Learner Posted November 1, 2015 Share #1 Posted November 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) A question that only those who have both M lenses and T lenses can answer. Are you equally satisfied with results via M and T lenses, or does the M lens trump the T lens? I suppose the ideal comparison is the T 23mm versus an M 35mm Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 1, 2015 Posted November 1, 2015 Hi Learner, Take a look here What's better on the T ... M lenses or T lenses?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jdlaing Posted November 1, 2015 Share #2 Posted November 1, 2015 It would be closer to a T 23 and an M 24. Autofocus has its advantages. T lenses are much less expensive for what they are. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share #3 Posted November 1, 2015 But is not the T-23 equivalent to 35mm? I was thinking of the quality of the pictures taken. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 1, 2015 Share #4 Posted November 1, 2015 In terms of image quality, the T's 23mm is very M- like. I don't perceive a big difference in IQ over M glass. As stated, autofocus is a big advantage for the T lens - especially with the new firmware update. It makes the T a much faster handling camera than if using manual focus lenses. Also, white balance is fiddly on the T with M glass (it is on the M also I suppose). The T's lenses are designed for digital and are a tighter fit - and I rarely have white balance problems with the native lenses (except in tungsten light which I simply set and forget). Build quality and compact size are a big advantage with the M lenses - but the T's lenses are solidly constructed and I would consider them very high quality. They're just not made of over-the-top brass and they don't weigh a pound. That T-23mm is compact without the hood. Oh - the T lenses are significantly less costly. Advantage: T. The standard T zoom is no slouch either and has delightful colors, contrast, sharpness and is without distortion. It's like having a few (slow) primes in your pocket. I hear the same about the wide- and tele- zooms but haven't taken the plunge (yet). It's the autofocus and these zooms that give the T its real advantage over the M. It's a nice compact kit that is flexible and fast handling (not having to change lenses all the time). Initially, I was leaning towards building a collection of M lenses. With the improvement in autofocus, and apparent commitment to the TL line of lenses, I am instead looking forward to the 35/TL/Lux and 60/TL/Macro. I hope to carry the T/TL lenses forward to an updated body one day. I hope this is helpful. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted November 1, 2015 Share #5 Posted November 1, 2015 Yes it is. But a Summilux 35 is equivalent to a 52mm. There lies the difference. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share #6 Posted November 1, 2015 I see where you're coming from jd Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learner Posted November 1, 2015 Author Share #7 Posted November 1, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) DGP: I reckon a lot of people will appreciate your response three up... Mind you, I'm not sure what "a lot of people" amounts to in the T world. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbchun Posted November 1, 2015 Share #8 Posted November 1, 2015 (edited) Also, white balance is fiddly on the T with M glass (it is on the M also I suppose). The T's lenses are designed for digital and are a tighter fit - and I rarely have white balance problems with the native lenses (except in tungsten light which I simply set and forget). it's interesting that you brought this up, i sometimes feel like the white balance is a bit funky with the M lens, particularly indoors, but don't own any T lens to compare otherwise the performance from my summicron-M 50mm has been fantastic Edited November 1, 2015 by dbchun Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2015 Share #9 Posted November 3, 2015 But is not the T-23 equivalent to 35mm? I was thinking of the quality of the pictures taken. T23 = 35mm, coming T35=50mm and T60=90mm the mm being approximates when converted. An ideal range for a light travel system, hopefully the lens will be small and light. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 3, 2015 Share #10 Posted November 3, 2015 In terms of image quality, the T's 23mm is very M- like. I don't perceive a big difference in IQ over M glass. As stated, autofocus is a big advantage for the T lens - especially with the new firmware update. It makes the T a much faster handling camera than if using manual focus lenses. Also, white balance is fiddly on the T with M glass (it is on the M also I suppose). The T's lenses are designed for digital and are a tighter fit - and I rarely have white balance problems with the native lenses (except in tungsten light which I simply set and forget). Build quality and compact size are a big advantage with the M lenses - but the T's lenses are solidly constructed and I would consider them very high quality. They're just not made of over-the-top brass and they don't weigh a pound. That T-23mm is compact without the hood. Oh - the T lenses are significantly less costly. Advantage: T. The standard T zoom is no slouch either and has delightful colors, contrast, sharpness and is without distortion. It's like having a few (slow) primes in your pocket. I hear the same about the wide- and tele- zooms but haven't taken the plunge (yet). It's the autofocus and these zooms that give the T its real advantage over the M. It's a nice compact kit that is flexible and fast handling (not having to change lenses all the time). Initially, I was leaning towards building a collection of M lenses. With the improvement in autofocus, and apparent commitment to the TL line of lenses, I am instead looking forward to the 35/TL/Lux and 60/TL/Macro. I hope to carry the T/TL lenses forward to an updated body one day. I hope this is helpful. Yes me too those two TL lenses coming in 2016 will make the T a great system. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted November 3, 2015 Share #11 Posted November 3, 2015 I'll go against the grain here. If I have any gripes with what I think is coming T lens-wise it is the size, but correct me if I am wrong. The T35/1.4 is huge, Zeiss/Sony like almost, or am I looking at the wrong thing? I've been to the Leica site, but cannot find much there, in fact I find this site poor. I wanted to find specifications before I started grizzling about the size of the newer lenses, but can't even find that. If they are as large as I suspect, then I am out, and it negates any of the benefits that the T has (to me), number one being compactness. Gary Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BBHewee Posted November 3, 2015 Share #12 Posted November 3, 2015 This should give you a better idea relative to the 23. I'm wondering myself whether to sell the 23 and pre-order the 35, or keep the 23 so I still have a compact system, and just use my M glass. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted November 3, 2015 Share #13 Posted November 3, 2015 Thank you BBH. I now stand by my earlier statement, the new lenses are too big. The common complaint with regard to the Sony/Zeiss models for the A series is size/bulk, and these are the same. Way too big. Why? Gary 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ishrathrajab Posted January 2, 2016 Share #14 Posted January 2, 2016 Hi T owners. I have the T with a 23 mm lens and also use the camera with the M/T adaptor with a 50 mm Apo summicron and attach some recent photos taken with this combination. Focus is relatively easy either with the visoflex or via the lcd screen The colors and detail are absolutely wonderful . Having said that I am looking forward to trying the new 35mm summilux due to the autofocus which I rather enjoy with the 23 mm 9 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdlaing Posted January 2, 2016 Share #15 Posted January 2, 2016 I wish they could have done the 23 in a 1.4 aperture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert blu Posted January 2, 2016 Share #16 Posted January 2, 2016 Not sure if I'll buy a T but imo one of the reasons would be size, small size of course! Body and lenses! robert Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted January 2, 2016 Share #17 Posted January 2, 2016 I'm 50/50 on lenses. I started with only my M lenses, and a meager collection at that, 28mm Elmarit, 35mm Summicron, and a pair of 50mm lenses, Summicron and Canon 50/1.4. The rationale was the camera is small and discrete, so the likes of the minute 35mm Summicron fitted right in. Even the 28mm Elmarit and Canon 50mm were not overly large. I pined for A/F, being lazy. I got the 18-56 and it's a nice lens, very nice. Quick enough for me, and not too large (especially if I don't use the hood). I think a pairing of the 18-56 for lazy shooting, plus the likes of the 28 and 50 M lenses would be perfect. Perhaps with a 15mm Voigtlander if you wanted really wide. The indications of the 35/1.4 coming will leave me out of the running, it is simply too big, I might as well get the A7 and Zeiss equivalent. Gary 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bencoyote Posted January 4, 2016 Share #18 Posted January 4, 2016 This should give you a better idea relative to the 23. I'm wondering myself whether to sell the 23 and pre-order the 35, or keep the 23 so I still have a compact system, and just use my M glass. Judging by the relative scale the 35mm Summilux appears to be about 3 inches tall and the same 2.5" wide. Summicon-T 23mm 2.5"x1.5" Summilux-M 50mm 2.1"x2.1" summilux-T 35mm 2.5"x3" estimate summilux-M 35mm 2.2"x1.8" I get that there are electronics and motors inside and that it focuses internally rather than physically growing longer but I wonder why the extra volume was needed. The need to not block the rangefinder evidently was such an Important design constraint that it seems to have led to a different design philosophy than on the mirrorless cameras like the T and the SL. Anybody know what the difference is? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gbealnz Posted January 4, 2016 Share #19 Posted January 4, 2016 No Ben, but since you asked, I'll continue my rant with respect to the sizes. I keep harping back to what I considered to be a good yard-stick, the Fuji XF35/1.4. A/F, A/E, and not terribly big. Why can't we have something like that, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. This projected current T 35 Summilux is way too big for me, not even remotely interested. Gary 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SirPiet Posted January 4, 2016 Share #20 Posted January 4, 2016 According to b&h website, the T lens is only 5mm longer (70 vs 65mm). The diameter does not matter too much to me as the camera is still bigger than the lens. What matters more is the difference in lens performance, at least that is what I hope for. People have been complaining about software corrections on Leica lenses, so the approach is now different. 12 elements in 8 groups (Leica) vs 8 elements in 6 groups (Fuji) might make a difference as well. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.