With Vario Elmar-T 18-56mm. You cover 18 and 35mm.

[Dopaco]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Apart from being lighter in transport, what advantages do you see in having ELMARIT-TL 18 F/2.8 ASPH or Summicron-TL 23 mm f/2 ASPH, if those lengths are covered with 18-56mm. Especially in the 18mm that the difference (f2.8/f3.5) is small,

I would like to know opinions and if you have done any verification of the difference in image quality, it is much greater in fixed lenses (18mm or 35mm) compared to 18-56mm zoom lenses.

Thank you very much

[Advertisement]

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

[wda]

I have the 23 mm Summicron lens, and the standard zoom lens. I use the latter mostly for general photography,  retaining the prime for certain situations. The latter could be low-light conditions, where two stops is an advantage, or where I seek to isolate a subject.  If traveling,  I would take both. I haven't felt the need for the compact 18 mm lens. The zoom meets my requirements  and has less of an aperture disadvantage. (F3.5 versus F2.8) 

Edited August 16, 2022 by wda

[Rusty]

1 hour ago, Dopaco said:

Apart from being lighter in transport, what advantages do you see in having ELMARIT-TL 18 F/2.8 ASPH or Summicron-TL 23 mm f/2 ASPH, if those lengths are covered with 18-56mm. Especially in the 18mm that the difference (f2.8/f3.5) is small,

I would like to know opinions and if you have done any verification of the difference in image quality, it is much greater in fixed lenses (18mm or 35mm) compared to 18-56mm zoom lenses.

Thank you very much

I own the 18mm elmerit  and it is certainly very small and light. According to the guys at the Red Dot Forum it’s sharper than both TL zooms that cover 18mm. I also own 3 Sigma primes 30,56. & 90mm. My approach when buying a Leica was a return to simplicity and shooting the traditional Leica way, for me that meant a return to using primes after years of using zooms. That’s not an approach everyone will take.

so I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you just want a camera with the minimum number of lenses then the TL 18-56 looks like a very capable lens and there is no need for you to double up. 

 

[Dopaco]

2 hours ago, wda said:

I have the 23 mm Summicron lens, and the standard zoom lens. I use the latter mostly for general photography,  retaining the prime for certain situations. The latter could be low-light conditions, where two stops is an advantage, or where I seek to isolate a subject.  If traveling,  I would take both. I haven't felt the need for the compact 18 mm lens. The zoom meets my requirements  and has less of an aperture disadvantage. (F3.5 versus F2.8) 

The 23mm Summicron, which is equivalent to a 35mm in CL and TL2 at f2 vs. f3.5, is a considerable advantage in being able to isolate subjects.
I have the 18mm f2.8 and it's very light but at first glance I haven't noticed much difference with the 18-56mm (both at 18mm minimum f). the fixed 18mm blurs the background a little more, the image quality I have not been able to notice differences.

[Shawn30]

I have the 18mm primarily because it came with the camera. I took the 18mm and 55-135 to Italy this year and realized what a great travel lens the 18-56 must be. I would feel limited by the variable aperture of F/3.5-5.6 on the 18-56 though. So to me the small advantage of the 18mm and 23mm is during low light situations.

[Dopaco]

1 hour ago, Rusty said:

I own the 18mm elmerit  and it is certainly very small and light. According to the guys at the Red Dot Forum it’s sharper than both TL zooms that cover 18mm. I also own 3 Sigma primes 30,56. & 90mm. My approach when buying a Leica was a return to simplicity and shooting the traditional Leica way, for me that meant a return to using primes after years of using zooms. That’s not an approach everyone will take.

so I think it depends on what you are trying to achieve. If you just want a camera with the minimum number of lenses then the TL 18-56 looks like a very capable lens and there is no need for you to double up. 

 

I also have the 18mm f2.8 and it is very light and comes to be a 27mm APSC. Leica Q is 28mm and heavier than CL and TL2 and people treat it as their best and only camera.

