So, a certain person who shall remain un-named has gotten a bug into my head regarding Leica.
Without going into a lot of detail / ethos about where I'm at on things, I'll just say that while I might look at something like an M8 or SL ... a cadre of M or SL lenses is NOT in my budget anytime soon.
So, that brings me into the land of TL lenses for the CL, or Voigts for the SL / M8.
I can find favor with either FF or APS-C for different reasons. My question is mostly regarding image quality of Leica TL's vs. Voigts. I mean, for FF, the pricing of Voigts compared to Leica M's is obviously vastly different. If I go with an SL or M8, then I'll likely be leaning heavily on the Voigts if I"m going to retain RF coupling (or manual focus peaking).
If I go CL, then I can go a mix of TL and Voigts while making transitions from DSLR.
Some of the CL lenses are pretty much a smaller version of the SL glass. The 35mm 1.4 and 60mm macro are fabulous. The 60 focus is a tad slower than some of the others but it’s optically outragoeus. The wide zoom 11-23mm is the equal of the SL 16-35. It’s really really good. The 56-135 is optically stunning but with a slower aperture. The standard zoom is very good but the aperture range is uninspiring. It reminds me of the Fuji “kit” zoom but slower. Tue 23 is a hair below the 35 but very small. The 18mm pancake is very good but not excellent.
In general the CL lenses are fabulous MODERN af lenses. Just like the SL.
The stunning Sigma APSC primes are coming to L mount. They’re all fantastic. I’m super keen on the 56mm 1.4 which I know of in E mount.
The CL is a great camera with an excellent sensor. The only downside is that there is NO imagestabilisation in body or the lenses.
As to how they compare ot depends on which Voightlanders you’re considering. In general the Leicas are more perfect but the CVs have more carachter.
Voigtländer seems to have upped their game and has a lot of high quality lenses in their current assortment. And many of their M lenses is behaving really well on FF mirrorless cameras, see this current thread where Fred is testing Voigtländer lenses on a Sony and a Leica M camera.
To me it looks like one could build quite a solid kit using only Voigtländer lenses and a SL.
flash wrote:
Some of the CL lenses are pretty much a smaller version of the SL glass. The 35mm 1.4 and 60mm macro are fabulous. The 60 focus is a tad slower than some of the others but it’s optically outragoeus. The wide zoom 11-23mm is the equal of the SL 16-35. It’s really really good. The 56-135 is optically stunning but with a slower aperture. The standard zoom is very good but the aperture range is uninspiring. It reminds me of the Fuji “kit” zoom but slower. Tue 23 is a hair below the 35 but very small. The 18mm pancake is very good but not excellent.
In general the CL lenses are fabulous MODERN af lenses. Just like the SL.
The stunning Sigma APSC primes are coming to L mount. They’re all fantastic. I’m super keen on the 56mm 1.4 which I know of in E mount.
The CL is a great camera with an excellent sensor. The only downside is that there is NO imagestabilisation in body or the lenses.
As to how they compare ot depends on which Voightlanders you’re considering. In general the Leicas are more perfect but the CVs have more carachter.
joakim wrote:
Have you tried any of the CL lenses on a SL/SL2? The 56-135 as a lightweight tele zoom looks like an interesting option for the SL2 for instance.
Yes but mostly just as an exercise. The SL2 gives me a 19MP file with CL lenses. May as well use the CL or TL2 I have.
Before the CL and SL2 existed I did use the 11-23 on an SL as the SL 16-35 hadn’t been made. i got an incredibly good 10MP file at weddings but once the CL turned up and I could have an EVF and a flash at the same time I didn’t bother. Now the SL2 has high res shot it might be interesting if it works with CL lenses. Also I’d get IBIS in normal use.
joakim wrote:
Voigtländer seems to have upped their game and has a lot of high quality lenses in their current assortment. And many of their M lenses is behaving really well on FF mirrorless cameras, see this current thread where Fred is testing Voigtländer lenses on a Sony and a Leica M camera.
To me it looks like one could build quite a solid kit using only Voigtländer lenses and a SL.
I totally agree. I love the current CV lenses. I sold my Noctilux in favour of a CV50mm 1.2. I think there are several brilliant CV lenses. They don’t look like the SL or CL lenses which are aberation free, zero vignetting, super high resolution wide open lenses. CV lenses still manage to have character while being optically excellent. If I take the CV 50m, 1.2 as an example it seems to draw a bit like an M summilux but without the CA and with a more even focus plane.
I have no experience with cropped-sensor based lenses for Leica cameras, but I see the value of Leica M lenses barely ever depreciating - maybe a bit after a short introduction period, but then climbing up again also on the used market.
CV M-mount lenses tend to stay steady in regard to pricing - you won't gain anything here when selling, but you will nearly get your money back. The CV-based M-mount lenses which I own are all great with a very good price/quality ratio.
