Leica CL: The Gateway Drug?

[John Noble]

[de-lurk]

First, a plug for fellow RFFer cnguyen, from whom I bought my "new" CL: good on ya!

So, I have a new toy. It's my first real rangefinder (stop snickering, you LHSA-Hammertone-Noctilux guys), and I have to say that after one quick test roll I'm a believer. I'll hang on to my vintage Minolta MF SLR rig for longer focal lengths and flash use, but a CL/VC 21mm/?? 50mm/M-Rokkor 90mm travel kit is what's going on the road for longer trips from now on. Not that I drag the SLR along for more than a couple of days, but I've often wished that my current travel camera (Leica CM) could go longer or (especially) wider. Having two films availble at the same time is nice, too: Provia 400F in the CM and HP5+ in the CL sounds like a sweet combination. If the slope is as slippery as claimed, we can all assume I'll find a way to justify an iridium alloy Bhutan Independence Day MP within a year or two.

The sharp-eyed reader will have noted that I haven't settled on a "normal" lens, and that I *have* settled on a 50mm fl. Why 50mm? I already have a fairly decent 40mm with a permanently attached autofocus body. The 50mm framelines in the CL are a lot easier to see with glasses, too. After squinting at a bunch of samples of dubious provenance on the intarweb, I find myself really liking how CV's Heliar Classic f2 combines a classic rendition with modern sharpness. The problem is that it's collapsible (said to be OK with a CL, but sounds like an annoyance) and rather heavy. So ... does anyone know of a 50mm lens with the same kind of character that doesn't have those vices? It seems like a vintage-ish ('70s?) Summicron would get me in the ballpark, but I dunno.

Now that I'm a junior member, I understand I'll be receiving a secret decoder ring. According to club rules, I also know that I'll have to get a Real M to qualify for my X-Ray glasses and that I am automatically entitled to complain about M8 magenta issues by virtue of not owning one.

[wlewisiii]

Welcome! I had a CL with a flakey light meter for quite awhile & rather than pay to fix it, I sold it to buy a Bessa R. That said, the CL is an excellent camera and is a wonderful introduction to what is good about Leica.

I'd suggest that the collapsible Summicron is a very good match for the CL. I used one for the whole time I owned the CL & basically it was welded to the camera :) It collapsed just fine and gave a very fine look. If you're interested in a faster lens with the Sonnar look instead, the Canon 50/1.5 is a very compact lens that fits the CL quite well too. I haven't had a chance to use that combination, but it's spoken highly of by Brian Sweeney.

Two other tidbits - first, the 28mm focal length is very easy to use by using the whole of the VF area. I used to have a Canon 28/3.5, Cron 50/2 & Elmar 90/4 as my carry kit when I owned my CL. Second, give Reala a try in the CL. It remains my favorite color negative film by a large margin.

Good luck & good light!

William

[mfunnell]

Hmm. I don't see "collapsable" as a vice, but rather a virtue. I love my M-Hexanon 50 to death, but my M3 packs away much more easily with a collapsable Elmar on it, and similarly fits more easily into a coat pocket. "Uncollapsing" it is no difficulty, and it stays extended until the camera is ready to go back into the bag or pocket (note: it locks in the extended position, so it won't collapse accidentally). Given that compactness is one of the virtues of the CL, I'd imagine a compact lens would only help that.

...Mike

[wlewisiii]

The Elmar is _NOT_ a good match for the CL. It will foul the swing arm for the meter cell unless you put something on the barrel to stop it from collapsing too far - which rather defeats the purpose. The collapsible 'Cron doesn't get as small as the Elmar, but OTOH, it worked fine on the CL that I owned.

