Official Talk Leica thread

StevenS said:
I bumped into Jimmy Hughes from Leica a couple of weeks ago taking that out for a test drive. He was coming up the escalator on the tube the other way and for a Leica the lens looks too big. I spoke to him later and he was impressed and they are proving very popular.

I had this in mind.
https://www.parkcameras.com/p/L0125...irrorless-camera-prime-kit-18mm-f28-asph-lens
Click to expand...

Ok, so someone from Leica is impressed with the variable aperture kit lens.

My point was that Sony has the 16-50 3.5-5.6 kit lens for their APS-C cameras. That costs around £100 and is a general walkabout range but can’t really offer a lot from a dof point of view due to only being F3.5 at 16mm. Once you zoom, the aperture narrows quite quickly to f5.6. I haven’t seen the full specs of the Leica equivalent but I’d be surprised if it offers much different.

Maybe the Leica ‘magic’ is reserved for their unique offerings. The CL appears to be an attempt to catch some market share in the APS-C market from those buying the badge. That’s obviously a good idea from a business perspective but at least be honest about what it is seeing as this is an equipment section on a photographic forum.
 
Last edited:
StevenS said:
Leica M9 body prices have remained around £2k for the last 3 years. I loved the images, but the ISO is poor and the screen a joke. The cost, however, will be glass. Good starters would be the Zeiss 35/2 ZM and Voightlander 75/f1.8.
Click to expand...


Thanks, I've been looking for quite a while at them, one day I'll make a decision one way or another at some point to sell up the rest of my kit and go 'all in' with a pretty old camera :D I still have a 5cm Summicron f/2 someone 'gifted' me, other than that I was looking at the Zeiss 50mm f/2 as a starting point... I've heard good things about the Artisan7 50mm as a budget lines too.
 
wibbly said:
Thanks, I've been looking for quite a while at them, one day I'll make a decision one way or another at some point to sell up the rest of my kit and go 'all in' with a pretty old camera :D I still have a 5cm Summicron f/2 someone 'gifted' me, other than that I was looking at the Zeiss 50mm f/2 as a starting point... I've heard good things about the Artisan7 50mm as a budget lines too.
Click to expand...

Both Zeiss 35 and 50 f2 are superb. I had a 50 and my son now has one. They pop up second hand but with little saving on new.

A 24 or 28 would go with the 50. I would go for a second hand Elmarit 28/f2.8 or, again, the Zeiss 28/f2.8. You will not lose money on a used Elmarit, it's very desirable, a lot to do with it being very small indeed.
The 2016 version is optically unchanged from the previous version, there is one here for £900.https://theclassiccamera.com/epages/BT0261.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/BT0261/Products/10221

The glass on the 5cm/f2 is very soft and they are rarely in good condition. If it is good, I'd sell it and get modern glass.
 
StevenS said:
Both Zeiss 35 and 50 f2 are superb. I had a 50 and my son now has one. They pop up second hand but with little saving on new.

A 24 or 28 would go with the 50. I would go for a second hand Elmarit 28/f2.8 or, again, the Zeiss 28/f2.8. You will not lose money on a used Elmarit, it's very desirable, a lot to do with it being very small indeed.
The 2016 version is optically unchanged from the previous version, there is one here for £900.https://theclassiccamera.com/epages/BT0261.sf/en_GB/?ObjectPath=/Shops/BT0261/Products/10221

The glass on the 5cm/f2 is very soft and they are rarely in good condition. If it is good, I'd sell it and get modern glass.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the advice, grateful for that. One day I’ll get my hands on an M9 to give it a go and see how I get on with one. (y)
 
StevenS said:
Leica and Panasonic have had a very successful partnership years, to their mutual benefit. Most camera companies buy sensors from other manufacturers, some buying stock sensors and others having sensors made to a specific specification.

