Leica CL + M lenses -- compatible?

[efix]

Hello all,

I've recently been looking into the CL, and been close to acquire one more than once. The only thing that keeps me from doing is that I heard that the CL is not 100% compatible to "standard" M-mount lenses, because the rf mechanism is slightly different to that from the M series. (I suppose this is also why some people find the Summicron 40 doesn't work with regular M cameras).

What do you know/think about this? Would I be able to use my 50/2 Zeiss Planar satisfactorily on the M8, i.e. would it focus accurately close up and wide open, or only at infinity or stopped down?

Thanks in advance!

 

[popch]

M lenses on CL

M lenses on CL

There are four cases which require attention:

- Lenses with goggles: you can not mount them on a CL because the aperture speed dial gets in the way. Also, the goggles would be useless as they would obscure the finder.
- Collapsible lenses: when collapsing (i.e. moving the rear end into the camera) you risk damaging the light meter which rather protrudes into the space where the rear end would go.
- Lenses which protrude deeply into the camera (such as some very wide angles): same problem as with collapsible ones, i.e. risk of damage to the light meter
- Lenses with long focal lengths and wide apertures: they become difficult to focus accurately. 90mm 1:4 will work nicely as will 50mm 1:2.

The 40mm 1:2 works nicely on M type cameras. The only shortcoming is that the M camera will show the frame lines for a 50mm lens, thus causing you to show things within your image which you thought were outside.

Hence, your 50mm 1:2 will work nicely both on the CL and on the M8 if it is accurately adjusted.

 

[johannielscom]

There are four cases which require attention:

- Lenses with goggles: you can not mount them on a CL because the aperture speed dial gets in the way. Also, the goggles would be useless as they would obscure the finder.
- Collapsible lenses: when collapsing (i.e. moving the rear end into the camera) you risk damaging the light meter which rather protrudes into the space where the rear end would go.
- Lenses which protrude deeply into the camera (such as some very wide angles): same problem as with collapsible ones, i.e. risk of damage to the light meter
- Lenses with long focal lengths and wide apertures: they become difficult to focus accurately. 90mm 1:4 will work nicely as will 50mm 1:2.

The 40mm 1:2 works nicely on M type cameras. The only shortcoming is that the M camera will show the frame lines for a 50mm lens, thus causing you to show things within your image which you thought were outside.

Hence, your 50mm 1:2 will work nicely both on the CL and on the M8 if it is accurately adjusted.

I'd call that a feature, you get more than you bargained for!

 

[heatherselkie]

I have yet to hold a cl, but many users argue that you can use many lenses on the cl that supposedly do not. Just read some of the postings in the cl section.

 

[David Murphy]

I have yet to hold a cl, but many users argue that you can use many lenses on the cl that supposedly do not. Just read some of the postings in the cl section.

The CL is cheaper than the M series Leica's and seems (to me at least) to be a bit more compact and lighter. It's not totally compatible, but is to a major extent. One gets what one pays for. Overall it's a decent camera if it's been serviced and the condition is good.

 

[oleg_hk]

What I just learned is that lens shades (sic!) are not really compatible 🙂
The Zeiss hood for C-Biogon 35mm obscures the RF window on CL at distances closer than 1.2m, you can't really focus

 

[Assaf]

There are two issues with focusing:

1) The minimal focusing distance in CL is 80cm and not 70cm. So, standard M lenses ,which focus down to 70cm, could only be focused as close as 80cm.

2) The RF base length is smaller than standard M cameras. So, don't expect to focus 50/1.4 or 90/2 etc. This is also what the manual says.

Personally, I use the CL mostly with it's 40/2 lens and it's fantastic. Even thought, sometimes I miss focus wide open in close distances.

I had other M cameras, but finally stayed with the CL because it's so compact, nice looking and fun to use.

 

[efix]

Thanks for your replies so far. I recently held a CL in my hands, and it felt perfect -- I admit I fell a bit in love with it 🙂 I really liked the viewfinder with the large 40mm framelines and the light meter needle, which I thought was a pretty neat idea. Releasing the shutter and advancing the film felt and sounded very nice, soft and solid, and the CL's size is almost perfect -- more often than not I find my M8 too bulky, and the CL is much closer to my Olympus E-P1, which is sometimes a little small and fiddly ...

The guy in the store though warned me about problems using standard M-mount lenses, because allegedly the CL has a slightly different RF coupling than other M's, so I was hesitant to buy it. He said I would most certainly have focusing issues with my 50/2 close-up and wide-open.

So, I still can't decide between the CL, the M2 and the CLE ... :-( And of course reading rff doesn't help, it only makes things worse (i.e. me wanting all three ;-))

 

[Assaf]

My two cents:
CL is a fun camera. If you like it, you'll carry it around and take beautiful pictures.
A "real" M camera would give you a more precise focusing etc. A "real" M also has a better shutter, which is less noisy and gives less camera shake so you might gain another stop.
If you're looking for a high quality tool - go for another M.
If you fell in love with the CL, take it, and shoot nice pictures with it (and don't think too much on focusing, changing lenses etc.)

