Whyvis 18mm worse than 18 56?

[gotium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 12/5/2021 at 8:32 AM, Daedalus2000 said:

Thank you for your input. I just bought the CL again and I am thinking of the 18mm for these cases when I want to have the smallest kit possible. I know the Ricoh GR III lens. Would you say it is a much better lens that then Leica 18mm? 

Sorry, tried to resist jumping in but my 2c after careful comparison - as far as IQ, the Ricoh is *considerably* sharper across the frame than the TL 18, which really falls apart toward the edges (not to mention the corners!). Colors are usually warmer out the CL, but it takes only a few seconds to adjust them to look nearly the same. Nonetheless for non-pixel-peeping use I find the TL18 just fine and I prefer using the CL b/c of the viewfinder. 

[SrMi]

37 minutes ago, gotium said:

Sorry, tried to resist jumping in but my 2c after careful comparison - as far as IQ, the Ricoh is *considerably* sharper across the frame than the TL 18, which really falls apart toward the edges (not to mention the corners!). Colors are usually warmer out the CL, but it takes only a few seconds to adjust them to look nearly the same. Nonetheless for non-pixel-peeping use I find the TL18 just fine and I prefer using the CL b/c of the viewfinder. 

I agree that Ricoh is considerably sharper than TL-18. I have not printed a comparison, so it may only matter when pixel peeping. If size is not an issue, I also prefer CL with TL-18 or similar. 

[SrMi]

On 12/5/2021 at 7:45 AM, nicci78 said:

Video interview of Karbe on YouTube in 2020
about art of SL lenses. 
by the way when you stop down you have to use slower shutter speed (risk of blur) or higher ISO (higher noise)

Found the video, the relevant part starts at [57:38] (link). Peter Karbe says that it is better to switch to a smaller format than to stop down and that digital zoom is equivalent to stopping down.  

His is a very lens-centric view and does not match my experience. I get better image quality when shooting MF at f/8 than APS-C at f/4, assuming the exposure can stay the same and both systems are high quality. There are other advantages of shooting APS-C instead of MF, but image quality is not.

P.S.: In that video, Peter essentially says that we are better off shooting Leica CL than SL if we stop down. I believe that most SL users shoot stopped down most of the time. 

[Speeding]

6 hours ago, SrMi said:

 

Found the video, the relevant part starts at [57:38] (link). Peter Karbe says that it is better to switch to a smaller format than to stop down and that digital zoom is equivalent to stopping down.  

His is a very lens-centric view and does not match my experience. I get better image quality when shooting MF at f/8 than APS-C at f/4, assuming the exposure can stay the same and both systems are high quality. There are other advantages of shooting APS-C instead of MF, but image quality is not.

P.S.: In that video, Peter essentially says that we are better off shooting Leica CL than SL if we stop down. I believe that most SL users shoot stopped down most of the time. 

I like how the image quality of the SL system on the subsequent slide is off the chart 🤣

I can appreciate that SL lenses are optimized for wide open use but most other lenses are sharper, or at least as sharp stopped down a touch.  Maximize light exposure, yes but still have to provide adequate depth for the subject(s).  

Really, it’s hard to complain about image quality from any of these cameras.  Some require a little more finesse to achieve top quality but it is certainly achievable.

[cpclee]

11 hours ago, SrMi said:

 

Found the video, the relevant part starts at [57:38] (link). Peter Karbe says that it is better to switch to a smaller format than to stop down and that digital zoom is equivalent to stopping down.  

His is a very lens-centric view and does not match my experience. I get better image quality when shooting MF at f/8 than APS-C at f/4, assuming the exposure can stay the same and both systems are high quality. There are other advantages of shooting APS-C instead of MF, but image quality is not.

P.S.: In that video, Peter essentially says that we are better off shooting Leica CL than SL if we stop down. I believe that most SL users shoot stopped down most of the time. 

If I understood what Karbe is saying, the only reason to stop down (given how good the lenses perform at wide open) is to gain depth of field.  But the light flux loss results in a degradation in image quality (he didn't say explicitly why but I assume he means from higher ISO and/or diffraction due to a smaller aperture) such that one might be better off achieving the desired depth of field by going to APS-C altogether where you can now shoot at wide open. In other words, the degradation from stopping down is greater than the image quality quality difference between FF and APS-C.  That's very interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

[Stuart Richardson]

While I cannot argue the man's genius as a lens designer, I think this is a very limited way to look at image quality. Since I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, I can assure you that film/sensor size brings more than just resolution. If I shoot at f32 on 8x10, it will give a far sharper and more beautiful tonality than shooting an APS-C camera at f4, even if the resulting DOF is similar. Sharpness is not everything (even then, 8x10 with a 100 year old lens is still often sharper than a modern digital camera)...tonality and dimensionality are, if anything, more important. Especially in printing.

