Jump to content

11-23 vs. 18-56 Comparison


Recommended Posts

http://macfilos.com/photo/2018/1/10/leica-cl-18-56-vario-elmarit-tl-versus-24mm-summilux-m-and-50mm-summilux-m?rq=Leica%20CL

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/2018/1/8/leica-cl-55-135mm-tl-versus-90mm-summicron-m-and-50mm-summilux-m

 

I found these two articles which the author compares the 18-56 vario & 55-135 vario against various M lenses, it shows both vario zooms do have high quality glass. Too bad the author doesn't have the 11-23 vario but I think we can assume its quality should be similar to the other two vario zooms. I hope this helps!

 

Happy Shooting!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, they're completely different focal lengths and they're both very very good lenses, so you buy the one you need or both, with confidence.

 

In the 5mm where they do overlap the 11-23 is very marginally better, at least on my copy of each lens. But it's not enough that it's important in real world shooting.

 

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One question is what are they like wide open? I know you're unlikely to be shooting wide open all the time, but are you getting any softness at the edges? Does the bokeh differ? Do they balance differently in use? Is one easier than the other if you wish to focus manually? Curious...

Link to post
Share on other sites

'wide open' is not very wide open by prime lens standards and deliberately kept that way to maintain excellent image quality throughout the range. 

 

they are all smallish, light, fit well with the size of the CL/TL and focus well and easily manually.

 

you ain't going to find much about all this as there is basically nothing to complain about ...... and they all perform up to the standards you expect from Leica optics ......  :rolleyes:

 

the only outlier is the 18mm ...... that trades some image quality for extreme compactness, otherwise you are not going to find better APS-C lenses for any non FF camera. 

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

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recently bought the 18-56 for my CL, and was immediately impressed by the IQ. But more particularly, the CL+18-56 is an astonishingly practical, compact and high quality package covering the typical focal range of an M body with the normal prime lenses. Image quality is comparable for most real world uses (I have the Apo Summicron 50 to compare it with on the M240). What you lose is the wider apertures for low light and for depth of field control. Other than that, this compact combination lives permanently in a small Crumpler Haven in my (non-camera) messenger bag, or on its own in my Fogg Flute. It's what I use most of the time, now, with the SL for when, as an amateur, I play at being a pro. The M240 is relegated to a drawer for the moment.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

http://macfilos.com/photo/2018/1/10/leica-cl-18-56-vario-elmarit-tl-versus-24mm-summilux-m-and-50mm-summilux-m?rq=Leica%20CL

 

http://macfilos.com/photo/2018/1/8/leica-cl-55-135mm-tl-versus-90mm-summicron-m-and-50mm-summilux-m

 

I found these two articles which the author compares the 18-56 vario & 55-135 vario against various M lenses, it shows both vario zooms do have high quality glass. Too bad the author doesn't have the 11-23 vario but I think we can assume its quality should be similar to the other two vario zooms. I hope this helps!

 

Happy Shooting!

Even more too bad that he only compares at f 8.0 (and f 16) Even a Coke bottle bottom produces a decent image at those apertures.

His conclusions are correct, though.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One question is what are they like wide open? I know you're unlikely to be shooting wide open all the time, but are you getting any softness at the edges? Does the bokeh differ? Do they balance differently in use? Is one easier than the other if you wish to focus manually? Curious...

Nothing of the above. Well, at pixel-peeping level the 55-135 may show a small amount of double contouring in busy OOF areas, like many modern aspherical designs, also Leica ones.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling Andrew Tobin! Calling Andrew Tobin! Andrew, have you perhaps compared the 11-23 to your setup and just not published yet?

 

 

I don’t have an 11-23 yet I’m afraid. I find the 18-56 wide enough as I’m not a major fan of ultrawide stuff (though I may change my mind if some cash comes my way from somewhere!)

 

 

Even more too bad that he only compares at f 8.0 (and f 16) Even a Coke bottle bottom produces a decent image at those apertures.

His conclusions are correct, though.

Ah come on, I was at f/4.5 with the 90mm comparison. However, I was particularly comparing at landscaping-type apertures which is what I do most of, hence f/8 etc. Not much point comparing a 90 Summicron at f/2 with the 55-135 which can’t reach f/2.

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...