Leica SL-C

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

👺😛

[Stuart Richardson]

2 hours ago, Winedemonium said:

The CL form factor and quality look beyond reproach to my eyes. I also don't mind an APSC sensor for this use case (though the Sigma Fp and the Lumix S9 show FF is possible in this size, and Sigma have shown with the I series that compact lenses are also possible, FF, and could be turned into Leica versions easily). 

I don't need to check the imaging quality, as 24mm x Leica lenses will be more than sufficient. 

I'm also not against old tech where the new tech doesn't matter. I haven't been tempted to ditch my M10R and M10M for M11 variants for example (buying both after the M11 was released, and buying my SL2 last year after the SL3 was released). I think I could live with the resolutions of both the EVF and screen on the CL, even though they are lower (the screen esp.) than today's offerings. The lack of IBIS would feel a pity, as I am now used to having the advantages that brings. The bit I don't know - and this I would welcome feedback on, is how good the autofocus system is. I'm not doing sports, and don't need animal eye detect, etc, but I can see myself using this type of camera for short bursts of continuous autofocus/capture on moving people.

So please, CL users, I know a 2017 Leica CL is not going to compare in autofocus to a 2025 Sony/Canon, etc, but does it do the sort of autofocus I need? I see it has 'face detection', but does it adjust and track a person that is moving?

 

I guess I am not clear what is wrong with the existing cameras? You want a Leica body but are ok with Sigma and Panasonic rebadged lenses, you are ok with APS-C, you are ok with older tech. Why not just get the Lumix S9 with small Sigma lenses...it sounds like it is exactly what you are looking for. Who cares what the brand is? It is a great camera with great lenses. Meanwhile, if brand is important and full frame is less so, the CL really does tick all your boxes too...especially if you use a techart adapter (admittedly, I don't know if these work on the CL...no idea how they work).

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, Chris Nebard said:

I agree. I absolutely love the SL2-S (almost 4 years in and counting) but a Q or CL sized, 24mp f/f, stills only L Mount body would be pretty compelling to me.  Good to hear that you rate the TL lenses on the SL2-S and don’t miss the megapixels of a bigger sensor. I might just give that a go. 

Give it a try. I found the TL lenses to be not worth using, even on the SL2. It depends on what you do with your pictures, but to me at least it makes more sense to buy a used CL to use with them, rather than using them on the larger body. My experience is mostly with the 23mm, however, which is not a lens I rated very highly. I am sure it is better on the best TL lenses.

[Winedemonium]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

ou want a Leica body but are ok with Sigma and Panasonic rebadged lenses, you are ok with APS-C, you are ok with older tech. Why not just get the Lumix S9 with small Sigma lenses...it sounds like it is exactly what you are looking for. Who cares what the brand is?

The thread really discusses two topics - my needs (or, let's be real, desires), and an idea for a Leica product. My discussion about rebadging was really about the latter - that given they are making Sigma lenses into Leica ones anyway, the Sigma I-series could be Leica'd, saving Leica R&D spend on a lens line for a compact L-mount camera. For my needs, I really don't mind if it's Leica, or another brand. The Lumix S9 and the small Sigma primes might be 100% of what I need here. But... I do like the design sense, the quality, and the UI sense of Leica... which brings me back to my original point, it's something I'd love to see Leica make. 

[jaapv]

The Panasonic primes are smallish very light and have been Summicroned by Leica. 

[Markey]

2 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Give it a try. I found the TL lenses to be not worth using, even on the SL2. It depends on what you do with your pictures, but to me at least it makes more sense to buy a used CL to use with them, rather than using them on the larger body. My experience is mostly with the 23mm, however, which is not a lens I rated very highly. I am sure it is better on the best TL lenses.

Funny old world this cameras business.

Whenever I scroll through my stuff and stop at a frame that I like its more often than not taken with a TL23 despite me having much better glass like the APO`s.

