Looking For Vario 18-56 Thoughts

[pixeljohn22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi. I’m seriously considering the CL. There are various kits/bundles available. One includes the Vario 18-56. I do landscape,  grandkids and a little street photography. I would appreciate any thoughts or experiences with this lens on the CL. Thank you in advance. 

John

[MDCT]

I use mine all the time. Really tack sharp light weight and fast enough for just about anything. Its a good all around lens. Because of the "kit lens" stigma surrounding it can be had for a decent price.

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

A perfect lens for travel and general use. I combine it with a Summilux 24 M for indoors and low light.

[maron]

I bought my cl with the 18-56. I was very surprised of the excellent image quality and especially for the rich details and sharpness. I like the lens very much with its quality and light weight. This is not a "normal" kit-lens!

 

Wolfgang

[grahamhoey]

Agree with earlier comments, most used lens on CL

[wda]

A very versatile high quality choice. You can add other lenses to extend the scope of the CL once your are comfortable with its handling and performance. 

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

ditto with all above. I bought my CL without a lens, figuring I'd use my legacy Nikon glass. Then I saw a really good deal on a used 18-56 and figured, what the heck: even though it's not a highly rated lens, it's cheap and convenient. Well, now that the first lens I reach for. It is slow at the top end, and I'll probably get a fast prime to carry as well. But yes, I don't know why some folks knock this lens. It's definitely worth it. 

[Jake]

I echo the sentiments here. The CL with the 18-55 is an excellent combo. Versatile and fast enough.

[JayBird]

It is the only lens that I currently have. I took it to Utah to go to several of the national parks. I have nothing but praise for it. It is very versatile.

 

Here is a link to my flickr album. All were taken with the CL. Album

[pixeljohn22]

Thanks to all for the comments. 

[rob_w]

I was faced with a similar conundrum when considering the CL.  Don't disagree with all the positive comments above but my experience was different.  I tested a loaner CL with this zoom about a year back and could not get along with it.  The images were good but I felt needed a bit of work to really shine.  Coming from an M, I don't pre-visualise my pictures from a zoom perspective, I'm used to fixed focal lengths.  I also struggled with the small max aperture indoors and for shallow DOF when needed.

I spent the intervening year examining every picture posted on the image thread and concluded that the zoom was pretty good, the 35 and 60 are right up there with my M glass, and the 23 is better than the 18.  YMMV of course, but that was my observation.

So two weeks ago I took the plunge and bought the reporter's kit, which includes the 23 as the 'kit' lens, along with the grip and a spare battery (both of which I wanted).  Just returned from a trip and could not be more pleased.  The extra 2 stops of the 23 gave me good quality indoor pics and the classic 35 EFOV was great for almost everything else, including street and landscapes.

Have not tried it with the grandchild yet.  I purchased the 35 with portraits and children in mind but have not had a chance to use it seriously.

 

Edited April 13, 2019 by rob_w

[wda]

Rob makes a good point and it is unsurprising that a standard zoom soon has a 23mm or 35mm prime lens as a companion for lower light situations. 

[gfweir]

The 18-56 is simply great for landscapes and has exceeded my expectations. I thought I was buying it so that my wife could use the camera for trips back to the UK - kind of "here you go, it's all set - just point and shoot".  Which she has done and come back with some pretty good images.

However I use it much more than I ever expected I would.

However I'm very surprised that some folk are saying that it's fast...

It's a slow lens - no bones about it and would not be my first choice for shooting kids, unless they're all outside on a bright sunny day.

 

[Bill W]

You cannot go wrong with the 18-56. Once you start using it, you become addicted. I also have the 23 but rarely use it. 

[johntobias]

just a different set of observations...I bought my CL with the 18 but never really liked the 18...I knew it could do better so I invested in the 35 'lux.....it is a country mile better so never really went for the 18-56...the 35 is my standard lens (50 equiv) and it gets so much use....HOWEVER I do need a wider aspect from time to time and the 35 is so superior to the fixed 18 or 18-56 vario I had quite a dilemma......eventually settling on the 11-23 zoom...it is very good but not 35 'lux good.......I see the point in having a small compact do-all lens but the iq compromise was too great....for small and all-round....well there is the Q2. .........just my thoughts and perhaps not much help !  sorry......I'm a foot-zoom kinda guy!

 

Edited April 14, 2019 by johntobias

[jaapv]

I strongly dislike the 35TL. It is bigger than the camera body and the results are too clinical for my taste. If I want a fixed 35, I greatly prefer one of the Summicron M ones, with a bias to the Summicron-C. A far more (undefinable) Leica rendering.

 

[Guest]

I use the 18-56 all the time shooting my grandkids. The reach at the long end gets me close when needed and with beautiful results. The AF is fast enough and reliable, even in low light and doesn’t hunt. 

I stick to the wider end of the zoom in low light indoors to take advantage of the faster aperture there in order to use a faster shutter speed with my active g kids, and then crop in PP as needed. 

The zoom is my most used lens without a doubt.  Pairing it with the 35mm TL is perfect for me to get beautiful candid portraits of the kids.  That lens is larger but special- but the field of view is not good for me for every occasion. The 23mm is also great indoors with a wider 35mm field of view and f2 aperture.  Those lenses however see less use when I’m with my grandkids because the zoom is more versatile.

Don’t be fooled or concerned  by it being a “zoom” or “kit lens” or “slow”.  It’s a high quality Leica lens and a work horse for grandparents.  It matches well with the CL’s very good sensor and dynamic range. 

Edited April 14, 2019 by Guest

[huwm]

my most used lens followed by 23 then 35

I force myself to use the 11-23 sometimes and am always pleased, architecture etc

the 18 is great for slipping camera in 'pocket' and an 'always with you' shooter

but if only 1 lens for a 'trip' 18-56 every time 

[pixeljohn22]

Thanks to all. I have ordered a gently used CL with the Vario 18-56. Can't wait to get it delivered.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[nicci78]

On 4/14/2019 at 10:45 AM, jaapv said:

I strongly dislike the 35TL. It is bigger than the camera body and the results are too clinical for my taste. If I want a fixed 35, I greatly prefer one of the Summicron M ones, with a bias to the Summicron-C. A far more (undefinable) Leica rendering.

 

But you are using a heavier Summilux-M 1,4/24mm with its 570g (counting hood and M-Adapter-L) against the Summilux-TL 1,4/35mm at 498g (counting hood) 

Size wise it is not that different :

TL 1,4/35 : ø70mm x 77mm (123mm with hood)

M 1,4/24 : ø61mm x 68mm (85mm with hood) and counting M-Adapter-L

If one is OK the other should be also. Shouldn’t it ? 

 

I really like the CL + TL 1,4/35. My most used lens. With the Q alongside. And the T + TL 2,8/60 macro for long reach and macro. No need for any trans-standard zoom.