Assaf

 

[deirdre]

I really like it with the Voigtlander 15/4.5 Heliar (M version). Nice lens.

 

[gliderbee]

So, I still can't decide between the CL, the M2 and the CLE ... :-( And of course reading rff doesn't help, it only makes things worse (i.e. me wanting all three ;-))

Just let yourself go ! I have all three, and I use them recursively (with some others in between .. 😎). You only live once, and if you _do_ live more then once, nothing is lost anyway, since you'll be able to sell them at used prices, and that's how you will have bought them, so go ahead 😛 !

Stefan.

 

[efix]

Just let yourself go ! I have all three, and I use them recursively (with some others in between .. 😎). You only live once, and if you _do_ live more then once, nothing is lost anyway, since you'll be able to sell them at used prices, and that's how you will have bought them, so go ahead 😛 !

Stefan.

Haha, you're so right 🙂 Btw, I just had the opportunity to try an M2, and while I like the CL's form factor much better, the M2 also is pure joy to handle, especially the large, bright and uncluttered viewfinder. I much prefered it over that of an M6 that I also could try out. So that rules out the M6 at least 🙂

 

[David Hughes]

Do be careful! You'll end up with both if no one stops you. It's a nice way to go, though.

Regards, David

 

[Graham Line]

The rangefinder cams on the back of the 40/2 Summicron-C and the 90/4 Elmar-C, both made for the CL, were steeper and straighter than cams on standard M-series lenses. The effective base length of the rangefinder in the CL is less than that of the standard M bodies.

Assuming the lenses and bodies are within specs, they should mix and match fine but focusing a long lens, or one with a wide aperture, will be slightly more difficult with the CL's rangefiner.

 

[former member]

Leica CL and Canon 50/1.5. Fast and compact- great pairing.

 

[efix]

The rangefinder cams on the back of the 40/2 Summicron-C and the 90/4 Elmar-C, both made for the CL, were steeper and straighter than cams on standard M-series lenses. The effective base length of the rangefinder in the CL is less than that of the standard M bodies.

Assuming the lenses and bodies are within specs, they should mix and match fine but focusing a long lens, or one with a wide aperture, will be slightly more difficult with the CL's rangefiner.

Thanks for the info! I understood that the cam on the lenses was different, but I was under the impression that the rf mechanism of the camera was also slightly different, thus causing incompatibility. So I take it I was wrong then?

 

[David Hughes]

Hi,

Page 25 of the CL's manual: "The bayonet lens mount is identical to that of the Leica M models. This allows the use of numerous lenses from the Leica M system.

For further information see the leaflet No. 120-50."

I've not seen 120-50 and would be interested to see it. A note about it appears on page 6 of the manual as well.

Looking in their general catalogue of 1978, on page 278, it says more or less the same and adds that screw threaded lenses can be used with the adapters. It also says that the "entire visible field is approximately that for 35mm lenses. 28mm lenses require the brilliant finder Code No. 12 007."

Then it lists lenses that can't be used with their lens hoods, several that can't be used wide open, and adds that the f/1 Noctilux cannot be used.

Then there's a list of lenses that can't be used at the closest focussing rage (about 5 or 6).

Then it explains about collapsible lenses and shows how to modify them with Dymo tape. FWIW, I use an elastic band, easier to remove...

And finally, it points out that some half dozen lenses cannot be used as the rear mount goes in too far, or have a finder ("glasses") attached and two others.

It then goes on to say about using CL lenses on M cameras, saying and explaining why: they " ...do not provide precise coupling with the rangefinder... " and so aren't recommended.

Don't take this as gospel because I'm trying to summarise two pages quickly.

There's also a page and more about using lenses on the M5.

What it really needs is scanning but my scanner is on its last legs.

I'm sorry I can't do more but I'm very busy today. Has any one a copy of leaflet 120-50? I'd love to see it.

Regards, David

 

[deirdre]

I personally found that the Voigtlander 50/1.1 Nokton -- well, it blocked too much of the rangefinder's light to be useful to me. Yes, in theory it's usable, but it's not practical.

 

[Graham Line]

Thanks for the info! I understood that the cam on the lenses was different, but I was under the impression that the rf mechanism of the camera was also slightly different, thus causing incompatibility. So I take it I was wrong then?

They are slightly different in design, but not incompatible.

 

[Biggles]

Personally, I use the CL mostly with it's 40/2 lens and it's fantastic. Even thought, sometimes I miss focus wide open in close distances.

Have your camera's focusing checked. I've shot my CL + 40 combination at tabletop distances, at night, wide-open, for a few hundred frames at least, and never had a single problem with maximum-aperture focus until one of my CLs had its rangefinder go out of adjustment, possibly through concussion or vibration.

Seriously. Have it checked. I've walked around cities at night with mine set to 1/30th or 1/60th at f/2, for several years. Often shooting stuff a metre or two away. Always got the pictures.