It was similar with A7R as Canon 100mm f2 was not af'ing but the camera let me change the lens aperture and I used as manual lens. CL doesn't allow this with black firmware screen. I got the CL for m lenses, but then I didn't use it much since I use FP with the M lenses:
Native Macro TL 60mm apo is great lens, sharp wide open. I am sure Sigma apsc lenses will be great with CL also. I used 56mm on A&R III even on FF with vignetting for close portraits, but FP/SL2 doesn't let you change apsc to FF in the camera options with the TL lenses. We'll see if they let Sigma apsc lenses to be used with FF option, most probably not. Leica even reduces the aperture for close-up shots with TL 23mm + 60mm...
RustyBug wrote:
Gotcha @ no-go on hte adapter for Canon on CL
I wouldn't care so much about the autofocus, since one can still manual focus. BUT, for aperture control, it would have to be done from the camera.
Unless you want to deal with purchasing UV/IR filters for your lenses, I wouldn't go the M8 route. M9 or up will solve that problem, but you need to be pretty dedicated to jump right in with a rangefinder.
If it were me, I'd start with the CL and Summicron 23 and see how it goes. It's an excellent camera and a charming little lens that gets serious stopped down to f/4.
freaklikeme wrote:
Unless you want to deal with purchasing UV/IR filters for your lenses, I wouldn't go the M8 route. M9 or up will solve that problem, but you need to be pretty dedicated to jump right in with a rangefinder.
If it were me, I'd start with the CL and Summicron 23 and see how it goes. It's an excellent camera and a charming little lens that gets serious stopped down to f/4.
Gotcha @ M8 vs. M9+
Likely not going direct into M9 ($$$), but thinking longer term potential.
I thought I had the CL & 11-23 + 55-135, and macro in the middle (plus a voigt or two) for a potential kit ... till I sticker shocked a bit on the 60 Macro. I can mentally stretch myself a bit, but that 60 seems like quite a lot more for a single focal length to be a 50% premium over the bookends (i.e. in the APS-C TL only realm).
Likely not going direct into M9 ($$$), but thinking longer term potential.
I thought I had the CL & 11-23 + 55-135, and macro in the middle (plus a voigt or two) for a potential kit ... till I sticker shocked a bit on the 60 Macro. I can mentally stretch myself a bit, but that 60 seems like quite a lot more for a single focal length to be a 50% premium over the bookends (i.e. in the APS-C TL only realm).
I'd probably put the 35 between the two zooms....
The 35 and 60 are expensive. But they justify their price easily. They're both stunning. Like mini SL primes. And if you look at how they compare to SL and M primes in IQ and price, they're a bargain. Honestly, if you shoot with either you'll forget about the money very quickly.
And the M9 had less red flag but it wasn't eliminated. I also kept the IR filters on my lenses for the M9. Skin tones could be wonky, especially with additional lighting without the UV IR filters. The M240 was the camera to really negate the need for filters and flatfield plugins.
Likely not going direct into M9 ($$$), but thinking longer term potential.
I thought I had the CL & 11-23 + 55-135, and macro in the middle (plus a voigt or two) for a potential kit ... till I sticker shocked a bit on the 60 Macro. I can mentally stretch myself a bit, but that 60 seems like quite a lot more for a single focal length to be a 50% premium over the bookends (i.e. in the APS-C TL only realm).
I think Leica has to offer what you want with few to no compromises before the value comparisons just melt away. Otherwise, I agree with flash. The 35 and 60 are great lenses, but are either of them necessary for what you want to do with the camera?
If you could live with manual focus for the 60mm macro focal length, you could purchase one of the Leica R 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit lenses. The lens optical design never changed and even today it is still a fine performing lens though some of the more modern designs are better. The lens is still quite sharp and as a Leica lens, it is a relative bargain. I use the lens at times with my Sony A7r series cameras.
naturephoto1 wrote:
If you could live with manual focus for the 60mm macro focal length, you could purchase one of the Leica R 60mm f2.8 Macro Elmarit lenses. The lens optical design never changed and even today it is still a fine performing lens though some of the more modern designs are better. The lens is still quite sharp and as a Leica lens, it is a relative bargain. I use the lens at times with my Sony A7r series cameras.