The big deal in recent years has been the design and implementation of the the Maestro II software that powers the Leica Q, SL, M10 and now CL bodies. I think that all of those bodies are made in Germany and most of the lenses. I think the SL zoom lenses may be made by Panasonic, as Leica have not made their own zoom lenses for about 30 years.

What is good about the Leica CL is that it can be operated like a standard Leica rangefinder, it has an off centre viewfinder, is small and practical and can be used with just about any Leica lens made over the last 60 years, including the new SL lenses. The 18mm is the first "kit" lens they have made for ages and is apparently superb. Leica optics are invariably are superb, that's really what Leica is all about, not bodies. So lots of Leica CL users will be using M or TL lenses.

The Leica CL is price comparable with a number of other cameras by other brands, but it is not a straight comparison because buyers will be using very high quality optics that they already own. That is very much what the M-series is about, for many people the lenses are a lifetime investment and the depreciation even on M-series digital cameras is relatively low, less than for example on a Sony A series.

In recent years Leica I have been making great cameras because of their partnerships with other companies, not despite them. There's nothing topping anyone buying Fuji or whatever. My son does M photography using a Voightlander body and Voightlander and Zeiss lenses. I also have some Voightlander and Zeiss lenses.
Click to expand...

Like most companies (so this isn’t a dig at Leica, just a fact) Leica don’t really manufacture, they assemble from supplier components.

Let me stress, this is not a dig at Leica it’s how the modern world works. Apple don’t make ipads, their suppliers in China do etc etc

Leica has a very large factory in Portugal, but has also used manufacturing from Canda and in the case of the X cameras (eg Vario) Korea

The way trading standards works is that the highest cost in the supply chain denotes the “made in” tag.

So for fictitious example, if you buy watch movements and watch cases from China for €50 then pay a Swiss watch maker €100 to assemble them you’re allowed to call your watch ‘Swiss Made’

Where it’s true that you can buy an adapter and use your M glass with any Sony/fuji/m43 etc credit where credit’s due - the CL sensor has micro lenses that play nicer with M glass, so there may be mileage in chosing this body over an A6500 if that’s what you want to do with it.

A great lens is a little harder to call.... it depends on the measring yardstick... for example the Q takes great pictures, but relies on software to resolve barrel distortion.

I’d be greatly surprised if the 18mm f2.8 for the CL didn’t also use sw correction (it might look like 28mm when paired with APSC but 18 is 18) if you’ve ever seen the 16mm from fuji? That’s virtually distortion free, but that’s why it’s so huge, same with their 23/1.4

Does sw make a great lens? Well in the pictures yes and after all who doesn’t use the lens profiles is LR or DxO etc. But coding design and lens design are not the same thing.... if it turns out your fav singer uses autotune do you still like the song? Of course you do! But equally they’re not quite the singer you thought they were

I think with M glass your getting a strong product, is all manual and all repairable. It holds its value because (much like a Rolex) the design doesn’t really change but the proces keep going up.

The digital bodies are not so clear cut... there’s a persistent factoid that you never lose money on an M. It’s not true. M240s can be had for £2500 from dealers. They still cost about 4k brand new

As a percentage the Ms hold better value, but as a mathematic they don’t

For example if person A bought a Fuji X-Pro1 in 2012 they spent about £1200 and person B bought a M240 for about £5000

Today they both sell them.

The fuji recoups about £200 / the M say £2500

So the fuji has depreciated more, but the M has lost more physical cash. (£1000 vs £2500 its a lot :))

But all this said.

The M glass is very, very good. The M glass works best on M bodies.

If you want to shoot M glass you can make a case for buying an M body.

Just do it with your eyes open

Or better yet, buy that 2k m9 or 2.5k m240 and let someone else take the depreciation hit :D (and this rings true with all cameras... I’ve zero interest personally, but I bet now is a great time to buy a mint A7Rii for example)
 
I agree with just about all of that. M digital bodies do depreciate after a while and then stabilise. The first one - M8 - is still popular. I also appreciate that some Leica are made elsewhere, I have lenses from 1984 and 1991 made in Canada. Ultimately, it's difficult to pick out a bad Leica lens. They have maintained a level of quality over almost 100 years. So they are good investments as new as you will get a lifetime's pleasure and the stability of second hand prices makes them a safe bet. Most people buy some second hand as there is so much of it about.

