New to Leica : Still worth jumping in CL System after discontinuation ?

[Berel Shoots Cars]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello everyone  

I started photography with a Nikon D7000 8 years ago, about a year ago I traded it for a used Canon EOS R, that I use mainly with RF 35mm F1.8 and 24-105 STM. Images are beautiful, but I tend to not really like it in terms of feelings, and the lenses are wether small and very slow or LARGE and expensive. I mainly do some general travel photography and car photography. Therefore, I am considering moving to something smaller, lighter, with possible 3rd party lenses (RF mount is closed) and with more emotion when shooting. Going back to APS-C seems the way to go.

I was always intrigued and appealed by cameras with the red dot.  Currently, we find quite a lot of 2nd hand affordable Leica CL. I could buy it with a standard zoom lens  for the value of my current Canon. I am considering the Sigma 18-50 (f2.8 is a minimum for DOF in car photography). though 18-56 is also appealing to have a "full" Leica system and colors. 

But my doubts are the following : Is it worth investing in this system which is officially discontinued by its company ? What will be the future for L-lenses APS-C and camera (also in terms of  reusability and value) ? I am afraid to go in a very expensive cul-de-sac. I would be very happy to have some of your feedback on that  

At the moment, this is in competition with switching to Fuji system, which is growing and cheaper, but does not have the same appeal as an enthusiast. 

I have read a few threads in the forum, which are very interesting, but they were all written before the discontinuation.

I just attached a recent shoot I did for illustration (this is EOS R + RF 35mm + CPL Filter). Looking forward to read your feedbacks

Thanks, Antoine

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]

Antoine, you are addressing a highly disappointed membership of Leica CL owners; who are puzzled by Leica's decision to discontinue a well-made, highly performing camera system, which they never really supported while it was available.  I refer you to two articles I wrote for my website, viz. https://david2008.photium.com/the-future-of-the-leica and https://david2008.photium.com/news109766.html

I welcome you to the forum, Antoine, and trust you will make an informed decision.

[Advertisement]

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

[MDCT]

Yeah what WDA said. I happen to love mine. It’s a well made camera that I have no reason to sell. The L-mount alliance compatibility really helps the future of this. Leica has a long history of supporting this form factor. I really hope they revisit it in another body/system. It’s a great addition to my M and SL2.

[MJB]

I think the CL is a fantastic camera, certainly one of my favorites, possibly even my most favorite.  The form factor is phenomenal - it's compact, but still feels substantial.  The UI is probably the best of any camera I've ever used, and the image quality is top notch.  I think Fuji cameras are styled nicely, but in the end they don't feel like real cameras to me - more like 3/4-scale camera replicas, if that makes sense.  They just sort of feel like plastic replicas of cameras (okay, the X-Pro 3 I had for a brief time was pretty solid-feeling, I admit, and a beautiful camera).  You really can't go wrong with any of the TL lenses, either.  My only complaint is that I wish the CL were full frame - not because I think there is anything wrong with the APS-C format, as I said the image quality is excellent - but because I like to adapt old manual focus lenses, and I just prefer not to have to deal with the crop factor when doing so.  If you're sticking with the native lenses, though, you really have every focal length covered from very wide to tele, so it's not really an issue.  Anyway, only you can decide if a discontinued system is worth investing in or not, I personally have been picking up as many TL lenses as I can (just missing the 60mm) - but then, I also shoot film cameras from the 1970s-1990s, so...

[lct]

22 hours ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

Is it worth investing in this system which is officially discontinued by its company ? What will be the future for L-lenses APS-C and camera (also in terms of  reusability and value) ? I am afraid to go in a very expensive cul-de-sac. I would be very happy to have some of your feedback on that

The CL is a superb camera and i would buy a second copy in a heart beat if mine failed but i can do w/o IBIS on low res cameras and i use the CL with M lenses and one AF lens only, the excellent Sigma 18-50/2.8. As for paying Leica prices for discontinued TL lenses thanks no thanks but it's just me.

