I've been looking at the CL as an alternative to Fuji due to the fact that the L mount has the perfect lenses when translated to APS-C for what I've been looking for. I know it's fairly expensive at the moment even though its discontinued, but the CL also has the perfect body style for me as well (I was looking at the Fuji X-E4 as well as a possible alternative.Does anyone have any of these Sigma lenses and can they attest to if the combo is worth it?Sigma 65mm f/2 (I've been wanting a 100mm equivalent from Fuji for years and they're no closer to making it, the 60mm f/2.4 doesn't cut it)Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (small and f/1.4 is perfect for APS-C)Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (the perfect kit lens for a camera that size)

I don’t have any of the Sigma lenses for my CL but there are several here that do. They are all well regarded. I don’t think you could go wrong with them.

I have a CL with several sigma lenses including a couple you've mentioned. The combination is amazing and you can't go wrong. I only bought my CL a few months ago, and since the sigma lenses also fit my SL2S, I have the best of both worlds. Image quality is phenomenal (in my humble opinion) and the sigma lenses are considerably less expensive than a lot of other lenses I have purchased for my (previous) fuji setup.I sold off all my fuji "stuff" and went with the CL - SL2S and Q2 monochrome.Kurt

Schneidertime wrote:I have a CL with several sigma lenses including a couple you've mentioned. The combination is amazing and you can't go wrong. I only bought my CL a few months ago, and since the sigma lenses also fit my SL2S, I have the best of both worlds. Image quality is phenomenal (in my humble opinion) and the sigma lenses are considerably less expensive than a lot of other lenses I have purchased for my (previous) fuji setup.I sold off all my fuji "stuff" and went with the CL - SL2S and Q2 monochrome.Kurthow big is that 28-70 on it? Have a photo of the combo? That’s my most used range

Quite manageable. -- “I’m Here, Because You’re There!”

I find the CL easy to use, and makes excellent files. I have 2 CL(TL) lenses and several M lenses I use with mine. That said the 18-50 with f2.8 is certainly attactive, the 18-55 Leica lens is just too slow for a main lens. I'd go for it.

I love my CL!The images (DNG) are terrific.It’s a very compact and not heavy camera.It’s very flexible in that you can use any L lens and any M lens.The UI is easy to use and the philosophy of setting up profiles means you don’t have to faff through 20 pages of menu options of numerous buttons to get what you want.

I have the CL and SL2-S and the Sigma Contemporary lenses work very well with the CL.I have the 20mm F2, 35mm F2 and 65mm F2.I picked up the new  Leica 50mm F2 last weekend and when mounted to the CL, it didn't feel unbalanced, looking forward to taking this combo out this weekend.

The CL  and sigma lenses make a great combo and I have two of the apsc lenses the 30 and 56 both f1.4i also have the 90mm f2.8 which makes a fantastically lightweight 135mm. Plus the Leica TL 18/2.8 pancake lens Which is my most used lens.the 30mm is the largest of them and is around 70mm long. In my view it is not small although it is light.I guess it depends on what you are use to but the 30 and the zoom are not small.the smallest sigma lenses are the 24/3.5 45/2.8 and 90/2.8 which also share the same 55mm filter thread. Interestingly they are also all full frame.you can’t go wrong with any of the sigma I series lenses so it’s just a matter of selecting the ones that suit you.personally I like a compact kit so when I can I’m looking at replacing the 30 and 56 which I don’t use much with a Leica 28/2.8. I’m hoping sigma will release a 28mm or 30mm f2.8 compact lens as I really like the 42-45mm focal length.good luck

Nunataks wrote:I've been looking at the CL as an alternative to Fuji due to the fact that the L mount has the perfect lenses when translated to APS-C for what I've been looking for. I know it's fairly expensive at the moment even though its discontinued, but the CL also has the perfect body style for me as well (I was looking at the Fuji X-E4 as well as a possible alternative.Does anyone have any of these Sigma lenses and can they attest to if the combo is worth it?Sigma 65mm f/2 (I've been wanting a 100mm equivalent from Fuji for years and they're no closer to making it, the 60mm f/2.4 doesn't cut it)Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (small and f/1.4 is perfect for APS-C)Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (the perfect kit lens for a camera that size)FYI here are the lighter L-mount zooms by weight with effective focal length.https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66763074Personally, I’ve wondered if the gorgeous I-Series may have originally been intended to be Leica-branded — they certainly match wellThere’s also the Lumix S 35mmF1.8 (295g) or 85mmF1.8 (355g; about 50g lighter than the 65mm) in that vicinity.A recent rumour claims that a new 23mmF1.4 (340g) in the aps-c DC DN range may release soon. Actually, the new ART24mmF1.4 is not too heavy (relatively speaking) at ~520g.I enjoy the Fuji X-Pro1, but the first thing I noticed was that I missed the dense metal touch of rangefinder lenses. The I-series certainly bridge that for AF.I wish Leica would release some of the manual lenses with electronic contacts in L-mount and a cheaper price-point (made in Portugal/Japan/China?).  Actually, I’d love to see an L2 Technology camera license the Fuji HybridVF. -- “If you're not careful, the newspapers will have you hating the people who are being oppressed, and loving the people who are doing the oppressing.” Malcolm X "If lies can begin wars then the truth can end them." Jx/xxn Xssxngx “Remember that all through history, there have been tyrants and murderers, and for a time, they seem invincible. But in the end, they always fall. Always.” Gandhi

