lx1713 Posted April 9, 2018 Share #81 Posted April 9, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm really curious to know how it stacks against the 11-23mm. From the current native SL zooms, probably in every reasonable metrics that separates a pro zoom from a "consumer TL" zoom. The volume of glass probably means less vignetting and the length of the barrel, more telecentric than other 16-35 lenses and better performance wide open. Hopefully, to photogrammetric standards. Like the Hasselblad SWC's special versions. Now I don't have such a need but that would be a professional field. But being a zoom, that's highly unlikely. Now, if it's as gorgeous a performer as the other two zooms. The weight of the system is going to push it into a more deliberate type of photography for me. Closer to medium format than "35mm". So I'm suddenly hoping for a high megapixel SL2. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 9, 2018 Posted April 9, 2018 Hi lx1713, Take a look here So, who's buying the 16-35mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Bill W Posted April 9, 2018 Share #82 Posted April 9, 2018 I'm really curious to know how it stacks against the 11-23mm. From the current native SL zooms, probably in every reasonable metrics that separates a pro zoom from a "consumer TL" zoom. The volume of glass probably means less vignetting and the length of the barrel, more telecentric than other 16-35 lenses and better performance wide open. Hopefully, to photogrammetric standards. Like the Hasselblad SWC's special versions. Now I don't have such a need but that would be a professional field. But being a zoom, that's highly unlikely. Now, if it's as gorgeous a performer as the other two zooms. The weight of the system is going to push it into a more deliberate type of photography for me. Closer to medium format than "35mm". So I'm suddenly hoping for a high megapixel SL2. I had considered using the 11-23 on my SL for weight sake but you give up a lot of the sensor of the SL. You would be better off using the CL. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 9, 2018 Share #83 Posted April 9, 2018 The CL with 11-23 is a very serious contender against the SL with the 16-35. Lighter, smaller, and with very impressive technical credentials. (But I just downloaded the 16-35's technical documentation and it is even more awesome. And although the 16-35 is big, it comes in under 1 kg.) I think Leica is selling lenses these days that used to be considered military or aero grade. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx1713 Posted April 9, 2018 Share #84 Posted April 9, 2018 I had considered using the 11-23 on my SL for weight sake but you give up a lot of the sensor of the SL. You would be better off using the CL. Yes. It's just that I wish the CL was more SL like. I'm lazy in my muscle memory. Or if the SL2 is more CL like, I might reconsider I don't really know. Some have said they wished the CL had the TL2 user interface. I'm not complaining. It's Leica's market thingy. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted April 9, 2018 Share #85 Posted April 9, 2018 Just placed my order - should be available on April 23. Will see how it performs, but the MTF are extremely impressive. I just checked them against the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4, and Nikkor 14-24mm, and they aren't even close Best regards, Vieri 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carlosgavina Posted April 9, 2018 Share #86 Posted April 9, 2018 This will probably be my second SL lens Waiting for a review first though Vieri / Slack etc. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 9, 2018 Share #87 Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) My order is in, and I have the 11-23 on my CL. It looks like an extraordinary lens. I looked at the same information as Vieri and drew the same conclusion. My 15 mm Super-Elmarit R doesn't compare (I use it at f/5.6 and above). Notice that the contrast at each spatial frequency on center is greatest when wide open for both near and far distances with this lens. Stopping down looks like it will improve edges and corners, but at a tiny cost in center sharpness. Interesting design. Edited April 9, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted April 9, 2018 Share #88 Posted April 9, 2018 Just placed my order - should be available on April 23. Will see how it performs, but the MTF are extremely impressive. I just checked them against the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4, and Nikkor 14-24mm, and they aren't even close Best regards, Vieri Vieri, have you found Leica MTF to be reliable? Accurate? How about Nikon and Canon MTF? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted April 9, 2018 Share #89 Posted April 9, 2018 Vieri, have you found Leica MTF to be reliable? Accurate? How about Nikon and Canon MTF? Daryl, I think Leica's MTF are pretty accurate, according to my findings (albeit non-scientifically measured). I don't know about Canon, never used any, but my 14-24mm Nikkor was great on the D2x but really not a strong performer on the D800E - it was good, but not up to what we are used to with Leica. Looking at Nikon's MTF it seems to me that they might be reflecting what I was seeing pretty accurately. Please note that different manufacturers uses MTF in different way: Nikon shows curves for 10 and 30 lpm, and wide-open only, while Leica shows curves for 5, 10, 20 and 40 lpm at various apertures, which makes more sense since we don't shoot wide-open only and for some application, like mine, wide-open is less significant than f/8 Hope this helps! Best regards, Vieri Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