[smcmason]

I had similar concerns and sold both of my CLs earlier this year. Went through some Fuji bodies trying to fill the gap, but just wasn't as satisfied (although the X-Pro2 was super fun to use). I just bought another CL and am relieved to be back. I like how adaptable other lenses are to L Mount and how the Leica UI/menu system works. It's not the cheapest, but still certainly worth it IMO. Of course, this is a Leica enthusiast site, so take that FWIW. If you decide to pick up a CL and want an 18-50, I do have a spare  

[Coffeecup]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well. I happened to only just have bought a brand new CL earlier this month. With Sigma’s APSC lineup there’s enough to choose from (16-30-56, 18-50). Then there’s the rest of the L-mount that’s available. Just look at the Sigma 35mm f2.0 contemporary for instance.
That lens looks to be made for the CL (is full frame lens though). 
 

At the moment I’ve got the 18mm Leica (kitted with the CL), and traded the Leica 23mm for the Sigma 30/1.4 and 56/1.4 (and got some extra cash). Waiting on buying the 18-50 f2.8 from Sigma in a Black Friday offering. With my URTH Nikon-L I can mount all my Nikon classic glass to the CL.

I’ve also got a T Typ701 which is just a piece of art on its own.

anyway. I’ve got an older Fuji camera as well but in my eyes they’re no match to the Leica TL and CL. 
 

[Berel Shoots Cars]

First of all thank you all for taking the time to answer my post. I did not expect so many quality answers. Community seems to be a big positive of Leica  

7 hours ago, wda said:

Antoine, you are addressing a highly disappointed membership of Leica CL owners; who are puzzled by Leica's decision to discontinue a well-made, highly performing camera system, which they never really supported while it was available.  I refer you to two articles I wrote for my website, viz. https://david2008.photium.com/the-future-of-the-leica and https://david2008.photium.com/news109766.html

I welcome you to the forum, Antoine, and trust you will make an informed decision.

Thank you Wda for the links. very interesting, especially the one where you explain how you handle it.

 

5 hours ago, MJB said:

I think the CL is a fantastic camera, certainly one of my favorites, possibly even my most favorite.  The form factor is phenomenal - it's compact, but still feels substantial.  The UI is probably the best of any camera I've ever used, and the image quality is top notch.  I think Fuji cameras are styled nicely, but in the end they don't feel like real cameras to me - more like 3/4-scale camera replicas, if that makes sense.  They just sort of feel like plastic replicas of cameras (okay, the X-Pro 3 I had for a brief time was pretty solid-feeling, I admit, and a beautiful camera).  You really can't go wrong with any of the TL lenses, either.  My only complaint is that I wish the CL were full frame - not because I think there is anything wrong with the APS-C format, as I said the image quality is excellent - but because I like to adapt old manual focus lenses, and I just prefer not to have to deal with the crop factor when doing so.  If you're sticking with the native lenses, though, you really have every focal length covered from very wide to tele, so it's not really an issue.  Anyway, only you can decide if a discontinued system is worth investing in or not, I personally have been picking up as many TL lenses as I can (just missing the 60mm) - but then, I also shoot film cameras from the 1970s-1990s, so...

3 hours ago, smcmason said:

I had similar concerns and sold both of my CLs earlier this year. Went through some Fuji bodies trying to fill the gap, but just wasn't as satisfied (although the X-Pro2 was super fun to use). I just bought another CL and am relieved to be back. I like how adaptable other lenses are to L Mount and how the Leica UI/menu system works. It's not the cheapest, but still certainly worth it IMO. Of course, this is a Leica enthusiast site, so take that FWIW. If you decide to pick up a CL and want an 18-50, I do have a spare  

I will group my answer for those two. You sum up all of my thoughts. UX seems really amazing with this camera, it is even more frustrating it is discontinued. The only Fuji I have really handled was an XE-something. Looked good but quality feeling was not there. The X-Pro series is what is appealing me, as the hybrid OVF/EVF seems to be best of both worlds. But an X-pro 3 is just as expensive as a used CL, so it actually started to raise my curiosity about Leica possibilities. Lenses are more expensive for Leica, but with Sigma and L-mount FF possibility, prices are identical or cheaper to Canon's, so this should also be an improvement  

What are your feelings towards the image quality and colors rendition between both ? Also, did you have an emotion using it ? Fuji relies a lot on film simulation. At the moment I shoot on C-Raw (lightweight raw for canon), but I would be keen to only shoot JPEG and save time in editing.

 

3 hours ago, lct said:

The CL is a superb camera and i would buy a second copy in a heart beat if mine failed but i can do w/o IBIS on low res cameras and i use the CL with M lenses and one AF lens only, the excellent Sigma 18-50/2.8. As for paying Leica prices for discontinued TL lenses thanks no thanks but it's just me.

