Leica X Vario lense vs TL 18-56 f/3.5-5.6 asph

[miatadan]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

My last leica was the X Vario , was stolen in break in in 2018, recently ordered from the USA, I live in Canada the TL2 starter kit with 18mm.

Is there any difference from lense in my X-Vario and the TL-56 ? Vario had 3.5-6.4 zoom lense in comparison

Considering that I will have the 18mm in kit, would the TL 60mm be best choice for 2nd lense or will TL  18-56 be better choice?

Dan

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Gregm61]

Ever read this?

https://www.macfilos.com/2018/02/26/2018-2-25-leica-cl-18-56-vario-elmar-is-this-the-new-x-vario/

CL and TL2 image quality-wise should be very similar, though ergonomically very different.

Edited July 8, 2020 by Gregm61

[wda]

Dan, it depends on your type of photography which additional lens would suit you better. Without question, the standard zoom lens would be my choice.

[MDCT]

I would do the 18-56. Its ballistics are similar to your X-Vario but faster. I have one on my CL and it is a great daily driver that delivers really nice images. It also is really compact given its focal length and performance.

[jaapv]

If the X-Vario was your go-to camera, you are a zoom lens type of photographer, which means you won't be fully happy until you have your 18-56.

[Cobram]

IMHO X-Vario is overhyped camera. I owned one for half a year and forced myself to use it in many situations: walkaround camera, indoor events, outdoor events etc. Sometimes we make fast conclusions, that's why I tested this camera extensively. My (subjective) results:

 - build quality and feel: very good (mini M like). Real Leica.

 - lens quality: overhyped. Yes sometimes it delivered very good results (mostly BW) but on most occasions results were behind Leica X2 (I will not mention FF cameras --> different world) Many interesting photos were damaged because of non predictable lens and non predictable autofocus.

 - autofocus: not reliable

 - low light shots: autofocus very bad + lens very slow --> not usable

 

As per CL: never used one but there are many benefits:

 - more lens options

 - a fast lens can be very useful in low light situations

 ...

 

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If you have to force yourself to use a camera, it is the wrong tool for you. A year and a half is a long time, I would have gotten rid of it much sooner. If it doesn't work for you it can do no good.
It doesn't make it a bad camera for somebody else, though.

[pop]

If you liked the X-Vario, then you will like the CL with the 18-56 even more. The autofocus (if you use that) is much faster, the EVF is gorgeous (apart from the XV not even having a built-in EVF), the focus assist is much more useful. The electronic shutter is even more silent than the shutter of the XV. If push comes to shove you can use a fast prime lens. I think I could go on and on. 

I replaced my XV with the CL and haven't missed it ever since.

[DirkS]

I also replaced my X-vario with the CL, I didn`t regrett this. I really liked the X-vario but the option to use other lenses (11-23 is a fantastic zoom) is great and the CL is the much better camera. 

[Rosebud55]

I also replaced my LXVario with the CL and I do find I miss it sometimes. I think it’s the zoom, although I have the 11-23 and 15-135, they are both good but not quite the same. Still thinking about the 18-56. 

[Einst_Stein]

Sounds your question is about whether 18-56mm is a good lens to get and how it compares to the 60mm prime, nothing to do with the difference from.  X vario.

The answer is yes, you will be happy with it. The difference compared to 60mm? I am sure you already have the answer. When stick to 56mm-60mm, the prime is a winner, but when you need any other focal range, 18-56mm will win.

for other readers who want to know the difference from X vario, from my personal taste, there is advantage due to its extended focal length and faster aperture,  the extra focal length is a wash for any application except shooting head-n-shoulder portraits (horizontal) or half length (vertical), it saves you about 1foot distance from the object. The blurring effect is ignorable, for outdoors or flowers or animal, that extra focal length essentially does not exist. But, the difference is there. Does it worth the extra money? I checked the “fair market price “, you will need to pat about US$1900 fur the zoom lens, new, while about half of that for X vario in EX+ condition. Not apple to apple, but Practical.

 

[Guest]

The 18-56 TL Zoom is equivalent to the XV zoom. It is however more useful on a the CL / TL2 because of their improved high ISO ability and autofocus speed.  That lens / body combo can acquire AF in low light (even when zoomed out) and confidently shoot higher than ISO 1600.  It’ll more quickly get shots the XV never could which is extremely refreshing. 
 

That makes the 18-56 TL zoom much more useful than the XV Zoom.  I’ve had both, and have some TL primes. I now use the TL zoom like 90% of the time for candids, landscapes, etc. with my CL.  
 

The 35mm and 60mm TL primes are the crown jewels of the TL lens collection.  They render images in a very special way.  I have the 35mm, not the 60.  For me, however, the 50mm FOV from the 35 isn’t my “go to” focal length- so even though the 35 is a better (sharper) lens than the zoom, I don’t use it often for my general photography.  The 18-56 is just fine. It’s literally tough to tell the difference most times between which lens was used (in normal light).  
 

