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

[Vieri]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

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

 

 

Everyone's requirements are different, and I am happy if the 645z works for you. Personally, I used it for one year (and the 645d before that), and I'd take the SL any day over it - in fact, I did take the SL over it since I moved to Leica SL from the Pentax 645z and without any regrets

 

About adapted lenses, the 17 TSE works but is a bit soft on the corners on both cameras you mention for critical landscape applications, at least the copies I have seen during my Workshops. Plus, you need 150mm square filters to filter the 17mm TSE, which is something I would rather avoid. And, I often use the Voigtlander 10mm on the SL for which there is no equal on MF. Nor there are any lens fast enough to shoot, say, the night sky; and so on. So, IMHO for landscape Medium Format is not (yet, perhaps) the way to go, IMHO.

 

The Pentax 600mm weighs "only" about 5 kg, hence my "with lenses of a human-transportable size and weight" comment Again, not ideal for landscape applications - unless you have a porter! 

 

About Pentax old zooms, none out resolve the SL at f/8 in my experience - some work well enough in the center, possibly out resolving the SL, but none out resolves the SL and 24-90mm in the corners. None. I might have been particularly unlucky, but the only two lenses that I had that really took advantage of the 50 Mp of the 645z were the 28-45mm and the 90mm (both new designs): yes they did out resolve the SL, but they are way too limited in range to consider them "a full landscape kit", IMHO. Even the 25mm new design was poor in the corners. Again, not ideal for landscape...

 

About price, define "A full Pentax 645z system", since the 600 mm you mentioned alone costs about 3K on the used market And, size and weight made carrying the 645z around, with all the lenses I needed, a real pain - I am much better off with my SL kit.

 

That said, once more any system that makes you happy is the one perfect for you; no system is perfect, and all systems are a compromise. To me, going to MF just to get a bit more resolution (which I wouldn't be able to use completely with all available lenses, anyway) doesn't make up for all the FF's plus I'd lose in the exchange. Again, others might feel different, and that's the beauty of it

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[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 16-280 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

 

Jeff,

 

right and right, sorry.

 

You should have read my message better: I said "at least in my local", so not wrong.

 

Adapted lenses - the SL can take everything, so that's a great plus for the SL in my book. And, adapt all you want, MF will never go down to 10mm FOV equivalent, so not wrong again.

 

But, as you said, it's trade offs and compromises. Whatever makes you happy, go for it. I know what system is best for my work, and that is easily the SL. No questions about it for me.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[SrMi]

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

 

--Matt

 

I found WATE to perform very well on SL and have CL with 11-23, but have not noticed that the latter outperforms the former. Could you elaborate why 11-23 is optically a better lens?

[jrp]

This is an interesting question. The weight / bulk penalty of the new SL zoom over the WATE is considerable. I assume that the main noticeable differences will be at the edges, and the fact that the WATE is reasonable Sony A7xxx compatible.

[Alistairm]

I currently shoot a WATE on the SL but prefer the rendering of the CL with the 11-23 in that range. Very much looking forward to seeing how the 16-35 goes on the SL.

 

I have been playing with the 75 Cron and the other day sorted through some shots and was admiring how great the rendering was... only to then notice some of the shots were with the 24-90 not the Cron! Leica has absolutely nailed all of the SL lenses and I am quietly confident the 16-35 will be as awesome as the others.

 

And while I know many would prefer wider with less overlap above 24mm, for much of my family and travel photos having a wide lens that also does a normal range works perfectly.

 

Lots of nice camera systems to choose from these days and good to see the SL lens range fleshing out.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Everyone's requirements are different, and I am happy if the 645z works for you. Personally, I used it for one year (and the 645d before that), and I'd take the SL any day over it - in fact, I did take the SL over it since I moved to Leica SL from the Pentax 645z and without any regrets

 

About adapted lenses, the 17 TSE works but is a bit soft on the corners on both cameras you mention for critical landscape applications, at least the copies I have seen during my Workshops. Plus, you need 150mm square filters to filter the 17mm TSE, which is something I would rather avoid. And, I often use the Voigtlander 10mm on the SL for which there is no equal on MF. Nor there are any lens fast enough to shoot, say, the night sky; and so on. So, IMHO for landscape Medium Format is not (yet, perhaps) the way to go, IMHO.