One of the fun things about these cameras is that there are so very many really great 50mm lenses available. Pick one - any one - and go have fun learning what it can and can not do. Then you'll know what you really need :D

William

[mfunnell]

The Elmar is _NOT_ a good match for the CL.And (this may not have been clear) I was _NOT_ recommending it. I was simply noting that a collapsible lens (in the OP's case, the CV 50/2 Heliar) was not a bad choice just because its collapsable. I used the Elmar as an example since its the one I use on my M3, which it is a good match for. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

...Mike

[wlewisiii]

Gotcha. I just wanted to make sure about it as well. There are some that do work wel though, so it's not a matter of a blanket "NO" either. Then again there area all the variations between individual cameras :bang: :bang: :bang:

;)

Wiilliam

[anna missed]

The leica cl has always been my favotite camera, bar none. I've had 5 or 6 over the years, selling them off to raise money for something else, but like a love struck fool, I always come crawling back begging forgivness and getting another. The thing is, they're (in my mind) the perfect 35mm camera; tiny, not too heavy, built in meter, and the best interchangeable glass money can buy. I'd go with the 40 though, preferably the nocton 40 for the extra stop, the 90, and a 25mm scopar -- put in your pocket.

[John Noble]

Thanks for the comments, guys.

There are only a few collapsible lenses that will safely and fully collapse (I think): both CV Heliars and the 90mm M-E. I appreciate Mike's point about pocketability; I don't object to collapsing the lens so much as having something even heavier than my 90mm on the camera most of the time. A lightweight "rigid" f2 Heliar would do nicely, Kobayashi-san. It's not like it collapses all that much anyway: it's 50% more than the collapsed depth of the current Elmar. OTOH, it's a stop faster.

The main aim is the character of the lens. I suppose I should just fill the body with helium or learn to live with the weight if I really want that look on film. I would just go for one of the default 40mm choices, but I'm not overwhelmed with the OOF rendering or general look of any of the usual suspects, especially compared to what I get with my CM. The f2.4 Summarit is kind of a hard act to follow.

[Jacob]

Hi John and welcome to the world of constant gear upgrading plans...
I bought a CV Skopar 50/2.5 for my CL. It looks great on the camera, small as a collapsible, but rather heavy for its size and not that fast. To be honest I haven't used that much that I can tell You about the optical qualities. It looks good on small prints but I've read that it is not as sharp as many other CV lenses. Maybe a vintage look that You might like? Other lenses I've thought about is the Konica 50/2, Canon 50/1.8 or a cheap Jupiter 8. Pleasant choices ahead of You...
Best
//Jacob

[Paul T.]

However much you like the CM, do give the CL's designated 40mm Summicron C a chance. I bought a CL and loved it, and the lens.

THen I felt I ought to buy an M4 - you know, a proper Leica - plus a 50mm lens - and used the Elmar 50/2.8, the Canon 50/1.8 and the Summicron Collapsilbe, plus a 35mm Summicron C .Eventually, I came to realise I liked the CL and the 40mm best, both for the FOV, and the quality of the photos, particularly the B&Ws. The lens such a bargain that it would be a shame not to try it, and I also think that the 40mm and 90mm combination is the most versatile there is.

all that said, if you want a 50mm, then the Heliar is good value although I've heard suggestions it renders skin tones very warm. I'd feel uncomfortable using the Summi 50/2 collapsible on my CL, not necessarily for reasons of damaging the meter cell, rather because CL is a less rigid platform if you're constantly collapsing and extending the lens. However, the Canon 50/1.8 is compact and felt good on my CL, although I didn't use it enough to comment on how photos looked with it...

[Biggles]

[de-lurk]

So ... does anyone know of a 50mm lens with the same kind of character that doesn't have those vices? It seems like a vintage-ish ('70s?) Summicron would get me in the ballpark, but I dunno.

My knee-jerk reaction is to suggest a 1950s dual-range or rigid Summicron. But, if you can live with modern sharpness and rendition both, try a fifth model tabbed Summicron from the eighties. It's a brutally crisp, contrasty lens, but remains a half-decent match for the CL body because of its relatively light weight.

These days, my fifty is a 1960s Summilux, a monstrously dense lens and thus a decidedly poor fit for the CL, balance-wise. It does, however, give me that old look with modern sharpness thing you mention.

