18mm T vs. 23mm T image quality difference

[stephengv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Need your help. I already have the 18mm T. But, I think its lacking micro contrast and does not compare well with my M glass. Is there any significant difference in image quality and rendering between the 18mm and the 23mm? The 35m is out of the question due to size. Thank you. 

 

Note: I already know that there is an extra stop difference. 

[wda]

Perhaps few members own both lenses. I have the second one which performs exemplarily. I am surprised by your criticism of the 18mm lens. Maybe re-examine your exposure management and processing methods. If you haven't tried capturing in Raw, do so because you are in full control of sharpening and other adjustments.

[alainD]

I have all the 7 T lenses. The 18mm is certainly not the one with the most micro contrast, by far. The 23mm has a lot more, and the 35mm even more.

I use the 18mm when I want a softer, more classical look. I find it more painterly and, honestly, sometimes it is just what is needed.

Send me an email address and I can send you sample pictures.

Alain.

[rob_w]

14 minutes ago, wda said:

Maybe re-examine your exposure management and processing methods

+1

I have found the CL responds to different post processing treatment than I would use with my M.  In particular, seems to like lifting the shadows a bit more and changing the black point.  That's just my taste of course.  Small, subtle changes to what you are used to doing can reveal a lot of quality. 

I don't own the TL18 but the TL23 produces photos indistinguishable in most cases from my 35 summilux-M, with appropriate treatment.

[Stuart Richardson]

I have the 23mm lens and find that it does not compare very well to my M lenses. I found that the M lenses on the T were sharper than the 23mm was, although the 23mm was certainly a decent lens, and the ergonomics were better. I did not find that it was comparable to the 35mm summilux asph fle in my experience.

[Boojay]

3 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I have the 23mm lens and find that it does not compare very well to my M lenses. I found that the M lenses on the T were sharper than the 23mm was, although the 23mm was certainly a decent lens, and the ergonomics were better. I did not find that it was comparable to the 35mm summilux asph fle in my experience.

Totally agree and I have tried to "like" two copies of the 23 TL.   Haven't tried the 18 or the 60 but think the 35mm is in another league to the 23mm.

 

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I sold the 23 and bought the 18, with eyes wide open: the 18 had been reported as not as good as the 23, but I really wanted the small size of the former. Not having had the two together, I can't give an objective assessment, but subjectively the 23 seems 'better' to me. That doesn't make the 18 bad of course, so you have to balance, as I did, the value of a particular FL, size, weight, AF speed, usability and IQ. I keep the 18 to use on my TL2 as a pocketable unit for social, night time and casual street use - none of which require the best IQ.

[Marac]

I have the 23mm, I tried the 18 but, apart from the nice size, it did not impress really, the images needed work in PP but do polish up well, however, the 18mm side of the 18-56 is better IMHO.

The 23mm on the other hand, I find very nice, fast, still pocketable (big pockets) plus i prefer the FOV 35mm.

[pthean]

I have both. I have found the 23mm to be better than the 18mm. It is my fav lens on my  CL. I don't use the 18mm anymore.

[g2van]

I have both and find both very good. The 18 came with the set and originally I wanted to sell it but it's a pretty good lens. I'm very happy with both in terms of AF speed and IQ. But I'm no expert and don't do micro-comparisons. 

[JamesBarry]

Sold the 35 for the 23... much happier.  More versatile and the IQ is not to be sneezed at.  Pairs well with SL + SL75

[frickenet]

I kept my 28mm and sold my 23mm for 3 reasons:
1. The 23mm is not a true 2.0 The lens stops down to 2.8 in near distance. You will get less bokey than you aspect from a summicron.
2. The lens has heavy purple frinching against bright backgrounds. Easy to correct in lightroom but I do not accept this at this price range 
3. 23mm is to near to my 35mm TL

About 80% of the time the 28mm is on my TL2. In my opinion this Lens is not that bad some user are claiming. Maybe 10% I use the 35mm and the rest of the time I am playing around with other lenses like the sigma 45mm 2.8 right now.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

The reason the 23 stops down to f2.8 is you are entering a close focus range, normally a camera handles this transparently where you have a choice between decreasing the shutter speed or opening the fstop. The designers of the Summicron obviously wanted to do this with the lens, have no idea why. 

My 23 is a keeper, no noticeable purple fringing, have only used f2 once or twice. I am in general at f4 - f8.

 

[wda]

1 hour ago, tommonego@gmail.com said:

The reason the 23 stops down to f2.8 is you are entering a close focus range, normally a camera handles this transparently where you have a choice between decreasing the shutter speed or opening the fstop. The designers of the Summicron obviously wanted to do this with the lens, have no idea why. 

My 23 is a keeper, no noticeable purple fringing, have only used f2 once or twice. I am in general at f4 - f8.

 

May I add that for close-up work, generally you need a small f-stop to improve clarity over a shallow depth of field.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

It seems that the change happens to 2.2 at about 18 (50cm) inches and 2.8 at about 1 foot (30cm). Just did a test, fast and rough. Could be f2 falls apart at close distances, or other problems, yes it does it and it is at very close distances.

 

[wda]

On 9/4/2019 at 9:26 PM, tommonego@gmail.com said:

It seems that the change happens to 2.2 at about 18 (50cm) inches and 2.8 at about 1 foot (30cm). Just did a test, fast and rough. Could be f2 falls apart at close distances, or other problems, yes it does it and it is at very close distances.

 

Most macro lenses start f/2.8 or even f/4.0. I believe there is a good optical reason for that choice.

[tommonego@gmail.com]

2 hours ago, wda said:

Most macro lenses start f/2.8 or even f/4.0. I believe there is a good optical reason for that choice.

Just tested my 55 f2.8 Nikon micro, at 1:1 the widest f stop is f4.5, not an optical engineer, but as David says has to be a good optical reason. Would be interesting to check the Leitz 60 TL.

Tom

[Marac]

The 60TL Macro is my next purchase.

[glenkwells]

Hi

 

Late to read this thread. I first bought the 18-56mm lens and for a zoom really like it is pretty sharp at all focal lengths from the respective widest apertures.

I then bought the 18mm and again I am happy with that lenses. I do like the 35mm equivalent focal length and have tried two TL 23mm lenses.

I must be having really bad luck as the first was poor in the upper right corner until F4.5 and was returned. The second one was poor in the lower right and worse than the first one until F5.

That lens was also returned. Lenses were tested on a tripod with fixed lighting and numerous shots. Very surprised by my findings given Leica reputation and the cost of these lenses. Has anyone else had issues? I am holding off trying again until I get some positive feedback.

Regards

Glen 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[M11 for me]

Am 3.9.2019 um 21:10 schrieb frickenet:

I kept my 28mm and sold my 23mm for 3 reasons:

28mm ???