I ordered a CL today.

[Driften]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, Marac said:

Sigma have some excellent glass for the CL, 16mm f1.4/ 30mm f1.4/ 56mm f1.4 very good IQ and cheap as chips. I also own the 24mm f3.5 and 45mm f2.8 these are nice small lenses that work really well on the CL 

I've been looking hard at Sigma especially at the 56mm and the 45mm. I like the aperture ring on the 45mm 2.8 and it's smaller size, but the f1.4 on the 56mm might win out. It's too bad the 30mm f1.4 and 35mm f2 are larger lens then the 45 and 56mm.

How is the bokeh when used on a CL with the 45mm? Most pictures I've seen in reviews were taken on full frame SL's. Even the post about it on this forum seem like the pics were with it mounted to SL's. That's to be expected with it being a full frame lens but doesn't help much. I might be happier with the 56mm 1.4, but the focal length of the 45mm might fit my general use better.

[Marac]

Here are 2 shots from the 45mm at f2.8 and f5.6

 

 

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!

[Driften]

57 minutes ago, Marac said:

Here are 2 shots from the 45mm at f2.8 and f5.6

Thanks! those are some good results.

[Driften]

Thanks guys... I did go out today and pickup a second lens. A Sigma 35mm 2.0 DG DN. From the few pet pictures I've taken it does what I want for depth of field and focal length. It's not a light lens. It's slightly longer and heavier than the 18-55, but it's shorter then the Sigma 30mm f1.4. It would have been nice if it was the size of the Sigma 45mm 2.8, but for a lot of pictures like this 35mm would work better. At least from my tests at different focal lengths using the 18-55. 

Leica CL 1/100 f/2.0 ISO 100

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!

Leica CL 1/100 f/2.0 ISO 800

Leica CL 1/100 f/2.0 ISO 250

[Driften]

BTW Those were all taken in the evening before the sun went down. I took one earlier in the day with the 18-55 set at 35mm with bright sun coming in the window lighting the room and it was exposed at f/4,9, 1/125, ISO 5000. The image was fine, but can't compete with the prime lens. I should have gone with a slower shutter speed but my hands were shaking too much at the time. I really wish the CL had IBIS like my APS-C Fujifilm X-S10 which isn't that much bigger of a camera so it can be done. In any case I enjoy using my Leica's more.

Here is the picture from the 18-55.

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!

[wda]

1 hour ago, Driften said:

BTW Those were all taken in the evening before the sun went down. I took one earlier in the day with the 18-55 set at 35mm with bright sun coming in the window lighting the room and it was exposed at f/4,9, 1/125, ISO 5000. The image was fine, but can't compete with the prime lens. I should have gone with a slower shutter speed but my hands were shaking too much at the time. I really wish the CL had IBIS like my APS-C Fujifilm X-S10 which isn't that much bigger of a camera so it can be done. In any case I enjoy using my Leica's more.

Here is the picture from the 18-55.

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 see nothing wrong with this picture. Even the high ISO is controllable. Furthermore,  you do have more flexibility with animals moving and changing position.  Having said that, I also enjoy using an M 75 Summarit prime lens, with the adapter.

[rob_w]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been mulling over getting the Sigma 56 for a while.  The odd thing is, Sigma have also released a 65mm as well, close enough to be a competitor, although the latter is full frame.  Not sure which of the two would be the better choice or if there are any significant differences.  Was hoping to see more on this thread regarding one or both lenses but perhaps they have not been widely used by forum members.

I have long had the TL35 for portraits in the range Driften has demonstrated.  Just feel a longer portrait lens could be handy.

[ruskkyle]

42 minutes ago, rob_w said:

I have been mulling over getting the Sigma 56 for a while.  The odd thing is, Sigma have also released a 65mm as well, close enough to be a competitor, although the latter is full frame.  Not sure which of the two would be the better choice or if there are any significant differences.  Was hoping to see more on this thread regarding one or both lenses but perhaps they have not been widely used by forum members.

I have long had the TL35 for portraits in the range Driften has demonstrated.  Just feel a longer portrait lens could be handy.

I believe @brightscene may be able to help you with this one, if you send him a message.