With that said, the CL and a 40mm Summicron is one of those perfect technological meshings. I use mine all the time with sunglasses, and never have a problem finding the 40mm framelines.

[FrankS]

...and just like MJ, it is nothing compared to the hard stuff.


(humour)

[anhtu]

I've actually gone the other way. From M6TTL to a Leica CL. It's a great littlet pocke camera that takes the gamut of M lenses. I love the shutter dial on the CL, very ergonomic. Not sure what to suggest in the 50mm range as it really depends on your shooting style and budget. I've got my 35mm CronV4 on the CL most of the times as that is my working lens.

BTW: Yes, The noctilux fits on the CL ... but it blocks the rangefinder :-)

Hope you enjoy your new CL.

anhtu

[DMG]

must say I quite like my little CL, don't seem to use it enough at the moment though and it could do with a good CLA

[cpborello]

In my case, the CL led to the M5. So it was the gateway drug which I still partake in frequently (with the 40 m-rokkor or 90 m-rokkor). Based on your original post re 50mm, the Canon 1.4 or 1.8 are worth looking into.

CL=MJ
M5=H with a dirty stick

[John Noble]

Well, that kind of muddies the waters, memphis. Speaking of Memphis, some ribs from Rendezvous sure sound good right now.

Lots of good suggestions, everyone. A MKII Canon sounds interesting. They're kind of rare, aren't they?

What I really want is a 150g pancake Nocti (self-focusing, please). Hmmm... maybe I'll just grab the Heliar and go take some pictures.

[John Noble]

Really nice shot, Brian, and that's the look I'm hoping for.


rendezvous will fedex them to you -- very good -- done it before, no quality loss


Argh ... must ..... resist ..... temptation ......

[shenkerian]

Hi John, congratulations on your purchase. I completely agree about the gateway thing -- the CL was my first rangefinder, and it quickly led me to an MP. I now have a two-body travel kit to take with me to Europe in a week.

[vrgard]

Perhaps a lower cost alternative, if you like the Canon 50/1.5 Sonnar look (and I sure do), is the Jupiter-3. I have one that Brian Sweeney worked on that is a very nice match for the CL. Not only is mine black, which nicely matches the CL, but due to it being lighter in weight than the Canon presumably because the material used in the Jupiter, it balances better on my CL than does the Canon. Can't really say anything bad about either lens (nor the 40 Rokkor or Cron, as others have suggested), but the Jupiter just seems to physically and visually match the CL better than does the Canon.

Of course, just as with the CL to a regular M camera, the lens story is an equally slippery slope. For example, based on previous comments and pics posted by William, I have now added the Canon 28/3.5 to round out my CL kit which previously consisted of the 40 Cron and the 90 Rokkor. Other than the Canon 28/3.5 being a bit slow for indoor work, I love the fact that the 28, 40 and 90 fit so easily into a small, lightweight kit yet still provide a wide range.

Bottom line is, regardless of what direction you decide to go, you will enjoy it. The CL is a sweet little camera. Although I have to admit that after having Sherry Krauter CLA mine and put in new meter, the "lower cost entry to the M world" turned out to be a false economy. But I love my CL now that the meter is right on and it feels so buttery smooth. Oh, and the Luigi half case really adds a measure of quality to the normally lightweight feel of the CL.

-Randy

[Bingley]

I'm enjoying this thread, and have eyed a CL as a first M-mount camera. CL's these days seem to go for around the same $$$ as used Bessa r2s, and for not much less than new Bessa r2m/a's. Apart from smaller size, are there other advantages to a CL over these newer Bessa models, as a first M-mount RF?

[Paul T.]

Apart from smaller size, are there other advantages to a CL over these newer Bessa models, as a first M-mount RF?
It's very much down to personal taste, but I hugely prefer the metering on the CL, I find the analogue meter far more effective than the LEDs. I also like the shutter speed dial, which is very ergonomic.

