Leica CL over Q

[nicci78]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It’s hard to spot any difference between Summilux-M 1,4/28mm asph and Summilux-Q 1,7/28mm asph. 
I would say that they are optically on par. 
One can open to f/1.4 half stop better. 
But the other is AF and can focus to 17cm instead of 70cm. 

Summilux-Q 28mm cropped at 35mm has a slightly bigger sensor size than M8. And it is an almost perfect 35mm. Because all corners have been cut off. 

Please keep in mind that Summicron-TL 23mm is weird. It will progressively automatically close down its aperture until f/2.8 the closer you get to minimum focusing distance. 
It should be marketed has as a 23mm f/2-2.8 lens 
 

 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

To explain the 23 closing down its fstop, this only happens under .6 meters at 1m it is an f2 and I didn't get any fstop change until I was at 2ft, .6m. I have had the lens for 2 years and I don't think I have used it in close focus. But the closer you get the less your DOF, so if you are focusing on something less than .6m wide open, you are still going to get bokeh. I have never seen this as a problem with the lens. But if I am focusing that close I generally want a little more DOF to play with, but that is me.

[Le Chef]

7 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Please keep in mind that Summicron-TL 23mm is weird. It will progressively automatically close down its aperture until f/2.8 the closer you get to minimum focusing distance. 
It should be marketed has as a 23mm f/2-2.8 lens 
 

 

It's a non-issue.

[nicci78]

Maybe maybe not.  
It is weird and not documented. You have to discovered it by yourself. 

X typ 113 has the same problem closing from f/1.7 to f/2.8 by itself. 
In this case it is worst. Because you are paying for a Summilux just to get an Elmarit. 

And we are not talking about macro distance. It is normally close distance.

It is better to inform a potential buyer than being disappointed later. For some it can be a deal breaker. 

[gteague]

i agree that it's somewhat unusual, but imo the trade-off is very acceptable. and i disagree about it not being documented--i saw it everywhere in the lens description and in reviews. /guy

[jaapv]

5 hours ago, Le Chef said:

It's a non-issue.

No, it is good design - it will preserve image quality. Who would be doing >60 cm close-up shots wide open anyway?

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

No, it is good design - it will preserve image quality. Who would be doing >60 cm close-up shots wide open anyway?

I agree. I meant the criticism was unfounded. I undoubtedly see the benefits of this changing aperture at close distance with mine.

[rhwolf]

I have the CL, SL2 and had the original Q.  I sold the Q after being frustrated that Leica prevented me from using an outstanding 28mm, F1.7 lens for astrophotography by limiting the shutter speed/ISO combination.  At some point the photographer should have the ability to control exposure and make quality tradeoffs.  Not so with the Q.  I love the combination of the CL and almost any lens Leica makes!  CL lenses are terrific.  Certainly good enough for  me.  And I started shooting a lifetime ago.  If you have M lenses, or any SL lens, you can use those as well.  For flexibility, go with the CL.  If you want a single camera with some limitations and ease of use, go with the Q.

Edited March 22, 2021 by rhwolf

[Gadfly21]

Does the 23 f/2 actually close down its aperture at closer distances? I understand most lenses lose light at closer focus, but that is due to geometry, not physically closing down the aperture.

Just curious, as I do not own one.

[LocalHero1953]

Yes, the 23 closes down the aperture close to. It irritated me for a while (trying to shoot wide open very close - I'm clearly not as rational as some people here), but it didn't cause real world photographic problems.

I had both 23 and 18 for a while with the TL2, and briefly after replacing the latter with the CL. Without pixel-peeping I never found the 18 to be quite as sharp across the frame as other lenses, and it was certainly slower to focus (though AF of the 18 was faster on the CL). I was willing to accept those limitations for its small size on the TL2 though. With the CL I was not looking so keenly for pocketability (and the CL has protrusions that catch on pockets), so I sold the 18 and bought the 11-23 zoom instead.

[Dopaco]

You also have information here ..:     

 

And Differences between Leica Q and Leica TL2:  

https://www.apotelyt.com/compare-camera/leica-q-typ-116-vs-leica-tl2

[geoffreyg]

Perhaps its possible to group the differences: 

- most admire the Q lens as special. That said, the L lenses are pretty solid.

- cropping of  Q vs.  smaller sensor? Normally, I'd take the larger sensor, but I prefer 35mm length, so the differences aren't so great. And don't care for the Q's ever smaller file size for longer lengths, even tho a sealed lens is attractive. Built-in macro is a Q plus. 

- flexibility:  the CL is a platform for all sorts of lenses.

- size - prefer the smaller CL. 

Summary:  CL as a great companion to an M (say even an MM), whereas maybe the Q is better as a single camera system, esp. for 28-35mm.

Normally, I'd shy away from the CL's smaller sensor, but its surprisingly solid up to 17x22 prints. And thus a good 2nd camera for traveling, or informal use. 

[huwm]

Q2 if just out and about and 1 camera/lens desirable

CL if specific needs (tele etc) and/or in the car/rucksack

Q2 macro useful

[tommonego@gmail.com]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb huwm:

Q2 if just out and about and 1 camera/lens desirable

CL if specific needs (tele etc) and/or in the car/rucksack

Q2 macro useful

The 60 macro for the CL is by all accounts and exceptional lens. I went a different direction, I have 5 or 6 macros I use with the CL, the one I carry with me is a 105 f2.8 Micro Nikkor which is wonderful, if a little big. I also have a 40mm f2.8 Makro Kilar, a 65mm f3.5 Elmar, also another oldy, a 90-180 Flat Field Vivitar, these I use with the CL mostly. But in my closet is a 55 Micro Nikkor which is an excellent lens, just an early Nikon AF lens which is terrible to manual focus and a 100 f4 Canon macro which is on my F1, just not as good as the 105 Nikon. The CL is great for macro work.

[huwm]

I have a couple of marumi macro ‘adapters’ I use with the sigma 30mm on the CL

[tommonego@gmail.com]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb huwm:

I have a couple of marumi macro ‘adapters’ I use with the sigma 30mm on the CL

I was a medical photographer for most of my life, so I lived by macro lenses. It is all what works for you.