TL 35 and TL 23

[pixeljohn22]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, here I go again. I do apologize for all of the lens postings but I value the great input/feedback that I have received. I’m still looking to add to my 18-56 zoom for the CL. Given the financial outlay I want to obtain as many opinions as possible. So, from a prime viewpoint I’m interested to hear from those of you that have used both of these nice lenses. I received some high recommendations for the 35 from my previous post. The 35 is larger and more expensive than the 23. Also a little faster. Have you found the weight and speed to be be a good tradeoff? I will probably rent them as well but really appreciate the feedback here.. Thanks!!

[ropo54]

The 35 1.4 - to my eyes - is really terrific, rivaling the SL lenses.  

I prefer it to the TL 23 (focal length needs aside), but the TL 23 is a much smaller, compact package.  

And, yes, the  351.4  has a definitive low light advantage.

If it is one or the other, and you do add the 18/56, I'd certainly opt for the TL 35 1.4.

Either way, good choices.  Rob

Edited August 19, 2019 by ropo54

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

Having a fast prime in addition to the 18-56 is always a good idea. However, it does not need to be a TL lens. For instance the Voigtländer Ultron 35/1.7 VM is an excellent choice. There is also the 21/1.8.

[Marac]

As Jaapv said there are many options in the MF line of lenses by using adapters, unless you WANT Auto focus..

 

I have both 23 and 35 TL, they are both excellent lenses for different purposes. I prefer the 35 Summilux personally and also because my Wife constantly has the 23 on her T as she likes the 35mm FOV.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

It is up to you, I like the 23 because I always used a 35 on my 35mm film cameras, just my preference. I have a 35mm f1.4 Summilux Canada, an early version that is actually smaller than the 23 on a CL. I never use it. Not because it is not quite as good as the 35 TL or the 23 (it is very good f2.8 - 11) but because I just don't see in that focal length. You will get great pics with both lenses your choice. 

[nicci78]

Summilux-TL 35mm is really better. One kind of a lens. 

[Pippin]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@pixeljohn22 I have both the 23 and 35 TL. Both are great and depending on how I plan to look at a subject I’ll pick the lens that fits the need so both are useable in a kit.

 

The 23 TL makes a good travel lense for architecture type photography (churches and the like) and f2.8 is more than useable even in low light considering you can take advantage of higher ISO being very useable.

The 35 TL is larger but easily manageable and weights in the same as my Voigtländer 40mm Nokton 1.4 with M to T adapter. Being an F1.4 is nice though you won’t shoot wide open all the time so suggest you consider what/where you are likely to photo vs  on it being a summilux . 

Consider buying used, most of my lenses were picked up this way at a 50-60% of original price. 

[nicci78]

Summilux-TL 35mm is really better. One kind of a lens. 

Summicron-TL 23mm is nice but awkward sometimes. At close focus it will become an f/2.8 lens. And it will be fully sharp across the frame at f/4 only. F/2.8 is ok though. 

Edited August 21, 2019 by nicci78

[pthean]

I have both the TL 23 and the TL 35:

23: Smaller, lighter, easy to carry, very pleasant lens. Since I prefer the POV of a wide angle, this is an excellent lens. Just not as good as the 35. But still an excellent lens.

35: sharper, produces more vibrant photos. Clearly a better lens. But it is larger, heavier, and even though it is a better lens, i favor the 23 over it because I just love the 35mm focal length on a 35mm camera.

So - both are great lenses. Ask yourself whether you prefer the 35mm focal length or if you prefer the 50mm focal length. The best lens is useless if you don't put it on your camera. For me, even though the TL 35 is a better lens, I don't use it that much because I love the TL 23's focal length.

[huwm]

5 hours ago, pthean said:

I have both the TL 23 and the TL 35:

23: Smaller, lighter, easy to carry, very pleasant lens. Since I prefer the POV of a wide angle, this is an excellent lens. Just not as good as the 35. But still an excellent lens.

35: sharper, produces more vibrant photos. Clearly a better lens. But it is larger, heavier, and even though it is a better lens, i favor the 23 over it because I just love the 35mm focal length on a 35mm camera.