 

The Pentax 600mm weighs "only" about 5 kg, hence my "with lenses of a human-transportable size and weight" comment Again, not ideal for landscape applications - unless you have a porter! 

 

About Pentax old zooms, none out resolve the SL at f/8 in my experience - some work well enough in the center, possibly out resolving the SL, but none out resolves the SL and 24-90mm in the corners. None. I might have been particularly unlucky, but the only two lenses that I had that really took advantage of the 50 Mp of the 645z were the 28-45mm and the 90mm (both new designs): yes they did out resolve the SL, but they are way too limited in range to consider them "a full landscape kit", IMHO. Even the 25mm new design was poor in the corners. Again, not ideal for landscape...

 

About price, define "A full Pentax 645z system", since the 600 mm you mentioned alone costs about 3K on the used market And, size and weight made carrying the 645z around, with all the lenses I needed, a real pain - I am much better off with my SL kit.

 

That said, once more any system that makes you happy is the one perfect for you; no system is perfect, and all systems are a compromise. To me, going to MF just to get a bit more resolution (which I wouldn't be able to use completely with all available lenses, anyway) doesn't make up for all the FF's plus I'd lose in the exchange. Again, others might feel different, and that's the beauty of it

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

 

There are a few stellar lenses in the P645 line up. And some dogs. The 45-85 is wonderful stopped down to 5.6 or lower. All the problems are cropped away on the smaller mini MF sensor. I paid USD $500 for my 45-85. 

 

IMGP1954.jpg by Gordon Cahill, on Flickr

 

The 75, 120, and 200 are fantastic as well. I've heard the 300 is great but not owned one.

 

I've mostly moved to the X1D. All my mechanical Pentax lenses work on it, as do the excellent HC lenses I have up to 210mm. The TSE17mm  is fine unshifted. The sharp image circle is big enough but I agree that the 150mm filters are a pain. To be honest I've only use the 17 a couple of times. My personal prefernce when I'm that wide is to shoot more panos so I tend to use the HC24mm or XC30mm and stitch using a nodal slider. Both those take the 100mm filters fine.

 

I'll admit the IQ of the SL lenses is stellar and there's somthing to be said for the flexibility of the spectacular zooms but I still wouldn't use it as a landscape system even if it had 40MP and the DR of the X1D. LENR......

 

I have a trip to Namibia planned for August. At this stage I'll be taking the X1D and lenses to 120mm plus an A7R3 plus 100-400GM and teleconverters.

 

Gordon

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As a result of the last few posts I've spent a couple of hours looking at articles and videos about the MF options ....... yet again.  

 

I have had to remind myself that none of the photos I have taken in the last 2 years would have been significantly better if I'd used any of these systems ..... a  crap photo with more pixels, DR and better colour is never going to be converted into something wonderful, and the good shots will still be good even with a 'better' camera. Subject, composition and processing are 95% of an image and what you use contributes far less than we are led to believe by those trying to sell us cameras. 

 

After 2 years I can just about claim to using the SL to its full potential and don't have to think about what I'm doing too much. I've learnt to my cost that paradoxically with landscape photography you often need to react quickly as the light and situation changes and mastery of your equipment and accessories plays a bigger part than the actual equipment itself. 

 

I've now had a substantial release of G.A.S. and feel all the better for it......

Edited April 14, 2018 by thighslapper

[Jeff S]

As a result of the last few posts I've spent a couple of hours looking at articles and videos about the MF options ....... yet again.

 

I have had to remind myself that none of the photos I have taken in the last 2 years would have been significantly better if I'd used any of these systems ..... a crap photo with more pixels, DR and better colour is never going to be converted into something wonderful, and the good shots will still be good even with a 'better' camera. Subject, composition and processing are 95% of an image and what you use contributes far less than we are led to believe by those trying to sell us cameras.

