The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

CL vs Fuji X-T2

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I've been shooting almost exclusively with my new Leica CL APS-C camera and its lenses for the past 2 months, but a photo opportunity last night fell outside of its range. Close quarters, low light levels and a need for autofocus -- this was a job for the Fuji 16/1.4! (The Leica lens complement doesn't have fast wide angles.) Here's an example:

XT2F0377 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr X-T2, 16/1.4 @ ISO 320

Pictures from the show are at: https://www.flickr.com/gp/[email protected]/MCZ7Mq

After a brief struggle to get the on-off switch on the Fuji to stay reliably ON, no problems.

scott
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
That photo is not the best choice to make your point, imo, especially since it's only shot at ISO 320. The 23mm f/2 TL lens is is quite fast and would compare nicely at 320 iso. Yes, Leica needs a fast, wider prime lens than a 23mm, but after owning the Fuji XF 16mm 1.4, I found it too wide for many shoots.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
That photo is just one that I liked. I was shooting at 1/30 or 1/60 and all ISOs from 200 to 3200. I mostly use the 23/2.0 on my CL, and in this setting, where the audience is led through a maze of tight catwalks tightly surrounded by actors, it is not wide enough.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I dont expect that Leica will bring exotic lenses like very fast wides to a system like the CL.
In regards of the existing lens lineup it seems Leica has made a very good compromise between size and speed of the lenses.
How many people would buy such an expensive superfast ultra-wideangle lens for a "amateurish" camera system like the CL?
 
V

Vivek

Guest
CL is for the experience of the monobody that was machined from a single block of aluminum. If in doubt, watch the video again. :)
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
I dont expect that Leica will bring exotic lenses like very fast wides to a system like the CL.
....
How many people would buy such an expensive superfast ultra-wideangle lens for a "amateurish" camera system like the CL?
Fuji's set of APS-C lenses sets a pretty good reference. Their basic lenses are 23 and 35, in both low profile f/2.0 for the X-Pro2 and larger f/1.4 for the X-T2 and now X-H1. Then they have 18 pancake (at f/2.0) and a 60 macro. In the past few years they have brought out the 16/1.4 and a 56/1.2. While the pancake, the macro and the f/2.0's are only OK in image quality, the XF f/1.4's are pretty good, and not ludicrously expensive.

CL lenses have been co-developed with FarEastern partners up to now, and Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic show that the expertise exists to provide more. Peter Karbe's recent interviews suggest that Leica is gaining some technological insights from the interaction as well. And I'd buy more. I don't consider the CL "amateurish" at all. Just smaller. Also, Leica seems to now consider 16 (24 mm-eff) a pretty reasonable focal length. It's in the SL zoom range. Since they are providing an 18 mm for the CL already, I'd expect a wider lens to come in at 14 instead.
 

iiiNelson

Active member
CL is for the experience of the monobody that was machined from a single block of aluminum. If in doubt, watch the video again. :)
I think you’re confusing the CL with the TL2 in this particular case. No pun intended.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I dont expect that Leica will bring exotic lenses like very fast wides to a system like the CL.
In regards of the existing lens lineup it seems Leica has made a very good compromise between size and speed of the lenses.
How many people would buy such an expensive superfast ultra-wideangle lens for a "amateurish" camera system like the CL?

