Knarf Posted March 8 Share #1 Posted March 8 Advertisement (gone after registration) Up until last summer I was carrying around 2 Nikon Z bodies with an assortment of lenses, I realised that the weigh was gradually getting to me and decided that I needed something a bit lighter for general use, grandkids, street photography and a bit of landscape etc. So, I bit the bullet, sold one of my Nikon bodies and bought a Q2 which I must admit I am really happy with but I would like something with a bit more range. I considered the SL series but they are even heavier than my Nikon. Thought about a M10 but I have never used a rangefinder and I would need to travel a fair distance to find a Leica dealer where I could try one. I would also like to keep hold of both kidneys. I am off on a trip around Namibi this summer so will probably need my Nikon and 150-500mm for the game drives but am contemplating something lighter to save me changing lenses. (The 150-500mm will probably be sold afterwards as I Namibia will be a one off trip.) I have the chance of picking up a CL and an 18-56mm lens as a backup but given that it has been discontinued and it looks like a CL2 is never going to happen then is it a viable option? (I did try the Nikon Z50 but couldn’t get on with it) Thoughts and advice appreciated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted March 8 Posted March 8 Hi Knarf, Take a look here CL as a back up camera. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
mokona Posted March 8 Share #2 Posted March 8 Hi, What would be the purpose of the CL ? and for which focal length? CL is a very nice camera that pairs well with the Q2. Regarding lens, I feel the 18-56 is a bit expensive for backup use. The sigma 56mm f1.4 is a very good on the CL and for longer reach, the sigma 90mm f2.8 is super tiny too. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted March 8 Share #3 Posted March 8 (edited) With the Q2, you have "normal" FL covered. So the CL will probably be most useful in the 50mm eq + range. I would personally use a 50/75 ot 90 mm M lens, which will be very small and light compared to the TL lenses, but of course M lenses do not have zoom/AF or IS. If you want to have a good and light backup then have a look at the 20-60mm Panasonix Lumix L lens. It will give you a nice 30-90mm eq. FL and is very small and light. On top of that, I think it takes a good prome lens to beat its IQ. So it would be a good alternative to your Q2 for the longer FL. Edited March 8 by dpitt Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ynp Posted March 8 Share #4 Posted March 8 1 hour ago, dpitt said: If you want to have a good and light backup then have a look at the 20-60mm Panasonix Lumix L lens. Hi. Have you used the Panasonic 20-60mm on the CL? Will it useful as a daylight zoom instead of my broken 18-58? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted March 8 Share #5 Posted March 8 I’m still very happy with my CL and a bunch of lenses which are complementary to my Q3. I would consider the CL + TL 55-135 (85-200 FF equivalent) lens as a good addition. To be super safe you could add either the TL 18mm or TL 23mm which are both small and light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokona Posted March 8 Share #6 Posted March 8 If CL alone as backup, I'd consider the sigma 18-50 f2.8 instead of the pana 20-60, the sigma being quite smaller. But the pana is so cheap ! Another interesting lens would be the brand new Panasonic 100mm f2.8 macro: a nice small telelens with macro 1:1. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted March 9 Share #7 Posted March 9 Advertisement (gone after registration) 11 hours ago, ynp said: Hi. Have you used the Panasonic 20-60mm on the CL? Will it useful as a daylight zoom instead of my broken 18-58? I have used it on my Leica TL2. The sensor from TL2 and CL is very similar if not the same (I do not have both to test) Also, I do not have the 18-56 to compare directly. The Panasonic 20-60 fits nicely on my TL2 and is one of the lightest lenses that I have. It is about the same weight as an average M lens but adds the versatility of zoom in this interesting range. The 30-90 equivalent is perfect for me. And it is very sharp. Of course with F3.5 at 20mm and F5.6 at 60mm DOF play is limited, but it makes a good daylight travel lens. And the high ISO performance of the TL2 makes it borderline useful indoors. Also the minimal focus distance is quite nice for flowers and stuff. I am sure the rendering of the Leica 18-56 is better and I prefer the results of my Summilux 35 TL or a nice M prime but they are at a very different price point and the Summilux feels like twice as big and heavy. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommonego@gmail.com Posted March 9 Share #8 Posted March 9 If you are only taking the 2 Leicas, I would think twice about the Nikon 150-500, not sure if there is an AF adapter Nikon to Leica L. Lots of folks have used the Sigma 100-400 or the 150-600 in L mount with the CL and have gotten good results with both. The 80-200 Panasonic may also be an option, though a little short. I have used a lot of long lenses with the CL and it behaves nicely with them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mokona Posted March 9 Share #9 Posted March 9 The sigma 100-400 physically mounts on the CL but in my experience, the battery life is significantly reduced. I had high hopes for that combo, but I don't think it's a viable solution for travelling. Dunno about the 150-600 though but I would expect the same battery drainage. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