 

After 2 years I can just about claim to using the SL to its full potential and don't have to think about what I'm doing too much. I've learnt to my cost that paradoxically with landscape photography you often need to react quickly as the light and situation changes and mastery of your equipment and accessories plays a bigger part than the actual equipment itself.

 

I've now had a substantial release of G.A.S. and feel all the better for it......

Careful now.... or the basis for the majority of forum posts will be nullified.

 

Jeff

[Guest VVJ]

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. 

 

I am afraid nobody operates at the same excruciatingly slow speed as Leica:

• Leica SL: 6 lenses at present.  After the initial 2 lenses Leica added 4 lenses in 2.5 years or 1.6 lenses per year
• Leica T/TL2/CL: 7 lenses at present.  After the initial 2 lenses Leica added 5 lenses in 4 years... or 1.25 lenses per year....

Everything Leica has released is good but you better not be in a hurry...

[Timkr]

Where are the reviews on this lens? I’m planning on buying it but, would like to see a few reviews before I do.

[JeffWright]

Where are the reviews on this lens? I’m planning on buying it but, would like to see a few reviews before I do.

 

I believe the lens has not actually yet been released, just announced to ship. I believe April 23rd is the release date.

[Jeff S]

More spec summary than review for now....  https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2018/04/leica-super-vario-elmar-sl-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-to-start-shipping-soon/

 

Jeff

[Vieri]

As a result of the last few posts I've spent a couple of hours looking at articles and videos about the MF options ....... yet again.  

 

I have had to remind myself that none of the photos I have taken in the last 2 years would have been significantly better if I'd used any of these systems ..... a  crap photo with more pixels, DR and better colour is never going to be converted into something wonderful, and the good shots will still be good even with a 'better' camera. Subject, composition and processing are 95% of an image and what you use contributes far less than we are led to believe by those trying to sell us cameras. 

 

After 2 years I can just about claim to using the SL to its full potential and don't have to think about what I'm doing too much. I've learnt to my cost that paradoxically with landscape photography you often need to react quickly as the light and situation changes and mastery of your equipment and accessories plays a bigger part than the actual equipment itself. 

 

I've now had a substantial release of G.A.S. and feel all the better for it......

 

 

Extremely well put. Couldn't agree more, knowing one's gear is fundamental - sadly, these days people change equipment far too often and far too quickly to even tap into their gear's potential, hoping that a new and supposedly better camera (when in many cases is just a different camera, with different strengths and quirks) will magically improve their photography. Investing in knowledge is always a much better bet if one really wants to improve their game - then there is GAS of course, getting in the way...

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[vincecharus]

I will by it. The primary use will be landscape, for which obviously is what this lens is designed.

 

The image quality at 16 looks stunning and stays pretty much the same throughout the focal range.

 

For landscape, it’s much more convenient to have 16-35 rather than 14-24, giving much more latitude in angles of view and focal length perspectives.

 

Don’t think I need OIS at 1/15s or 1/30s. OIS ruins the ultimate image quality anyway.

 

For astrophotography or superwide close focus with shallow DOF, Zeiss 15/2.8 would be a better choice. Horses for courses.

[Guest VVJ]

Don’t think I need OIS at 1/15s or 1/30s. OIS ruins the ultimate image quality anyway.

 

Can you please send me one of your own handheld images taken with the 24-90 or the 90-280 where OIS ruined the image quality?

 

Leica recommends to turn OIS off when on a tripod but in all other cases I have never seen a negative impact.  

 

Adding OIS to the 16-35 would have made it useful for non-landscape photographers as well and would have made it a much more versatile lens.  

 

The 11-23 has already been mentioned a few times in this thread.  I used it a lot last week a lot on vacation.  It is a very good lens but only in daylight or when it sits on a tripod.

 

Last week I took it to places like Graceland (Memphis) and the Georgia Aquarium (Atlanta), low light, lots of people, not a lot of time to take pictures.  Not a good fit.  With OIS it would have been though...

[panoreserve]

vincecharus schrieb am 15 Apr 2018 - 12:01:

Don’t think I need OIS at 1/15s or 1/30s. OIS ruins the ultimate image quality anyway.