Rich
+1 for the R Elmarit ... already on my radar as a "poor man's" option. Made aware of it years back when I was building (never getting it though) my alts for the EF mount (I've got the R 90/2.8 Elmarit)
I've also got a Sigma 70 Macro Art (which Siggy can convert to L), so I can probably forego the sticker shock at least for getting started if I embark on the conversion. I've also got my M645 80/4 which I can adapt, too, so it's not like I'd be stuck without a macro, just wouldn't be the TL (to start).
The Voigt 65/2 macro has my attention a bit, but it's an FE only right now. So, there are some options ... alternative ones, included.
flash wrote:
I'd probably put the 35 between the two zooms....
That would be seem to be pragmatic.
Would be in the 52 mm effective crop range. I'm more of a 21-28 or 40mm guy, than a 50mm guy, so that pushes me south of the 35 a bit ... although, I've seen some nice rendering from the 35.
freaklikeme wrote:
I think Leica has to offer what you want with few to no compromises before the value comparisons just melt away. Otherwise, I agree with flash. The 35 and 60 are great lenses, but are either of them necessary for what you want to do with the camera?
Good point.
So here's part of the objective (or so I kinda / sort think.
For many years I shot with a kt that looked like this:
Nikon FE
Sigma 28/2.8 Macro
Nikon 50/(1.8 or 2) ... rarely shot, so I don't recall
Nikon 75-150/3.5 E
Tamron 300/5.6
Vivitar 2X TC
Obviously, that is dating myself both in time / era and budget. But, I found it to be "my kit" that served my versatility needs. Granted, we are now talking about things that are a long way from there, but the ethos of the kit is the salient point. I could go wide, long or close with relatively few decisions to be made as fit for purpose. I lived on mostly the 28 or 75-150 as the mainstay of my two lenses. So, the prospect of the 11-23 and the 55-135 seems to be replicate that reasonably well (with a bit more range).
Since going to digital (and alts) ... I seem to have cluttered my "too many options" a bit over the years, so I'm thinking about retooling some ... trading out options for quality (so the theory goes).
I'm vested in the EF's and Alt's, and have been fine with such. But now that I'm up on two wheels again (like I was back in the Nikon kit era), the longing for the ethos of my roots is calling a bit ... if that makes any sense.
RustyBug wrote:
So, the prospect of the 11-23 and the 55-135 seems to be replicate that reasonably well (with a bit more range).
Like you, I shot for years with something equivalent with what you had but Canon FD based.
So I get what you mean but on the other hand, a Leica CL with just 1 prime, 18, 23 or 35 can be sometimes liberating. Of course, I would get the zooms for versatility but sometimes, I would have just the camera and one lens in the pocket.
I've noticed that the less gear I have with me, the better the pictures. Which is funny because I have a lot of gear And right now, I'm trying to convince myself not to buy a CL because I already have a M10 and a full micro 4/3 system.
pmeheut wrote:
Like you, I shot for years with something equivalent with what you had but Canon FD based.
So I get what you mean but on the other hand, a Leica CL with just 1 prime, 18, 23 or 35 can be sometimes liberating. Of course, I would get the zooms for versatility but sometimes, I would have just the camera and one lens in the pocket.
I've noticed that the less gear I have with me, the better the pictures. Which is funny because I have a lot of gear And right now, I'm trying to convince myself not to buy a CL because I already have a M10 and a full micro 4/3 system....Show more →
+1 at single prime
Shooting with the single lens isn't the issue ... it's deciding which one to take.
So, mine looks like this (iirc) atm:
Canon 16-35/4 IS
Canon TS-E 24/3.5 L
Oly 18/3.5
Oly 21/3.5
Oly 24/2.8
Oly 28/3.5
Nikon AIS 20/2.8
Nikon AIS 28/2.8
C/Y Distagon 28/2.8
Pentax K 28/2.8 (newly acquired as native for K-1)
Other than the TS-E for its movements, it seems like the 11-23 might fill cover things since I'm not shooting with anything "fast" in the WA side of things anyway. Of course, the lack of IS is also a trade-off from the Canon zoom, so that would likely mean a bump in ISO for more ss speed, or a tripod for the slower stuff. It could also mean a different (i.e. read @ "better") handling ergonomic, too.