I bought a 12-month old A7R. It was £1,600 new, I paid £700. That's terrible depreciation. We have some Fuji here, great cameras but the depreciation is just awful.

Whereas with some brands you have to think about depreciation over a replacement cycle of say 2 to 4 years, probably also lenses over a slightly longer cycle, classic Leica just isn't like that. You have to stump up a lot of money up front, but with little or any loss ad possibly even some gain.

I expect non-M digital bodies go down quite heavily, but I paid £2,900 for my Leica Q in June 2015 and I could probably sell it now for £2,300. I'm not selling as it's just brilliant.
 
Adzman808 said:
Like most companies (so this isn’t a dig at Leica, just a fact) Leica don’t really manufacture, they assemble from supplier components.

Let me stress, this is not a dig at Leica it’s how the modern world works. Apple don’t make ipads, their suppliers in China do etc etc

Leica has a very large factory in Portugal, but has also used manufacturing from Canda and in the case of the X cameras (eg Vario) Korea

The way trading standards works is that the highest cost in the supply chain denotes the “made in” tag.

So for fictitious example, if you buy watch movements and watch cases from China for €50 then pay a Swiss watch maker €100 to assemble them you’re allowed to call your watch ‘Swiss Made’

Where it’s true that you can buy an adapter and use your M glass with any Sony/fuji/m43 etc credit where credit’s due - the CL sensor has micro lenses that play nicer with M glass, so there may be mileage in chosing this body over an A6500 if that’s what you want to do with it.

A great lens is a little harder to call.... it depends on the measring yardstick... for example the Q takes great pictures, but relies on software to resolve barrel distortion.

I’d be greatly surprised if the 18mm f2.8 for the CL didn’t also use sw correction (it might look like 28mm when paired with APSC but 18 is 18) if you’ve ever seen the 16mm from fuji? That’s virtually distortion free, but that’s why it’s so huge, same with their 23/1.4

Does sw make a great lens? Well in the pictures yes and after all who doesn’t use the lens profiles is LR or DxO etc. But coding design and lens design are not the same thing.... if it turns out your fav singer uses autotune do you still like the song? Of course you do! But equally they’re not quite the singer you thought they were

I think with M glass your getting a strong product, is all manual and all repairable. It holds its value because (much like a Rolex) the design doesn’t really change but the proces keep going up.

The digital bodies are not so clear cut... there’s a persistent factoid that you never lose money on an M. It’s not true. M240s can be had for £2500 from dealers. They still cost about 4k brand new

As a percentage the Ms hold better value, but as a mathematic they don’t

For example if person A bought a Fuji X-Pro1 in 2012 they spent about £1200 and person B bought a M240 for about £5000

Today they both sell them.

The fuji recoups about £200 / the M say £2500

So the fuji has depreciated more, but the M has lost more physical cash. (£1000 vs £2500 its a lot :))

But all this said.

The M glass is very, very good. The M glass works best on M bodies.

If you want to shoot M glass you can make a case for buying an M body.

Just do it with your eyes open

Or better yet, buy that 2k m9 or 2.5k m240 and let someone else take the depreciation hit :D (and this rings true with all cameras... I’ve zero interest personally, but I bet now is a great time to buy a mint A7Rii for example)
Click to expand...

I agree with the bulk of your post and I think Leica rely heavily on their existing fan base to maintain the air of superiority. However, I haven’t seen anything about micro lenses on the CL sensor to deal with distortion etc? Even on Leica’s own spec page it simply states a 24mp APS-C sensor (made by Sony but they left that bit off!)
 
stevelmx5 said:
I agree with the bulk of your post and I think Leica rely heavily on their existing fan base to maintain the air of superiority. However, I haven’t seen anything about micro lenses on the CL sensor to deal with distortion etc? Even on Leica’s own spec page it simply states a 24mp APS-C sensor (made by Sony but they left that bit off!)
Click to expand...

