CL/TL 18-56 Zoom vs. X-Vario Zoom - IQ Comparison?

[mikej]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi, all - has anyone compared the IQ of these 2 lenses under similar circumstances? I recognize it may be hard to separate system sensor capabilities vs. lens performance. Any comments to share? Thanks!

Cheers,

Mike

[jaapv]

I have no experience of the X-Vario. However, I would guess that you will see little difference in performance between the two, with an advantage for the CL combo - after all, the sensor  and electronics are a few years ahead.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[gbealnz]

For a while I had both, con-currently, but didn't bother doing a side by side.

 

Jaap is right, the later lens and sensor of a CL or TL2 "should" be way ahead, as the X-Vario is a mere 16Mp, whereas the CL/TL2 is 24.

 

In my case the 18-56 was on a T, and apart from different handling and slightly differing zoom ranges, I didn't really have any feelings good or bad. Both produced beautiful images.

 

Gary

[Boojay]

I am not a "Tester" but did have both for a very short time.  I loved my X Vario - have some fantastic (to me) images I took with it, it's only drawback for me was the inability to put anything longer or faster on it.  All solved when the CL came along.  When I went on trips prior to the CL I took the X Vario and my M with a 50mm 1.4 - now I can just take the CL with a couple of lenses, nice light package - and so very capable, and the in built EVF makes a huge difference for me too.  

 

Honestly, if for you the X Vario does it all, and you have no need for longer or faster.. or an inbuilt EVF, I think the increase in IQ and 24mp, as well as the price difference would be a hard thing to judge.

[thighslapper]

I've also had both, but never compared images. My feeling is that apart from the (hardly noticeable) lower resolution image quality is up there with the best that Leica can produce. 

 

Being a fixed, dedicated zoom, it was tailored to the XV like the 28mm was tailored to the Q, so the compromises tend to be less. 

 

The X-V is probably the best value second hand camera you can buy ..... prices are criminally low for such a quality camera. 

 

Only downside is it is a bit sluggish and a clip on EVF is really needed to make the most of it. 

[mikej]

Thanks for the feedback, all. I am very happy with my XV images, but would like something a bit faster. I agree that the camera’s depreciation has been hard to swallow, but that is only a problem if I decide to sell or trade it. I do hope Leica keeps a good supply of repair parts for the camera and its charger on hand for some years to come.

Cheers,

Mike

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least ten years after production ends, and possibly quite a bit longer.

[carl_b]

A few things in the x-vario's favor:

 

1) User interface that I bond with a bit better. (But If it had an inline evf ... would have been a stone-cold classic.)

2) Better resistance to gridded flare bubbles when shooting into the sun. (From a guy who likes a sunstar probably a bit too much.)

3) Battery life a bit better.

4) Just looks a bit cooler. (Albeit with the evf attached, that's blown.)

5) The x-vario's lens might have a bit better resistance to sun-veiling, although I'd have to do a side-by-side to back that up.

 

Otherwise IQ between the CL with 18-56 and the x-vario ... Very similar. Think the X-Vario might have color saturation pushed slightly higher, on average. Nothing you can't compensate one way or the other for in any editor. That might have to do with that perceived better sun-veiling resistance for the x-vario. Or, I could be all-wet, hah!

 

I don't think so, though. The X-Vario still hold's it's own for the focal lengths it shoots within.

 

The CL and 18-55mm will have a bit better dynamic range, of course. Which could help any number of shots that you "expose for the max highlights." (Like I do all the time.)

Edited June 3, 2018 by carl_b

[Louis]

I did not have XV, but T and CL.

 

XV proved to be an outstanding camera with a superb glass.

 

But if I had to choose between XV and CL,18-56; I would choose the CL.  CL has a newer and better sensor; and,  IMHO, 18-56 is an excellent lens. Besides that, the fact that CL is "interchangeable", for me is the main reason. You can use with any Leica glass, and third party lenses, as I do.

[tom0511]

I have had both. The big downside of x-vario was slow AF with sometimes missfocus. Color of XVARIO I found excellent, slightly higher saturated than the CL/TL. XVario has a AA-filter, so sharpness was slightly less but still very good.

The user interface of the XVArio I found excellent and unique, overall the CL works much faster with as good IQ at low ISO and better IQ at high ISO, but the XVARIO felt moe special. A fast image chip and sensor and AF in the XVArio and I might exchange the CL for the XVARIO II .

[GLAUMAX]

I had the T with 18-56 and now the XV.

For me, the XV has the edge on sharpness and color rendition.

 

I cannot compare with the CL.

 

It's a pity that the XV lacks an internal VF. Otherwise, it would have been such a wonderful camera. I think that the aperture of the lens is a non-issue for this kind of camera.

[Astropap]

I have the X Vario and the Q.  I've gotten some very good shots with both but I'm kicking myself for having purchased the Q rather than the CL.  I really would like the flexibility of being able to change lenses.  My plan is to trade both for the CL and some lenses.  

 

Amy

[Guest]

I loved my XV and marvel still at its IQ.

 

In daylight these lenses probably show very little IQ difference- even with the 24MP sensor of the CL. In fact, I much preferred the XV’s rendering than that of the T w/ the 18-56. The CL focuses much faster however, and renders much better than the T to my eye (XV has better micro contrast to my eye).

 

In dim light it’s a different story. While the XV can capture really impressive images even in low light at 6400, AF rarely works when zooming in low light however - so you are much more limited with the useful range of the lens in low light. Using MF in low light is also pretty dismal unfortunately. I resorted to using it as a 28mm 3.5 equivalent in low light only.

 

The CL is so much better in this area and gave my zooms a new lease on life. They are now quick to grab focus and zooming to 56mm with AF is never a problem in low light.

 

If you don’t shoot in low light, there’s not a big difference. In low light, it’s like night and day.

 

When combined with the high quality EVF and interchangeable lens ability - it’s a big difference - that may make the price difference worth it, if you can tolerate the price.

 

I hope this is helpful

Edited October 3, 2018 by Guest

[Astropap]

Very helpful. Thanks for responding!

 

Amy

[Stonewall Brigade]

I had the X Vario and found the colors to be outstanding, and the lens extremely sharp. A little slow to autofocus. I nice used one will cost you ¼ the price of the new CL with the 18-56mm TL lens.  Here are 118 images of mine with the X Vario:

https://triumph.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-X-Vario-Goes-to-the-Flea/

 

I now have the CL and 18-56mm TL lens.  It is excellent and much more doer in menu features.  Here are 70 representative images of mine with the CL:

https://triumph.smugmug.com/Photography/Leica-CL-Photography/

 

I think you'd find no obvious differences in RAW image quality between the X Vario & CL, but there is a 4x cost premium to own the CL verses the typical sales price now for a nice used X Vario.

[Astropap]

My best shots from the X Vario have been the b&w. I’ve never been that happy with the color rendering for some reason. Your shots are way better than anything I’ve gotten. I also don’t like the evf I have to use with it. But I do like the simplicity of it. I just don’t know If it makes sense to keep it, although I know I won’t get much by trading it.

 

Amy