I can now say that the Sigma 24/3.5 (36mm equiv) works perfectly with the CL. It's the same length as the Summicron 23/2 with a filter plus 3-4mm, and has the added advantage, as other Sigma I lenses do of having an actual aperture ring. What that means in practice is you can put the camera in P and the ring in "A" and immediately choose your preferred aperture and the camera automatically switches to aperture mode. It's as close to shooting with a film camera as I've ever seen.An added advantage is you can pick up the 24/3.5 for $400-$500. If you also have a full frame L mount camera, it switches right over as a true 24mm.

PJ711 wrote:I can now say that the Sigma 24/3.5 (36mm equiv) works perfectly with the CL. It's the same length as the Summicron 23/2 with a filter plus 3-4mm, and has the added advantage, as other Sigma I lenses do of having an actual aperture ring. What that means in practice is you can put the camera in P and the ring in "A" and immediately choose your preferred aperture and the camera automatically switches to aperture mode. It's as close to shooting with a film camera as I've ever seen.An added advantage is you can pick up the 24/3.5 for $400-$500. If you also have a full frame L mount camera, it switches right over as a true 24mm.The Sigma lenses are probably nice, but an f3.5 lens for a main lens is awfully slow. I started with a 25 f3.5 Canon, a tiny good lens lens with my CL. Within a month I found f3.5 hampering what I wanted to do with the CL. I found an opened box 23 Summicron and haven't looked back. I still use the Canon but as it was meant to be used on my M3. Doesn't Sigma have a 24 f1.4? Or look for a used 23 f2.

Nunataks wrote:I've been looking at the CL as an alternative to Fuji due to the fact that the L mount has the perfect lenses when translated to APS-C for what I've been looking for. I know it's fairly expensive at the moment even though its discontinued, but the CL also has the perfect body style for me as well (I was looking at the Fuji X-E4 as well as a possible alternative.Does anyone have any of these Sigma lenses and can they attest to if the combo is worth it?Sigma 65mm f/2 (I've been wanting a 100mm equivalent from Fuji for years and they're no closer to making it, the 60mm f/2.4 doesn't cut it)Sigma 30mm f/1.4 (small and f/1.4 is perfect for APS-C)Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 (the perfect kit lens for a camera that size)Have a look at the Samyang 75 f1.8 x-mount. Good, compact, lightweight, inexpensive.

PJ711 wrote:I can now say that the Sigma 24/3.5 (36mm equiv) works perfectly with the CL. It's the same length as the Summicron 23/2 with a filter plus 3-4mm, and has the added advantage, as other Sigma I lenses do of having an actual aperture ring. What that means in practice is you can put the camera in P and the ring in "A" and immediately choose your preferred aperture and the camera automatically switches to aperture mode. It's as close to shooting with a film camera as I've ever seen.An added advantage is you can pick up the 24/3.5 for $400-$500. If you also have a full frame L mount camera, it switches right over as a true 24mm.Hi, can you please explain the advantage of this?  Why not simply put the camera in Aperture Priority or Manual if you wish.. cannot see why "P".I've been tempted to add the 24mm 3.5 many times, the Sigma I-series lenses are really good on the CL or indeed any FF L mount body.  I have the 35/2, the 65/2 and the 90/2.8, love the size, weight and performance, though I look forward to seeing what the 50/2 when it comes will be like.  The 65mm is a little on the large side, but if you like/need the focal length, performance wise,  IMO it's the best of the bunch.- Jayboo https://www.flickr.com/photos/jayneboo/