Jonathan Slack makes the claim about the micro lenses in his review. Makes sense, Leica know people will put M glass on it. Slack also quite fairly states that you can’t really criticise Fuji/Sony/etc for not playing as well with M glass, these guys have their own microlenses designed to work well with thier own glass

Micro lenses don’t deal with distortion, they direct light where it needs to go (usually the corners)

I might be wrong but IMO the cl 18mm isn’t big enough not to require sw correction

There’s been a lot of speculation on the Leica sensors from the Q cameras onwards... some say Sony, some say Panasonic, some say Towerjazz some say silicone from here, filter stack from there, CFA from another.

It bugs people that Leica don’t say (they’ve never been shy in the past) but it doesn’t really matter, if the sensor performs well it performs well, and all these ‘secret’ sensor Leicas of the past couple of years have certainly performed far better then the cameras that came before them, so whoever makes the sensors knows their onions

Not sure I get the ‘air of superiority’

Certain brands have cachet, this leads to an emotive reaction from people, sometimes that reaction is hilariously biased to either end of the love/hate scale

Just be zen about it and let it go.

Re the Leica mystique......

Well owning a Rolex doesn’t make you chat up girls like James Bond, buying a AMG Mercedes doesn’t make you drive as good as Lewis Hamilton, and buying an M doesn’t make you shoot like HCB

If you happen upon anyone who doesn’t see that, trust me - you wont be able to change their mind :)

Leica is expensive, but they cost less than dream holidays, high end designer handbags and many wristwatches. You pays that money or you don’t.

You’ll never buy an M system on peanuts, but buy secondhand and go for zeiss, or Voigtländer and you could easily end up with a kit that’s cheaper than a A7Riii and G master glass... and plenty of people go the Sony route without being chastised online for what their camera cost.
 
Adzman808 said:
Not sure I get the ‘air of superiority’
Click to expand...

"you would only have a Sony and be missing out on the Leica Magic"

The first post I quoted which is suggesting that you would 'only' have a Sony if you'd paid a 5th of the price of the Leica and you'd be missing out on the 'magic'. My point was that once you look past the red dot, the CL is a nice enough looking CSC with a Sony sensor, possibly Panasonic internals, no PDAF, no IBIS, an EVF and a pretty average spec 18-56 variable aperture kit lens for £3500.

I fully understand that people will still pay for it, but as a photographer who wants to get results, it's hard to look past the technical limitations. Be honest, if Sony's next APS-C CSC had that spec, even for <£1000, they would get slammed by every photography reviewer. Leica does it and they're hailed as photographic gods.

I'm sure I could build a Sony A7 series system with top of the line G Master lenses and spend a fortune too but that's not what the CL is being compared to.

Anyway, as you say, no point in getting hung up about it. Some people will base all of their decisions on a badge rather than the camera itself and that's their decision.
 
StevenS said:
I agree with just about all of that. M digital bodies do depreciate after a while and then stabilise. The first one - M8 - is still popular. I also appreciate that some Leica are made elsewhere, I have lenses from 1984 and 1991 made in Canada. Ultimately, it's difficult to pick out a bad Leica lens. They have maintained a level of quality over almost 100 years. So they are good investments as new as you will get a lifetime's pleasure and the stability of second hand prices makes them a safe bet. Most people buy some second hand as there is so much of it about.

I bought a 12-month old A7R. It was £1,600 new, I paid £700. That's terrible depreciation. We have some Fuji here, great cameras but the depreciation is just awful.

Whereas with some brands you have to think about depreciation over a replacement cycle of say 2 to 4 years, probably also lenses over a slightly longer cycle, classic Leica just isn't like that. You have to stump up a lot of money up front, but with little or any loss ad possibly even some gain.