I have learned photography with IS and AF .. so even if I am curious to learn manual photo and sometimes I do thanks to all the new hybrid tech, I still feel that I need AF, especially for the price. I feel that used M lenses are still very expensive, and probably worth it, but I do not know if I am ready to invest that much money in a lens without AF

50 minutes ago, Coffeecup said:

Well. I happened to only just have bought a brand new CL earlier this month. With Sigma’s APSC lineup there’s enough to choose from (16-30-56, 18-50). Then there’s the rest of the L-mount that’s available. Just look at the Sigma 35mm f2.0 contemporary for instance.
That lens looks to be made for the CL (is full frame lens though). 
 

At the moment I’ve got the 18mm Leica (kitted with the CL), and traded the Leica 23mm for the Sigma 30/1.4 and 56/1.4 (and got some extra cash). Waiting on buying the 18-50 f2.8 from Sigma in a Black Friday offering. With my URTH Nikon-L I can mount all my Nikon classic glass to the CL.

I’ve also got a T Typ701 which is just a piece of art on its own.

anyway. I’ve got an older Fuji camera as well but in my eyes they’re no match to the Leica TL and CL. 
 

In terms of lenses, the Sigmas in L-Mount seems to be the game changer. The lens I would absolutely need for my practice are the 18-50 f2.8 for general + automotive, the 30 mm F2 for faster lens and probably the 11-23 as a larger all purpose lens. I tend to not use longer zoom range. I love the 35mm focal length, but I am afraid that the 24mm F2 would be too close to sigma 18-50 F2.8, and 23mm F2 Leica is very expensive for an APS-C only lens with no future at the moment. For exemple, we cold imagine buying a used SL in the future so that FF lenses would not be lost.

As I said, I could have a Leica and Sigma lenses for less money than my EOS R (used CL in Belgium/France + Sigma 18-50 is approx €1700). Though I have doubts. I have read quite a lot about "Leica's color and rendition", but can you also achieve it with Sigma lenses ?

[wda]

I have both Leica and Sigma standard Zooms, and have no hesitation in recommending the Sigma version for your motoring photography. The fixed f/2.8 is essential. There is no discernible difference in colour rendition. Even if there was a difference, you could produce your own profile, so that the camera and lens always acted the way you want.

I also have the Sigma 70mm macro, and Sigma 100-400 tele zoom. Both are excellent, but do rather drain power, unless you are prudent in their use.

One last point, do master hybrid focusing, as described in my referenced articles. For certain work, you can place the point of sharpness with precision,  useful with many subjects.

[smcmason]

23 minutes ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

I will group my answer for those two. You sum up all of my thoughts. UX seems really amazing with this camera, it is even more frustrating it is discontinued. The only Fuji I have really handled was an XE-something. Looked good but quality feeling was not there. The X-Pro series is what is appealing me, as the hybrid OVF/EVF seems to be best of both worlds. But an X-pro 3 is just as expensive as a used CL, so it actually started to raise my curiosity about Leica possibilities. Lenses are more expensive for Leica, but with Sigma and L-mount FF possibility, prices are identical or cheaper to Canon's, so this should also be an improvement  

What are your feelings towards the image quality and colors rendition between both ? Also, did you have an emotion using it ? Fuji relies a lot on film simulation. At the moment I shoot on C-Raw (lightweight raw for canon), but I would be keen to only shoot JPEG and save time in editing.

I was very interested in the film simulations at first. They are neat, but after a while they felt a little more like they were designed for Instagram rather than useful for creative photography. I tend to prefer uncompressed RAW for everything, although I did shoot RAW/jpeg with Fuji.  I loved the hybrid viewfinder and the quick/intuitive focus magnification of the X-Pro2. At the end of the day, I was just happier with the quality of the Leica images. I found them to be a bit more predictable in terms of how colors are processed. As someone else mentioned, the CL body and lenses do feel less fragile as well. If you don't want to drop tons of cash on M lenses, there are plenty of high-quality R lenses too. That is what I adapt to the L Mount with a Novoflex adapter since I shoot an R film body too. The 18mm f2.8 TL is a wonderful walk-around lens. Not dirt cheap, but fairly widely available for $700-$900. My most used lens on the CL is probably the 18-56. You get so much quality and usability in such a small package. 

