Jump to content
Le Chef

11-23 vs. 18-56 Comparison

Recommended Posts

I tried searching for this and could find no sign that anyone had done this comparison. Possibly I didn't search correctly. Could someone point me in the direction of any thread that covers this topic?

 

MTIA

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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?

Share this post


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

Share this post


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...

Share this post


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 ...... 

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Summicron can stop down to 3.5, I believe. The point is, that if there are significant differences, you'll find them at the widest aperture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For both lenses at 35mm EFOV, I think my 11-23 is a fraction crisper that my 18-56 but there is very little in it. Probably within sample variation. 

 

Wilson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×