Looking For Vario 18-56 Thoughts

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but only as a specialized lens. I will only carry it when I know that I will use it, not as a regular lens.

If I hadn't owned it in the first place, I would never had bought it for the CL.

[nicci78]

OK, I see.

I agree that TL 35mm is the maximum size and weight bearable with the CL. 

That’s why the APO-Summicron-SL line is kinda silly with CL. At around 700g ø73mm x 102mm without hood. Making Summilux-TL tiny in comparison. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Marac]

I LOVE the TL35 Lux it's the best lens for me on the CL but I do a lot of portraiture. Horses for courses. The 18-56 is perfect for a travel lens. When I do landscape photography I use the 11-23 mostly, again, it suits the way I like to shoot and is not everyones 'cup of tea'. 

 

When I go away I take everything with me in a large Billingham that I call 'The Mother Ship', I have a smaller Billy that I use to walk around and fill that with the kit I will use on that day.

My least used lens is the 55-135, brilliant but don't do a lot of telephoto photography, I only use it on visits to the zoo really.

When you understand the type of photography you want to do then you can trim your kit to suit your needs, until then, using the CL with the 18-56 is a great start point.

[LocalHero1953]

I find the Summicron-SL 90 quite acceptable on the CL - I find it balances well. I also find the Apo-Macro-Elmarit-TL 60 acceptable on the CL: it is much longer and only slightly thinner than the Summilux-TL 35, though quite a lot lighter. I have tried the latter only briefly and it also felt fine in the hand.
These things are personal - you need to try them to find your own limits of acceptable size and weight.

[justbananas]

I came here just about to ask the same question as I quest along for my next camera.  I'll be curious to hear your thoughts when it arrives.  I wish the street kit was available.  I can't seem to find any answers online as to when it might be back in stock at stores....  Which then made me consider the kit with the zoom lens, sounds pretty utilitarian to own.

[bags27]

8 hours ago, nicci78 said:

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. 

jaapv also says that the looks are too clinical for his taste and that's worth pondering. After all, a lot of folks search for older versions of M lenses for that "film" look and stay away from the latest versions of some M lenses that appear to them "overly sharp" and are constructed to resolve sensors (Leica has said) > 100 mps. The same with autofocusing lenses: some offer aesthetics more pleasing to some but not to others. Horses for courses, as we like to say here. 

Edited April 16, 2019 by bags27

[scroy]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I was very skeptical of the 18-56 when I first started shooting with it, but I have warmed up to it over time.  These days when I travel with my CL, I carry the 18-56mmTL for most of the outdoor shots, and the 35mmTL or the 35mm Voigtlander Nokton for indoor/night time shots.   My least used these days is the 55-135mm.

[Tobers]

Good to see that you have ordered the 18-56. Cracking lens. Just to reassure you about your purchase, you can take a look at this comparison of the CL with 18-56 versus the 24 Summilux M and 50 Summilux M:

http://tobinators.com/blog/2018/01/gear-and-kit/leica-cl-18-56-tl-versus-24-summilux-m-and-50-summilux-m/

[pixeljohn22]

Thanks for the article. I'm feeling even better. I have bookmarked your blog.

[SoarFM]

In good light, there is no reason to put the 23 or 35 on if you have the 18-56. The 23 and 35 are both outstanding lenses at least as good as the 18-56 at similar apertures, but when the light gets low, or you simply want the wider aperture for aesthetic reasons then it is time to switch lenses. I have all 3 of the lenses I’ve mentioned and love them all and would not want to be without any one of them.