I expect non-M digital bodies go down quite heavily, but I paid £2,900 for my Leica Q in June 2015 and I could probably sell it now for £2,300. I'm not selling as it's just brilliant.
Click to expand...

All cameras deprecate then stabilise, the M8 is stable at around the £1000 mark but cost about 5x that when new!

The A7R dropped £900 in 12 months? Go out now and buy a new 240 and it’s dropped more than that before you’ve left the store :)

Someone on a forum is selling the 262/35 ‘rit/flash/bag kit. New this is about 5k the dealer has offerd him £3850 for it. It’s three weeks old

If we buy wisely we keep things for a long long time. This is the way to go. And also the best thing about Leica, the product updates are infrequent and largely increamental, the lens range is mature and new prices regularly go up

As you say (and I agree) it’s a longer cycle, and if we buy the right Leicas at the right point in their lifecycle we’re in a happy place, you can do something similar with the mainstream cameras of course... but then you have to skip models and force yourself off the merry go round, which is quite hard these days as dpr/huff etc are all screaming at you to buy something new
 
stevelmx5 said:
Leica does it and they're hailed as photographic gods.
Click to expand...

But they’re not though.

People resent Leica for this state that’s not their own doing

The fanboys and fantrolls make claims like this and people blame the OEM for them

People eat meals that cost more than a CL. If someone has the money they’re not caring about the price

People buy things based on what they do, not what they don’t do

GENERALLY it’s only the people that don’t want one, and will never buy one that come along and point out the comparative VFM deficit

Generically speaking, we can either afford something or we can’t

If we can, we merely have to decide whether to buy it. This is up to the individual

If we can’t then it doesn’t really matter

If a mars bar cost £5 i could afford one. Personally I wouldn’t buy one as that vastly exceeds my VFM proposition on a mars bar

But why would I expect people buying £5 mars bars to care if I started pointing out that the tesco own brand one more or less tastes the same and costs 80% less

The answer is becuase I care that a mars cost a fiver and they don’t, and because they don’t care and I do, I’m on the backfoot

I KNOW I’VE QUOTED YOU, BUT I’M NOT TRYING TO OFFEND YOU OR ANYTHING, I’M TRYING TO BE GENERIC ABOUT THE PROBLEMS OF DEBATING HIGH COST ITEMS IN A WORLD WHERE PEOPLE HAVE VASTLY DIFFERENT BUDGETS AND FEATURE DESIRES

So please don’t be mad
 
Adzman808 said:
But they’re not though.

So please don’t be mad
Click to expand...

The posts above show my point about Leica being hailed as the best option available but don’t worry, I’m not mad [emoji4].

Your Mars bar analogy is good apart from this. If someone came along and said that the £5 Mars bar was clearly better than the 80p Tesco version and I’m only jealous, that’s their choice. However, if I then pointed out that the Mars bar has 5 year old chocolate, an Aldi centre, no sugar but has a nice wrapper that you can show everyone, I’d be right too.

As you say, it’s each to their own and I’ve had the exact same discussion before and been called jealous. Personally, I could buy a CL if it really offered something that other cameras can’t. In reality though I don’t feel it does once you peel back the veneer and that causes my frustration.

Anyway, I’ve got a camera design to finish off so I’ll leave it there [emoji1303]
 
stevelmx5 said:
The posts above show my point about Leica being hailed as the best option available but don’t worry, I’m not mad [emoji4].

Your Mars bar analogy is good apart from this. If someone came along and said that the £5 Mars bar was clearly better than the 80p Tesco version and I’m only jealous, that’s their choice. However, if I then pointed out that the Mars bar has 5 year old chocolate, an Aldi centre, no sugar but has a nice wrapper that you can show everyone, I’d be right too.