Not sure if cropped sensor based Leica lenses have the same fate and don't depreciate - I don't follow this market. But my experience in the past with other branded APS-C based lenses was never a good one regarding used market value after a while.
The TL lenses mostly range from good to excellent with the Summilux-TL 35mm being the star and pretty brilliant. The 60mm macro and the 55-135mm are both excellent. The pancake 18mm does not get a lot of love but is IMHO slightly underappreciated, it is very compact and I like it. The standard 18-56mm zoom and the 23mm are good but not excellent. None of the 3 zooms have image stabilization and they are rather slow. I tend to use the primes more than the zooms but the 3 zooms obviously form a very capable travel kit.
I only tend to use M-lenses on my M9 (and very occasionally on the SL). In real life I seem to be vastly outnumbered though by CL-shooters who exclusively use M or R glass. As far as Voigtlander lenses goes I can only speak for the UWA 10mm and 15mm and they are good lenses IMO. I have been thinking about getting a few more as Voigtlander indeed seems to have stepped up its game.
I have to agree with the assessments of the lenses already provided here. The TL 55-135 and 11-23 are both fantastic. I also have the 18-56, but have not used it enough to comment. The 55-135 and 11-23 have wonderful and modern images quality and rendering. I also have the 23mm and find it to be outstanding too - very sharp and modern feel to the images. The only downside that I can think of on the TL zooms is that they are on the slow side, but obviously that helps to keep them small and light.
The Voigtlander lenses are also pretty special. One of the things that I really like is the ability to choose a Voigtlander lens based on the type of rendering that you want, which you can research to find your preferences for your needs and style of shooting.
I have a CL which I absolutely love. It is an incredible travel camera and being able to use the TL and the M lenses is really nice. I also recently bought an M10, based on the recommendation of another FMer, so that I could also have a FF camera. I love it as well and am finding the Voigtlander M lenses a joy to use on that camera. I don't yet own any Leica M lenses.
I have the TL 23/f2 and 35/f1.4. Both are excellent, especially the 35. I also have the CV Nokton-M 50/f1.2. It is so wonderful that I sold my Summilux-M 50 ASPH without hesitation or regret. The CV Nokton-M 75/f1.5 is every bit as good. The latter two lenses have become my portrait specials. I would put them up against the best comparable lenses from Leica.
I have not used any of these lenses on my SL, which I just sold. To be honest, I cannot appreciate any image quality difference between the SL and the CL other than DOF, but with fast lenses, that is not really an issue.
retrofocus wrote:
I have no experience with cropped-sensor based lenses for Leica cameras, but I see the value of Leica M lenses barely ever depreciating - maybe a bit after a short introduction period, but then climbing up again also on the used market. while.
Only if you buy M glass used, where the hit has already happened and the price has stabilized.
An extreme example is the most famous/notorious lens in the Leica line - the 50 .95 Noctilux.
It is $12,500 new, yet in the classifieds on this site there are a few for sale under $7000.
Desmolicious wrote:
Only if you buy M glass used, where the hit has already happened and the price has stabilized.
An extreme example is the most famous/notorious lens in the Leica line - the 50 .95 Noctilux.
It is $12,500 new, yet in the classifieds on this site there are a few for sale under $7000.
Well....yes. I referred to more "normal" range glass (if there is anything "normal" with Leica price-wise in the first place), for example Summicron and Elmarit lenses. I only buy Leica used and never the latest version of anything glass-related - this fits what you categorize as stabilized.
Already mentioned above but the 3 f1.4 Sigma lenses (16mm, 30mm and 56mm) announced a few days ago should be taken in consideration as well.
These are the lenses that were already available for Sony, Canon EF-M and m43. The 3 of them together will cost you less than one of the Leica TL-lenses...
robgo2 wrote:
To be honest, I cannot appreciate any image quality difference between the SL and the CL other than DOF, but with fast lenses, that is not really an issue.
I mostly agree especially when using the Summilux-TL 35mm on the CL.
In addition to the DOF though I would add that the Summicron-TL 23mm cannot compete with the Summicron-SL 35mm and that none of the TL-zooms have stabilization...
If the CL2 contained IBIS and came accompanied with a Summilux-TL 23mm (on par with the Summilux-TL 35mm), then yes, I would sell the SL in a heartbeat...
The big question though, will there ever be any more Leica APS-C TL-lenses? How committed is Leica to APS-C?
I just got a CL because I wanted to use Leica lenses in a small compact body; ie., the CL is just a small digital means to use Leica glass for me.
I currently own the 23mmTL (23) and 35mmTL (35); not sure why the 23 doesn't get more love as it's a small compact lens and goes in situations where the 35 with hood is OBTRUSIVE, to say the least. The 23 is, IMHO, the better 'kit' lens for the CL (just a little larger than the 18mmTL) and the pics are very sharp and still has the 'Leica look.' I'm beginning to think people are biased because the 23 is made in Japan and not Germany.
