So, who's buying the 16-35mm?

[carlosgavina]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

These are the reproduction ratios of the SL 16-35

16mm: 1:7.7

35mm: 1:3.7

 

 

And those of the CL 11-23

11mm: 1:9.7

23mm: 1:5.4

[scott kirkpatrick]

That's a little mysterious.  I was basing my assumptions on the closest working distance, 0.2 m, cited for the 11-23 and the distance, 0.25 m, listed for the 16-35.  But I see that the minimum field widths quoted in the specs don't have that ratio.  I just used the 11-23 to take pictures of a ruler.  At f/2.8, I could get the lens to focus down to a width of 14.7 cm.  At f/5.6, I got a green focus confirmation with a width of 11.7 cm.  The spec says that the minimum is 12.7@f/5.4.

 

For the 16-35, which is only a piece of paper for a few more weeks, the quoted minimum image width is 13.5 cm. We'll see.

 

Reproduction ratios aren't the whole story since the APS-C chip is 1.5x smaller than the FF chip.  If it is true that the 11-23@23 can take a picture of something 12 cm wide at the closest working distance, and that distance really is 20 cm, then the 16-35@35 working at 25 cm will capture something 15 cm wide, assuming the same angle of view.   

 

There are some rough edges on the early technical documentation for this new lens.  The engineering drawing is missing one element entirely (#12, counting from the front), and the three "lens shape" drawings that we usually get. showing how the elements move for each focal length, are replaced by one drawing which doesn't give a clue to how the different groups move while zooming.

Edited April 12, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[MRJohn]

What is the expectation on how it will perform against the WATE (on the SL) at according focal lengths? What will be the main differences?

[Csacwp]

I personally find full-frame to be fine for most applications, but if you shoot landscape, for the price of an SL and 16-35 you could get a medium format rig.

[mgrayson3]

What is the expectation on how it will perform against the WATE (on the SL) at according focal lengths? What will be the main differences?

 

The TL2 with 11-23 already outperforms the WATE on the SL. The 16-35 had better be an improvement!

 

--Matt

[scott kirkpatrick]

I personally find full-frame to be fine for most applications, but if you shoot landscape, for the price of an SL and 16-35 you could get a medium format rig.

I think if you price things out, maybe the low end of medium format (X1D or GF50) would be comparable, but the lenses they provide, I suspect, will not compare to the 16-35, and more pixels does not make up the difference.  High end medium format (Phase One, H6D) costs much more.  Obviously a topic for future discussion.

[Peter Branch]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's a little mysterious.  I was basing my assumptions on the closest working distance, 0.2 m, cited for the 11-23 and the distance, 0.25 m, listed for the 16-35.  But I see that the minimum field widths quoted in the specs don't have that ratio.  I just used the 11-23 to take pictures of a ruler.  At f/2.8, I could get the lens to focus down to a width of 14.7 cm.  At f/5.6, I got a green focus confirmation with a width of 11.7 cm.  The spec says that the minimum is 12.7@f/5.4.

 

For the 16-35, which is only a piece of paper for a few more weeks, the quoted minimum image width is 13.5 cm. We'll see.

 

Reproduction ratios aren't the whole story since the APS-C chip is 1.5x smaller than the FF chip.  If it is true that the 11-23@23 can take a picture of something 12 cm wide at the closest working distance, and that distance really is 20 cm, then the 16-35@35 working at 25 cm will capture something 15 cm wide, assuming the same angle of view.   

 

There are some rough edges on the early technical documentation for this new lens.  The engineering drawing is missing one element entirely (#12, counting from the front), and the three "lens shape" drawings that we usually get. showing how the elements move for each focal length, are replaced by one drawing which doesn't give a clue to how the different groups move while zooming.

 

It is not difficult to possibly explain the reproduction ratio anomalies.  Two things are critical, what is the reference point for the stated distance figures?  In former times Leica always quoted focusing distances measured from the plane of the sensor - nothing to do with the lens.  The other key factor is the position of the Entry Pupil of the lens and hence its position relative to the sensor.  Given these variables, which in the case of the SL and CL are not clearly defined, it is possible to imagine all manner of outcomes.

 

The deficiencies in the quality of current Leica literature have been attributed to the Silo Effect, beloved by management consultants, whereby "Marketing" becomes quite separate from "Manufacturing".  

[scott kirkpatrick]

I was hoping that "engineering" wrote the technical documents, specifically Karbe's optical (and mechanical) design group.

 

And the focus distance on an M lens or in the depth of field tables (which now appear on the top panel LCD) refer to distance from the sensor.  But, even with an idealized "thin lens") for which the rule 1/f = 1/(dist to object) + 1/(dist to image) applies, things like angle of view get complicated at magnification ratios close to one.  Angle of view gets smaller as you focus closer and move the lens away from the sensor. The CL doesn't shrink its angle of view as much as the SL does, for a given object field width.  And a modern zoom is not at all a thin lens.

