Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L III USM vs. LEICA SUPER-VARIO-ELMAR-TL 1:3,5-4,5/11–23 mm ASPH

[Ingo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Today I'm using the 24-90, 90-280, 50-SL and the WATE with the SL. 
For reportage and wedding I think about an additional 16-35 zoom because I often have to switch between the 24-90 and WATE. 

 

I'm fine with 10MP when I would use the TL 11-23 but I'm wondering, if anybody here is using the new 16-35 from Canon on the SL and can share his experience. 

My main concerns are that the 'style' of the Canon photos will not fit to the 90-280 rendering. 

 

Any thoughts?

[JamesBarry]

I'm using the previous version 16-35L ii for property interiors in conjunction with 24-90 mainly for exteriors and portraiture.  The Canon works well with SL with excellent results, back button focus is perfectly quick and accurate enough too.  I'm shooting at f8+ almost exclusively though so can't comment on its f2.8 image potential.  Will be v interesting to compare with the 16-35 SL when it finally comes out...

[caissa]

You won't like what I say - generally (in my experience) the Canon UWA zooms are not really exciting. The 11-24 is THE big exception. Many will confirm this if you browse the web or consult test sites.

Generally the Nikon offerings are clearly better. (12-24, or 16-35) but both are quite big.

I often use the older AF-S 2.8/17-35. On paper it is slightly weaker than the two newer UWA zooms, but in reality it was always one of my favorite lenses. (But only manual on the SL, so probably not for you) (On paper it is about as good as the R 19 V2, which is not bad at all.)

I will continue using it until I can afford the SL 16-35 (probably optically closer to perfection but at the cost of a much smaller aperture). Maybe it arrives in December ?

 

So in your place (assuming you need AF) I would rather choose the 11-24 because of the better IQ and maybe you will never need the SL 16-35.   

[AlexP]

i have the 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii and it works perfect. However, if you're talking about color rendition, it is not the same as if you're shooting with Leica lens. I'm going to buy the 11-23 next week. Until then, i'm using the sigma 8-16 (which give you the same as 12-24mm) and getting pretty result. Most of all, AF is super fast with novoflex adapter.

 

 

 

@caissa: I also had the 11-24 and sold it. Read stuff from the internet mean nothing. The lens is huge and heavy. AF with Leica SL is pity. Very slow. Why would you pay $2700 for a lens and can't even use AF?

[Ingo]

i have the 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii and it works perfect. However, if you're talking about color rendition, it is not the same as if you're shooting with Leica lens. I'm going to buy the 11-23 next week. Until then, i'm using the sigma 8-16 (which give you the same as 12-24mm) and getting pretty result. Most of all, AF is super fast with novoflex adapter.

 

 

 

 

@caissa: I also had the 11-24 and sold it. Read stuff from the internet mean nothing. The lens is huge and heavy. AF with Leica SL is pity. Very slow. Why would you pay $2700 for a lens and can't even use AF?

 

It would be great if you can show some sample/comparison pictures with the Canon 16-35 and the 11-23. 

[caissa]

i have the 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii and it works perfect. However, if you're talking about color rendition, it is not the same as if you're shooting with Leica lens. I'm going to buy the 11-23 next week. Until then, i'm using the sigma 8-16 (which give you the same as 12-24mm) and getting pretty result. Most of all, AF is super fast with novoflex adapter.

 

 

@caissa: I also had the 11-24 and sold it. Read stuff from the internet mean nothing. The lens is huge and heavy. AF with Leica SL is pity. Very slow. Why would you pay $2700 for a lens and can't even use AF?

 

The pics I saw (11-24) were excellent (better than expected from Canon). A friend has it and is excited. He also said that AF was "very good" and when I used it adapted (only for a few minutes) I also found it quite responsive. But AF speed is not important for me in a UWA.

So I am simply surprised that you returned it. This is the first time I hear such a negative report about it, not that I doubt it.

Of course it is terribly big - in this regard nothing compares to the 16-18-21.

[caissa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The longer I think about it, the more useful looks the Sigma 2.0/24-35 to me. 24mm would be wide enough for most uses (like weddings) where AF is useful.

And according to tests, the optical quality seems extremely well for a lens with such an aperture.

Aperture 2 is more useful for me than the focal range from 16 to 20.

And it is one of the few Sigma lenses that work with the Novoflex EOS AF adapter.

This could be a useful addition, as long as Leica offers no Summicron SL 28 or 24. 

Only drawback it is heavy.

 

Too bad nobody has yet done a comparison with the 24-90 (I mean fotos, not technical data).

[AlexP]

you want to compare Sigma 24 ART with 24-90SL? i can do that.

[Ingo]

you want to compare Sigma 24 ART with 24-90SL? i can do that.

Absolutely. 

[helged]

you want to compare Sigma 24 ART with 24-90SL? i can do that.

Regarding coma (ok, I know many don't care too much), then the Sigma 24 Art is far from good, whereas the 24-90SL shines.

[caissa]

Comparing the Art 2.0/24-35 vs the SL 24-90  at 24, 28 and 35mm is what I had in mind.

But it is probably difficult, as they are not of equal aperture. And the Sigma has some distortion, that needs to be corrected for a comparison and also some vignetting. (All that is done automatically for the 24-90).

Zoom vs zoom seems more logical than prime vs zoom.

In the end they are probably both above average in quality. And a "fair comparison" is probably not possible regarding the big differences.  (price and focal range)

[STEVEcKONG]

i have the 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii and it works perfect. However, if you're talking about color rendition, it is not the same as if you're shooting with Leica lens. I'm going to buy the 11-23 next week. Until then, i'm using the sigma 8-16 (which give you the same as 12-24mm) and getting pretty result. Most of all, AF is super fast with novoflex adapter.

 

 

 

@caissa: I also had the 11-24 and sold it. Read stuff from the internet mean nothing. The lens is huge and heavy. AF with Leica SL is pity. Very slow. Why would you pay $2700 for a lens and can't even use AF?

 

did you buy the 11-23 and have you try it out on SL yet? 

[AlexP]

did you buy the 11-23 and have you try it out on SL yet? 

yes i did. Love it. Super small size. Great color condition. I don't mind about the ASP-C mode since you don't zoom/crop your landscape. As of right now, there are 3 options that you want to go wide. These 3 that also give you full Auto focus.

 

1. Leica T 11-23

2. Sigma 8-16

3. Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 mk iii

 

I have all 3 and this is how i see it. If you're from Canon DSLR and still have Canon DSLR body, 16-35 would be the choice if your budget allow. If budget not allow then sigma 8-16. When you buy the Leica 11-23, you really have to commit to Leica system. The price for it is almost the same as buying the canon 16-35 f/2.8 mkiii. You will also have full frame with Canon lens. However, it is big as hell.   So, pick your poison.