darylgo Posted April 9, 2018 Share #90 Posted April 9, 2018 (edited) Daryl, I think Leica's MTF are pretty accurate, according to my findings (albeit non-scientifically measured). I don't know about Canon, never used any, but my 14-24mm Nikkor was great on the D2x but really not a strong performer on the D800E - it was good, but not up to what we are used to with Leica. Looking at Nikon's MTF it seems to me that they might be reflecting what I was seeing pretty accurately. Please note that different manufacturers uses MTF in different way: Nikon shows curves for 10 and 30 lpm, and wide-open only, while Leica shows curves for 5, 10, 20 and 40 lpm at various apertures, which makes more sense since we don't shoot wide-open only and for some application, like mine, wide-open is less significant than f/8 Hope this helps! Best regards, Vieri Thank you Vieri. Despite all the accolades my copy of the 14-24 was disappointing. A recent check of my friends 14-24 images also were poor except in the center. I purchased a Nikon 105/1.4, this lens has received raving reviews and it is better than most Nikon/Canon but when compared to the 90/2 Apo, the old (I believe from the 1990's) Leica optic showed significant corner sharpness missing in the Nikkor. This zoom lens looks to carry on the tradition of optics for Leica. Edited April 9, 2018 by darylgo 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 9, 2018 Share #91 Posted April 9, 2018 The MTF's look fantastic. It's lighter than speculated and maintains one filter size for the zooms and 50. However 1kg is still bigger than I want to carry and there are options (CL 11-23, WATE, Sigma 12-24). Plus my weekend past proved I like having the third smaller camera at a wedding. Finally the SL isn't a landscape camera system for me. Mandatory LENR.... Although the specs are tempting I'll let someone else order early (for a change). *If* Leica ever make a high resolution SL with no mandatory LENR then, maybe. Gordon 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkinVan Posted April 9, 2018 Share #92 Posted April 9, 2018 The Sigma 12 -24 comes in at 2.54 lb or 1.15 kg. The local dealer has confirmed my ordered as first so I am looking forward to the new 16-35 later this month if all goes well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donzo98 Posted April 10, 2018 Share #93 Posted April 10, 2018 There is no reason to think that this lens will be any less outstanding than the other SL glass. I have the 24-90, 90-280 and 50 SL. All simply amazing!! The 16-35 will be the same... If you need/want the range it will be better than ANYTHING currently available. You guys know it's true 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sillbeers15 Posted April 10, 2018 Share #94 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) My preorder for the 16-35mm VE is completed. Let’s see which continent Leica chooses to ship goodies to first. It should be fun to watch now that we’ve placed money where the mouth is situated. Edited April 10, 2018 by sillbeers15 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 10, 2018 Share #95 Posted April 10, 2018 The MTF's look fantastic. It's lighter than speculated and maintains one filter size for the zooms and 50. However 1kg is still bigger than I want to carry and there are options (CL 11-23, WATE, Sigma 12-24). Plus my weekend past proved I like having the third smaller camera at a wedding. Finally the SL isn't a landscape camera system for me. Mandatory LENR.... Although the specs are tempting I'll let someone else order early (for a change). *If* Leica ever make a high resolution SL with no mandatory LENR then, maybe. Gordon I haven't tried my TL 11-23 on the SL - how does it perform? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 10, 2018 Share #96 Posted April 10, 2018 I haven't tried my TL 11-23 on the SL - how does it perform? Me either. Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlashGordonPhotography Posted April 10, 2018 Share #97 Posted April 10, 2018 The Sigma 12 -24 comes in at 2.54 lb or 1.15 kg. The local dealer has confirmed my ordered as first so I am looking forward to the new 16-35 later this month if all goes well. Yes. And a bit more with the adaptor. But.... 1. It's a more usable range with no overlap. 2. I already own it.... Gordon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted April 10, 2018 Share #98 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) The 11-23 produces an APS-C 10 MPx image on the SL, but it works fine. (But it's even better on a CL.) I use it on the SL for 4K video, but I have posted still image tests. Incidentally, recommended reading for questions like "whose MTF's should be believed?" and "What else contributes to corner sharpness?" is Roger Cicala, founder of Lensrentals, who frequently writes about this on their blog. He has been showing recently how curvature of field is an important issue, and what to do about it (like focusing for mid-field, not the image center). Leica is better for field flatness than some other manufacturers. Edited April 10, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted April 10, 2018 Share #99 Posted April 10, 2018 (edited) I haven't tried my TL 11-23 on the SL - how does it perform? Works excellent. But in cropped aps-c mode, unfortunately but not surprisingly, one may add. So the 16-35 is something else; cost-, weight-, length-, and likely, optical perfection wise... Edited April 10, 2018 by helged Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 10, 2018 Share #100 Posted April 10, 2018 Yeah, to be honest, I don't see the point when I have a TL2 ... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now