[RickP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well,  even though there are 4  pages of why many don't like the 18mm Elmarit TL,  I am still enjoying it.

CL..18 TL 

 

 

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!

[gotium]

1 hour ago, RickP said:

Well,  even though there are 4  pages of why many don't like the 18mm Elmarit TL,  I am still enjoying it.

CL..18 TL 

 

 

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!

Lovely! And I quite agree - while maybe not technically so strong, many of my favorite recent photos are with this lens. Sometimes makes me wonder what I’m trying to achieve in the first place.

[nicci78]

6 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

While I cannot argue the man's genius as a lens designer, I think this is a very limited way to look at image quality. Since I shoot 4x5 and 8x10, I can assure you that film/sensor size brings more than just resolution. If I shoot at f32 on 8x10, it will give a far sharper and more beautiful tonality than shooting an APS-C camera at f4, even if the resulting DOF is similar. Sharpness is not everything (even then, 8x10 with a 100 year old lens is still often sharper than a modern digital camera)...tonality and dimensionality are, if anything, more important. Especially in printing.

Karbe is talking about a one stop different between APS-C and full frame. Which is only twice as big. Therefore quite comparable. 
Best, you can often use full frame lens on APS-C camera. Making comparison easier. 
Sensor technologies are similar between APS-C and 24x36. 

but large format is in another planet. Because it is many many time bigger. 8x10 has a crop factor of 0.13x. Obviously being so much bigger will offer lots of perks : crazy resolution, specific image rendering due to large format lens, etc…  and remember that film has a totally different rendering too ! 

 

 

[nicci78]

Let’s say that Karbe saying is only true between APS-C and Full frame with the same pixel counts. 
Obviously a 47MP SL2 stop down still has 47MP. Whereas CL only got 24MP.

However an SL2 crop to APS-C will only got 20MP and a SL2-S only 10MP. Here CL will be better. 

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, nicci78 said:

Let’s say that Karbe saying is only true between APS-C and Full frame with the same pixel counts. 
Obviously a 47MP SL2 stop down still has 47MP. Whereas CL only got 24MP.

However an SL2 crop to APS-C will only got 20MP and a SL2-S only 10MP. Here CL will be better. 

I don't think that is what he is saying. As I understood it, he said that it would be better to shoot with f/2 on APS-C than at f/2.8 with FF (assuming same resolution, equivalent lens).

IMO, Peter does not consider the SNR in his advice, which is one of the essential elements in technical image quality. When cropping or using a smaller sensor, the SNR decreases. Tonality, color quality, etc., all depend on SNR.

Edited December 9, 2021 by SrMi
same lens -> equivalent lens

[Speeding]

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

I don't think that is what he is saying. As I understood it, he said that it would be better to shoot with f/2 on APS-C than at f/2.8 with FF (assuming same resolution, same lens).

IMO, Peter does not consider the SNR in his advice, which is one of the essential elements in technical image quality. When cropping or using a smaller sensor, the SNR decreases. Tonality, color quality, etc., all depend on SNR.

The output in your example would be so similar…I’m not sure I could tell them apart.  The other way to gather more light is longer exposure time.  If you must stop down to f/2.8 (your example) you may be able to double exposure time without negatively affecting the image.  e.g an urban scene shot at f2 1/1000 ISO 100 vs f/2.8 1/500 ISO 100. 

[SrMi]

7 minutes ago, Speeding said:

The output in your example would be so similar…I’m not sure I could tell them apart.  The other way to gather more light is longer exposure time.  If you must stop down to f/2.8 (your example) you may be able to double exposure time without negatively affecting the image.  e.g an urban scene shot at f2 1/1000 ISO 100 vs f/2.8 1/500 ISO 100. 

I agree that often there is no easily visible difference between APS-C and FF images. There would be no reason to make FF cameras if there were no difference.

Peter explicitly says that APS-C is better than FF in the described case. This does not seem right to me.

Edited December 9, 2021 by SrMi

[wda]

8 minutes ago, SrMi said:

 

I agree that often there is no easily visible difference between APS-C and FF images. There would be no reason to make FF cameras if there were no difference.

