Jump to content

Sold the 18 Elmarit-TL... time will tell if I regret it


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After using the 18 Elmarit-TL for a few months I realised I was almost always reaching for an alternative and popped it on ebay for only $150 less than I paid for it. It was sold within an hour.

 

I am having a little bit of seller's remorse, as there is no doubt that the CL with the 18 is a very compact and capable package, and I took some great photos with it. However, for some reason the lens never really grabbed me and, despite the small size, I would usually reach for something else. I don't know if it was just me or my copy, but I prefer the rendering of the 11-23 zoom at 18mm.

 

I can't really articulate what irked me about the 18. It handles well, focusses fast, is sharp and has good colour. But somehow the rendering never really grabbed my attention compared to other lenses in my setup.

 

No profound insights here, but I am interested to see whether I miss the little pancake, which certainly makes the CL a jacket pocketable camera.

Edited by Alistairm
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it excellent as a documentary lens. 

 

It does not have (and probably purposefully) the more artistic rendering that other Leica lenses have.

 

Besides that, as you already mentioned it focuses fast and is compact and sharp, a bit similar to the Elmarit-M 28mm.

 

I am not parting with mine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone compare the 18 Elmarit TL to 18mm FL  on the 18-56 ?

Yes, Sean Reid has looked at both the 18/2.8 and 23/2.0 CLs.  I don't have the 18, but I can confirm that the 11-23 is a little sharper and contrastier than the 23; the difference between the zoom and the pancake 18 should be even greater.  But they are both still convenient and excellent little lenses.  I use my 23 quite often, and am not about to sell it.  Sean is too much of a purist to test a zoom lens, but go sign up for his site to see the details. 

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After using the 18 Elmarit-TL for a few months I realised I was almost always reaching for an alternative and popped it on ebay for only $150 less than I paid for it. It was sold within an hour.

 

I am having a little bit of seller's remorse, as there is no doubt that the CL with the 18 is a very compact and capable package, and I took some great photos with it. However, for some reason the lens never really grabbed me and, despite the small size, I would usually reach for something else. I don't know if it was just me or my copy, but I prefer the rendering of the 11-23 zoom at 18mm.

 

I can't really articulate what irked me about the 18. It handles well, focusses fast, is sharp and has good colour. But somehow the rendering never really grabbed my attention compared to other lenses in my setup.

 

No profound insights here, but I am interested to see whether I miss the little pancake, which certainly makes the CL a jacket pocketable camera.

 

It'd be interesting if you could post a couple of images showing the difference you see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone compared 18mm on CL with 28 elmarit on M?

I have both, but my M240 is in Germany for focus calibration.

I'll try a couple with both on the CL, perhaps tomorrow, if the snow melts enough to avoid blown highlights across the frame :)

 

The CL with 18mm gets a fair amount of use, simply because of its size. In a Crumpler Haven insert it easily fits in my day to day messenger alongside shopping, documents, bike lights etc. I can get the CL with, say, the 60mm TL in the same insert, but it is a lot bulkier. I don't have any other TL/CL lenses, but I do have a Summaron-M 35/2.8 which is also small and makes a convenient 50mm surrogate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I really like the little 18mm prime - it's reminiscent of my Fuji X100F, making the CL into a teeny, highly capable travel camera, with the ability to change lenses which the X100F doesn't have.

 

It makes the CL into a little pocket powerhouse IMHO.

Edited by Tobers
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivo:

My opinion-the Q is far superior, and will certainly handle low light situations much better. 

Rob

 

True but do you find yourself still using the Q while also owning the CL and SL?  That is why I sold mine...

 

If I didn't also own the SL though I probably would have kept the Q.    I used a combination of Q and CL+18-56 zoom for quite a while and found it very effective.

Edited by JorisV
Link to post
Share on other sites

True but do you find yourself still using the Q while also owning the CL and SL?  That is why I sold mine...

 

If I didn't also own the SL though I probably would have kept the Q.    I used a combination of Q and CL+18-56 zoom for quite a while and found it very effective.

 

Joris:

I have not used the Q lately, but, I just cannot bring myself to sell it either.  I'll see how much I use it this summer when I do some traveling. I suspect that I will!

Rob

Link to post
Share on other sites

I figured it was better to cash in now while the resale value is still high.  It wasn't easy though... it is an excellent camera.  

 

Correction: above I meant to say T+18-56 zoom instead of CL+18-56 zoom...

  • Like 1
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...