CL camera. Best non TL lenses, to give a 35 FOV

[davidrc]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CL camera. Best non TL lenses, to give a 35 FOV ?

Having had experience of a 23 TL, and using R adapted 50 summ and 90 elm, both of which absolutely wipe the floor with the TL…

(good TL copy assumed), without wishing to go down the bulky 11-23 (or TL really given the experience) 

Could I have some guidance on say Z and CV lenses adapted for 35 FOV.  And R and M lenses fir 35 FOV, if suitable.

I noted some in the image thread, but because of the file size and capture and upload quality it really is hard to judge.

some examples with a second image at say 1:2, not 1:1 would give some idea.  And experience of sharpness across the frame etc.

I may be asking a lot, but choosing lenses for a new system can cause a lot of time and money wasted.

All the better forum wide or not examples seem to come from non TL.  I don’t want to splash out on a 24mm or 21mm of any system without reason.

Thanks in advance.

Edited November 19 by davidrc

[jaapv]

Actually all M and R lenses perform better than on full frame So it is purely a matter of personal preference which one to pick

My first choice is the Summilux 24 M for IQ and rendering and when it must be light and small I use the Voigtländer Color Skopar 25. 

[Advertisement]

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

[davidrc]

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

Actually al M and R lenses perform better than on full frame So it is purely a matter of personal preference which one to pick

My first choice is the Summilux 24 M for IQ and rendering and when it must be light and small I use the Voigtländer Color Skopar 25. 

Hi jaapv,

That was my way of thinking, because of using the best of the image circle. (For want of a better phrase)

It was the explanation which fitted, ditto the lux.  I doubt my piggy bank would stretch to the lux.

The Skopar, I assume will not be quite as good, but assuming a cost issue, is any other alternative to the 25 feasible on IQ?

or does the 25 lead the also ran pack?

any experience of the wider R’s?  
 

[Stuart Richardson]

You might consider one of the Sigma 20 or 24mm lenses. There are several of them and they are all better than the 23mm TL. I also had a rather negative experience of the 23mm TL. I have the Sigma 24mm 3.5, and it is better than the 23mm TL on the Leica T. They are compact for full frame and very well made. You would retain AF and auto aperture. The downside is that they are a bit big on a T body at least, but certainly no bigger than the R 90mm.

[davidrc]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Actually al M and R lenses perform better than on full frame So it is purely a matter of personal preference which one to pick

My first choice is the Summilux 24 M for IQ and rendering and when it must be light and small I use the Voigtländer Color Skopar 25. 

Actually, to be specific, the TL liked focussing short and long, but hated being between somewhere around 9ft up to 25 yds.
Within that distance and depending on f stop, all manner of IQ would vary.

I put it down the the large diameter of the R glass. Faultless.  The colour was probably easier to manage too. Albeit not as punchy.

But then, I remember film. 😀.    All of which is another side to the other makers glass for this topic?

 

[davidrc]

9 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You might consider one of the Sigma 20 or 24mm lenses. There are several of them and they are all better than the 23mm TL. I also had a rather negative experience of the 23mm TL. I have the Sigma 24mm 3.5, and it is better than the 23mm TL on the Leica T. They are compact for full frame and very well made. You would retain AF and auto aperture. The downside is that they are a bit big on a T body at least, but certainly no bigger than the R 90mm.

Hi,

Do you know, my friends use Sigma on their Nik Z.  Images seem ok.  I assume you mean Sigma L ?

If they are full frame then maybe the size would be a R with adapter added.

I had not discarded the Sigma’s, but a test would not go amiss with a sympathetic dealer.

What was your negative experience of the 23?

David 

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, I mean Sigma L mount lenses. Sigma lenses are excellent in my general experience. I use the 24mm 3.5 and 105mm alongside my APO Summicrons on the SL2 and they fit right in. The 105mm is at essentially the same quality (that is, nothing really to criticize) and the 24mm is not quite as sharp, but still excellent across the whole frame. My problem with the 23mm was that it was noticeably soft...just soft. Otherwise it had a pleasing enough character, but my adapted M lenses like the 35mm 1.4 FLE were much better. That said, I more or less gave up on the T and got a Ricoh GRIIIx, which does the job of compact camera better for me, and has an extremely sharp lens.

