View Full Version : Leica CL- Impressions
Decided to put a roll of film through it before I send it back AGAIN for some minor repairs. I figured I may as well test it for light leaks and rangefinder accuracy and stuff. So, went out this evening, for about an hour, and shot a roll.
It's very small. Even with the 90mm on it, it's unobtrusive.
It's also pretty light. Not as flea-like as my Olympus Stylus, but it definitely makes my Contax IIa seem like a solid block of palladium-coated lead.
The shutter release is PERFECTLY placed. I never had to hunt for it- my finger just found it.
The meter needle is upside-down to every other one I've used; overexposure gets you a low needle. Took me a few shots to get into that groove.
The viewfinder has surprisingly good eye-relief and is very, very bright. I had no trouble at all using it while wearing Serengeti Drivers. That is uncommon, at least it is in my hands-on experience with a variety of SLRs and rangefinders.
I like the fact that it's all black. People just weren't looking at my hand.
As for the lenses...
The 90mm is a joy to use- nice wide focusing barrel on it. The 40mm, though, is a stubby little thing; it has no milled or knurled focusing ring and is obviously designed to be focused by its tab or lever, or whatever it's called. I call it a pain in the ass. Also, the aperture index-dot on the 40 is to the left side- not on top where I keep expecting it to be. Minor gripe.
Off the camera, both lenses look and feel like cheap plastic junk. I can live with that, if they perform optically.
Optical performance aside, I think this thing combined with a 50mm f2 Summicron would make a King Hell walking-around camera. Standard focal length, and just a bit more lens for me to grab on to.
I think I'm going to want to keep this one after all. Just hope it actually works.
What 90 & 40 lens were you using?
Dave
The 40mm f2 Summicron-C and 90mm f4 Elmar-C made by Leitz especially for the CL. They're tiny- the 40 particularly so.
richard_l
08-17-2005, 19:01
The 40mm, though, is a stubby little thing; it has no milled or knurled focusing ring and is obviously designed to be focused by its tab or lever, or whatever it's called. I call it a pain in the ass. Also, the aperture index-dot on the 40 is to the left side- not on top where I keep expecting it to be. Minor gripe.Strange. I have the Minolta Rokkor version of that lens, and the aperture dot is exactly top center. My only gripe is that it's hard to adjust the aperture when my B+W rubber hood is attached. Maybe I should invest in a Gandy hood.
richard_l
08-17-2005, 21:13
Here's a picture of the CL with a Summicron-C, and the aperture dot is at the top just like on my Rokkor. http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg5/lcl41.jpg
Little Prince
08-17-2005, 21:23
Hmm... I'm a little surprised. The only Leitz lens I have (or have ever had) is the 40mm 'cron-C. So I can't compare to others. But when I heft it, it certainly doesn't feel light or cheap or junk-like. I mean it's tiny so it's got to be relatively light, but absolutely speaking it feels right. In fact I'm not sure I can detect any plastic feel to it at all. But that's only how I feel about it. You may be seeing it from another point of view.
Besides, I have to say I rather like the focus tab thing. Before I bought it I never knew people had any specific like or dislike for it. Later I saw many people express a strong opinion one way or the other. I guess I'm lucky I didn't feel uncomfortable with it.
richard_l
08-17-2005, 22:20
Hmm... I'm a little surprised. The only Leitz lens I have (or have ever had) is the 40mm 'cron-C. So I can't compare to others. But when I heft it, it certainly doesn't feel light or cheap or junk-like. I mean it's tiny so it's got to be relatively light, but absolutely speaking it feels right. In fact I'm not sure I can detect any plastic feel to it at all. Same with my 40mm Rokkor, which is constructed to identical specs. Very solid, precise, and silky smooth. It looks and feels just like my other Leica and Leitz lenses.
Here's a picture of the CL with a Summicron-C, and the aperture dot is at the top just like on my Rokkor.
http://www.cameraquest.com/jpg5/lcl41.jpg
(Runs over to kitchen table, stares bug-eyed at CL sitting there with Summicron mounted on it, sees dot at nine o'clock, checks to see if he's got the damned lens on backwards)
Aha! The lens was only screwed together finger-tight!
Unscrewed the front ring, turned it to where I wanted it and held it there, screwed the Parkerized rear ring back down with my thumbnail. Cinched it down with a 24" pipe wrench. Index dot now top dead center.
Duh. Glad I brought it up. Thank you, sir.
Robin Harrison
08-18-2005, 04:18
I'm glad your dot found it's way to the correct position!
I too have to say that I find the 40mm and 90mm lenses anything but cheap. It's true that the feel of the focus and aperture rings on the 40 could be a bit more 'substantial', but I would much rather they kept the lens small than artificially enlarge it for handling purpuses.
I have a CL that I most commonly use with the 40mm and the CV 21mm. This has got to be one of the most compact fast-normal + wideangle two lens kits ever!
It also works suprisingly well with the far larger CV 50mm Nokton, although the camera feels like it's attached to the lens rather than the other way around.
richard_l
08-18-2005, 04:56
It also works suprisingly well with the far larger CV 50mm Nokton, although the camera feels like it's attached to the lens rather than the other way around.To really have the tail wag the dog, try using a 35mm SLR, such as a Nikon FM, with a looooong telephoto. :)
I like using the CL with my C/V 25mm Colour Snapshot lens.
Yep, that's my current setupt - CL w/ CV 25/4 Snapshot, Rookor 40/2, and CV 90/3.5 Apo-Lanthar (though you can forget about using the last one wide-open & close - focussing accuracy of that short-base rangefinder is simply not good enough...)
