Jump to content

X Type 113 vs T & 23mm


dkCambridgeshire

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do any X Type 113 owners also use the T with its dedicated 23mm AF lens? If so, how do you rate the two different 23mm lenses? I have a T b/o which I use with M, R and legacy lenses but find I need an AF semi-wide angle lens for a specific ongoing project. Thus have two choices - either buy a s/h 23mm T lens or buy a s/h X Type 113 … I have potential sources for both and am aware of their different lens designs … but not so sure about their differing lens' performances (if any). The small price differential is of little consequence. I have an X1, an XV and a T thus well used to the ergonomics and most operational characteristics of Leica's APS compacts … it's just the two 23mm lenses I'm unsure about … particularly e.g. their different AF speeds (if any), full aperture performances, vignetting (if any), sharpness etc. 

 

Interested in hearing of actual users' practical experiences and comparisons of both lenses. 

 

Best wishes

 

dunk

Edited by dkpeterborough
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi - I tested both quite extensively before purchasing the X 113. I found image quality and lens performance was great with both and actually not a deciding factor at all - for me it was about handling in the main and for me the X was a better fit. If I already had bought into the T system and enjoyed the handling, as I suspect you do, then without a doubt I would go with the T lens. AF is very close in speed as to be indistinguishable, as is performance, sharpness, etc. although I suspect some firmware correction is happening with both. If you do go the X route, you can use the T viewfinder on the 113 (though not on the X-Vario).

 

Best - Dan

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you compare the two using the images provided by dpreview in their online comparison tool, you will find that the combination Leica T+ Summicron-T lens seems to be consistently sharper than the X (113). Whether this has any real life relevance is up to you, but if you pixel peep the verdict is quite clear...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surprised to hear that Bernie - can you post a link as I don't seem to be able to find the 113 on DPR.

 

Sure, see below.

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=leica_x113&attr13_1=leica_t701&attr13_2=oly_em1&attr13_3=sony_a7_ii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=100&attr16_3=100&normalization=full&widget=1&x=0.613424791768741&y=-0.14861620234604112

 

It took me quite a while to find this again because if you go to the Studio Comparison via their mainsite, there are essentially two databases: old and new.

 

The Leica T and X (113) can be found in the new database - or just use the direct link above.

 

If you bring up both the T and the X (113), you'll see significantly more detail with the T. BTW, you'll see more detail with the T than with an X-Pro. Both, in JPG as well as RAW

 

This has been raised in various forums before, but either nobody cared to reply or nobody had an explanation.

 

Either dpreview screwed up the images or the T + Summicron is showing superior performance than both the X (113) and the X-Pro.

 

Lenses used (based on EXIF):

Leica T + Summicron 

Leica X 

X-Pro + 35/1.4

 

 

However, as I said: real life relevance is up to each individual

Edited by bernie.lcf
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, there are RAW files to both and both have been processed by Adobe Camera RAW. The differences are visible in the RAW file as well.

 

If the T and the X are supposed to be equal in image detail, I suspect that one camera's AF might have been doing a better job... what else could go wrong?

 

(except maybe dpreview got a bad camera)

Link to post
Share on other sites

X 113 has a German? 23mm f1.7 lens, 10 elements in 8 groups and focuses down to 20cm.  Leica T 23mm f2 made and designed in Japan is a 9 element 6 group lens and focuses down to 35cm. 

 

According to the DP review the T lens performs better than the X 113 lens … interesting. 

 

I was under the impression that there was little to choose between the two lenses thus was almost being swayed towards the X … because a s/h deal includes a camera and a lens … but now I'm reconsidering the T's lens … However, one DP lens review does not necessarily speak for all lens samples. 

 

More research required! 

 

dunk

Edited by dkpeterborough
Link to post
Share on other sites

I had some time left and decided to give these dpreview images another look.

 

I downloaded the RAW / DNG files and imported them into Lightroom. Then I decided to run the DNG through RawTherapee which does not apply lens corrections and import the resulting JPG into Lightroom for easier handling.

I have attached screenshots.

 

Here are my findings:

 

1. The X (113) lens shows quite significant distortion compared to the T

2. Center of the images is comparable

3. Off center and extremes are better with the T

4. The advantage of the T can be seen even with the uncorrected files, i.e. the correction does not cause the loss of detail

 

Summary 1.0:

- the X (113) lens is just bad outside the center...

 

 

Something else was interesting. The Leica T files show strange EXIF values. Basically the lens is recorded as "Summicron" at focal length 50mm.