[Doug]

I can concur with Jacob's suggestion (in post #9) for the 2.5/50mm Skopar. Very compact despite a 7-element design (also very well constructed) and has a very pleasant character without that "wired" look of some modern aspherics. For some reason it's developed a mixed reputation I think partly through miscommunication and inaccurate rumor, but it's said to be extremely popular in Japan. And I like mine a lot... some shots with it in my RFF Gallery, including detail crops.

The newer limited-production 2.0/50mm Heliar Classic collapsible would certainly be another compact choice ... get one while you can! Also without that hard edgy kind of sharpness, and has some character. For me this lens is controversial because I have mixed feelings about the collapsibility, considering it an advantage on one hand and a liability on the other. I don't carry cameras in my pockets (maybe a p&s though), so ultimate flatness isn't important. Besides, there's the hood anyway...

Happy shopping, and I hope you find one (or more) satisfactory solution(s)! :)

Oh, PS: I missed out on the CL completely, but I'm a big fan of the subsequent CLE...

[John Noble]

So many kind comments, can't keep up with them all.


Perhaps a lower cost alternative, if you like the Canon 50/1.5 Sonnar look (and I sure do), is the Jupiter-3.


Yes, I like the Canon look quite a lot, which is why the Heliar looks so tempting -- smooooth like buttah.

I may fool around with FSU lenses in the future since they seem to be a great way to cheaply expand the photographic palette. For now, I'm looking to keep things as compact as possible. Too many choices! I want the rendering of the Heliar and the size and weight of the 40 'Cron.


I'm enjoying this thread, and have eyed a CL as a first M-mount camera. CL's these days seem to go for around the same $$$ as used Bessa r2s, and for not much less than new Bessa r2m/a's. Apart from smaller size, are there other advantages to a CL over these newer Bessa models, as a first M-mount RF?


From my newbie perspective, it's mainly size and weight. And I cannot lie: it's a nice fashion statement. My CL makes me want to go out and get a SRT-101 to replace my X-700 -- Minolta made a hell of a nice camera back in the metal body days, apparently.

The CL's analog needle metering is very cool, as is the tight meter pattern. It's almost like having a continuous reading spot meter right in the camera. I get the feeling that I'm about to learn an awful lot about light in a very short time just by panning around and watching the meter. I also like having the shutter speed in the VF.

By all accounts it's hard to wrong with the CV bodies, but others would know a lot better than I.

[cpborello]

Apart from smaller size, are there other advantages to a CL over these newer Bessa models, as a first M-mount RF?

I agree with Paul T -- analog meter and shutter speed dial. And, in my opinion, the Leica CL is a bit more pocketable (lighter and smaller), but this depends on the size of your pockets.

[Biggles]

...have eyed a CL as a first M-mount camera...


That's what I did- I've only had CLs so far. Do it, IF


You want the smallest, lightest possible M-mount body
You're willing to pay up to $400 US for a complete overhaul including a new meter cell
You're willing to live with a comparatively fragile, shock-sensitive camera body.


DON'T buy a thirty year-old CL to use as your principal camera body and not get it overhauled. You'll just curse the thing. The meter will be out of adjustment, if not due to age, at least for the battery voltage; the focus may be out of whack; it might have light leaks. Shutter speeds might need attention, as well. But blueprinted, they're very, very nice cameras to walk around all day with.

Fussy little things. But then, specialised tools usually are.

One man's opinion... I've had three of them. Your mileage may vary.

[Al Patterson]

I bought one on ebay that appears to work correctly. Light meter matches my A-1 light meter, but it's still calibrated for the old mercury batteries, not the 1.5 volt ones.

I will get it set for the newer batteries when it does require repair though.

[John Noble]

Fussy little things. But then, specialised tools usually are.


Having owned both a Triumph motorcycle and an air-cooled VW bus, I know what you mean. On the other hand, they prepared me for machines with personality plus. My CL's meter seems to read about 1/2 EV low, for instance, and the RF has a little vertical misalignment. No sweat -- I noticed the first quirk when I compared it with my Sekonic, and the second didn't prevent me from taking some sharp handheld test snaps with a nearly wide open f4 90mm @ minimum focus distance. And this was the first time I'd ever used a rangefinder.