 

In a month or so, I hope to have both lenses and will want to sort some of this out.

Edited April 12, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Peter Branch]

I was hoping that "engineering" wrote the technical documents, specifically Karbe's optical (and mechanical) design group.  .............

 

 

 

I'm told that this is not the case.  Marketing may get "information" from Manufacturing but then, of course, it needs to be edited and polished and formatted and.........

[Vieri]

I personally find full-frame to be fine for most applications, but if you shoot landscape, for the price of an SL and 16-35 you could get a medium format rig.

 

(Almost) true on the price, but no medium format rig will allow you to use 16mm FOV equivalent lenses, or any of the even wider lenses that you can adapt to the SL. Equally impossible is to use a lens such as the 90-280mm, or in other words to reach to nearly 300mm FOV equivalent, with lenses of a human-transportable size and weight

 

Price is almost equivalent if you consider a MF camera and one lens. However, to get to the focal length coverage of the SL and 24-90mm (since the 16-35mm coverage is impossible with any medium format rig currently on the market), however, you'd need more than one lens - and your price will go up pretty steeply pretty fast.

 

So, if you need to use ultra-wide lenses (under 18-19mm FOV equivalent), and / or if you need to shoot long lenses, medium format is out. As well, if you need the same focal length coverage as the SL and one zoom, medium format is out of the price range of the SL and a zoom. 

 

In short, there isn't much comparison IMHO

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[lx1713]

Vieri, if the S has a MF equivalent. Would you get it?

[Vieri]

Vieri, if the S has a MF equivalent. Would you get it?

 

 

Hello, I really tried to understand what you mean but couldn't get to any conclusion that sounded meaningful Could you rephrase? Thanks

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[lx1713]

Hello, I really tried to understand what you mean but couldn't get to any conclusion that sounded meaningful Could you rephrase? Thanks

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

 

My apologies. Just finished a stretch of work. If the S had the 16-35 equivalent. A 20-44mm zoom lens on the S would not be small. Would you get it?

 

By the way, your work is inspiring.

[Vieri]

My apologies. Just finished a stretch of work. If the S had the 16-35 equivalent. A 20-44mm zoom lens on the S would not be small. Would you get it?

 

By the way, your work is inspiring.

 

 

Well, to me there are a lot of ifs packed into your question, not just one - if Leica will make a 20-44mm for the S, and if I could use it with 100mm filters (not having to go for 150mm), and if the S 007 (via firmware) or the next S will have long exposures longer than 1 minute, then I might consider it, of course. Even though I'd need a SL with a 12mm or a 10mm as well, I think. But, I am thinking that it's quite a lot of ifs...

 

Thank you, glad you are enjoying my work

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[Jeff S]

(Almost) true on the price, but no medium format rig will allow you to use 16mm FOV equivalent lenses,

 

 

The XCD 21mm lens.... 16.6 mm equivalent FOV... should soon be available for the X1D.

 

Within roughly a year, the system should have 9 lenses, including an ultra wide, a zoom, a macro, a moderate tele with 1.7x converter, and a fast 80. Not bad considering 2 big zooms for the SL in that time frame.

 

Jeff

[lx1713]

Well, to me there are a lot of ifs packed into your question, not just one - if Leica will make a 20-44mm for the S, and if I could use it with 100mm filters (not having to go for 150mm), and if the S 007 (via firmware) or the next S will have long exposures longer than 1 minute, then I might consider it, of course. Even though I'd need a SL with a 12mm or a 10mm as well, I think. But, I am thinking that it's quite a lot of ifs...

 

Thank you, glad you are enjoying my work

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

 

Thanks, it's a comprehensive answer. I have a reluctance to go MF but the higher quality files are definitely an attractive proposal if I needed it.

[Vieri]

The XCD 21mm lens.... 16.6 mm equivalent FOV... should soon be available for the X1D.

 

Within roughly a year, the system should have 9 lenses, including an ultra wide, a zoom, a macro, a moderate tele with 1.7x converter, and a fast 80. Not bad considering 2 big zooms for the SL in that time frame.

 

Jeff

 

 

Jeff,

 

that is theoretically true, but is behind a huge "should", since the 21mm "should" have been out already and is not, and since as "buy now" the system has 4 lenses 24mm, 35mm, 72mm and 96mm FOV equivalent versus the SL covering "buy now" from 24 to 280mm plus three fast primes (and covering from 16 to 280mm in 9 days, if April 23 is to be believed). By the way, the SL is just 2.5 years old now and has (in 9 days) three zoom covering 16-280mm plus three fast primes available, and "should" have two more primes by the end of the year. That said, even if what you said were true as per right now, that would be completely besides the point, since the post I answered said (with no mention of the number of lenses or anything of that sort):

 

"I personally find full-frame to be fine for most applications, but if you shoot landscape, for the price of an SL and 16-35 you could get a medium format rig."