Tomm111 wrote:PJ711 wrote:I can now say that the Sigma 24/3.5 (36mm equiv) works perfectly with the CL. It's the same length as the Summicron 23/2 with a filter plus 3-4mm, and has the added advantage, as other Sigma I lenses do of having an actual aperture ring. What that means in practice is you can put the camera in P and the ring in "A" and immediately choose your preferred aperture and the camera automatically switches to aperture mode. It's as close to shooting with a film camera as I've ever seen.An added advantage is you can pick up the 24/3.5 for $400-$500. If you also have a full frame L mount camera, it switches right over as a true 24mm.The Sigma lenses are probably nice, but an f3.5 lens for a main lens is awfully slow. I started with a 25 f3.5 Canon, a tiny good lens lens with my CL. Within a month I found f3.5 hampering what I wanted to do with the CL. I found an opened box 23 Summicron and haven't looked back. I still use the Canon but as it was meant to be used on my M3. Doesn't Sigma have a 24 f1.4? Or look for a used 23 f2.I have a Summicron 23/2 as well. It's even a little bit smaller than the Sigma, but if I go shooting in the daytime I rarely shoot at less than f/4 or 5.6 anyways. I don't care about bokeh in a 35mm lens. The only reason I'd have to shoot f/2 or f/2.8 is if there isn't enough light. In film days that mattered, today it doesn't, just go up a little in ISO.I saw somewhere that the depth of field in an APS-C lens is about double that of an equivalent FF lens anyways, so the f/2 on the Summicron is about equal to a f/3.5 or f/4 anyways. I'm not sure if that's fully right, but in practice that seems to be the main difference between FF and APS-C when I look at the photos closely.Anyways, that's my reason for using the Sigma, it fits the CL in size and allows me to very quickly control aperture. Performance-wise I don't see a difference between it and the Summicron/23.BTW the Summicrons are pretty inexpensive these days, I got mine off EB for $850.

Hi, can you please explain the advantage of this? Why not simply put the camera in Aperture Priority or Manual if you wish.. cannot see why "P".Speed. It's nice to be able to control the aperture without even looking at the barrel. Much faster than glancing down at the little top plate and seeing what happens when you turn one of the top wheels. You can also change the aperture with your left hand as you look through the VF while controlling the exposure knob and shutter with your right. None of it is a dealbreaker by any means but it works for me.

Good deal on the Summicron.The 23 or 24mm lenses will have the DOF of a 23 or 24mm lens, so if you compare it to a 35mm lens it would probably be equal to f3.5 or f4. There is some math to calculate this but it is not aan APS-C lens vs a full frame lens. It is the focal length that determines the DOF, so a 23 would be very close to a 24 in DOF. f3.5 on the Summicron would be around f3.5 on the 24. If you have the Summicron I don't see the point in getting a slower lens at near the same focal length, though having the f stop ring is nice. You can see the f stop on your top LCD, at least in manual, and aperture priority. I have to admit most of my lenses I use beside the 23 (and 11-23) are M lenses, I do like setting the f stop via a readable ring.

CL shooting:   I am curious about the Sigma 30mm 1.4, Leica Summilux TL 35 1.4 and the  Leica 18-56. Have any DPR shooters owned all three or at least shot with each of them?  How close is the Sigma to the Summilux?  I own the 18-56 and it has been a nice surprise. Do the Sigma and Summilux both blow it away IQ wise?  Obviously 30 vs 35 is different but I am talking sharpness etc.Thank you.For the OP. I love my CL but have not shot with Sigma lenses.

Tomm111 wrote:Good deal on the Summicron.The 23 or 24mm lenses will have the DOF of a 23 or 24mm lens, so if you compare it to a 35mm lens it would probably be equal to f3.5 or f4. There is some math to calculate this but it is not aan APS-C lens vs a full frame lens. It is the focal length that determines the DOF, so a 23 would be very close to a 24 in DOF. f3.5 on the Summicron would be around f3.5 on the 24. If you have the Summicron I don't see the point in getting a slower lens at near the same focal length, though having the f stop ring is nice. You can see the f stop on your top LCD, at least in manual, and aperture priority. I have to admit most of my lenses I use beside the 23 (and 11-23) are M lenses, I do like setting the f stop via a readable ring.The Sigma 24mmF3.5 has a very close minimum focus distance — a 2/3 Macro on a CL/TL2.DOF is obviously very narrow at that range, too — if the composition can work there.The Summicron maximum aperture falls to f/2.8 at close range, and doesn’t focus as closely.Note that there is a rumour of a 17mmF4 releasing this month with almost the same weight and form as the 45mmF2.8 and 24mmF3.5 (not a demi-macro, though).

PJ711 wrote:I saw somewhere that the depth of field in an APS-C lens is about double that of an equivalent FF lens anyways, so the f/2 on the Summicron is about equal to a f/3.5 or f/4 anyways. I'm not sure if that's fully right, but in practice that seems to be the main difference between FF and APS-C when I look at the photos closely.A full-frame lens with the same attributes as an aps-c lens will produce the same results on an aps-c camera.So the F/3.5 aperture will produce more DOF at the same distances as the Summicron.An APS-C produces deeper DOF due to having to have greater distance (and shorter focal length) from the subject to match the framing of a full-frame cameraThis Sigma 24mmF3.5 can focus very closely, though — so it can produce blurrier DOF than the Summicron by framing at close range (despite a tighter aperture.)Anyways, that's my reason for using the Sigma, it fits the CL in size and allows me to very quickly control aperture. Performance-wise I don't see a difference between it and the Summicron/23.BTW the Summicrons are pretty inexpensive these days, I got mine off EB for $850.