Jump to content

Performance of TL 11-23mm


Recommended Posts

I've owned one for about a year.  Used it on the SL (for video and as an experiment) and now on the CL.  It is superior to the 18 mm CL pancake in every way but size, and it outdoes the 23 CL Summicron by a bit in sharpness and close focusing ability.  As a "does everything" travel kit for the CL, the 11-23 and the 35 Summilux is hard to beat.  (Plus the 60 Macro if you like wildflower closeups and critters at modest distances.)  The 11-23 is a zoom which outperforms the available primes with AF in its product niche. There are lots of threads on this forum with examples that you can look at, but that's my summary.

 

I've currently got the 11-23 on my CL and 16-35 on an SL and am doing some similar things with both, which both provide high quality results, even in near macro situations.  Out and about, the CL is obviously lighter  and perhaps quicker, but the SL in a studio setting is faster and easier to get focused.  The SL gear looks more robust than the CL gear.  I'm not impressed with the hood on the 11-23 CL.  But these are really nits.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I've owned one for about a year.  Used it on the SL (for video and as an experiment) and now on the CL.  It is superior to the 18 mm CL pancake in every way but size, and it outdoes the 23 CL Summicron by a bit in sharpness and close focusing ability.  As a "does everything" travel kit for the CL, the 11-23 and the 35 Summilux is hard to beat.  (Plus the 60 Macro if you like wildflower closeups and critters at modest distances.)  The 11-23 is a zoom which outperforms the available primes with AF in its product niche. There are lots of threads on this forum with examples that you can look at, but that's my summary.

 

I've currently got the 11-23 on my CL and 16-35 on an SL and am doing some similar things with both, which both provide high quality results, even in near macro situations.  Out and about, the CL is obviously lighter  and perhaps quicker, but the SL in a studio setting is faster and easier to get focused.  The SL gear looks more robust than the CL gear.  I'm not impressed with the hood on the 11-23 CL.  But these are really nits.

In terms of sheer IQ, I'm assuming that the 16-35 is superior to the 11-23, but is it significantly so, do you think? (assuming the 16-35 is also on the CL for comparisons; but also if not: that is to say, comparing the 16-35 on the SL with the 11-23 on the CL). I'm considering both systems, so thanks. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using each wide zoom on their intended platform for stills.  It will take a while to get to know their differences in rendering of color, or in contrast.  There may be some stylistic differences.  Someone in another thread said the 11-23 looked unacceptably Cosina-like in its rendering, and he wouldn't explain further.  I don't see it.  Cosina Voigtlaender lenses' usual weakness start with soft corners and focus shifts, and there is none of that with the 11-23.

 

The 16-35 on the CL doesn't do anything for which I don't have a good solution already, and it's just as out of balance as the 90-280 (which I do use on the CL).  The 11-23 on the SL is great for video indoors in cramped quarters, since in video it is used as an APS-C lens.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm using each wide zoom on their intended platform for stills.  It will take a while to get to know their differences in rendering of color, or in contrast.  There may be some stylistic differences.  Someone in another thread said the 11-23 looked unacceptably Cosina-like in its rendering, and he wouldn't explain further.  I don't see it.  Cosina Voigtlaender lenses' usual weakness start with soft corners and focus shifts, and there is none of that with the 11-23.

 

The 16-35 on the CL doesn't do anything for which I don't have a good solution already, and it's just as out of balance as the 90-280 (which I do use on the CL).  The 11-23 on the SL is great for video indoors in cramped quarters, since in video it is used as an APS-C lens.

Thanks. The 90-280 on the CL is my dream birding kit (even though just at the edge of acceptable reach)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only downside of the 11-23 is really that it is slow.  If that is of no concern to you there should probably be nothing stopping you from buying it.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone in another thread said the 11-23 looked unacceptably Cosina-like in its rendering, and he wouldn't explain further.  I don't see it.  Cosina Voigtlaender lenses' usual weakness start with soft corners and focus shifts, and there is none of that with the 11-23.

 

 

If you are referring to my post in another thread, my comment was that images made with it print like Cosina glass.  I said nothing about corners or focus shifts, nor did I criticize the performance of the lens.  As the thread dealt with personal preference, I purposely refrained from elaborating in order to avoid potential discord regarding a circumstance that was pertinent to my use of the lens but may have no impact on how others use it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My comment was not meant to restate your claim, but I have found CV lenses to be weak in the two areas I mentioned.  And the Leica/Asian-Partner lenses offered for the TL series are stronger in resolution and classic design measures than CV products.  There are differences in color between the 11-23's and the 16-35's images, but I don't know whether this is due to glass or software profiles.

 

I still don't understand what you mean by how a lens prints, and would like to know more.

 

The only downside of the 11-23 is really that it is slow.  If that is of no concern to you there should probably be nothing stopping you from buying it.  

 

"slow?"  Wide angle primes in the range of 10 to 18 mm either are specified as around f/4 or smaller apertures, or should be used there.  I use my 15 Elmarit R at f/5.6 typically, because it has obvious softening away from the center when opened wider than that.  But since both the 11-23 and the 16-35 decrease their maximum aperture at the 35mm-eff end, there will be better (and smaller) prime lenses available for shooting in low light situations at 28 or 35 mm focal lengths. 