As you say, it’s each to their own and I’ve had the exact same discussion before and been called jealous. Personally, I could buy a CL if it really offered something that other cameras can’t. In reality though I don’t feel it does once you peel back the veneer and that causes my frustration.

Anyway, I’ve got a camera design to finish off so I’ll leave it there [emoji1303]
Click to expand...

I sort of meant that we need to seperate what camera manufacturers say about their products vs what fanboys and fan trolls say :)

How does that line from fight club go?

We work jobs we hate, to buy stuff we don’t need to impress people we don’t like

You can’t reason with people like that

My hunch would be that Leica themselves shudder involuntarily at some of the fan boy comments - just like the reat of us

After all, they’re not really doing the brand any favours...

But best to be pragmatic... my 5 year old believes in magic and santa too.... I can’t bring myself to break her little heart ;)
 
Anyone who buys Leica kit and then sells it a few weeks or months later is either mad, got too much money or plain stupid. You may lose 20% or 30%, whatever.

Equally, you could buy a Porsche, register it, and sell it back to the dealer a few weeks later and also lose 20% or 30%.

Some of my kid's Fuji was second hand, used once. Some lunatic got a local shop to send him every new body and lens as it came out, the customer might use it one and most often sell it back for 50%. That's where I came in.

I would much prefer and M9 to a M262. I had a MM1 (10760) that was simply astonishing, I think they had difficulties selling the replacement model Typ 246. I still don't think there is a camera around with the resolution and contrast of the MM1.
 
If I was more into BW (and I am into it just not 100% of the time] then it would be MM1 all day long

That’s exactly my point re depreciation, you have to be smart about when to buy and sell, otherwise you’ll find yourself losing a lot of money, even if it’s a solid value retentive product like a rolex or a porsche or a leica

I guess for some people it’s only money! For the rest of us we can score mint stuff at great discount. Win/win :)
 
That’s a big difference between the adobe and the embedded profile Dan, is the WB the same?
 
I happen to have a Leica CL and it is really rather lovely. Does it have any "magic"? Not really, but neither did the M10 that I sold to get the CL. What the CL does have is beautiful build quality, a very simple and intuitive user interface, and simple, clean controls. I am very happy with it so far, especially when using M lenses which work very nicely indeed, albeit with a 1.5x focal length.

I have bought a 55-135 zoom (80-200 ish) and I could never have got a 200mm lens for the M10 and focused it correctly without using the EVF stuck on the top. I will also be getting the 18mm 2.8 pancake lens as soon as one appears in stock anywhere.

So why swap from the amazingly gorgeous M10 to the seemingly less competent CL? It actually happened as soon as I handled a CL for the first time. It oozes quality, and is effectively a "mini M" in a number of ways. The UI is very similar, 3 buttons on the back, offset viewfinder, all very lovely. The two top dials are very clever. It is a small, dense little package that I immediately felt at home with. The EVF is great - I will miss a rangefinder sometimes, but I gain the flexibility of autofocus if I want it, and the ability to actually get good, reliable focus on longer lenses.

I loved my M10, and the thing is that I can always buy another one if I want to. But my photography has changed a lot over the last year. I used to shoot professionally as some of you know, but have knocked that on the head now and shoot just for pleasure. With the CL and the 18mm I get something that is a bit like my much-loved old Fuji X100T ie a compact, go-anywhere, excellent IQ autofocus serious-but-casual camera. And then I can put one of my 3 lovely M lenses on and get manual focus with beautiful contrasty Leica glass. Plus the CL will properly recognise my M lenses and apply the same sort of corrections the M10 will (and Lightroom will be able to do the same for me). The CL is made to work well with M lenses from both an image perspective and a usability perspective which can't be said of other alternatives. And then I can plonk on a long autofocus zoom for things that are far away. I know I could do all that with a Sony A6300 or whatever, but then I'd have that awful Sony menu, loads of buttons and a generally dissatisfying experience, and no Leica M lens recognition.