Maybe its because its small and discrete  ,and so encourages more intimate frames, and its that which attracts me rather than looking at the quality.

I do I do like the look though .. 

I should add that I no longer print.

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, Markey said:

Funny old world this cameras business.

Whenever I scroll through my stuff and stop at a frame that I like its more often than not taken with a TL23 despite me having much better glass like the APO`s.

Maybe its because its small and discrete  ,and so encourages more intimate frames, and its that which attracts me rather than looking at the quality.

I do I do like the look though .. 

I should add that I no longer print.

Yes, I liked its overall look, but the details all look blurred to me, even on the 18mp original T that I got it with. I mostly do large landscape prints and mix digital with 6x7 to 8x10 film though. My standard print size is typically 80x100cm and I don’t think the 23mm looks good for that. 
All the more reason to test with your own requirements. 

[Markey]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Yes, I liked its overall look, but the details all look blurred to me, even on the 18mp original T that I got it with. I mostly do large landscape prints and mix digital with 6x7 to 8x10 film though. My standard print size is typically 80x100cm and I don’t think the 23mm looks good for that. 
All the more reason to test with your own requirements. 

Ah .... fair point . I wouldn`t like to push it that far.

Edited February 6 by Markey

[gbealnz]

On 2/6/2025 at 8:46 AM, Winedemonium said:

I suppose this is part of the gap created by the demise of that system. I never owned the CL. I briefly owned an original T, but never had any of the TL lenses. Many raved about this system - its size, weight, and the quality of the camera and lenses. Your comment @jaapv reminded me that I could buy and mount some TL lenses on my SL2. 

 

Like this option? I have used the 11-23, the 18mm, and the 18-56 on my SL2, as well as the CL.

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!

[Winedemonium]

That’s a nice set up @gbealnz. How do you find the AF performance on your SL2 with them?

[gbealnz]

10 minutes ago, Winedemonium said:

That’s a nice set up @gbealnz. How do you find the AF performance on your SL2 with them?

More than adequate for my use to be honest. Bear in mind though, my SL2 usually just has either a Sigma 20mm or a Sigma 45mm on it, as well as my Summilux M35 or 50mm.

Handy to be able to use the TL lenses though, very.

[JohnathanLovm]

Basically a full frame CL? While the idea is nice, I’m not sure if ergonomics would comfort enough with those full metal L-mount lenses 

[Winedemonium]

14 hours ago, JohnathanLovm said:

Basically a full frame CL? While the idea is nice, I’m not sure if ergonomics would comfort enough with those full metal L-mount lenses 

Basically that, yes. No point with the current lens line up for the reason you stated. But the Sigma I-series lenses, converted to Leica types would give Leica a compact set of lenses to pair. Some users might only use SL, some only SLC, some might have both, and choose which one to use based on occasion, but with lenses that work on either. 

[swatch]

Leica must be knowing users welcome smaller and lighter, therefore offer non-apo Summicron 35mm and 50mm.

SL body can be smaller then current dimension but I guess heat management for professional video function is a challenge when reduce body size, before Panasonic can do so I would not expect SL body can be as compact as M or Q.  If eliminating video function, I believe Leica can immediately reduce body size( basically Panasonic S9 body size with IBIS plus EVF ).

Q will always be Q, fixed lens.  Can be it changed to be interchange lens mount?  Yes, but body thickness will not be the same and would end up similar in size to Panasonic S9.

In fact, Panasonic S9 is an interesting offer and the only BUT is it is not designed for professional use in terms of functionality.

[jpark114]

I would actually welcome SL-C if Leica also introduce Leica's own pancake lens to go with it.  Perhaps F2.8 SL lens Elmarit line ups in smaller size?  

[wjdrijfhout]

3 hours ago, swatch said:

Leica must be knowing users welcome smaller and lighter, therefore offer non-apo Summicron 35mm and 50mm.