o2mpx Posted March 10 Share #10 Posted March 10 Have the CL, 11-23/18-56/55-135 zooms (also have a Q2) and it’s a great backup kit. However, not sure if it goes well with the Nikon setup since it’ll be completely non-interchangeable. Additionally, it’s APS-C, no IBIS and lacks the latest features. When taking 2 camera bodies on a trip, have found it more convenient if lenses are interchangeable. M kit with a Panasonic S5ii body for example, or with the CL Any thoughts on picking up a Nikon zf as lenses would be interchangeable with the current camera body? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knarf Posted March 10 Author Share #11 Posted March 10 I will be taking a Nikon Z6ii with the 150-500mm lens and a, new to me, CL with a 18-56mm. Have tried the Nikon Zf and Z50 but didn't really get on with them which is why I am going for the CL. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JayBird Posted March 10 Share #12 Posted March 10 The CL with the 18-56 is a good travel kit. It works well for landscapes. When I got my CL in 2018, I only had that lens for about 2 years. It produced some wonderful shots from our trips to the national parks. Since then I have added the 11-23 for ultra wide angles. Even though I now have a M10-R with an assortment of lenses ranging from 24 mm to 50 mm, I keep the CL and use it regularly. Both cameras produce very good results. It is hard to tell the difference between photos taken with each. I have been able to print 12x18” prints from heavily cropped photos without any issues 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dpitt Posted March 11 Share #13 Posted March 11 On 3/9/2024 at 10:50 PM, tommonego@gmail.com said: If you are only taking the 2 Leicas, I would think twice about the Nikon 150-500, not sure if there is an AF adapter Nikon to Leica L. Lots of folks have used the Sigma 100-400 or the 150-600 in L mount with the CL and have gotten good results with both. The 80-200 Panasonic may also be an option, though a little short. I have used a lot of long lenses with the CL and it behaves nicely with them. I am not sure that I would take lenses this heavy on a hiking trip. Maybe if my luggage was taken care of, I would consider it for a specific day. Because I have a nice collection of R tele lenses, they get used on my TL2 when I want a longer reach. So I can recommend the old so called Minolta 80-200 ish beer can's Leica R lenses. They weigh only around 800g. and produce stunning images while not draining the battery. Of course you would 'only' get a reach of 300mm eq. For longer lengths, there are also very good options in the 250, 280, 350 mm R primes. These are even better, but of course heavier. Still about the same weight as the Sigma zooms or better. My ultimate best R tele lens is the APO Telyt 180 F3.4 R. At 750g it can be considered light weight in this class. And if you add the APO Extender 2x, you get the best 360mm F6.8 R lens ever. With the CL this should cover most uses at 270 mm or 540mm eq. All this with only about 1Kg to carry. And I found that the APO Telyt is so sharp that it can beat a longer lens in resolution. I can see more details with the 180mm than with the excellent 250mm, and the extended solution is just as good. So you would have an equivalent of 350mm or 700mm in your bag. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc_P Posted March 14 Share #14 Posted March 14 Same situation for me last year: age, weight schlepping around. Standardized with a Q3 and a pre-owned CL in great quality. Small light kit. Based on cropping capabilities for the Q3 i use now the TL 60 macro on the CL: great image quality + detail shots of nature. One disadvantage: the colors - sky - are challenging sometimes with the CL. You might try the Cobalt profiles to adjust the color rendering of Q and CL. Last hint: Photolab 7 with their state-of-the art noise reduction helps for noise reduction on the CL. Enjoy your combos… Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 15 Share #15 Posted March 15 Namibia? Game? CL? = Sigma 100-400. Most game drives are so habituated that you’ll rarely need longer or crop. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shawn30 Posted March 15 Share #16 Posted March 15 You won’t be disappointed with a CL. I’d take mine but I’m already invested in L mount glass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knarf Posted March 16 Author Share #17 Posted March 16 Thanks for all the comments / advice folks, I have picked up a CL and 18-56mm lens which I will take with me tomorrow to Portugal and see how it performs. Other than that I think that I will stick to my original plan for Namibia of taking a Nikon Z6ii with a Tamron 150-500mm for game drives in the Etosha National Park and the CL for everything else, Sossusvlei, Swakopmund etc. On the off chance that I don't like the CL 🤣🤣 then I could take a Nikon 24-70mm instead but I would rather take 2 bodies just incase of accidents. As mentioned the Namibia trip will probably be a one off so the Tamron will possibly be replaced with a Leica 55-135mm on my return. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knarf Posted 20 hours ago Author Share #18 Posted 20 hours ago Now thinking of Plan B! CL with Sigma 100-400mm for game drives and my Q2 for everything else. Thoughts appreciated! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tommonego@gmail.com Posted 9 hours ago Share #19 Posted 9 hours ago vor 10 Stunden schrieb Knarf: Now thinking of Plan B! CL with Sigma 100-400mm for game drives and my Q2 for everything else. Thoughts appreciated! Have several batteries, 3 or 4, and a way to charge them at night. But sounds like a good arrangement. I have used the CL with long lenses, manual focus, and have been happy with the results. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knarf Posted 10 minutes ago Author Share #20 Posted 10 minutes ago I gather that the Sigma chews batteries. Anyone know if the Panasonic 70-300 also chews them? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.