[wda]

55 minutes ago, rob_w said:

I have been mulling over getting the Sigma 56 for a while.  The odd thing is, Sigma have also released a 65mm as well, close enough to be a competitor, although the latter is full frame.  Not sure which of the two would be the better choice or if there are any significant differences.  Was hoping to see more on this thread regarding one or both lenses but perhaps they have not been widely used by forum members.

I have long had the TL35 for portraits in the range Driften has demonstrated.  Just feel a longer portrait lens could be handy.

Do you have any M-lenses, Rob? I find both my 50mm and 75mm lenses very useful, with their longer effective focal-length. 

[rob_w]

Hi David.  Thanks.  Yes, I had both those lenses with my M camera and have a huge collection of wonderful photos taken with them.  However I needed to let them go once I could no longer see well enough to focus manually.   I am not blind by any means, but started to get more and more OOF shots - which can be very disappointing if it is otherwise a great shot!

That's why I am keeping an eye out for something similar in autofocus.  Generally, the TL lenses (TL23, TL35 and TL18-56) all work really well.  Just sometimes I would like something longer.

Edited August 9, 2021 by rob_w

[wda]

Rob, thanks.

Have you considered the TL Leica tele-zoom lens. That has a really excellent range of focal-lengths, in a reasonably compact package. Good autofocus and excellent clarity. I reverse the hood when travelling to make it even smaller.

[Driften]

7 hours ago, wda said:

I see nothing wrong with this picture. Even the high ISO is controllable. Furthermore,  you do have more flexibility with animals moving and changing position.  Having said that, I also enjoy using an M 75 Summarit prime lens, with the adapter.

The effects of the higher ISO aren't bad and somewhat pleasing, but f/5.0 is limiting indoors under natural light. I had been considering a 56 or 60mm prime, but indoors using pets as models they are too long. They would be great outside and the 18-55 zoom I think is going to prove to be a versatile lens outside. I've never owned an 85mm or longer portrait lens. I remember back before the digital age I lusted after a zoom that went to 200mm for the Minolta 35mm I had back in college. 

[wda]

9 minutes ago, Driften said:

The effects of the higher ISO aren't bad and somewhat pleasing, but f/5.0 is limiting indoors under natural light. I had been considering a 56 or 60mm prime, but indoors using pets as models they are too long. They would be great outside and the 18-55 zoom I think is going to prove to be a versatile lens outside. I've never owned an 85mm or longer portrait lens. I remember back before the digital age I lusted after a zoom that went to 200mm for the Minolta 35mm I had back in college. 

Driften, I quite agree. There are times when a faster starting lens aperture can be useful. However, at close distances indoors, extremely shallow depth of field can be problematic. Those are the times when enforced use of not-so-fast apertures can be beneficial. Hybrid focusing helps.

[Driften]

2 minutes ago, wda said:

Driften, I quite agree. There are times when a faster starting lens aperture can be useful. However, at close distances indoors, extremely shallow depth of field can be problematic. Those are the times when enforced use of not-so-fast apertures can be beneficial. Hybrid focusing helps.

You are totally right, and I lost sight of that. 

[Shawn30]

4 hours ago, rob_w said:

Hi David.  Thanks.  Yes, I had both those lenses with my M camera and have a huge collection of wonderful photos taken with them.  However I needed to let them go once I could no longer see well enough to focus manually.   I am not blind by any means, but started to get more and more OOF shots - which can be very disappointing if it is otherwise a great shot!

That's why I am keeping an eye out for something similar in autofocus.  Generally, the TL lenses (TL23, TL35 and TL18-56) all work really well.  Just sometimes I would like something longer.

The TL APO 55-135 , and the Sigma 105 macro are a couple of my favorites.  

[Driften]

Looking over the pictures from the day before I did have some good indoor pet portraits with the zoom with good ISO's when I had better light. Yesterday was just a bad day that the accelerated my buying of the prime lens. At least it's a decent prime that I can afford. I can't afford a Summilux-tl 35mm right now even used.

[hoolyproductions]

10 hours ago, rob_w said:

I have been mulling over getting the Sigma 56 for a while.  The odd thing is, Sigma have also released a 65mm as well, close enough to be a competitor, although the latter is full frame.  Not sure which of the two would be the better choice or if there are any significant differences.