[jaapv]

39 minutes ago, davidrc said:

Actually, to be specific, the TL liked focussing short and long, but hated being between somewhere around 9ft up to 25 yds.
Within that distance and depending on f stop, all manner of IQ would vary.

I put it down the the large diameter of the R glass. Faultless.  The colour was probably easier to manage too. Albeit not as punchy.

But then, I remember film. 😀.    All of which is another side to the other makers glass for this topic?

 

That is a weird situation that has never been reported here. It sounds like a faulty lens 

[davidrc]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes, I mean Sigma L mount lenses. Sigma lenses are excellent in my general experience. I use the 24mm 3.5 and 105mm alongside my APO Summicrons on the SL2 and they fit right in. The 105mm is at essentially the same quality (that is, nothing really to criticize) and the 24mm is not quite as sharp, but still excellent across the whole frame. My problem with the 23mm was that it was noticeably soft...just soft. Otherwise it had a pleasing enough character, but my adapted M lenses like the 35mm 1.4 FLE were much better. That said, I more or less gave up on the T and got a Ricoh GRIIIx, which does the job of compact camera better for me, and has an extremely sharp lens.

Thanks again, some food for thought. I’d seen a lot. But needed some hands on reports. 
yourself and jaapv are starting to fill in the blanks. 

I’d go with “soft”. Sometimes. 
distance and f stop made a difference. But not opened up either.
But the combination of each and a low iso is where stars collided. 

i’d go with jaapv on this. Seems no other explanation. 
Perhaps the J on the lens gives it away. 
or just unlucky. 

Anyhow, the research continues. Possibly if an Elm 24 of any type
Or if I can find an R, either performs that may suffice.....having seen the price of a lux. 

[ruskkyle]

I don't have anything to contribute on other options, but as an owner of TL lenses I will say that the 23, which I found disappointing at first, sharpens up considerably at f/4 upwards. From bitter experience of ruined soft shots I also now never shoot the CL below 200th/s handheld. Everything is pin sharp now.

[davidrc]

37 minutes ago, ruskkyle said:

I don't have anything to contribute on other options, but as an owner of TL lenses I will say that the 23, which I found disappointing at first, sharpens up considerably at f/4 upwards. From bitter experience of ruined soft shots I also now never shoot the CL below 200th/s handheld. Everything is pin sharp now.

I concur on hand holding, can happen rather than will.  I can hand hold as low as 1/30.
But a safety net of higher speed is well endorsed. Anything under 1/125 requires care.

I don’t think it’s a fault. And not only mechanical slap either.  Moreover I think it’s a testament to the sensor capabilities from what i’ve seen.

And to be clear, my experience of the 23 was not because it wasn’t stopped down.  Whilst undoubtably it’s best was at plus F10.
even 13….which by that time diffraction should be seen…it wasn’t.  Weird.  Copy issue.

Nice shot BTW. A crop seen would be useful.

I certainly wouldn’t be against another if right.  

On 6/1/2019 at 10:45 AM, Ando said:

 

Beauty is transient........

 

[Rick in CO]

Try the 23mm f1.4 Sigma Contemporary for L mount.  It is an APS-C lens and somewhat large - though probably not much more unwieldy than a Summilux.  At f1.4 mine is somewhat soft, improves to be usable at f2.0 if you don't need sharp corners, and is pretty much optimal at f2.8-f5.6, even in the corners.  I use it on my CL and it complements the Sigma 56mm f1.4 Contemporary very nicely.

[dpitt]

Nobody mentions the 21 mm Elmarit M lenses? I like them very much on my TL2, both pre-ASPH and ASPH.

[davidrc]

36 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Nobody mentions the 21 mm Elmarit M lenses? I like them very much on my TL2, both pre-ASPH and ASPH.

Shame!….I will take a look.

[mikeLD]

10 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

You might consider one of the Sigma 20 or 24mm lenses. There are several of them and they are all better than the 23mm TL. I also had a rather negative experience of the 23mm TL. I have the Sigma 24mm 3.5, and it is better than the 23mm TL on the Leica T. They are compact for full frame and very well made. You would retain AF and auto aperture. The downside is that they are a bit big on a T body at least, but certainly no bigger than the R 90mm.