Roman
...It's true that the feel of the focus and aperture rings on the 40 could be a bit more 'substantial', but I would much rather they kept the lens small than artificially enlarge it for handling purpuses...
That's exactly what I mean. The aperture rings are kind of loose and wobbly, and the plasticky ratcheting sound they make always makes me think a kid built them from Lego.
If it's done in the name of efficiency, so be it; I'm a pragmatist. And, I have yet to hear a bad word about their optics. But jeez, they feel cheap compared to all the "Leica's tank-like build quality" hype I've been fed by the camera press. Just not at all what I expected to hear after that, not to mention a lifetime spent with a 1950s Voigtlander Color Skopar and various tight, tank-like Mamiya, Zuiko, and Contax lenses.
Off to the one-hour now, to get my roll of film back.
richard_l
08-18-2005, 15:06
That's exactly what I mean. The aperture rings are kind of loose and wobbly, and the plasticky ratcheting sound they make always makes me think a kid built them from Lego.That description doesn't apply to my 40/2 M-Rokkor. The action is as perfect as that of any lens I've ever used. There is no looseness or wobble in either the focus or the aperture ring. Maybe the CLE lenses (such as mine) are built better than those for the CL. (They are, for example, multicoated; the CL lenses are not.) Or maybe mine was never used enough to get loose and wobbly. It does look pristine. :confused:
Mine feels really tight and solid, too (but I've also got the CLE-Rokkor-version...)
Roman
Okaaay....
Got my pictures back. Heavy corner vignetting on all the shots I took with the 40. Everything was at f8 or f11.
Yup. I'm dumber than you think. Looks like I have two 90mm lens hoods here. Closer examination shows the one on the 90 to have a Leica part number on it: 12517, as well as the descriptor C4/90-5.5. The one that came on the 40mm has no markings whatsoever, but it's dimensionally identical. I thought it looked a little tight to use with a light wide-angle.
A quick read of an online manual (http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/_private/clbook/cl-index.htm) tends to corroborate this theory. Mine don't look like this one:
http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/_private/clbook/cl-p10.jpg
My two are exactly like this one:
http://www.horizon.bc.ca/~dnr/_private/clbook/cl-p11.jpg
Anyone know the part number for the correct Leica hood for the 40? (I know about Gandy's option, but I really don't want to bugger my lens threads.) (Edit: I found the part number- it's 12518.)
I'll check this all out with another roll over the weekend, of course. Also gonna have to tripod the 90mm and reshoot its test with a cable release, because everything I took with it (at 1/125th or 1/250th) is soft. In the meantime, boy, that 40 is sharp.
I thought I wanted a CL once, then I actually got to use one for a few days that a local store was selling. First thing I noticed was that it wasn't nearly as small as I'd been led to believe, only shorter than my M4 by the width of my thumb. Next thing was that although there was no 35mm frame in the finder, it was highly demagnified, i.e. the finder image was quite small. Next thing was that there was no way to preview the 90mm frames. And then there was that vertical-hanging thing. I decided not to get it. The store sold it twice, each time the purchaser brought it back with some mechanical problem and it went off to Golden Touch for a few weeks, finally the last time the store wholesaled it to another dealer.
I don't have the hood for my 40 but it looks like you have the wrong one for the 40. The CL is really a stealthy little camera - I even us my 90 cron on but need to stop down to f4 or so for better focusing with such a small base length. I, like the others, have been thinking of getting a CV 21 or 25 lens and making a very small, lightweight kit.
Frank Granovski
10-26-2005, 02:44
Did you get your CL's light leak fixed? Okay now? :)
I see that the word pristine is in wide use now, to describe the Leica CL and its M-c lenses. Whatever shall I do with my 40mm 'cron and 90mm Leica made Minolta? :bang:
Palaeoboy
10-27-2005, 11:54
The 40mm and 90mm Cl lenses are built like tanks equivalent to any other Leica lens. If anything the focus on the 40mm is firmer than most. The 90mm is actually heavier than the faster Compact Tele Elmarit that was avaialble around the same time so how could it be less substancial?. It has a thick chrome mount that makes mounting extremely solid. I really dont see where you get the cheaper feel from?
Frank Granovski
10-27-2005, 18:26
Re: "The 40mm and 90mm Cl lenses are built like tanks...."
This is what I think too. Their performance is incredible to boot. :bang:
I have a CL with a broken lightmeter and a 40 cron that I use as my evening out with friends/ walk around camera. I use a VC II meter with it and the whole thing works great.
I never liked the original rubber lens shade because it flopped around and never stayed in place, so one day I did the unthinkable- I took an exacto knife and cut it off it's retaining ring. (I was spurred on by a description of this I saw on a web page- I don't remember where exactly). I then bought a retangular shade for a 35 cron from EB and through a process of whittling away at the remains of the rubber mount, I gently twisted the shade until it fit on to the ring. Once it fit I removed it and screwed the ring on to the lens, slipped the shade back on and lined it up into its correct position. It works perfectly, and with no vignetting!
Now If I could only figure out a way to add another lug to the lugless side of the body...
I forgot to add this- the aperture ring on the 40C is very close to 35 lens shade/ original 5.5 ring combination and can be difficult to grasp, so I cut very thin strips of black gaffers tape and laminated them on to the ridges of the aperature ring until they sat higher than the lens shade, about 5 strips total. Now I have a better grip on the aperature ring, and whole assembly looks fairly clean.
vBulletin® v3.6.8, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.