Thanks for your comments.

[NigelG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

38 minutes ago, Shawn30 said:

I would feel limited by the variable aperture of F/3.5-5.6 on the 18-56 though.

I bought the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 instead…

[MJB]

I mean, it's the same as any other lens system.  Primes are generally smaller and faster, zooms bulkier and slower.  There is of course overlap in coverage between the two, and in the case of the TL lenses, the broadest coverage (11-135mm) is in fact offered by the zooms alone.  The 35mm stands out as the fastest lens (f/1.4), the 23mm not far behind (f/2).  The 18mm and 60mm are both faster than their respective zooms (f/2.8), even though the difference is a bit more modest, especially with the 18mm.  But then both lenses offer distinct advantages against the zooms, besides larger aperture: the 60mm of course has macro functionality, and the 18mm is remarkably small and light, much more so than even the rather compact 18-56mm zoom.  I think the 18mm is perhaps a bit of a gimmick, but I have found it to be useful at times, when I want the camera to be as light and unobtrusive as possible, almost like carrying a point-and-shoot.  Anyway, these are all rather good lenses, I think - sharp, well-built, and mostly compact.  I don't think you can go wrong with any of them, but I'm not a pixel peeper who pores over 200x crops and obsesses about corner sharpness.  I previously owned the three Sigma fast primes, and while I appreciated things about them, I found their tendency to hunt for focus made them too unreliable for me, and their build is not up to the TL lenses.  The Sigmas are much cheaper, of course, but secondhand TL lenses go a long way toward closing the gap (even more so when you factor in resale value) and are just much better, in my opinion.  I don't much care about the speed advantage of the Sigmas, either - the CL has great high-ISO performance and modern noise-reduction software helps when needed.  Plus, I'm personally more likely to shoot with primes in low-light, and the TL primes are plenty fast.  And anyway - is a larger maximum aperture really an advantage on a lens that hunts for focus even in bright daylight?

Edited August 16, 2022 by MJB

[tommonego@gmail.com]

I have the 23 Summicron and the 11-23 Vario Elmar. The 23 is lighter and 35mm is my favorite focal length so I often go out with just the 23 it is also 2 1/2 stops faster than the 11-23 at 23. At 18mm it is an f4 lens and excellent. The 18-56 hasn't appealed to me as I have 25mm, 35mm, 40mm, 50mm and 55mm primes, all these lenses are small and light, they are M lenses except for the 55 which is an L mount. I often carry the 23 and 55 f1.4 only.  The 55-135 is a thought, but I have a 90 Elmarit and 135 Tele-Elmar.  

[Marac]

I used to have the Sigma 18-50 f2.8 but I lent it to my Wife one day last year so alas it has now gone forever but, it's a very tidy lens for the CL, light, f2.8 (really sharp by f4) the images have a lovely mood, the lens can focus closer than the 18-56, very good choice.

I have also had the 18-56. it is an excellent lens.

[rob_w]

I owned both the 18-56 and the TL23.  Each is very good. I would not be able to tell which lens was used for any particular photo without checking the EXIF.  Mostly I would take the 23 if compactness and/or wider aperture were important.  The Sigma 18-50 is also an excellent lens as Marac says -- probably my preferred choice today just because f2.8 can be handy. 

Most modern lenses from reputable manufacturers are so good I have given up agonising over miniscule differences.  Compared to the situation a decade or two ago when one had to choose carefully or risk being disappointed.

Edited August 18, 2022 by rob_w

[geoffreyg]

Have both the 23 and 18-56. Normally a prime lens fan but in this case... the 18-56 is so darn good, its hard to see what would be better. Also, with the APS format, the ability to crop and get a reasonably largish image is limited, so the zoom allows one to crop in the shooting, not later. On a FF camera, might have a different opinion (a la Q), but for the CL, think the zoom makes sense.