11-23 and 18-56 Redundant??

[pixeljohn22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi. For anyone who owns/uses these two lenses do you find the overlap in focal lengths to be an issue? I have the 18-56 and am thinking about the 11-23. Thanks!!

[Marac]

The 11-23 is a superb wide lens and my favourite of the zooms. The 18-56 is what I call a 'Town Lens', it's perfect for everyday, well lit situations. The overlap is not an issue for me because the 18-56 cannot do what the 11-23 does and the 11-23 cannot do what the 18-56 does, IMHO. If you need to go wide then the 11-23 is the only way to go.

[Le Chef]

As Marac says it’s “Horses for courses” - you pick and choose the lenses to take, based on what you think you might be shooting. I don’t have an 11-23 yet - maybe by 2024 fresh product will have come through - but it’s a lens I want to add to the all purpose, carry one lens only 18-56, and the 23 f2. They all cover the 35mm equivalent field of view, but each serves a different purpose and offers different opportunities for shooting.

While we’re at it, what about the 55-135 vs 60mm conundrum..? 

Edited August 17, 2019 by Le Chef

[LocalHero1953]

I have them both and never thought about the overlap. With zooms it's the range that counts, not the specific end points. If you find yourself always shooting in the overlap, then you clearly need the 23mm TL !

[NigelG]

FWIW the 11-23 is my only TL lens and for me/my photography the 18-56 did not appeal so much as a one-lens solution . The 11-23 gives me WATE, 24 Elmar, 28 Elmarit, 35 summarit - ish equivalents (No, I know not exactly in rendering/dof/bokeh/handling blah blah!) as a single walk around lens when I’m travelling light. An adapter and 50 lux asph adds a 75 cron equivalent if I need it.....or sits on an M body if I’m not hiking miles. Unless you like shooting wide I’m not sure adding the 11-23 will add as much as you might think. It’s a shame Leica don’t have something like Fuji’s 14mm which would pair well with the 18-56......

[nicci78]

11-23 is excellent. But TL zoom lenses with almost constant f/4 are still too slow for CL.

18-56mm is quite slow too. Especially at 56mm f/5.6 without IS and no pop-up flash. Make it almost unusable indoor. However it is a really nice lens, but not on par with 11-23 and 55-135 duet. 

APO 55-135mm is my most preferred zoom lens. Gorgeous images from it. But minimum focusing distance of 1 meter only is a deal breaker for me. 

Therefore I only shoot with prime lenses now either TL or M ones with f/2.8 minimum aperture  

 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

9 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

11-23 is excellent. But TL zoom lenses with almost constant f/4 are still too slow for CL.

18-56mm is quite slow too. Especially at 56mm f/5.6 without IS and no pop-up flash. Make it almost unusable indoor. However it is a really nice lens, but not on par with 11-23 and 55-135 duet. 

APO 55-135mm is my most preferred zoom lens. Gorgeous images from it. But minimum focusing distance of 1 meter only is a deal breaker for me. 

Therefore I only shoot with prime lenses now either TL or M ones with f/2.8 minimum aperture  

 

It's remarkable how I've managed to use the 18-56 indoors considering that it's 'unusable'😉. And how the images I get from it are as good quality as from the 11-23........

The value of the minimum aperture, of course, depends on your photography. Yes, it's nice to have a lens with a wide aperture, but I believe good photos may have been taken at f/5.6 - even without IS or flash!

Edited August 17, 2019 by LocalHero1953

[nicci78]

I know it is possible. But badly lit places requires fast lens. F/5.6 will not be enough especially at 56mm without IS requiring at least 1/180th to be absolutely sharp. 

I know some drunk super heroes can get sharp images with 180mm without IS at 1 sec without tripod. 😉 I can’t. 

[LocalHero1953]

Sober and with no super powers I can get sharp images at f/5.6, 56mm and 1/50, and certainly at 1/100. I don't think this is abnormal. I use my 18-56 indoors a lot, photographing my grandchildren, where flash is not an option. Misfocus usually because of the speed they move, not the steadiness of my hands.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, nicci78 said:

I know it is possible. But badly lit places requires fast lens. F/5.6 will not be enough especially at 56mm without IS requiring at least 1/180th to be absolutely sharp. 

I know some drunk super heroes can get sharp images with 180mm without IS at 1 sec without tripod. 😉 I can’t. 

