TL18-56mm vs TL35mm - that old chestnut…

[Leica_newie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

hello TL/CL owners,

Firstly, thank you for all your threads - I’ve learnt a lot by reading through them.

I’m new to the system, indeed, to a serious camera such as the TL2 that I recently picked up at a good price, after years of admiring from a distance. I wasn’t aware that it had been discontinued. However, this forum has assured me that it remains a decent option that continues to have mileage.

My only other experience with Leica was a D-Lux 4 back in 2009.

It has always been my intention to familiarise myself with the variables, such as aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc. But I never really progressed beyond Automatic Focus.

 

Committing myself to the TL2 meant that I had to understand all this. The camera body on its own isn’t sufficient; I needed a lens, obviously.

The Leica store in London signposted me to MPB and I picked up a Vario-Elmar TL 18-56mm, f.3.5-5.6 ASPH lens in decent condition and for an accessible price. I figured that this would be a good start point to get familiar with the camera. And it is.

Took it with me to Marrakech recently and enjoyed playing with it; although got a sense of its limitations, too.

 

The more I read up on the Summilux TL 35mm, f.1.4 ASPH lens, the more I wondered if this would be the better option if I had to limit myself to one lens. Certainly, there’s a thread dedicated to this topic.

One came up on eBay recently and I bought it.

Now I need to decide if I trade in the Vario-Elmar for, say, a Visoflex viewfinder. Admittedly, not the most crucial addition for a TL camera but I’d feel bad having used the 18-56mm and then returning it for a full refund.

 

Aesthetically, the Summilux is a stunner, isn’t it. It’s also significantly heavier/ bulkier than the Vario-Elmar. I guess that I’d gotten used to the latter when on that recent trip.

My question is, can the Summilux do everything that the Vario-Elmar does? Or does the latter, which has a smaller form, and is therefore lighter - have any advantage over the Summilux?

The reason I ask what may be an obvious answer to the more experienced photographer is that I took a photo with both lenses last night and feel that the Vario-Elmar provides more detail than the Summilux (3rd pic below; first two are the 35mm). It may be that I need to understand how to use the Summilux better.

I’d love to keep both but can’t afford to.

 

Your thoughts/ insights, etc; would be much appreciated.

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!

[wda]

Quote: My question is, can the Summilux do everything that the Vario-Elmar does? Or does the latter, which has a smaller form, and is therefore lighter - have any advantage over the Summilux. Unquote

Welcome to Leica ownership and to the forum. Your question has been debated many times and it would be rewarding for you to search the forum. My brief answer is No. The zoom lens is more versatile and lighter to carry. But the zoom cannot match the opening aperture of the prime lens. But as I showed in my website article, higher ISO settings can easily cope with low light. https://www.davidaskham.com/news109766.html

As you discovered in Marakesh, the zoom lens makes a very effective travel companion. But some users will argue the other way. Choice is very personal. Incidentally,  I have both lenses and when choosing one travel lens the standard zoom wins every time.

[Don Morley]

I agree with David, the zoom is vastly more versatile. Don

[LocalHero1953]

I've had the TL2 and both lenses. The 35 makes images with obviously better image quality.....at 35mm focal length. At other focal lengths the zoom wins out 

[dpitt]

3 hours ago, Leica_newie said:

My question is, can the Summilux do everything that the Vario-Elmar does? Or does the latter, which has a smaller form, and is therefore lighter - have any advantage over the Summilux?

The reason I ask what may be an obvious answer to the more experienced photographer is that I took a photo with both lenses last night and feel that the Vario-Elmar provides more detail than the Summilux (3rd pic below; first two are the 35mm). It may be that I need to understand how to use the Summilux better.

I’d love to keep both but can’t afford to.

No. The Summilux can not do what the Vario-Elmar does. But what it does is excellent. Your example pictures are hard to compare because the last one is slightly zoomed in, looks more like 50mm to me than 35mm. You should shoot both at 35mm and F4, and then compare. I do not have the Vario-Elmar, but I think it will be quite close, even though I feel the 35mm Summilux TL is the better lens. And the Summilux allows lots more fun with shallow DOF if you need it.