 

and the X1D plus the new 21mm would be very much out of "the price of an SL and 16-35" - at least in my local - since the X1D body-only costs already almost as much as the SL + 16-35mm and I assume that he 21mm will be around 3-4.000 euro at least.

 

Plus, even assuming availability today for the 21mm, and even if they would give it away for less than 1.500 euro to make it the same price as the SL + 16-35mm, you'd have less focal range available (fixed 16.8mm equivalent vs the 16-35mm). Add a Hassy 30mm and Hassy 45mm to cover the same range, without the flexibility of the zoom of course, and you'll be out of way more cash than the SL +16-35mm costs. Not to mention the different angle of view coverage between a 4:3 sensor and a 3:2, making the 17mm on a 4:3 image ration MF sensor less "wide" than the 16mm on a 3:2 image ratio FF sensor (on both diagonal and horizontal, while in vertical 4:3 will have a slight advantage). I.e., the 24mm on the SL covers (diagonal, horizontal, vertical): 84,7 / 74,4 / 53,7 degrees, while the 30mm on the X1D (24mm equivalent) covers 83 / 71 / 56 degrees.

 

In the end, it is all a matter of compromises: if you want MF's resolution (and look), you have to give up flexibility, speed, range in available focal length, range in available lenses, size and weight (generally, less true with the X1D) and quite a chunk of cash (even against the Leica SL, which is not the cheapest camera in the bunch). That's just the way it is Of course, this has nothing to do with anybody's personal requirements: if the X1D and its lenses is enough for you and your work, then great. For me, the SL simply makes more sense - so much so that that's not even a comparison.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[djmay]

This sums it up nicely. It is a matter of priorities. If image quality is most important, go with S. If flexibility is most important, go with SL.

 

Some of us are not "zoomers." I have gone with S for most of my work, and M for what is not practical with the S. I see the SL as a good compromise between those two.

 

Jesse

 

"In the end, it is all a matter of compromises: if you want MF's resolution (and look), you have to give up flexibility, speed, range in available focal length, range in available lenses, size and weight (generally, less true with the X1D) and quite a chunk of cash"

Edited April 14, 2018 by djmay

[FlashGordonPhotography]

(Almost) true on the price, but no medium format rig will allow you to use 16mm FOV equivalent lenses, or any of the even wider lenses that you can adapt to the SL. Equally impossible is to use a lens such as the 90-280mm, or in other words to reach to nearly 300mm FOV equivalent, with lenses of a human-transportable size and weight

 

Price is almost equivalent if you consider a MF camera and one lens. However, to get to the focal length coverage of the SL and 24-90mm (since the 16-35mm coverage is impossible with any medium format rig currently on the market), however, you'd need more than one lens - and your price will go up pretty steeply pretty fast.

 

So, if you need to use ultra-wide lenses (under 18-19mm FOV equivalent), and / or if you need to shoot long lenses, medium format is out. As well, if you need the same focal length coverage as the SL and one zoom, medium format is out of the price range of the SL and a zoom. 

 

In short, there isn't much comparison IMHO

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

 

All those lenses are available in mini MF, or adapted lenses.

 

Pentax make a 28-45. (21.5 to 35mm equiv).

The 17TSE works fine on the X1D or GFX (13mm equiv).

Several makers have long lenses. Pentax make a 600mm.

Pentax makes several zooms that are available cheaply on the used market. They out resolve the SL and zooms at f8.

A full Pentax 645Z system costs less than a SL kit.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

(Almost) true on the price, but no medium format rig will allow you to use 16mm FOV equivalent lenses...

 

(....snip)....

 

So, if you need to use ultra-wide lenses (under 18-19mm FOV equivalent), and / or if you need to shoot long lenses, medium format is out.

 

Vieri

Wrong and wrong. Adapted or (soon) native lenses.

 

The X1D now costs $6495 at B&H, or $500 more than the SL, and the lenses are less expensive.... and smaller and easier to carry. You can use your location as your basis, and I can use the US. Blanket statements often lead to controversy.

 

Trade offs, as always. The SL has pros and cons. The X1D (and other MF) has pros and cons. And these vary by eye of the beholder (I prefer 4:3 for many subjects).

 

One might say that the SL covered 24-280 initially, but that required one to carry 2 humongous zooms. Eye of the beholder. If the SL had a bigger sensor, or 51 MP, or had smaller lens options.... etc, etc..... I bet you’d be praising those attributes.

 

I’m confident that by the time the X1D has been available on dealer shelves for 2.5 years, it will have lots of lens options, more than the SL now, albeit probably not native long FLs. (The S was supposed to have up to 350 early on according to David Farkas, but that notion died.). But both the SL and X1D (or GFX) are great options for someone to consider now or in the not distant future (including 16-35 range)... with trade offs, as usual.

 

Jeff

Edited April 14, 2018 by Jeff S