 

Well, with all due respect, that's simply nonsense.... I fully agree with "JorisV" #155.

[LD_50]

I used to see the occasional odd and busy bokeh with VR on a few of my Nikon lenses. Researching the issue at the time I found it may have been related to stabilization. It was so rare that I never worried about it and certainly would not choose to give up the stabilization.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

As a result of the last few posts I've spent a couple of hours looking at articles and videos about the MF options ....... yet again.  

 

I have had to remind myself that none of the photos I have taken in the last 2 years would have been significantly better if I'd used any of these systems ..... a  crap photo with more pixels, DR and better colour is never going to be converted into something wonderful, and the good shots will still be good even with a 'better' camera. Subject, composition and processing are 95% of an image and what you use contributes far less than we are led to believe by those trying to sell us cameras. 

 

After 2 years I can just about claim to using the SL to its full potential and don't have to think about what I'm doing too much. I've learnt to my cost that paradoxically with landscape photography you often need to react quickly as the light and situation changes and mastery of your equipment and accessories plays a bigger part than the actual equipment itself. 

 

I've now had a substantial release of G.A.S. and feel all the better for it......

 

This is so true. It's almost never I'm going to need the IQ difference. 24 and a great lens is plenty. The only issue with the SL is the LENR. I do a lot of long exposure shooting and with the SL my camera is out of action half the time. Not so spontaneous.....

 

When people ask me about larger sensors I'll occasionally joke that unless you need it don't pick one up. But it's true. I often don't need the extra resolution or DR but having it is both intoxicating and addictive. I made the mistake of buying into a deal on a 645Z. Now, if it wasn't for work I'd probably own no 24x36mm cameras and even now I'm looking at ways to integrate those files into my workflow. I don't need them. Just like I don't need the draw of a Leica lens. But I've tasted the nectar......

 

So whatever you do, don't pick one up. Which is what I'll be telling myself with the 16-35. 

 

Gordon

[Vieri]

This is so true. It's almost never I'm going to need the IQ difference. 24 and a great lens is plenty. The only issue with the SL is the LENR. I do a lot of long exposure shooting and with the SL my camera is out of action half the time. Not so spontaneous.....

 

There is nothing much spontaneous about doing longe exposures anyway, Gordon... I do long exposures all the time, and I am not bothered in the least by LENR. I also have a second body which I can out into use while the first is doing NR, for the times when I do 10-12 minutes and don't want to stay idle.

 

 

When people ask me about larger sensors I'll occasionally joke that unless you need it don't pick one up. But it's true. I often don't need the extra resolution or DR but having it is both intoxicating and addictive. I made the mistake of buying into a deal on a 645Z. Now, if it wasn't for work I'd probably own no 24x36mm cameras and even now I'm looking at ways to integrate those files into my workflow. I don't need them. Just like I don't need the draw of a Leica lens. But I've tasted the nectar......

 

 

Horses for courses... I had the Pentax 645z for more than one year, and after getting the SL I just sold it. There is so much more than a large sensor that I need in a camera system, and the SL delivers that while the Pentax did not. I will publish an article on my blog tomorrow or Tuesday at the latest about this. As you said, the difference in resolution is not so huge anyway - and the Leica lenses draw so beautifully that I don't really feel the need for MF just for the look. I wouldn't mind a higher resolution SL-II though, that's for sure, if I could keep the body, EVF (or better), UI, and everything that the SL has.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

In the past,Vieri, you were far more direct about SL resolution desires than merely saying “I wouldn’t mind.” You wrote in your initial review....

 

“I think that one of the reasons behind Leica’s decision to limit the SL to 24 Mp, besides speed, might have been not to jeopardise Leica S’s sales. Whatever the case, I wish for the next iteration of the SL to have 36-40 Mp, at least. The best solution would be if Leica offered two versions of it, one 24 Mp aimed at the sport / fast shooting market, one 40 Mp or more aimed at the high resolution / slower shooting market. A Leica SL with 40+ Mp? Well, yes – THAT would definitely be seriously challenging medium format.”

 

Jeff