This is wrong. It is either the Summicron-T which the Leica T records as "Summicron T 1:2 23 ASPH." and focal length 23mm or it is a 50mm Summicron-M used via the 6-Bit enabled Leica M adapter for T.

 

However, I don't think a Summicron-M was used. First, the angle of view of the example pictures are comparable: both must be more or less the same 23mm. Second, the EXIF value for the Summicron-M should be more detailed. I don't have one to try, but my Voigtländer Nokton was coded as Summilux and the EXIF value on the Leica T reads "Summilux-M 1:1.4 / 50mm".

 

Summary 2.0:

- The Leica X (113) lens is apparently not so good outside the center

- The Leica X (113) does apply quite some lens correction

- DPreview must have used a pre production Leica T - unsure about the X (113) they used

- on a side note: color is completely different between the two images

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by bernie.lcf
Link to post
Share on other sites

One more to show the extremes

 

Again, these are the DPReview RAW files converted to JPG via RawTherapee with no lens correction applied. Files are screenshots.

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One more detail:

I have checked my old X1 and X2 files and I'd say that these cameras hardly apply any lens correction if at all.

 

I must say that this just made the X1/X2 (X-E) a bit more interesting for me. Apart from the screen and the better viewfinder, the old X cameras may be a better choice for many.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting infos Bernie, thanks. And I mean interesting from academical point of view, but not outside that. In the end I don't really care how much is fixed by the camera firmware in the raw files, so long as the resulting picture is good enough for my needs.

 

What the X113 may lose in "purity" it makes back in handling and allowing for things that can't be done with X1/2. I had the X2 previously and loved it. If I still had it, I wouln't update it to X113. BUT since I didn't have it anymore, there was no reason to buy it new instead of X113.

 

The T is a different beast. It's larger and handles 100% different. I would have been surprised if it didn't have better lens than any X. Just because interchangeable lenses allow for less compromises than smaller attached ones.

 

Btw saw the T being used in real life for the firs time last week. And that was on top of a 3500m mountain in Teneriffe :-)

 

I was snapping away with my X Vario when I noticed someone carrying a silver T and his son a Leica C or D-Lux.. Leica family!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting infos Bernie, thanks. And I mean interesting from academical point of view, but not outside that. 

 

[...]

The T is a different beast. It's larger and handles 100% different. I would have been surprised if it didn't have better lens than any X. Just because interchangeable lenses allow for less compromises than smaller attached ones.

 

 

Yes, I agree. 

As I said in my very first posting: if you do pixel peep, the verdict is very clear. Real life relevance is a different discussion.

 

 

However, the Leica T is actually not that much different in size than the X (113):

1mm more length (134 vs. 133mm) and 4mm less height (69 vs. 73mm)

Adding the lens, the X (113) is 78mm deep. The Leica T with Summicron-T is 96mm. That's slightly less than 2cm without the hood.

 

Neither is small. 

 

There are slight differences between the two cameras: 1/4000 on the T vs. 1/2000 on the X, larger LCD, Wifi.

 

The one major difference is of course the user interface and it probably comes down to whether or not you are going to be happy with the UI and if you want to invest the extra money based on having interchangeable lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Bernie. Goes to show one should check their facts.. I had a clear idea that T was significantly larger and it certainly looked like it in person from roughly 3 meters away.

 

I would be all over the T, if they brought out a version with X-style controls and preferebly internal evf. Make flash external instead..

 

The iPhone interface doesn't attract me one bit in a camera, I prefer traditional ways.

 

As for image quality, outside the lenses they should be fairly identical. As they share same sensor etc?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As for image quality, outside the lenses they should be fairly identical. As they share same sensor etc?

 

Really good question... all the sources I have checked (including Leica's own technical sheet) show slight differences in the spec (amount of megapixels, size, pixel density, etc.). Some more, some less significant. Leica just basically states 16.5MP, but effective 16.2 vs. 16.3 (T vs. X). Some websites quote different pixel densities, etc.

 

Bottom line is: there is a claim/rumor that all the 16MP cameras by Leica use the sensor of the Sony NEX-3, but I have not seen any official statements or confirmation.

 

Besides, comparing the sensor to a Sony NEX-3 is of course a rather suggestive way of stating a fact...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

One more detail:

I have checked my old X1 and X2 files and I'd say that these cameras hardly apply any lens correction if at all.

 

I must say that this just made the X1/X2 (X-E) a bit more interesting for me. Apart from the screen and the better viewfinder, the old X cameras may be a better choice for many.

This is most interesting Bernie. As a long-standing happy user of the X1, the lens never fails to please me. If you can live with the older AF technology, the X1 is a very competent timeless camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...