All that said, the TL zoom is an excellent lens and very useful for general photography. With an equivalent FL range from ~28-84mm, and with edge to edge sharpness across the frame at all focal lengths, it has become a “go to” lens for me, and apparently many other CL and TL2 photographers.  You will not be disappointed if you opt for its versatility over the 60mm - unless you do a lot of macro and portraits - in which case the 60mm is amazing. 
 

PS- I use vintage Leitz Elpro macro lenses for macro work with the 18-56 and I am quite pleased with the results.  There are separate threads in this forum on that topic too for you to consider if that’s of interest to you. 

I hope this is helpful.  Cheers 

[wda]

54 minutes ago, DGP said:

The 18-56 TL Zoom is equivalent to the XV zoom. It is however more useful on a the CL / TL2 because of their improved high ISO ability and autofocus speed.  That lens / body combo can acquire AF in low light (even when zoomed out) and confidently shoot higher than ISO 1600.  It’ll more quickly get shots the XV never could which is extremely refreshing. 
 

That makes the 18-56 TL zoom much more useful than the XV Zoom.  I’ve had both, and have some TL primes. I now use the TL zoom like 90% of the time for candids, landscapes, etc. with my CL.  
 

The 35mm and 60mm TL primes are the crown jewels of the TL lens collection.  They render images in a very special way.  I have the 35mm, not the 60.  For me, however, the 50mm FOV from the 35 isn’t my “go to” focal length- so even though the 35 is a better (sharper) lens than the zoom, I don’t use it often for my general photography.  The 18-56 is just fine. It’s literally tough to tell the difference most times between which lens was used (in normal light).  
 

All that said, the TL zoom is an excellent lens and very useful for general photography. With an equivalent FL range from ~28-84mm, and with edge to edge sharpness across the frame at all focal lengths, it has become a “go to” lens for me, and apparently many other CL and TL2 photographers.  You will not be disappointed if you opt for its versatility over the 60mm - unless you do a lot of macro and portraits - in which case the 60mm is amazing. 
 

PS- I use vintage Leitz Elpro macro lenses for macro work with the 18-56 and I am quite pleased with the results.  There are separate threads in this forum on that topic too for you to consider if that’s of interest to you. 

I hope this is helpful.  Cheers 

I agree with the thrust of DGP's posting. I would just add one bonus for the fixed lens X-Vario ; you have no problem with sensor dust which is always possible with interchangeable lens systems.

[nicci78]

Actually you got more dust issue with fixed lens than with interchangeable one !

Because non weather sealed one, like the X Vario, will suffer of sensor dust. Impossible to clean it ourself. You have to send it back to CS. 

Edited July 24, 2020 by nicci78

[wda]

Well, dust has never been a problem with my X-Vario. 

[pop]

vor 40 Minuten schrieb wda:

Well, dust has never been a problem with my X-Vario. 

It has been with mine. Fortunately, Leica cleaned it FOC.

[DirkS]

Here some pics to compare X Vario and CL. First the scene (pic 1)

 

Then the digital zoomed details.

I choosed the swimming platform right in the middle of the scenerie. First pic by Leica XVario (pic 2)

 

Second digital zoomed detail from the CL with standard zoom 18-56 (pic 3). Look at the left part of the perimeter fence.

 

The CL has the better quality. But I zoomed the detail with about the factor x 20. If you do zoom only with x3 or x4 there is no difference between the pic quality.

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!

Edited July 27, 2020 by DirkS

[wda]

4 hours ago, DirkS said:

Here some pics to compare X Vario and CL. First the scene (pic 1)

 

Then the digital zoomed details.

I choosed the swimming platform right in the middle of the scenerie. First pic by Leica XVario (pic 2)

 

Second digital zoomed detail from the CL with standard zoom 18-56 (pic 3). Look at the left part of the perimeter fence.

 

The CL has the better quality. But I zoomed the detail with about the factor x 20. If you do zoom only with x3 or x4 there is no difference between the pic quality.

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!

Tripod or handheld?

Autofocus or manual?

My judgment is based on 100%, that is a more realistic basis for assessment. Few people produce murals.

Heat shimmer from the sea and solar heating also affects judgments of clarity, at distance, in this type of comparison. It is not easy to show meaningful comparisons in a practical sense.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[DirkS]

You`re right, but I used a tripod. Both cameras used their autofocus. The time between the two pics was about 1 minute (change the camera on the tripod). So the pics are quite comparable, I think.

 

And both cameras showed a lot of more details, than my own eyes could recognize.

I loved the X Vario and I didn`t sell it, it still is a really good tool, but the CL is a little better. 

Edited July 27, 2020 by DirkS

[wda]

I agree with your conclusion. I have both cameras and the X Vario is still in fairly regular use for jobs it does best, like close-up photography and the ease of setting delayed action. It is also important to remember that we are comparing two different sensor sizes.