I've been pretty interested in the 56mm, looks great and very compact (relatively speaking). If it's a portrait lens you are after (rather than just more reach than your 18-56mm) then for me it would be a question of my 'normal' working distance, plus the size of the lenses and the f1.4 vs f2 would play a big role for me.

My main 'use case' for that type of lens is shooting live music in (often pretty small) badly lit bars, at fairly close range. 85mm let's me get a tighter crop of e.g. one musician (and can be trimmed/cropped later).  Also I am often shooting at max. ISO and so every photon counts (1.4). It's quite a bit lighter too. 97mm might be a bit tight sometimes for me.

So for my use case at least the 56mm would be the one. But you likely encounter different situations and might prefer the bit longer reach with still a very respectable f2 🙂

Meanwhile I recently bought an SL2-S and a couple of lenses (including an 85mm 1.4), so no more purchases for a while, but I may still consider the 56mm in the future for a lighter 'portrait' kit - I am unlikely to travel with the SL2-S except for a photography specific trip.

Edited August 9, 2021 by hoolyproductions
mistake in FL :)

[Boojay]

10 hours ago, rob_w said:

I have been mulling over getting the Sigma 56 for a while.  The odd thing is, Sigma have also released a 65mm as well, close enough to be a competitor, although the latter is full frame.  Not sure which of the two would be the better choice or if there are any significant differences.  Was hoping to see more on this thread regarding one or both lenses but perhaps they have not been widely used by forum members.

I have long had the TL35 for portraits in the range Driften has demonstrated.  Just feel a longer portrait lens could be handy.

Rob, I have found the 56mm a really nice option for the CL, being small and light, 1.4 gives nice separation and I like how the lens renders the backgrounds.   Close Focus is quoted as .5m although it has always felt to me that you can get a bit closer than that.  It might not have quite the Pop of the 35TL but given the price I feel it's a bit of a bargain in L mount land and a few extra tweaks processing makes a big difference, though I don't see any need for added sharpening, it does well enough by itself, just a little more contrast helps.  Few photo's all with the lens wide open.  If there is anything specific you would like to see, just ask.

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!

 

 

 

[Driften]

1 hour ago, Boojay said:

Rob, I have found the 56mm a really nice option for the CL, being small and light, 1.4 gives nice separation and I like how the lens renders the backgrounds.   Close Focus is quoted as .5m although it has always felt to me that you can get a bit closer than that.  It might not have quite the Pop of the 35TL but given the price I feel it's a bit of a bargain in L mount land and a few extra tweaks processing makes a big difference, though I don't see any need for added sharpening, it does well enough by itself, just a little more contrast helps.  Few photo's all with the lens wide open.  If there is anything specific you would like to see, just ask.

I highly considered the Sigma 56mm 1.4 and think it would make a great portrait lens. Love the pics you took with it. For a while it was trying to decide between the Sigma 45mm 2.8 and the 56mm 1.4. I liked the smaller size and weight of the 45mm, but wanted the faster lens... then for my current need the 35mm was better for the tight spaces in my house so there it went. I think I will pick 56mm up at some point.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[rob_w]

20 hours ago, wda said:

Rob, thanks.

Have you considered the TL Leica tele-zoom lens. That has a really excellent range of focal-lengths, in a reasonably compact package. Good autofocus and excellent clarity. I reverse the hood when travelling to make it even smaller.

I did consider the zoom option but (a) not confident that the widest aperture is wide enough and (b) would prefer image stabilisation at the long end.  Neither of these excludes the zoom of course.  I happily used an 80-200 f4 zoom on my R Leicas many moons ago, when image stabilisation was but a dream.

15 hours ago, Boojay said:

Rob, I have found the 56mm a really nice option for the CL, being small and light, 1.4 gives nice separation and I like how the lens renders the backgrounds.  

Thanks Jayne.  Great sample pics.  I am not too fussed about sharpness or contrast, both of which I could be lower for a portrait lens.  Modern lenses are SO sharp, they often miss the micro-gradations which make the Leica 50 and 75 special - although even the 75 Summicron was criticised by some as too sharp when it was first released.  If you have any people portraits with the Sigma 56 you are happy to share it would be great to see them.

Edited August 10, 2021 by rob_w