I find the philosophical arguments earlier in this thread to be a bit repetitive. Its just a camera. And I happen to prefer the CL to something like a Sony or a Fuji largely because of the way it feels and how it is to use. There are a few technical differences but overall, I prefer a camera that I enjoy using rather than one that frustrates me. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.

I've also got a couple of grand in the bank following the swap over which I'll use to go to nice places and take pictures of stuff. Always a good thing to do.

Incidentally I sold the M10 for £450 less than I bought it for in January, so I effectively rented my M10 for just under £40/month, which is a pretty good deal in my book.

On the topic of embedded profiles as raised by Dan above, here's a CL JPG versus a CL DNG. I'm eagerly awaiting the Lightroom updated due on the 19th which will have a CL profile. This shot was taken at the same event Dan was at, and indeed that is himself in the pic. As you can see, the DNG is a bit too reddish on skin tones. Mind you, the lighting in this particular room was a nightmare as it was a mixture of a log fire, various temperature yellow incandescents, a white LED light on the music, and some whiter light from the hall. This one was taken using the CL and the 24 1.4 Summilux-M at ISO1600.

DNG processed in Lightroom with embedded profile.
24225985587_d0b3c85e95_c.jpg


JPG as shot
24225990677_c7d7cbedb1_c.jpg
 
That’s a very well written and honest opinion of the CL @Tobers [emoji1303]. It’s nice to see actual reasons for choosing the camera over the often repeated, non-descript, “magic”. The reason we all shoot what we shoot is because we enjoy it and it delivers the results we’re looking for, regardless of the brand, so good luck with it.
 
Tobers said:
I find the philosophical arguments earlier in this thread to be a bit repetitive. Its just a camera. And I happen to prefer the CL to something like a Sony or a Fuji largely because of the way it feels and how it is to use. There are a few technical differences but overall, I prefer a camera that I enjoy using rather than one that frustrates me. But that's just me. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...
You wrote what I’ve been trying to express, and wrote it so much better than I managed...
 
I thought Andy's post about the CL was bang on. If I didn't have a Q I'd get the CL tomorrow.

With M10, 90mm is the longest focal length for consistent accurate focusing, but I have the superb M 135mm. I also have the APO 180-Telyt R and have just bought the 2x APO extender (I had the non-APO one). Using the 020 Visoflex EVF the results are sensational. It is also very light compared to anything else, including the 280-R. The EVF is also very handy for doing things like cathedral ceilings with lenses like the Voightlander 15 Mk111.
 
A couple of recent ones... won’t be everyone’s cup of tea

But after a week of biblical rain it has been nice to get out of the house and hit the streets

4F46DDAC-4A1C-4B6A-A659-AE71B47E9DFC.jpeg



7022E137-5CA4-4F59-AACA-256C285CDCB0.jpeg
 
Enjoying my little Leica CL. I now have the 18-56 and 55-135 zoom lenses and they are really extremely good - much better than expected. I have the little 18mm prime arriving on Tuesday which will make the CL a perfect travel companion IMHO.

Things I like over the M10 - WYSIWYG exposure and focus in the EVF, precise focusing of M lenses wide open, diddy size, ability to zoom! What I miss about the M10 - that lovely M10 thing that M10 owners know only too well but can’t really describe to others. Image quality is largely identical as far as I can tell and as far as it matters to me. It’s all about composition as you folks know.

Here’s 4 shots from Wisley yesterday.

Bamboo by Tobers, on Flickr

Birch by Tobers, on Flickr

Eucalyptus by Tobers, on Flickr

Twigs by Tobers, on Flickr

Mild processing on these. Generally shot using a tripod.
 
Tobers said:
Enjoying my little Leica CL. I now have the 18-56 and 55-135 zoom lenses and they are really extremely good - much better than expected. I have the little 18mm prime arriving on Tuesday which will make the CL a perfect travel companion IMHO.