 

edit: there are f/2.8 ultra-wide zooms for smaller formats (Olympus Pro for example) and the latest of these are pretty good but I haven't used them recently.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with the 11-23 lens but I prefer the 18-56 rendition on the CL. The images from the 11-23 when you print them to A2 size, have the appearance of over-enthusiastic vignetting correction and don't look quite natural. This has improved on the latest firmware and I hope that it might improve further on subsequent iterations of the FW. I personally would prefer if the in-camera vignetting correction could be turned off for RAW/DNG and then I could apply the amount of correction I want in post processing. I actually quite like a small amount of vignetting in wide angle images. 

 

Wilson

 

PS I have actually bought a dumb M to L adapter, so that I can use various M lenses without them being recognised on the CL and automatic corrections applied (like I get with my smart Leica M adapter L). I also use this with my SL on the Leitz BEOON slide copier, so that again, I get no corrections. The dumb adapter was a cheap Chinese one (£13.50) but on measuring with a micrometer, dial gauge and measuring block, it seems very accurately made and the mounts are dead parallel to each other https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/LM-L-T-Adapter-For-Leica-M-Mount-L-M-Lens-to-Leica-T-Type-701-Mirrorless-Camera/322605327855?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2057872.m2749.l2649 

Edited by wlaidlaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

Of the CL lenses I own I rate the 11-23 as amongst best, only coming behind the 60 Macro in sheer performance terms... but of course much more versatile and with a focal range almost made for travel, which is one of the key applications I see for the CL platform. 

 

The lens epitomises the CL offering for me, which is delivery of SLR like performance in a much smaller package. 

 

If you have a CL then you deserve the 11-23. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

"slow?"  Wide angle primes in the range of 10 to 18 mm either are specified as around f/4 or smaller apertures, or should be used there.  

 

The Fuji 10-24mm zoom is f4 but has OIS.  Fuji also has 16mm/f1.4 and 14mm/f2.8 primes, so yes, I would say slow compared to the competition.

Edited by JorisV
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't felt the need for OIS in wide angle lenses. I have used the Fuji 16/1.4 in a dark costume party-like setting where nothing else would do, and was pleased with the results (   https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/X44GXf -- all taken at f/2.0).  But for a sharp-across-the-frame shot with that lens I would go to f/4.0 or f/5.6.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't felt the need for OIS in wide angle lenses. I have used the Fuji 16/1.4 in a dark costume party-like setting where nothing else would do, and was pleased with the results (   https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/X44GXf -- all taken at f/2.0).  But for a sharp-across-the-frame shot with that lens I would go to f/4.0 or f/5.6.

 

+1.  And dark costume parties are more about capturing the moment than about critical sharpness across the frame I would say.  

 

F4 and f5.6 are too slow for me for most indoor (and low light in general) usage.  I would very much welcome faster wide-angle primes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no problems with the 11-23 lens but I prefer the 18-56 rendition on the CL. The images from the 11-23 when you print them to A2 size, have the appearance of over-enthusiastic vignetting correction and don't look quite natural. 

I just checked this with the 11-23 and the 23 SC for the CL.  I also find that the profile currently in the CL makes the image flat to the corners wide open (no natural vignetting left) and either flat or a tiny bit brighter when at apertures like f/8 and above.  But if you ignore shifts of +- 2 out of 128 points, they are all flat.  I had not paid attention to this up to now, because I normally add a fraction of a stop of vignetting to darken corners as a standard postprocessing step.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just checked this with the 11-23 and the 23 SC for the CL.  I also find that the profile currently in the CL makes the image flat to the corners wide open (no natural vignetting left) and either flat or a tiny bit brighter when at apertures like f/8 and above.  But if you ignore shifts of +- 2 out of 128 points, they are all flat.  I had not paid attention to this up to now, because I normally add a fraction of a stop of vignetting to darken corners as a standard postprocessing step.

 

Scott, 

 

Of course I can add vignetting back in but it just seems silly to remove it in-camera and then add it back in again. This can result in an image looking blocky and over-processed. it would seem such a simple FW update to enable a menu selection "In-camera vignetting correction - off". I am never sure why so many camera manufacturers don't enable tools to turn off their clever features like noise reduction etc. I suspect it is down to arrogance sadly, where they cannot imagine anyone not wanting to use their "wonderful" tools. 

 

Wilson

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

No, this is an in-camera profile. I'm developing in C1, which probably pays no attention to the XMP stuff.  In the bad old M8 and M9 days, it also removed green edges and italian Flag syndrome.  It does seen a little stronger than it should be.  And with an M lens you can override having the lens recognized.  But not with an L, where the need for a profile is much less since the lenses (except perhaps the 18) are designed with the exit pupil no longer brushing up against the sensor.

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Incidentally, while fast APS-C primes like the Fuji XF f/1.4 series (16, 23, 35, 56 mm) will bring home good pictures at their maximum apertures, they are NOT sharp across the field until you stop them down 2-3 stops, at which point they are no faster than the 11-23 at its maximum aperture.  I put some test images up in a Flickr album for the Fuji lenses a while ago, and have added 11-23 shots wide open at 11, 14, and 23 mm focal lengths.  Not remotely interesting as images, unless you like Moire from window screens.  The 11-23 images are sharper than the Fuji equivalents.

 

https://www.flickr.com/gp/133969392@N05/P2NYep

Edited by scott kirkpatrick
  • Like 3
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...