lens dilemmas

[johntobias]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As you may know I have an assortment of glass which I use with the CL   18 is my main lens but recently I've found I'm shooting more and more at 50-60mm equivalent and loving the angle of view. Now dont get me wrong, the 18 is a gorgeous lens and so tiny on the cl, it really is a take anywhere outfit but my eyesight is certainly preferring using it in autofocus mode.

 

I've a birthday coming up and could go for either the 18-56  or the 35 1.4   , obviously I'd shift my 35 and 40 to help fund the 35mm

 

what do you think, ???    

 

it is a dilemma but rather a nice one ! :-)

 

[ropo54]

Dilemmas in answering!

 

Both are superb choices.  The 35 1.4TL is fabulous and gives you the 50mm perspective with some added advantages for low light performance.  The 18-56 is obviously more versatile.  So, both accomplish different things depending upon your preferred usage.  

 

If I was traveling in an urban setting with only one lens, I could be pretty content with the 18mm for 75percent of the time. I'd be content with the 18-55 for 95 percent of the time, and the 35 1.4 TL for maybe 50 per cent of the time.  It it was a portrait I wanted, then the 35 1.4 TL probably suffices for 95per cent of the time.  So, hope you understand my point: what do you prefer to use the lens for? 

 

The 35 1.4 TL is really quite special.  The 18-55 is 'just' excellent, but certainly more varied.  Me?  I'd opt for the excellence in the 1 lens over the practicality as the first choice. But, that's my "insanity"!

[wda]

For travel photography the zoom lens is the winner. It also excels when shooting portraits: medium telephoto for heads and shoulders; wider angle for environmental portraits. I try to avoid changing lenses when out and about. The zoom would be my choice with results indistinguishable from primes (except if very shallow depth of field is necessary).

[jaapv]

18-56 would be my choice.

[johntobias]

I love the shallow DOF  but then again a 1 lens solution is fun and easy to cart about

 

as a compromise, I'm thinking the 35 1.4 and use that as an all-round lens while keeping the 18mm (which , of course, is tiny and shirt pocketable !) for those odd occasions when I couldnt use my foot powered zoom !

 

oh decisions/descisions !!

[ramarren]

The 35/1.4 is a fast normal on the CL... I always prefer a fast normal over any "normal zoom" lens, no matter what. 

[johntobias]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The 35/1.4 is a fast normal on the CL... I always prefer a fast normal over any "normal zoom" lens, no matter what. 

I'm rapidly thinking the same !    thanks

[Stonewall Brigade]

I agree with jaapv, moderator, that the CL's dedicated Leica 18-56mm autofocus zoom lens is the one for travel.  Mine is as sharp as my Q or any of my M lenses.

[Marac]

Summilux 35 TL is the lens I use most of all. If you do 50mm FOV then thats the one for you. If you want travel, all-in-one then go with the 18-56

[ramarren]

I prefer an "all in two" setup for travel: Wide-Normal and Short-Tele. So I do the R28 and R50 lenses as my CL travel kit. If I had the T35, I'd pair it with the T60. 

Edited August 10, 2018 by ramarren

[thighslapper]

18-56.

 

With any new system I would load up with zooms first to allow maximum versatility then add primes on an as required basis.

 

Leica zooms are so good you are only forgoing a shallower DOF and some size/weight (which is not much for these lenses anyway). 

[jaapv]

I agree. We're at a point where prime (and manual) lenses need only to be used for specific purposes like lens speed, character or size.

 

Or because one doesn't want to replace existing lenses for financial reasons

[johntobias]

I’d still like to keep an extremely fast lens for the dof capabilities, perhaps an 18-56 and buy a voigtlander f1.2 or similar might solve things....I guess I need to know if the 35 f1.4 leica is that much better than the zoom (ignoring speed). As you can see....difficult decisions when cash-limited.........if not the case, easy...buy both! Ha ha ha

Edited August 11, 2018 by johntobias

[ramarren]

...With any new system I would load up with zooms first to allow maximum versatility then add primes on an as required basis.

 

Leica zooms are so good you are only forgoing a shallower DOF and some size/weight (which is not much for these lenses anyway). 

 

 

Given that 1) I don't like to work with zoom lenses very much, and 2) focus zone control is much more important to me than "focal length coverage", my tactic is exactly the opposite. When I buy a new system, I immediately want a fast wide-normal lens and a fast short tele lens. Then I might want a slightly long-normal, and a slightly wider-wide, then a slightly longer tele. With that in mind, I buy zooms to handle the extremes at both ends that I don't use very often. 

 

I never worry about the quality of Leica lenses. I do dislike overly bulky lenses, but overly compact lenses are just as much of an ergonomic problem. 

 

Diversity of opinion is the key.

Edited August 11, 2018 by ramarren

[jaapv]

I’d still like to keep an extremely fast lens for the dof capabilities, perhaps an 18-56 and buy a voigtlander f1.2 or similar might solve things....I guess I need to know if the 35 f1.4 leica is that much better than the zoom (ignoring speed). As you can see....difficult decisions when cash-limited.........if not the case, easy...buy both! Ha ha ha

I don't think it is any better for any practical purpose than the zoom at apertures over 4.9.

However, below that value it beats the zoom hands-down. .

[albert]

Besides the size, what is the difference between the 18 on the 18-56 and the 18 pancake? Should I dig up $1250 for the pancake or be happy wit the 18-56?

[Tobers]

Be happy with the 18-56. The 18 prime is too close performance wise to bother with unless you want a really compact setup. I sold my 18 and bought the 23 for a 35mm equiv fast aperture prime to work alongside my 18-56 when I want some depth of field.

Edited August 11, 2018 by Tobers

[ayewing]

The main advantage of the TL18mm is its compact size. It is slightly faster at f2.8 compared with he zoom at 3.5 so would have minimally less depth of focus but really there is very little in it. The other TL primes are probably a better bet though more expensive.

Edited August 11, 2018 by ayewing

[albert]

Thanx fellows. It would have been an unauthorized purchase

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jonatdonuts]

Apologies for being disruptive but is everyone really satisfied with the current TL / CL lens lineup? The 35mm 1.4 seems to be fantastic but the 18-56 zoom is a little plain. Was hoping for a sexier 2.8 constant 24mm-70mm (or even the current 28-85) by now, as well as a 23mm 1.4. 

 

I just feel that Leica could do more to push their APSC lens lineup, which is a surprising comment to make since Leica have always been about the lenses.

 

Fuji have been in the APSC game much longer, and while I have never particularly liked their raw output, nor the anti-Leica operation of their cameras (with the aperture dial at the base of the lens, spinning in the opposite direction to an M lens) their lens lineup is quite formidable. 

 

I believe the TL system has been in existence for 4 years now, which is not so young anymore. Hoping for a little more action on the lens front soon.