Things I like over the M10 - WYSIWYG exposure and focus in the EVF, precise focusing of M lenses wide open, diddy size, ability to zoom! What I miss about the M10 - that lovely M10 thing that M10 owners know only too well but can’t really describe to others. Image quality is largely identical as far as I can tell and as far as it matters to me. It’s all about composition as you folks know.
Click to expand...

After the M9/MM Kodak sensor debacle a few years back that did so much damage to the consumer brand, it's quite unbelievable how Leica have turned things around and released a series of cameras that are more affordable but cannot be considered a poor relation to the M series. I got the Q on the day of release in June 2015. I walked into a store and bought one, as people were unsure if it would be any good. It was the first camera to use the new Maestro II software, used in everything since. I still love it because it is a very robust bit of kit that you can take anywhere with no worries and has a M-quality lens. My first impulse is still always to pick up the M10. The CL seems to be a complete winner and I think more people will start to realise the merit of spending £1,000 to £2,000 on Leica prime lenses rather than bulkier and inferior optics.
 
So what's the ideal set of M lenses?

My starter:
15mm/f4.5 Voightlander Heliar Asph III
21mm/f2.8 Zeiss Biogon ZM
28mm/f5.6 Leica Summaron
35mm/f2 Leica Summicron
50mm/f1.4 Leica Summilux
75mm/f1.8 Voightlander Heliar Classic
90mm/f2.8 Leica Tele-Elmarit
135mm/f3.4 Leica APO-Telyt-M
 
StevenS said:
So what's the ideal set of M lenses?

My starter:
15mm/f4.5 Voightlander Heliar Asph III
21mm/f2.8 Zeiss Biogon ZM
28mm/f5.6 Leica Summaron
35mm/f2 Leica Summicron
50mm/f1.4 Leica Summilux
75mm/f1.8 Voightlander Heliar Classic
90mm/f2.8 Leica Tele-Elmarit
135mm/f3.4 Leica APO-Telyt-M
Click to expand...

Just 50mm 1.4? :)


:)

I've got 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 90 2.0 asphs.. But selling 24/90 for now.
 
dancook said:
Just 50mm 1.4? :)

:)

I've got 24mm 1.4, 35mm 1.4 and 90 2.0 asphs.. But selling 24/90 for now.
Click to expand...

I have the 50/1.4 and am not convinced over the 50/2, which is more ergonomic and sharper. It's fault is it lacking a thumb guide.

From what I read, the Zeiss 35/1.4 is technically better even than the 35/1.4 ASPH FLE. I am interested in the 35/1.4 PRE ASPH as a more interesting lens, but is it worth more than the Zeiss?

The 90 Tele-Elmarit is optically superb and vastly more ergonomic than the modern 90/f2's. It's much truer to the Leica spirit.

The 28/f2.8 Elmarit should probably be in because it is the smallest modern Leica with superb optics at a sensible price, but the Summaron is a special quirkly lens, also very sharp in the middle and even smaller.
 
If you want a 3 lens kit, a 28,50,90 or 24,50,90 combo is rather excellent. If you want a 2 lens kit, a 35 and 75 will sort you out. Apply your Summarit/Summicron/Summilux factor according to budget :)
 
Tobers said:
If you want a 3 lens kit, a 28,50,90 or 24,50,90 combo is rather excellent. If you want a 2 lens kit, a 35 and 75 will sort you out. Apply your Summarit/Summicron/Summilux factor according to budget :)
Click to expand...

I'm not convinced about 35 Summilux value for money. The 35 Summicon is superb, my go-to lens, otherwise I would prefer the Zeiss 35/f1.4.

I've just picked up a Voightlander 35/f1.2 Nokton II second hand for £700. For most people f2 is plenty fast enough and the Summicon is more ergonomic than the Summilux. So I took the view that a fast 35mm would be an extra lens, so why not get a super-fast one for a sensible price, that is also optically superb. The pre asph and various others are too soft at 1.4 and the asph costs £2k used for the original version and £4k for the new FLE.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top