Been through many of the same experiences including the 23mm TL on my wonderful CL, I recently decided to try the Sigma 23mm f1.4 DC DN even though it was at the limit of my weight and size boundry.  I am very pleasantly surprised.  It is an outstanding performer.  The IQ is great the range of options given by the very fast aperature and excellent auto focus have made it my EDC over my Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 and my former TLs including the 18mm and 23mm.  The photos I'm getting are as good or better than my former Q2.  I do not think I will ever go back.

[davidrc]

Thank you.  EDC?  Every day?…

some sample photos would be most appreciated.  (Anyone?)

the size and weight of the sigma will not be perhaps much different to R lenses when used. I enjoy tripod use anyway.

[davidrc]

Thorsten Overaard wrote that you can use M lenses on a CL, but they won’t be the same.  Anyone able to expand on that to what he means?

For one thing, it’s not full frame.  Is it because only the M cameras have the micro lenses to cope with the narrow light ray angles?

if so, what does that do to the image on a CL ?

(talk about confused.com) while I try to work out which lenses to use.  Could be that T.O. is being reserved in his assessment.

saying something without qualifying is not helping.

working brilliantly, but not quite fantastically M, works for me.

[Boojay]

2 hours ago, davidrc said:

Thorsten Overaard wrote that you can use M lenses on a CL, but they won’t be the same.  Anyone able to expand on that to what he means?

For one thing, it’s not full frame.  Is it because only the M cameras have the micro lenses to cope with the narrow light ray angles?

if so, what does that do to the image on a CL ?

(talk about confused.com) while I try to work out which lenses to use.  Could be that T.O. is being reserved in his assessment.

saying something without qualifying is not helping.

working brilliantly, but not quite fantastically M, works for me.

For a start you could look through the images in this thread and draw your own conclusion as to whether you like what you see.

Personally I think the CL is the next best body for M lenses to an actual M, as long as you don't mind the crop factor, for me it's a bonus.  Having used M lenses on quite a few different bodies, both L mount and even Canon bodies with adaptors, the CL has always come out top for ease of use, IQ and just feeling right.  On the SL2, unless it's one of the bigger M lenses, a Noctilux, 75 Summilux, or 90 Apo for example, the smaller M mount lenses always look a bit silly and felt unbalanced to me, (R mount lenses a better choice) I know results are what matter but looks matter too.

As far as the Sigma 23mm 1.4 goes, it's a nice lens, happy user here.  A bit on the large size, but not quite as large as 35mm TL.  I've had a bit of a love hate relationship with the 23mm TL over the years, think I've probably bought and sold it three times😉.

23mm 1.4 Sigma

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!

 

 

 

[davidrc]

2 hours ago, Boojay said:

For a start you could look through the images in this thread and draw your own conclusion as to whether you like what you see.

Personally I think the CL is the next best body for M lenses to an actual M, as long as you don't mind the crop factor, for me it's a bonus.  Having used M lenses on quite a few different bodies, both L mount and even Canon bodies with adaptors, the CL has always come out top for ease of use, IQ and just feeling right.  On the SL2, unless it's one of the bigger M lenses, a Noctilux, 75 Summilux, or 90 Apo for example, the smaller M mount lenses always look a bit silly and felt unbalanced to me, (R mount lenses a better choice) I know results are what matter but looks matter too.

As far as the Sigma 23mm 1.4 goes, it's a nice lens, happy user here.  A bit on the large size, but not quite as large as 35mm TL.  I've had a bit of a love hate relationship with the 23mm TL over the years, think I've probably bought and sold it three times😉.

23mm 1.4 Sigma

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 Boo,

Helpful thanks, oh, I saw that months ago before my CL.  Finding threads in a maze has a learning curve.

Looks as though I have plenty of options.

I think larger can be easier, for the way I work.  I think I will trawl through as much info as possible, meanwhile fully immerse myself using my R’s, then. Can narrow things down to a smaller 24mm.

the CL is so easy to focus, it suits.

Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I don't look at the 23 as a bad lens just not spectacular, I find for 23mm I use the 11-23,it isn't that bulky, it is an excellent lens, albeit an f4.5 at 23, so I keep my 23 around, interestingly the 23mm on the 2 lenses don't agree, the 11-23 is wider. I started out on the CL with a 25mm f3.5 Canon, the f3.5 did bother me, too slow, so I bought a 23 Summicron, no other choices except the 24 Summilux, which was out of my price range (2018). The Sigma lenses all seemed too big, except the 24 f3.5, but that was going back to my original problem.