Fast times at somewhere high

[tritiated]

I expect that the following question involves an amount of splitting hairs but I'm interested to know if anyone has an opinion, and would like to express it! I have searched for this previous posts on this discussion to no avail:

With the Leica CL body, which lens would be the preferred choice: The Nokton 40/1.4, or the Summicron-C 40/2?
Given that the choices (a lens + the body) are equal in total price.

Here are my ponderings:
There is not a vast 'speed' difference between the two - however is there a marked difference in glass quality/performance? The Nokton extra stop would be useful (I like shooting in low light), although there are reports that it is difficult to accurately focus at 1.4 with this body, and other reports suggesting it is manageable. In comparison, does this Leica lens produce something really special in terms of the image quality?

 

[tritiated]

I didn't realise there was a controversy/ physical compatability problem! Does this include for example the VC 21 or 25? I will look into that - hopefull this wasn't a reopening of worm cans thread..oops. Thanks chaps

 

[tripod]

My gut feeling is that the short base length of the CL would be accurate enough for an f1.4 40mm lens. Brian Sweeney uses a Canon 50 f1.5 on a CL. It would be interesting to hear his opinion.

If the CL can accurrately focus the Summicron 40 f2 wide open at closest focussing distance, the the only issue with the Nocton would be at f1.4 at the closest focussing distance.

 

[Palaeoboy]

1.4 is really pushing the focusing ability of the CL.

Its at the limit of the CL yes but certainly capable of doing it. Its about the same as 50mm f2 to focus but this specified as ok even by Leica.

While there is a great deal of controversy over the CL lens mount, it is not officially compatible with the Nokton 40 1.4

Pardon?, there has never been a controversy over the CL's lens Mount, just the angled cam design of the lenses which has nothing to do with its M mount. So too has there never anywhere had it been said the Nokton is not comptible with the CL. Even Leica states that conventionally cammed lenses will work with the CL. The Nokton mounts perfectly on a CL and it is within its limits to focus at f1.4

As for choice, if you need the speed go with the Nokton and if you need something more compact then go with the Summicron, both are exceptional value.

 

[tripod]

Wasn't the (non) issue about using the C lenses for the CL (40 and 90) on the regualr M camera models, not about using the other M lenses on the CL?

 

[ferider]

The Nokton will work fine on a CL. Below one meter focus distance and with a wide open lens, you will need a well calibrated camera and be extra careful.

Note that the CL can only focus down to 0.8m, while the Nokton on a regular M body will go down to .7m.

Best,

Roland.

 

[mechon]

With the Leica CL body, which lens would be the preferred choice: The Nokton 40/1.4, or the Summicron-C 40/2?
Given that the choices (a lens + the body) are equal in total price.

I'm going to be happy (I hope) owner of CL in few days. I had the same dilemma: 'cron or nokton?
And I decided to buy it with 'cron. Why? I think because it is easy to get this combo here in Europe.
But there is one thing that surprised me. CL's Manual says that with 40mm lens on camera, 50mm framelines still remains in view. I wonder WHY ?
Any ideas?

 

[tripod]

I'm going to be happy (I hope) owner of CL in few days. I had the same dilemma: 'cron or nokton?
And I decided to buy it with 'cron. Why? I think because it is easy to get this combo here in Europe.
But there is one thing that surprised me. CL's Manual says that with 40mm lens on camera, 50mm framelines still remains in view. I wonder WHY ?
Any ideas?

That's just the way it is.

I find that my CL is a great platform for my tiny 35mm Summaron and 28mm Canon lenses, with or without the CV minifinder on top.

The 40mm Nocton works great though I don't take many wide open close-ups with this combo.

 

[mechon]

That's just the way it is.

40 and 50mm framelines are - probably - quite close to each other. I imagine it is a little mess in the viewfinder, isn't it?

 

[tripod]

Not exactly a mess, but not as clean as an M2 for example.

 

[mechon]

Thank you tripod for dispeling my doubts 🙂

Still, I wonder what was the reason of this solution? Why Leica engineers decided to do so? 😕

 

[Palaeoboy]

Leica never said anything about other lenses working that I have been able to find in print, however the original CL manual specifically states that the system is to use CL lenses only, since the coupling cam of the C and M lenses is not the same.

Im not sure what CL Manual that you have but page 25 states (with a picture of a cluster of regular M lenses "The bayonet lens mount is identical to that of the Leica M models. This allows use of numerous lenses from the Leica M system" . The Leitz Minola CL Manual is worded identically only its on Page 23. Further If you read the opposite side of the page to that picture you have from the Leica CL brochure it states "The small Leica CL is a worthwhile acquisition even if you already own an M-series Leica. This is because the CL takes numerous lenses of the Leica M range, offering a highly useful second camera body. Even old screw-based Leica lenses can be fitted via the bayonet/screw adapter. If you have an old Leica, the new Leica CL body brings your outfit up to date - and can utilize the selective through-the-lens exposure metering with your own Leica lenses." Seems fairly official statement from new in both instruction manual and sales literature from Leica. If you have the brochure to which you offered the photo and the instruction manual Im surprised to missed them both. The controversy as you put it only pertains to the use of the two CL lenses on M Mount cameras due to their steeper angled cams rather than the other way around.

While there is a great deal of controversy over the CL lens mount, it is not officially compatible with the Nokton 40 1.4.

The mount is the same (as is the contax and Nikon ) but the cam and rangefinder is not. The mount itself has nothing whatsoever to do with this question.

The suggestion of the Mount being different only crept in to the thread because you originally stated it, but you have later corrected to which caused some confusion I think when in fact you probably meant to say the differing cam design was the cause of discussion rather than the mount.

As such to the original concerns about the 40mm Nokton are not valid. Like other M series cammed lenses that dont foul the CL meter, it works perfectly. The large glass on such a small camera makes it look like a bit of a beast too!