So the zoom is much more versatile and easier to travel with. You never know what to expect when traveling and with the high ISO capability of the TL2, you can compensate the slowness of the zoom in low light scenes.

But....The best traveling companion on the TL2? As I get older, weight and size get more important for me. So I bought my TL2 in the hope to have a compact high quality system. And I like the small package it makes with the Summicron 35mm F2.0 M (vintage), or  a 21mm Elmarit  M. The Color Skopar 35mm F2.5 pancake is not bad too, good value for money, but it is no match for the Leica's in the IQ department.

Of course, M lenses are only MF so YMMV. In my case the Summicron 35 often wins because of its size. I think that if I needed AF, the Summicron 23mm TL would be ideal for me.

Just my 2 cents.

[dpitt]

4 hours ago, Leica_newie said:

Now I need to decide if I trade in the Vario-Elmar for, say, a Visoflex viewfinder. Admittedly, not the most crucial addition for a TL camera but I’d feel bad having used the 18-56mm and then returning it for a full refund.

The visoflex is crucial for me. My eyesight is getting worse, and using the 'iPhone way' (arms stretched) to make pictures does not work for me. I can not see both the back screen and the subject at a distance clearly at the same time. A visoflex with correction is the perfect solution, although the TL2 sometimes requires touch screen access.

A visoflex is also great for saving the battery.

Also, in bright sunlight it is always much harder to use back screens.

[Leica_newie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks, All for your considered (and speedy) responses... really appreciated. 

OK, it looks like I'll be holding onto both lenses, then. Better get some more work shifts in.

I'll play around with them a bit more until I'm comfortable with both and get a better understanding of what their respective strengths are. 

(@wda - thank you for the link to your post. Last night, I enjoyed reading the posts on 'The Future of the CL in 2022' and, 'My Favourite lens') 

(@dpitt - good to know that the Visoflex saves on battery power. I see that David's post also mentions this. Like you, I have a feeling that the diopter adjustment will be very useful for me) 

 

[TL3]

18-56 was my first lens, my second one was the 35.  18-56 I found was more versatile, but I have a lot more keepers with the 35 for my style of shooting.  Definitely can justify both, but my personal choice would be the 35 if I could only have 1.

I never longed for a Visoflex when I was shooting the TL since i just used it with a wrist strap and shot it like an iPhone; I found it made me go with more unconventional angles.  However after getting a CL, I use the viewfinder all the time now.

[Leica_newie]

1 hour ago, TL3 said:

18-56 was my first lens, my second one was the 35.  18-56 I found was more versatile, but I have a lot more keepers with the 35 for my style of shooting.  Definitely can justify both, but my personal choice would be the 35 if I could only have 1.

I never longed for a Visoflex when I was shooting the TL since i just used it with a wrist strap and shot it like an iPhone; I found it made me go with more unconventional angles.  However after getting a CL, I use the viewfinder all the time now.

Thanks for your input, TL3 - great username, too 
Yes, think I'll hold onto the 18-56mm and get to know it better; then bring in the 35mm once I'm more familiar with the variables (ISO/ aperture/ f-stop, etc)  

[tommonego@gmail.com]

To cover my not having the18-56, I have the 23 Summicron, a 35 Summilux preasph M, and a 55 f1.4 7 Artisans (which is surprisingly good). Of course only the 23 is autofocus. I have used manual focus with all my digital cameras, so it is no problem. I just think that if you drop the zoom for the TL 35, you will end up wanting lenses on either side of the 35. I use a CL.

[Guest]

I think that is (well, was) the beauty of the TL/CL system. Unless I forgot something, with four native primes (18, 23, 35 and 60) and three zooms (11-23, 18-55, 55-135), you could mix and match to your heart's content. There aren't many situations you couldn't cover. On a lengthy trip recently, for my CL I took the 23mm and the 55-135 zoom, which worked out very well. I also own the 35 Lux, which is an exceptional lens, and the little 18mm pancake, which is great for street photography. Prices have come down considerably, so there are good deals out there. The TL2, design wise, is very special and Leica deserves a lot of praise for developing such a camera. I will not part with my copy.