Going light on the coffee helps... 🙄  My personal slowest shutterspeed is a lot longer.. I wouldn't hesitate to shoot it down to 1/60th, especially with the handgrip on. Combined wit the pretty decent ISO performance I ddn't see a problem in low light.

[DirkS]

The 11-23 is maybe the best lens for the CL/T/TL/TL2 you can get, it is absolut great.

If the pics are important for you I would buy the 11-23, sell the 18-56 and buy instead of this the Panasonic L-mount f4: 24-105, which is bigger, but the quality is higher than the L 18-56, it has O.I.S., nearly macro (30 cm) and you could use it on a SL, too. In my opinion that combination is the optimum for pic results.

Edited August 18, 2019 by DirkS

[ramarren]

I seem to have no problems at all shooting with the VC 10mm at f/8 all the time. ... I like to keep exposures at 1/30 sec minimum, but have used 1/15 and 1/10 very successfully. 

Beyond that, not all photographs need to be absolutely, utterly, critically focused or completely without motion blur to be fantastically successful photographs. 🤔

[lawman]

I find the 18-56 to be an almost perfect single lens - travel lens. If I need to go wider, the 11-23 is a great lens and I see no overlap at all with the 18-56. Yes, the lenses are slow, but with a little care (brace against a wall etc) and the better high ISO performance of the CL I have obtained very useable photos in many darkly lit indoor locations. As an aside, I agree that the 23/2 is a really nice adjunct to the 18-56 if low light is an issue.

[Einst_Stein]

On 8/17/2019 at 2:09 PM, nicci78 said:

I know it is possible. But badly lit places requires fast lens. F/5.6 will not be enough especially at 56mm without IS requiring at least 1/180th to be absolutely sharp. 

I know some drunk super heroes can get sharp images with 180mm without IS at 1 sec without tripod. 😉 I can’t. 

use fast ISO or auto ISO。

[nicci78]

CL do not provide fast enough ISO : 25000 is only already too limited for dimly lit environment at f/2.8 Just imagine at f/5.6 

 

For outside use the Trio of TL zoom lenses are absolutely awesome. But I decided to settle to primes only with f/2.8 as my lower limit. Nothing is better than fast shutter speed with the help of wide aperture. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by nicci78

[jaapv]

Black cats in coal cellars?

[Einst_Stein]

On 8/21/2019 at 1:21 PM, nicci78 said:

CL do not provide fast enough ISO : 25000 is only already too limited for dimly lit environment at f/2.8 Just imagine at f/5.6 

 

For outside use the Trio of TL zoom lenses are absolutely awesome. But I decided to settle to primes only with f/2.8 as my lower limit. Nothing is better than fast shutter speed with the help of wide aperture. 

interesting, what do you shoot?

[kangaroo2012]

In my early years with cameras I used Kodachrome 10 ASA, then 25 ISO when it was improved.

My fastest lens was f=2.8 and a Leitz small tripod assured sharp photographs.

Digital does many things , but it cannot substitute for the eye behind the lens.

[Le Chef]

On 8/21/2019 at 3:21 PM, nicci78 said:

CL do not provide fast enough ISO : 25000 is only already too limited for dimly lit environment at f/2.8 Just imagine at f/5.6 

 

For outside use the Trio of TL zoom lenses are absolutely awesome. But I decided to settle to primes only with f/2.8 as my lower limit. Nothing is better than fast shutter speed with the help of wide aperture. 

"I see a red door and I want it painted black
No colors anymore I want them to turn black
I see the girls walk by dressed in their summer clothes
I have to turn my head until my darkness grows"

With thanks to Keef and Mick.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[HeinzX]

It depends for which kind of photography and under what circumstances  you use it. For most purposes the 18-56 is a very good lens and it is small too. The 11/23 is more special, but for some purposes a wider angle is required, esp. for architecture and all say, it is an exellent lens. Sometimes it possible to get a "wider angle" with the 18-56 too, by using the panorama mode of the camera, but this a only a weak substitute, not a real replacement. Myself has no 11/23, only a 18-56, a 60 Macro, and a 55-135. And the lenses out nof these  I use most often are the 18-56 and the 60 Macro. But this is only valid for my kind of photography and I have to add, that I  have a SL too, with the 24/90 and the 90/280. And sometimes I use these zooms together with the CL. The results are really excellent, but these lenses are bulky, esp. the 90/280 is huge. From my native lenses for the CL in my mind  the optical best lens is the 60 Macro - but this lens is not usable as only standard lens for  the CL. But for nuse as a moderate tele lens and for macros it is great.