Also, don't understand the big deal with IS. I may be a little out of touch as I've been away from photography over 7 years but IS used to allow companies to make slower (cheaper) lens and added IS to make up the difference. Sort of like small 4-cylinder turbo-charged engines vs. a regular six-cylinder.
The great thing about the CL is that with the M-L adapter, I can use my cheap (relative) 90mm M-Summarit f2.5 lens and a host of potential M lenses...whoah..
Abuttolph wrote:
The TL 55-135 and 11-23 are both fantastic.
This is what I'm thinking about for "bookends" on the CL. Granted, those are dedicated TL lenses and won't be as attractive for FF (resolution loss @ crop) ... so, if a FF is in the cards (down the road), that would likely be where the Voigts could come into play. Also, character lenses on the CL (some variance due to the crop).
So, here's where I'm at right now for the wide end ... Canon 6D2 + 16-35/4L IS.
Thinking that the CL + 11-23 is essentially the same (FL & aperture), just not the IS.
My thought is for IQ, the CL is a gain (loss of AA filter), and the Leica glass is a gain optically (hoping, at least).
Toss on a Voigt 21/1.4 or 40/1.2 and I'm bridging the FL's between the bookends, gaining some low light and character ... and have some M's for FF (down the road). More than one way to skin the cat, but that's one thought bouncin' around a bit. Conventional might be to go with a Leica 35, between the bookends.
That said, I don't think the 18-56 TL is on my radar. Zooms on the ends, primes in the middle is probably the game plan.
So, your high regard for the bookend zooms is encouraging.
SlowDriver wrote:
The big question though, will there ever be any more Leica APS-C TL-lenses? How committed is Leica to APS-C?
I'm assuming that Leica isn't going to develop this very much more than already exists. I say that in part because the alliance has Sigma & Panny developing lenses for the APS-C L mount along with them.
Point being, they've got the convenience of autofocus / zoom covered, and there are third part options. If the user wants something more ... from Leica ... SL lenses are available (larger) and M lenses (small) can be adapted. I don't see them building a deep catalog of TL glass ... at least not quickly.
I think Leica will continue to support the APS-C just fine ... even if it doesn't rapidly advance its APS-C lens catalog.
Personally, I don’t feel the need for larger faster zooms in the TL line but I think Leica have been a few lenses short. A long zoom and a fast portrait lens were my main wishes. It looks like Sigma have just announced both. The 56 1.4 and 100-400 look good. The 100-400 is a bit big but looks manageable.
What I wanted was the Panny 100-400 for m43 sized up to TL mount.
Now if they can just add IBIS in rhe next CL body we’ll have a winner..
Gordon
p.s. I think you’ve made a great choice with the book end zooms. They’re both like slow aperture pro lenses. With both of them I was stopped in my tracks the first time I looked at the files. I often carry them plus the 35mm 1.4 as a small kit.
flash wrote:
Now if they can just add IBIS in rhe next CL body we’ll have a winner..
Gordon
p.s. I think you’ve made a great choice with the book end zooms. They’re both like slow aperture pro lenses. With both of them I was stopped in my tracks the first time I looked at the files. I often carry them plus the 35mm 1.4 as a small kit.
+1 @ the CL2 with IBIS ...
+1 @ small kit
I see in another thread, folks using Canon lenses on the Panny S1R (assuming via the Sigma adapter). Wondering, if I could "get started" with just a CL body and a Sigma adapter for the CL, retaining some of my EF glass (say the TS-E 24L or Sigma 70 Macro Art) ... while working my way toward the Leica lineup over time.
But, I thought I read somewhere that the Sigma adapter + EF glass didn't play nice with Leica ... not sure how true that is / isn't.
Sigma adapter does not work with CL. CL shows the camera needs firmware update. Sigma US said that is on Leica. Even with SL2, af with Canon lenses with Sigma adapter is not very good, only contrast af and no phase detection. I ended up frustrated and focused manually with my limited trial... Sigma FP was a little better with the adapter+Canon lenses, but nothing close to Sony phase detection af. With native Sigma 45mm, SL2 is faster than FP. When I tried 60mm TL macro, I had to use af limiter with CL, but SL2 focused faster without need to select focus limiter. CL needs update with faster processor and IBIS esp none of CL lenses have stabilizer.
RustyBug wrote:
I see in another thread, folks using Canon lenses on the Panny S1R (assuming via the Sigma adapter). Wondering, if I could "get started" with just a CL body and a Sigma adapter for the CL, retaining some of my EF glass (say the TS-E 24L or Sigma 70 Macro Art) ... while working my way toward the Leica lineup over time.
But, I thought I read somewhere that the Sigma adapter + EF glass didn't play nice with Leica ... not sure how true that is / isn't.