Peter explicitly says that APS-C is better than FF in the described case. This does not seem right to me.

Why not put your interpretation to Customer Services Leica FAO Peter Karbe? It is a pertinent question and has generated a good following in this thread.

[Speeding]

2 hours ago, SrMi said:

 

I agree that often there is no easily visible difference between APS-C and FF images. There would be no reason to make FF cameras if there were no difference.

Peter explicitly says that APS-C is better than FF in the described case. This does not seem right to me.

Perhaps it’s the translation from German thought to English words that doesn’t come across well in his description?  I watched the video and reached the same conclusion you did.  

[jaapv]

On 12/9/2021 at 12:01 PM, cpclee said:

If I understood what Karbe is saying, the only reason to stop down (given how good the lenses perform at wide open) is to gain depth of field.  But the light flux loss results in a degradation in image quality (he didn't say explicitly why but I assume he means from higher ISO and/or diffraction due to a smaller aperture) such that one might be better off achieving the desired depth of field by going to APS-C altogether where you can now shoot at wide open. In other words, the degradation from stopping down is greater than the image quality quality difference between FF and APS-C.  That's very interesting.

Thanks for sharing.

If it were due to diffraction, this remark would only be valid for diffraction limited lenses, of which there are very few.

[RickP]

I always stop for trains. 

CL..18 2.8 Elmarit TL

 

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!

[tom0511]

Am 5.12.2021 um 15:28 schrieb nicci78:

It is the lens ! 
jump from APS-C to 24x36 is not that great. 
Just like Peter Karbe said repeatedly : stop down once your full frame you end up with an APS-C sensor. 

Then compare Q against Summicron-M 28mm. Q is way better. 
Compare to Summilux-M 28mm they quite similar. But M variant is a little bit better.

 
 

 

I don't agree (in this regard) with Peter Karbe (with all respect) and also not with your point (also with all respect)

Edited December 13, 2021 by tom0511

[bcorton]

I understand the desire (compulsion) for perfection from our equipment and from ourselves. But doesn’t the question of which lens is optically “better” or “best” become mostly theoretical in real world use? Unless one always uses a stable tripod, shoots only when the wind isn’t blowing, and only shoots perfectly motionless subjects in optimal lighting conditions—oh and, if one has the unerring judgment and skill set to perfectly manage one’s photographic vision from initial concept through post-processing and printing—only then will one be able to consistently realize all that the “best” lens will offer, no? Don’t the variables imposed by practical working conditions usually limit the performance differences between “great” and “super-great” equipment to unimportant levels? Usually.

Please don’t misunderstand my meaning or intent. I do not condemn the attempt to approach perfection. I too like my equipment to be the best I can comfortably afford, precisely for the promise of those rare instances when conditions are unusual.  But I also recognize that promise as the song of the GAS sirens.

Or, to apply a different paradigm to the issue:  how often have you seen a photograph, brilliant in concept and execution, diminished by the effects of a second-tier lens or camera?  Many of our favorite photographs have historically been made with just such equipment, and we don’t seem to mind. The importance of using the very best equipment really falls far behind the impact of a powerful visual concept rendered artfully, or at least that’s what I believe. 

I would say, buy whatever lens you would use the most.

Edited December 19, 2021 by bcorton

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Rusty]

On 12/5/2021 at 9:53 PM, Xue said:

Sorry to bother you guys.

I have the 18mm. But in the forum people all say it is worse than the 18 56 and not to leica standard. Can any one tell me more detail about this? What I need is the leica color. Does the colour differs a lot?

I have watched this subject with interest as I have recently bought a CL and it came with just the 18mm lens so I confess I don’t have any other Leica glass to compare it with.

During my research stage of getting the CL I did a fair bit of reading and video watching.

one video I watched was the red dot forum review of the CL where they also went through lenses.

david Farkas who was on the video noted that the 18  (28mm) focal length was covered by 3 lenses, the 18/f2.8 and the two zooms, the 18-56 and the 11-23. 

His opinion was that the 18 f2.8 was the best of the three at that focal length.

he also said that the TL and L lenses were all designed and built to a min of 60 lines of resolution per mm. And that with M glass it was 40 lines per mm. So the L mount lenses are all very sharp and to the highest standards. This may have been on a different video I watched a few.

I guess everyone has their favourites and most of us like to justify our own purchases so opinions vary but it seems to me any tl lens will be first rate.

 

 

Edited December 29, 2021 by Rusty