So - both are great lenses. Ask yourself whether you prefer the 35mm focal length or if you prefer the 50mm focal length. The best lens is useless if you don't put it on your camera. For me, even though the TL 35 is a better lens, I don't use it that much because I love the TL 23's focal length.

Pretty much sums it up for me too

I have a TL2 as well and favour the 18 over the 23 for the same reasons really

Off topic, but I find I have the 11-23 or 18 on TL2 and 18-56 or 23 on CL with the 'best' 35 at home with my various nostalgia lenses

I occasionally take the 35 out on its own and am always amazed at its quality  but it lacks something, 'soul'?

 

[Marac]

1 hour ago, huwm said:

 

I occasionally take the 35 out on its own and am always amazed at its quality  but it lacks something, 'soul'?

 

Really? I find it the most 'soulful' of all the Leica L series lenses

[g2van]

I would suggest the analysis starts with which POV you prefer: 23mm or 35mm (35mm or 50mm in FF).

The POV you shoot with is like your visual language. Stick to the one you are most comfortable with to start off. If unsure, then use your zoom to shoot exclusively for a month at 23mm then another at 35mm, then compare your pictures.

[huwm]

I suspect you're right

I've spent a long time with m43 and found the same, preferring the Oly 17 to lumix/leica 25 (ostensibly  the 'better') 

When using one of the TL  zooms I find I'm around 18 to 23 mostly

I may just accept that the 35 is for occasional use/sale

 

 

[robgo2]

I use both of these lenses on my CL. The 35-TL is clearly superior, but the 23-TL is still very good in its own right. The choice of which to use is determined by the subject matter.  If I anticipate taking pics of people, I usually opt for 35, which is equivalent to 50mm. For street shooting, it's more likely going to be the 23 (35mm E). I don't think you can go wrong with either.

To echo what jaap said, manual focus lenses can work very well on the CL. If you are on a budget, take a look at some of the recent offerings from Voigtlander. They are very close to Leica standards for a whole lot less money.

[rob_w]

20 hours ago, robgo2 said:

The 35-TL is clearly superior

I agree the TL35 is superior for some subjects under some lighting conditions.  Every lens has its own signature.

But I would not want to say "clearly superior" implying something more than that.  For many pics you would not be able to tell which lens was used without resorting to other cues.  James Barry has just posted a great series of TL23 shots in the image thread.  Allowing for the size restrictions, of course, one could not want for more given the quality on display.

Edited September 4, 2019 by rob_w

[robgo2]

3 hours ago, rob_w said:

I agree the TL35 is superior for some subjects under some lighting conditions.  Every lens has its own signature.

But I would not want to say "clearly superior" implying something more than that.  For many pics you would not be able to tell which lens was used without resorting to other cues.  James Barry has just posted a great series of TL23 shots in the image thread.  Allowing for the size restrictions, of course, one could not want for more given the quality on display.

As they say, horses for courses. The 23-TL is a very good lens--sharp, contrasty, excellent colors. I use it all the time and enthusiastically recommend it. But putting aside differences in focal lengths, the 35-TL is a superior lens, IMO. Most other users and testers seem to agree, FWIW. But as you suggest, use what get's the job done.

Below are three images taken with the 23-TL on a CL.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[rob_w]

Amazing pictures, Robgo.  Like something out of a sci-fi movie scenario.  I suspect we are agreeing on the TL35 and TL23.  The 35 is the top lens in the TL series.  The 23 comes an honourable second and, as your images above demonstrate, concedes nothing which would dent user satisfaction.  One could easily find two M lenses which exhibit similar small differences while both being eminently usable.

[justbananas]

I have both, they both go with me everywhere I go.  I have a small bag that holds camera , 18, 23, 35 perfectly.  I personally love them both!  I love the more intimate FOV of the 35, it has an incredible fall off, and I also love the 23.. they both just work so good.

[pixeljohn22]

Well, things have changed and I now have the 11-23 which replaced my 18-56. Given the quality of the 11-23 I am leaning toward the 35TL to give me a different point of view. Anyone own both of these? Thanks.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tom0511]

the 23 is a compact fast lens with the 35mm FF-FOV, so very usefull for indoor, closer distance, groups, portrait with environment.

The 35 for me is allmost a short portrait lens.

So it really depends what you want/need.

As a compliment to the 11-23 the 35 sounds more usefull IMO.