be able to consider adding to your lenses, changing for a later body when funds permit and not losing much on your M8.2 in resale if you sell privately, or getting a used SL2 in a couple of years when the next latest shiny thing is on the market.

Hope this helps ...

[Pippin]

@Baysto You would be served by either a CL. or SL. I also shoot landscape, city scape and nature. 
 

 As you are coming from Fuji which has great quality glass that are reasonably priced compared to the. luxury market like Leica that you may want to start with a CL or SL body and buy Panasonic or Sigma lenses as a starting point.

 

I own both the CL and SL2 ( recently sold my SL) my advise would be to buy full frame glass regardless of if you get a CL as you may likely evolve to a full frame and having glass that best supports FF and APSC is a good and less expensive investment IMHO unless you don’t mind collecting. 

 

The Sigma 45 F2.8 and 85 F 1.4 DGDN offer great image quality. My TL lenses are also great on either but have reduced  cropping options on the SL2 due to file size

[Yuhau]

I am also a Fuji / Leica shooter and  Fuji has very nice quality for its price.  If you have been thinking about Leica , I would  suggest go all the way to  SL as it is  FF.

You will  find moving from  Fuji to CL may  not give enough "WOW " you have anticipated. Both being APSC  and most of the CL lenses are from Japan (except for 35 TL and 60 TL). If you'd  liked the CL option, I am sure you will lust for a SL soon thereafter. 

Get the SL if budget allows, and use some of the fine and less expensive L Alliance lenses from Sigma and Panasonic (Sigma has announced some primes recently). When ready get the Leica  SL/ M /R  lens later.  

The price difference between second hand CL and Sl is around 500 USD. 

Also , Ditto on "Just Do it " .