It ain't all that broke, so it don't need that much fixin'. :-)

Having said that, mine will probably go in for new oil, points, and plugs sometime soon just because old machines demand sacrifices of either tears, blood, or money and will get (at least) one of the three whether you want them to or not.

[Bingley]

"My CL makes me want to go out and get a SRT-101 to replace my X-700 -- Minolta made a hell of a nice camera back in the metal body days, apparently"

Yikes! I kinda like my x-700 for its small size and weigh (for an slr). A CL could be bad news ...

I will mull further. Thanks for the advice. CL v. R2, CL v. R2, CL v. R2... decisions, decisions...

[Al Patterson]

I have a CL and want an R2M. Why not one of each?

[Bingley]

Well, I've already got a Canon P and a Canon 7. I don't really need another RF except for M mount purposes. In fact, if I bought a CL or an R2M, I would probably sell one of the Canons (7?) to help finance it. (I've been meditating on Ruben's anti-GAS postings).

[John Noble]

Yikes! I kinda like my x-700 for its small size and weigh (for an slr). A CL could be bad news ...


Well, if there was a SRT that had the X-700's laziness features (AE and really nice TTL flash), I'd probably make the trade and carry a little extra weight. It's the lenses that really add up the weight and take up space, not to mention gadgets like a flash big enough to be worthwhile and a motor drive. I figure six or seven pounds' worth. My planned CL kit will come in at a little over two pounds and I'm only giving up one stop of maximum speed and about a hundred mm on the long end.

See? There's your justification for some new toys. You can thank me later. :-)

[Bingley]

"See? There's your justification for some new toys. You can thank me later. :-)"

You, sir, are a very, very bad man. ;-)

Actually, I know what you mean about the Minolta lenses (good as they are). They fill up a fanny pack pretty quickly. That's why I shifted back to RF, but I went the LTM route and got a P. With the (small) Canon 50/1.8 or the (newly acquired, and tiny) CV 28/3.5, it's pretty durned pocketable, and I can always add my XA for stealth/backup/35mm fl coverage. I don't think I'm giving anything up in terms of lens quality. What attracts me to M mount RFs, though, is the CV 40.

[Jacob]

My ultra-compact M system.

[John Noble]

After all of your helpful comments, I plopped for the Heliar after all. It all comes down to the look on film, and if images posted on the internets are anything to go by--and they just barely are--nothing else has as much of what I'm looking for.

A very close runner-up was one of the various Canon LTM 50s suggested above. They seem to be strong performers and are a real bargain. I don't think I would have been unhappy with the one ChrisN has listed in the RFF classifieds.

I'll post some results after I've had a chance to play with it.

Thanks, everyone.

[kvanderlaag]

To put it shortly: Yes.

My CL was my first Leica. After that immediately came the M2. It is an obsession, and you will not want to shoot anything else. Get out now while you still can.

[lic4]

When Sherry Krauter CLA'd my CL, she suggested that I carry it around in foam b/c the rangefinder can come unadjusted with heavy carrying. I'm not sure if she meant that this is only the case for the CL or all Leica Ms in general, but I remember babying my CL until I finally sold it to get a Leica M (which does feel so much more rugged).
Anyhow, the CL does seem more prime for daily, demanding use than the Bessa R, the camera that got me into RFs--.
For what it's worth, i probably got the best mileage out of my Bessa R than any other camera, so my new obsession with ruggedness seems silly. (Maybe it won't in 20 years.)

I've never really posted on RFF.com but have posted twice today. Funny what a day of dreaded work and procrastination can do.

[Doug]

In 40 years of using my M2 I've had it CLA'd twice and on two other occasions I've had the vertical alignment of the RF adjusted. One of my two Bronica RF645's also has minor alignment issues. I just got a second CLE and in checking it over I noticed the RF alignment of this 25 year old camera is perfect both vertically and at infinity. So is the one I've had since new, come to think of it. Never any RF alignment problem with the CLE... could it have a design more resistant to misalignment?