They may know about it, but I hope/expect they won't go that route with the SL-series.

The non-apo summicrons are relatively easy additions for Leica as they are essentially Leica versions of the Panasonic primes. It makes the system as a whole appeal to a wider audience. Just like the 70-200 and 24-70 from the Sigma family. Not all Leica users are willing to fork out $5-6k for each lens.

I'm in the middle of some camera comparisons myself at the moment and looking objectively my SL3 looses in most categories. Besides the lenses, where the Leica's shine is the experience. Super solid build quality, use of aluminum, user interface, tactile experience, etc. When pushing towards smaller and lighter, those key values will no doubt be under pressure.

They had small and light: CL/TL2. Abandoning that probably means that small and light is not that important for Leica. There is still small and light: Q and M, granted these are very different systems. And then there is smallest and lightest: LUX grip, what a magnificent product!

So my hope is that the SL4 will be a bit bigger and sleeker again. It does not have to compete with the Sony's or Canon's.

Or..... will the S4 be the new design standard for other brands to aspire to? The X2D and GFX100 show that medium format doesn't need something much bigger than the original SL. If there's good compatibility with L-mount lenses, it might be a very tempting new offering. 

Edited February 9 by wjdrijfhout

[Winedemonium]

13 hours ago, wjdrijfhout said:

The non-apo summicrons are relatively easy additions for Leica as they are essentially Leica versions of the Panasonic primes. It makes the system as a whole appeal to a wider audience. Just like the 70-200 and 24-70 from the Sigma family. Not all Leica users are willing to fork out $5-6k for each lens.

Sigma 35mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary - 325g
Leica Summicron-SL 35mm f/2 ASPH - 400g
Sigma 50mm f/2 DG DN Contemporary - 350g
Leica Summicron-SL 50mm f/2 ASPH - 402g

Sigma 17mm f/4 DG DN Contemporary - 225g - Leica version, 260g?
Sigma 24mm f/3.5 DG DN Contemporary - 225g - Leica version, 260g?
Sigma 45mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary - 215g - Leica version, 245g?
Sigma 90mm f/2.8 DG DN Contemporary - 295g - Leica version, 340g?

Maybe none of these would be deemed suitable for Leica, but the point is that if Leica made an SL-C, it wouldn't necessarily have to invest a lot of development cost into one or two Leica-fied Sigma compact lenses. The most likely target would be the 45mm f/2.8. 

On the other hand, if it made some of its own 28mm, 35mm, 50mm 90mm Elmarit-SL(-C) lenses, I would be a taker if there was an SL-C.

[PhotoCruiser]

I am not sure if Leica or me would use the Sigma Contemporary series lenses, i would expect that they would choose the excellent ART series.
But they are considerable heavier and more expensive than the Contemporary series.

For example:

Sigma 14-24 F2.8 DG DN 796 g (1150g for the F2.8 DG HSM version)
Sigma 28mm DG HSM 960g
Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG DN 645g
Sigma 50mm F1.4 DG DN 670g
Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro 715g
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG DN II 745g
Sigma 24-70mm F2.8 DG OS HSM 1095g
Sigma 28-105 F2.8 DG DN 995g

I had the Panasonic 100mm macro and the Sigma 105mm macro in my hand and the Panasonic is much lighter but seems to have good optic qualities too.

I own now Sigma 14mm F1.8 DG HSM - Sigma 28mm F1.4 DG HSM - Sigma 105mm F2.8 DG DN Macro and they are heavy, but worth it.

Chris

 

[jaapv]

There is nothing wrong with Sigma C lenses. Most of the difference is in things like weather sealing, AF speed, etc. Optically they are more than adequate. My preference is for the Sports series. But in the end I do not care too much for these various categories. I choose lenses by focal length and speed for the use I want to put them to. There are no low-IQ lenses in the L alliance and those pixel-peeping last few percentage points are of little interest in day-to-day photography. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount