My Leica CL opinions and questions

[Le Chef]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Im confident that we will see an APSC L mount camera again. The 'T-TL-CL' line can always remain 'discontinued' wile introducing an APSC L mount, maybe LC

Doubtful to say the least. Neither Lumix nor Sigma seem to be interested in APSC having developed cameras for full frame. The market direction seems to be towards Medium Format as Fuji have done and Leica apparently will also relaunch a MF model before too long.

[JTLeica]

15 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Doubtful to say the least. Neither Lumix nor Sigma seem to be interested in APSC having developed cameras for full frame. The market direction seems to be towards Medium Format as Fuji have done and Leica apparently will also relaunch a MF model before too long.

I just have a feeling it might go full circle. Sensors are so so good now and with people starting to get sick of phone photography after the initial wow factor, I feel there’s a great space for an APSC body. Sigma have released a lot of APSC stuff in the last few years, 18-50, 10-18, 16-300, 23, maybe another I can’t think of.

Certainly I could be wrong but adding an APSC camera to an already full fleshed out FF lineup is not beyond possible. Makes sense I think. So many times I wish I could have a small kit with me when hiking, and give me a Leica SL3 APSC with 24-30 mp and a small prime or two or 24-70 would be great. 

[Le Chef]

29 minutes ago, JTLeica said:

So many times I wish I could have a small kit with me

I agree completely. It's why I still have my CL kit and will keep it until it can't be fixed. I have a smaller D-L 109 which is on its last legs, and a Q2 28 and a Q3 43. The latter may go as the Q3 28 is so practical. But the CL still goes out on a regular basis. I'm finishing an article about Chicago architecture and used the CL + TL 11-23mm for most shots. Without going up to the much bulkier SL line there's nothing better.

[dsalamena]

According to rumors Sigma will lauch in June two new aps-c lenses: a 17-40 f/1.8 zoom and a 12mm prime, both also in L-mount. The 17-40 (eq. 25-60 f/2.8) is going to be a spectacular all around travel zoom lens. In my opinion it's hard to believe there will not be a new L-mount Aps-c camera in the horizon... 

Actually this zoom will also work with a possible small full frame camera (a new CL style body with full frame sensor would be a great addition to the current lineup).

[Guytou]

Yes, it will be a very interesting lens.
I already have the Sigma f2.8-105 Macro Art, which is excellent, but it consumes a lot of battery power on my CL.
Because of this high battery consumption, I don't think I'll buy another Sigma lens for my CL.

Guytou

[Le Chef]

There are plenty of good APSC cameras out there that keep selling. For lens manufacturers like Sigma it’s financially worth introducing new lenses if all you need to do is ensure that lens mounts can be changed easily at factory production level.

[KitW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It always surprises me that Sigma don't make any stabilised APSC lenses, as far as I'm aware. A nice 18-50 with stabilisation would be worthwhile.

I agree it probably isn't very expensive to change the mount, but can all the CL, T, TL owners really be making it worthwhile to keep making L mount APSC lenses?

Edited June 6 by KitW

[TL3]

I'm happily surprised Sigma is still supporting L mount APS-C.  The 16-300 is the most tempting purchase for me, as Leica does not have a super zoom option.  I know Leica have said it's discontinued, but I am hoping the market swings back around, and that a revival of the CL eventually comes.  They already have pre-existing lens designs, so I hope a revival would not be too impractical to do.

Anyone tried the 16-300 yet?  I hope it doesn't have the battery drain issue that the 10-18 was experiencing.

[Le Chef]

21 hours ago, KitW said:

can all the CL, T, TL owners really be making it worthwhile to keep making L mount APSC lenses?

The lenses are used for multiple brands. The only difference is the mount. You can be sure that in the design phase Sigma looks at flange to sensor distance for all the major products that might use that lens, and then designs accordingly.

[KitW]

1 hour ago, Le Chef said:

The lenses are used for multiple brands. The only difference is the mount.

I appreciate that optically and in terms of the lens mechanics they are the same, but there will still be some one-off costs in terms of the mechanical and software aspects of developing a lens for a different mount. You must need some level of sales to justify producing such a lens. You wouldn't do it to sell 1 lens or 10.

100?

1000?

I have no idea.

Perhaps they are being used for some of the small sensor l mount video cameras.

[brickftl]

I'm stuck - whether to keep or sell my CL.

Backstory: I began with Leica about a year and a half ago, buying a M10, absolutely fabulous camera. Started buying then selling various M lenses as my tastes and understandings matured. Then I bought a M11M which I still have - very simply it's my favorite camera ever. Then I got a M11P and made the mistake of selling the M10, mainly because shortly after the M11P bricked. Leica replaced its guts and I promptly sold it because I didn't trust it to not brick again, particularly because of all the other freezing/bricking incidents I read about other M11's.

Because I still wanted to shoot color every now and then I bought a mint used CL plus the 18TL and 23TL. I took really great pics with it but wanted to use my M lenses on color images - which I was able to do with the M-L adapter on the CL, but I didn't love the crop factor on those lenses. That said, the images from my CL are truly remarkable and look very much like the beautiful images I took with my M10.

Recently, a Leica repair tech candidly admitted to me that yes there was a huge problem with M11 freezing/bricking, but that he thinks the problem has been solved with the latest firmware updates, although he felt that to be sure I should go for a M11P as opposed to M11, and even better to get a late model M11P. So I just bought one - it's arriving Friday. And just a couple of months ago I bought a Q3 28.

Present situation: With the Q3 to shoot auto focus at a focal length that I often use for my street work, together with the M11P with which I can shoot color with my M lenses (my favorite being the Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph v3), I just don't see me ever using the CL going forward. I put it up for sale on FM, but now am having second thoughts - particularly when Jona Slack just told me I'd regret selling it as he regrets having sold his. I have a nostalgic connection with the CL and Jona says he has the same.

So I'm on the fence whether to keep it even though given my current gear I don't know when if ever I'll use it. 

Any thoughts - besides thinking I'm nuts?

Edited June 17 by brickftl

[JTLeica]

Hello Brick,

Having just bought one, I will say keep it. If you do not need to money that selling it will generate, keep it.

I have bought mine for a purpose and that is so be used as an everyday camera, on walks, hikes up mountains and touch coasts when I don’t want to take a heavier camera. 24mp is enough for 90% of that I want to do anyway, and when on a more serious photography trip I might leave it behind.

There’s a casualness to the CL that makes me really like it and the images from it are great. I’m sincerely hoping that one day Leica release an APS C SL or similar, as it would revive the system without having to do much, with a great selection if L glass across the trio of manufacturers.

But the CL and two small lenses make a really fun kit to take when photography maybe not the primary focus for the day, if that makes sense. 

Friday I’m on the Dorset coast hiking with a friend, and it’s going to be hot, and the hills are brutal. I wouldn’t dream of taking the SL and lenses or the M really. But the CL is great for that. 

[dsalamena]

Owing a few Tl lenses, I've been thinking for a long time about buying a Leica CL (again) as a daily carry camera. I'm a bit hesitant because of the still high cost for a camera that's now dated and will soon no longer be supported. But the truth is, there are very few compact cameras truly designed for photography in today's market. The Sigma FP is aesthetically pleasing, but it seems impractical to hold, lacks an EVF, and has no stabilization. Same goes for the Lumix S9 which feels cheap in hand and has no EVF. Even the Leica Q (as wonderful as it is) has no interchangeable lens, so is very limiting compared to a 10 years old CL camera. Of course the SL meets all my requirements, but it's too big and heavy to be considered as a daily camera even when used with TL lenses. 

The more I think about it, the fewer alternatives I see to the CL—even in the current market. Which makes me think the overall quality of the market is actually getting worse over time. We're flooded with useless features (incredible autofocus functions, computational tech, artistic filters, flipping screens, video specs I'll never use, etc.), while truly useful features for photographers are being removed or degrated over time. Give us a really great viewfinder, a grip to properly hold the camera and well-placed buttons/dials on a solid metal portable camera! We really don’t need that much, and perhaps that’s exactly why the market doesn’t meet our needs—it’s more profitable to sell us oversized cameras with unnecessary features, adding or removing one feature at a time to push us to buy something new.

[Aerosail]

vor 13 Stunden schrieb brickftl:

I'm stuck - whether to keep or sell my CL.

Backstory: I began with Leica about a year and a half ago, buying a M10, absolutely fabulous camera. Started buying then selling various M lenses as my tastes and understandings matured. Then I bought a M11M which I still have - very simply it's my favorite camera ever. Then I got a M11P and made the mistake of selling the M10, mainly because shortly after the M11P bricked. Leica replaced its guts and I promptly sold it because I didn't trust it to not brick again, particularly because of all the other freezing/bricking incidents I read about other M11's.

Because I still wanted to shoot color every now and then I bought a mint used CL plus the 18TL and 23TL. I took really great pics with it but wanted to use my M lenses on color images - which I was able to do with the M-L adapter on the CL, but I didn't love the crop factor on those lenses. That said, the images from my CL are truly remarkable and look very much like the beautiful images I took with my M10.

Recently, a Leica repair tech candidly admitted to me that yes there was a huge problem with M11 freezing/bricking, but that he thinks the problem has been solved with the latest firmware updates, although he felt that to be sure I should go for a M11P as opposed to M11, and even better to get a late model M11P. So I just bought one - it's arriving Friday. And just a couple of months ago I bought a Q3 28.

Present situation: With the Q3 to shoot auto focus at a focal length that I often use for my street work, together with the M11P with which I can shoot color with my M lenses (my favorite being the Summilux 50/1.4 pre-asph v3), I just don't see me ever using the CL going forward. I put it up for sale on FM, but now am having second thoughts - particularly when Jona Slack just told me I'd regret selling it as he regrets having sold his. I have a nostalgic connection with the CL and Jona says he has the same.

So I'm on the fence whether to keep it even though given my current gear I don't know when if ever I'll use it. 

Any thoughts - besides thinking I'm nuts?

When I read what you have bought and sold money does not seem to be the issue.

My strong advice is to keep it because this camera at first is a true beauty and also has no modern successor. As beforementioned other cameras mostly lack important features like EVF and mechanical shutter (Sigma FP/FP L or Panasonic S9). You could look into the Fuji area with the Fuji X-E5 but that has another mount.

I do feel tempted to buy an Sigma BF as a complement to my CL but I think it is just because it looks so nice, not that it gives me additional benefit other than being full frame. And the TL lenses with 24MP full frame do not deliver enough resolution.

I do own the 23/f2, 35/1.4, 18-56/f3.5-5.6 and the 55-135/f3.5-4.5 and I do see myself rather adding an Leica SL2 at some point because that one with the APSC lenses still has enough megapixels with the benefit of IBIS and usable video features. I just wonder if I would go for a 11-23 TL or buy full frame L-lenses instead if I aim for a SL2 in the future.

Instead of ditching your CL you should get the 35/f1.4. You will be surprised of the IQ, it is undeniably the best TL lens out there. Don't get the 18-56, this only works ok in bright sunlight

[jaapv]

The last sentence is simply incorrect. If someone has issues using a slower lens in less than ideal light the problem lies in balancing exposure for the lower light conditions, not the lens. 

[brickftl]

yes the quality of the CL is excellent, and it takes such great images. I just have to decide when would I ever reach for it instead of either the Q3 or M11P. 

Decisions decisions

[TL3]

I love the CL, but the main advantage of that for me over a Q is the ability to change focal lengths.  If you only shoot in a range that the Q3 can handle, then I don’t see the point in also keeping a CL.  I usually carry 4 lenses with me on trips with the CL so I feel prepared to handle any photographic situation; that is the reason why the Q never appealed to me.

The Q3 not only has superior tech hardware, and a 28 1.7 lens which opens wider than your CL lenses, so I can’t think of any reason other than nostalgia and GAS (which i think are valid reasons too) for you to keep the CL.

[Aerosail]

vor 21 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

The last sentence is simply incorrect. If someone has issues using a slower lens in less than ideal light the problem lies in balancing exposure for the lower light conditions, not the lens. 

Do you own the 18-56mm or have ever used it?

I don't know how you do it (simply) but I do prefer setting minimum shutter speed. The 18-56 with 1/(3f) or 1/(4f) is pretty unusable indoors because that will always end up in ISO6400 which is my maximum setting. 1/(2f) is the maximum you can choose and then you need to pray your child is not moving to quickly. the near end with 18mm can work, but moving towards 56mm is not reasonably doable. That turns the lens into a prime instead of a zoom.

The 18-56 sells used for 400-500€ which is far less then any other TL lens. Seems like I'm not the only one disliking that lens.

The go to options for short focal length zooms are 11-23/3.5-4.5 or the just released Sigma 17-40/1.8

[jaapv]

Of course I own it. Ever since the camera came to the market. It is arguably at the top end of kit zooms.   I have no stability problems and can easily shoot static subjects in lowish light at reasonably low speeds and acceptable ISO. Personally I only use shutter priority for long lenses say over 300 equ.  For fast moving subjects in low light Leica has conveniently provided a hot shoe. I don’t judge lenses by either my ( lack of) technique or by inappropriate use but by the image quality. 
BTW using LR Enhance or Topaz Photo AI or DXO PureRaw will make the CL quite capable and virtually noiseless at  ISO 6400 or even higher. 

I now only keep my CL set as compact backup, since service will end in a few years. Reason for the low prices, I suppose. 
 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Guytou]

I totally agree with Jaapv.
I also have this 18-56 as well as the 18 and, more recently, a Sigma 2.8-105 Macro Art. The quality of this 18-56 zoom is truly excellent, and its slightly lower aperture isn't a problem for me.
I would have been very happy to have had such a zoom 40 years ago...

Guytou