[Rusty]

Yes but I would buy the Sigma contemporary series lenses in full frame. Most of them are small and in many cases smaller than the apc-c versions. They are great lenses. 

that way if there is never an aps-c replacement you will have lenses that can be used on Leica, Panasonic and Sigma L mount cameras.

[Coffeecup]

8 minutes ago, Rusty said:

Yes but I would buy the Sigma contemporary series lenses in full frame. Most of them are small and in many cases smaller than the apc-c versions. They are great lenses. 

that way if there is never an aps-c replacement you will have lenses that can be used on Leica, Panasonic and Sigma L mount cameras.

My thinking cap went that way as well but in the end decided for the 30/1.4 apsc instead of the (FF) 35/2.0. It is faster, a bit lighter, size about the same but also half price.
I do would’ve liked the aperture ring and metal barrel but not for €500,- versus €250,-.
For another €500,- extra above the 35/2.0, the Leica 35 TL1.4 comes into reach price wise. 
 

Regarding OP: I come from Panasonic and Olympus with amazing IBIS, but ISO capacities of these sensor is another league as that from MFT, so I don’t bother too much. 

[Rusty]

2 hours ago, Coffeecup said:

My thinking cap went that way as well but in the end decided for the 30/1.4 apsc instead of the (FF) 35/2.0. It is faster, a bit lighter, size about the same but also half price.
I do would’ve liked the aperture ring and metal barrel but not for €500,- versus €250,-.
For another €500,- extra above the 35/2.0, the Leica 35 TL1.4 comes into reach price wise. 
 

Regarding OP: I come from Panasonic and Olympus with amazing IBIS, but ISO capacities of these sensor is another league as that from MFT, so I don’t bother too much. 

Fair enough, there is a cost difference. I have the 30/1.4 and its a great lens. 45mm is a good focal length too I'm finding I like it more and more. Not small but light. I bought that and the 56/1.4 before we found out the CL was being abandoned so I wasn't able to follow my own advice 🙂

I did get the Sigma 90mm/2.8 though and the those full frame i series lenses are lovely. Its a great 135mm on the CL and very small, much smaller and cheaper than the 55-135mm leica zoom. I can crop to 200m quite easily.

Now I'm itching after the 24mm/3.5 which is tiny and a 36mm equiv. Time will tell. It has a 0.5 macro ability so would double as a macro lens.

[MJB]

4 hours ago, Berel Shoots Cars said:

I will group my answer for those two. You sum up all of my thoughts. UX seems really amazing with this camera, it is even more frustrating it is discontinued. The only Fuji I have really handled was an XE-something. Looked good but quality feeling was not there. The X-Pro series is what is appealing me, as the hybrid OVF/EVF seems to be best of both worlds. But an X-pro 3 is just as expensive as a used CL, so it actually started to raise my curiosity about Leica possibilities. Lenses are more expensive for Leica, but with Sigma and L-mount FF possibility, prices are identical or cheaper to Canon's, so this should also be an improvement  

What are your feelings towards the image quality and colors rendition between both ? Also, did you have an emotion using it ? Fuji relies a lot on film simulation. At the moment I shoot on C-Raw (lightweight raw for canon), but I would be keen to only shoot JPEG and save time in editing.

The CL is one of those cameras that just doesn't get in the way for me.  I guess truthfully, I would prefer to have an aperture ring on the lenses, but I quickly got used to using the thumbwheel instead.  But just something about it overall, it just feels really good to use.  The TL lenses are expensive, but if you buy them secondhand there are deals to be had - as I said, I've managed to pick up nearly the full set - but I suppose even heavily discounted they are not inexpensive, per se.  The Sigma lenses are of course much cheaper but still well-regarded, although I didn't much care for them myself (I've owned all three fast primes).  I found they they tended to hunt for focus (even in broad daylight!) compared to the TL lenses and are nowhere near as well-built and refined-feeling.  For me, the native lenses just pair better with the camera from a design and user experience perspective as well.  And, frankly, I personally did not see the point in ponying up for a not unexpensive Leica body only to mount Sigma lenses to it, even though I don't believe in any magical "Leica Look."  The TL lenses are at least MUCH less expensive than M or SL lenses, for whatever that's worth.

I also own an SL that I recently picked up secondhand, and I've wondered if it can replace my CL.  As I said, the purpose of the SL for me is primarily to adapt old lenses, which the CL is certainly capable of, but for which I think the SL is better suited for various reasons.  I've started to get used to the bulk of the SL (mitigated by use of non-native lenses), but I do think the CL firmware is just better - it feels like a more refined and developed version of the SL's, which I suppose it probably is.  And despite using the SL more lately, I just can't bring myself to part with the CL (by the way, working with the files, I don't see any practical difference or advantage to full frame in terms of image quality - actually, I think the CL maybe has better high ISO performance and dynamic range, but I haven't done a side by side comparison yet).

Regarding Fujis, I do think that they are worth consideration.  I actually bought an X-Pro 3 before I even knew the CL existed, but right after I bought it I discovered the CL, and that it could be had secondhand for about the same money.  After comparing them for about a week I was hooked on the CL and returned the Fuji.  That said, it was not a bad camera at all.  It was very well built, maybe not quite as much as a Leica, but that's splitting hairs a bit.  I currently own an X-E3 as well, and it is noticeably more plasticky-feeling, although not "cheap" and still a good performer, to be fair.  I do like Fuji's pseudo-analog design approach, and am never confused as to how to set aperture or shutter speed, or dial in some exposure compensation.  Ergonomically, I did not care for the X-Pro 3 - it felt like a brick, and the viewfinder magnification of 0.66x was not good enough for me, especially in a camera that purported to replicate an analog experience.  And, I don't know, there are just far too many fiddly little buttons for my taste - I much prefer the cleaner design of the Leicas.

In terms of image quality, I don't think you're necessarily going to get better results with a Leica, however.  I think there is a lot of mumbo-jumbo and self-congratulatory pixel-peeping that goes around in Leica circles (perhaps to justify spending an unreasonable amount of money on camera gear!), but at the end of the day, good photographs are made by good photographers, not gear.  And with software color profiles, you can get almost any look out of any camera.  I personally use DxO film simulations for every digital image that I shoot and I think can achieve quite a consistent look across the many different cameras I've used.

I would even go so far as to say that, if you're shopping for an APS-C camera, Fuji is the most rational option.  There are literally dozens of bodies to choose from, in many different styles and at many different price points, and they are still being developed by the company which has been perhaps the biggest supporter and innovator in the APS-C space.  There is a huge catalog of lenses, at much more sane prices than any Leica.  It's very difficult to justify any Leica, in my opinion, by purely rational standards - they are just not objectively worth the premium, at least not in terms of the final product (the image).  But...I still can't quite part with my CL.  Even though I could replace it with an equivalent Fuij kit and have lots of cash left over, and end up with basically the same pictures.  It's crazy, but such is the draw of the brand, somehow.

By the way, if you're dead-set on shooting .jpeg, I wouldn't even think twice about it and just go get a Fuji.  I personally only ever shoot RAW and cannot be convinced that .jpeg shooting is a reasonable alternative for anyone who wants full creative control over their work, but I also enjoy the editing process as much as any other aspect of photography.  But I understand some people feel differently, and I think that Fuji does a better job of handling .jpegs, if for no other reason than because they prioritize it more.  I think that Leica expects their users to shoot RAW, and Fuji perhaps expects the opposite.

Edited September 19, 2022 by MJB

[Coffeecup]

The fun thing is that you can use your Leica RAW as an unedited JPEG and it’s great, while opening a Fuji RAW demands quite some tweaking and I find them often slightly underexposed. You’re right that the camera doesn’t ‘get in the way’.

Right now I still own the XE2s and an X-Pro2 and in doubt which one to keep. Like the form factor of the e2 but I like the OVF of the P2 (giving it a completely different use than the CL). Still got the T as well. It’s just too much stuff and too little photography at the moment. 

[Torpille]

Am 18.9.2022 um 17:33 schrieb Berel Shoots Cars:

Hello everyone  

I started photography with a Nikon D7000 8 years ago, about a year ago I traded it for a used Canon EOS R, that I use mainly with RF 35mm F1.8 and 24-105 STM. Images are beautiful, but I tend to not really like it in terms of feelings, and the lenses are wether small and very slow or LARGE and expensive. I mainly do some general travel photography and car photography. Therefore, I am considering moving to something smaller, lighter, with possible 3rd party lenses (RF mount is closed) and with more emotion when shooting. Going back to APS-C seems the way to go.

I was always intrigued and appealed by cameras with the red dot.  Currently, we find quite a lot of 2nd hand affordable Leica CL. I could buy it with a standard zoom lens  for the value of my current Canon. I am considering the Sigma 18-50 (f2.8 is a minimum for DOF in car photography). though 18-56 is also appealing to have a "full" Leica system and colors. 

But my doubts are the following : Is it worth investing in this system which is officially discontinued by its company ? What will be the future for L-lenses APS-C and camera (also in terms of  reusability and value) ? I am afraid to go in a very expensive cul-de-sac. I would be very happy to have some of your feedback on that  

At the moment, this is in competition with switching to Fuji system, which is growing and cheaper, but does not have the same appeal as an enthusiast. 

I have read a few threads in the forum, which are very interesting, but they were all written before the discontinuation.

I just attached a recent shoot I did for illustration (this is EOS R + RF 35mm + CPL Filter). Looking forward to read your feedbacks

Thanks, Antoine

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!

Hi to you Belgian friend.

Many of us are asking ourselves the question of the after CL. 
Some have made the choice to leave the apc-c world of Leica, some are waiting to see what will happen with the L2 alliance, others think it's a good time to acquire the T/TL, TL2 and CL. 

The fact is that there is no similar system in other brands, except Fuji but with a completely different user experience.  

If your dream is a Leica then don't hesitate. 
You won't get the latest technology (for that I recommend the Sony a7c or a Fuji XE_4) but you will get a real Leica with great lenses and full compatibility with M lenses. 

If you are a screen shooter, the TL2 is a good option which will cost you 50% of the price of the CL. 
If you want to shoot via an EVF, then get the CL.

Concerning the optics, the TL zooms are very good. 
For primes, you can go with your eyes closed too, even if they are not perfect, you will have excellent results.

I sold my Panasonic 50/1,8 which exhausted the battery in a few minutes on the CL and which made a lot of noise at the aperture level on the TL2. 
Too bad because the lens is good. 
So I took a TL 35mm.



The LEICA lenses are very good and the prices are about 50% of new in perfect condition. 

In my opinion it's a bargain. 

Concerning the maintenance of the value over time, it's hard to say but Leica holds its value better than its competitors. What is sure is that the CL will remain an icon at Leica.


The only one from Leica that can come close to the CL is the Q2, but it is bigger.
If that's the one you want then get it without going through the CL.

[tom0511]

If the available lens line up fits your needs, why not.

I have used and use all kinds of Leica (and other brands) cameras - and the CL certainly has this Leica DNA - great colors, great lenses, great simple user interface.

I must say though, that I usualy prefer the SL line because I do not mind to have a little bigger camera in my hands.

And if it needs to be really compact (evening during vacations, bike-tours, ...) I now rather bring a Canon G1xIII because its even smaller and still offer very good IQ.

If the CL size fits your needs, and you get a good deal - I would just go for it. Its a great little camera. I specially love the 11-23, the 23 and the 35 TL lenses. The 55-135 is great as well but could benefit from IS or OIS.

The 18-56 is quite good and compact, so it works well but its not that exciting IMO. could be a little wider, or a little faster, or a little longer.

 

[Ba Erv]

It would've been awesome if Leica had continued the CL line with an upgraded sensor like the 40MP Fuji X-H2...but alas, I'm still stuck with the CL and 23mm Summicron; best street photography camera ever made.

[MJB]

2 hours ago, Ba Erv said:

It would've been awesome if Leica had continued the CL line with an upgraded sensor like the 40MP Fuji X-H2...but alas, I'm still stuck with the CL and 23mm Summicron; best street photography camera ever made.

The 23 is definitely one of my favorite lenses on the CL - I think it balances best and just looks and feels the most right on the body.  The 35 is of course another favorite but there's no denying that it alters the handling of the camera.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[MJB]

4 hours ago, Torpille said:

The LEICA lenses are very good and the prices are about 50% of new in perfect condition. 

In my opinion it's a bargain. 

Concerning the maintenance of the value over time, it's hard to say but Leica holds its value better than its competitors. What is sure is that the CL will remain an icon at Leica.

This.  People are worried about the lenses losing value, but I think that's exactly what makes them an interesting proposition right now - they will only drop so far before they level off and probably even bounce back a little.  Look at the used market - EVERYTHING Leica holds value.  So long as you don't pay full MSRP for these lenses, I think you could pretty much break even when you sell them.  I haven't paid full price for a single one, and I personally think I will hold on to mine.  I may even keep an eye out for that 60mm!