I could see adding in a Voigt prime if I need something faster or different.
There's the Sigmas.... The 16mm 1.4 is in your preferred range, as is the 56 if you don't need the macro focusing. Both are fabulous lenses that punch far far above their price point. You could have all three for less than a Leica zoom. I'm adding a 56 to my kit. I've seen what it can do on E mount and I know it'll fit right in.
RustyBug wrote:
That would be seem to be pragmatic.
Would be in the 52 mm effective crop range. I'm more of a 21-28 or 40mm guy, than a 50mm guy, so that pushes me south of the 35 a bit ... although, I've seen some nice rendering from the 35.
Consider the 7Artisans M-mount 28/1.4. Great price, strong performer, and it can follow you to an RF if that ends up being your final destination.
So here's part of the objective (or so I kinda / sort think.
For many years I shot with a kt that looked like this:
Nikon FE
Sigma 28/2.8 Macro
Nikon 50/(1.8 or 2) ... rarely shot, so I don't recall
Nikon 75-150/3.5 E
Tamron 300/5.6
Vivitar 2X TC
Obviously, that is dating myself both in time / era and budget. But, I found it to be "my kit" that served my versatility needs. Granted, we are now talking about things that are a long way from there, but the ethos of the kit is the salient point. I could go wide, long or close with relatively few decisions to be made as fit for purpose. I lived on mostly the 28 or 75-150 as the mainstay of my two lenses. So, the prospect of the 11-23 and the 55-135 seems to be replicate that reasonably well (with a bit more range).
Since going to digital (and alts) ... I seem to have cluttered my "too many options" a bit over the years, so I'm thinking about retooling some ... trading out options for quality (so the theory goes).
I'm vested in the EF's and Alt's, and have been fine with such. But now that I'm up on two wheels again (like I was back in the Nikon kit era), the longing for the ethos of my roots is calling a bit ... if that makes any sense.
It makes sense to me. I've often wondered if getting a stock rIII, Tamron 17-28/2.8, a CV 35/1.2, CV 65/2, Tamron 70-180/2.8, and Sony 100-400 might be the best path forward for me.
flash wrote:
There's the Sigmas.... The 16mm 1.4 is in your preferred range, as is the 56 if you don't need the macro focusing. Both are fabulous lenses that punch far far above their price point. You could have all three for less than a Leica zoom. I'm adding a 56 to my kit. I've seen what it can do on E mount and I know it'll fit right in.
Gordon
I don't need macro, per se ... I just like to be able to have a shorter mfd that affords some perspective emphasis. Typically, I'm good with most things around .25x - .33x or so ... not really needing .5x - 1.0x macro. Case in point, I've got the Tamron 45 / 1.8 which has a closer mfd, that I like.
Lenses that are in the .12X or .15X range have their place as well (optics being a series of compromises, such as they are), so I'm good there too ... just that I would want at least one lens that puts me in the .3x or so range, and the macro is the obvious starting point when you begin thinking close focus, albeit not a requirement for 1:1.
+1 for the Siggy's ... but, they aren't calling to me as the reason for looking at Leica. I can pretty much get the Siggy's to mount on other platforms, too, but it is good to know they can fill in where Leica might not be (or I can't afford to be with Leica). Only in the thinkin' / feasibility phase right now ... but, ya gotta start somewhere.
SlowDriver wrote:
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 had, until very recently, an SL on which my favorite lens was the Summicron-M 35/f2 ASPH. I know what a great lens it is. In my own experience with the CL, the Summicron-TL 23/f2 is strong competition for the M-35. I have no experience with the SL-35, though I can believe that it is amazing.
I am reasonably confident that Leica will continue producing cameras and lenses for the APS-C format. It's suprising what a small fraction of "real" camera sales are full-frame.
Honestly, if you shoot with either you'll forget about the money very quickly.
And right now, I'm trying to convince myself not to buy a CL because I already have a M10 and a full micro 4/3 system.