I owned the Sony A7Rii/iii, & Fuji Xt1, Xt2, and Xpro1. While I prefer the Fuji's over Sony, I much prefer the Leica CL over all of them. I shoot professionally with the Leica CL and absolutely love the superior build quality. Solid metal top and bottom. Simplistic, intuitive controls and menus that feels more like a Leica film camera and not a computer with a lens. Some of the frustrations with those cameras was I felt less connected to my art because of all the high tech crap I don't need. Photographers who rely on high tech to make better photographs should shoot some film once in a while and forgo the endless obsolescence that camera makers lure you into. (Don't get me started on HDR!) Technically and artistically, I'm a better photographer when shooting with the Leica CL because it has this Leica gestalt and character that makes you want to use it and understand the fundamentals of photography. It's such a refreshing change from always wanting the next great digital camera, imo. While I prefer primes, the Leica 55-135mm APO (80-200mm equiv.) and the TL 11-23mm (17-35mm equiv.) are stellar performers and the only zooms I'd ever want to buy. In the meantime, I can use M lenses with an adapter because the MF/peaking is the best implemented feature of all digital cameras imo. The 23mm f/2 TL is an outstanding performer! One of the best primes I've ever used. All digital camera from micro 4/3rds to MFD, all take amazing photographs, but the cameras that encourage you to create a photograph are far more valuable to me than anything else. Nothing amateur about that.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
I owned the Sony A7Rii/iii, & Fuji Xt1, Xt2, and Xpro1. While I prefer the Fuji's over Sony, I much prefer the Leica CL over all of them. I shoot professionally with the Leica CL and absolutely love the superior build quality. Solid metal top and bottom. Simplistic, intuitive controls and menus that feels more like a Leica film camera and not a computer with a lens. Some of the frustrations with those cameras was I felt less connected to my art because of all the high tech crap I don't need. Photographers who rely on high tech to make better photographs should shoot some film once in a while and forgo the endless obsolescence that camera makers lure you into. (Don't get me started on HDR!) Technically and artistically, I'm a better photographer when shooting with the Leica CL because it has this Leica gestalt and character that makes you want to use it and understand the fundamentals of photography. It's such a refreshing change from always wanting the next great digital camera, imo. While I prefer primes, the Leica 55-135mm APO (80-200mm equiv.) and the TL 11-23mm (17-35mm equiv.) are stellar performers and the only zooms I'd ever want to buy. In the meantime, I can use M lenses with an adapter because the MF/peaking is the best implemented feature of all digital cameras imo. The 23mm f/2 TL is an outstanding performer! One of the best primes I've ever used. All digital camera from micro 4/3rds to MFD, all take amazing photographs, but the cameras that encourage you to create a photograph are far more valuable to me than anything else. Nothing amateur about that.
I also use and like the CL. With amateurish I didnt mean to say that it is not agreat tool with great lenses. I still believe the main target group are not Pros and the main idea is to have a compact system, so I dont expect exotic superfast lenses. Like you I am very happy with the lenses they offer right now, expect I wish the 18-55 would be a 16-55, and the 55-135 would include IS.
 

jdphoto

Well-known member
I think Leica might find itself at a crossroads, so to speak. On one hand you have the M10, an expensive MF camera with oodles of character. Then you have a popular Q, but with a fixed 28mm and cropped FL's. The SL is a nice FF camera, but imo, not compact enough when paired with zooms. Also, quite expensive too. Then you take the CL, which blends the best of each one in a compact "film M'ish camera body that so far has been extremely popular. My guess is that Leica has to seriously consider a less expensive AF FF camera that undoubtedly will compete with the M10. The more likely scenario would be a Q with a fixed 35mm or 50mm with cropped frames lines to accommodate virtual focal lengths, but with the better build quality of the CL. Weather resistance is nice, but too big of a liability that encourages risky camera use. Aside from my Olympus PEN FT film camera, Leica is the only camera film or digital that I want a half case for. They just look so cool and that's part of the immersive, tactile quality of Leica that no other camera can compete with, imo.
 

DwF

New member
Fuji's set of APS-C lenses sets a pretty good reference. Their basic lenses are 23 and 35, in both low profile f/2.0 for the X-Pro2 and larger f/1.4 for the X-T2 and now X-H1. Then they have 18 pancake (at f/2.0) and a 60 macro. In the past few years they have brought out the 16/1.4 and a 56/1.2. While the pancake, the macro and the f/2.0's are only OK in image quality, the XF f/1.4's are pretty good, and not ludicrously expensive.

CL lenses have been co-developed with FarEastern partners up to now, and Fuji/Olympus/Panasonic show that the expertise exists to provide more. Peter Karbe's recent interviews suggest that Leica is gaining some technological insights from the interaction as well. And I'd buy more. I don't consider the CL "amateurish" at all. Just smaller. Also, Leica seems to now consider 16 (24 mm-eff) a pretty reasonable focal length. It's in the SL zoom range. Since they are providing an 18 mm for the CL already, I'd expect a wider lens to come in at 14 instead.
Having used my share of M glass, and I love Leica lenses, I agree with you Scott. Although, regarding the Fuji stable of f 1.4 lenses, I think they are better than pretty good. Your pic with the 16 above has a nice feel and rendering to it (in spite of slow shutter) and the color/skin tones are nice too.

I grumble that the Fuji 23mm f1.4 (a lens I love) is a bit large. That said, for my money it balances fine on the X Pro2 and way better than the 35mm Summilux T on the CL.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Fuji puts aperture control rings on the lenses and doesn't control the aperture electronically. That helps to keep lens size down a bit since they only have to support AF. Otherwise there is just as much glass inside as in modern Leica, Zeiss, etc. optics. But there does seem to be advantage in only having to cover a smaller frame. The Leica 21 and 24 Summiluxes are great beasts with fringing problems at the edges when wide open. I find that I prefer the 24 Elmarit and the 21 Super-Elmar (f/3.4). In the mean time, the Fuji 16 (which I use at f/2.0, not wide open) and the host of f/1.2 lenses available for Micro4/3 are making low light wide angle capabilities possible in the smaller formats.
 
Top