Officially Announced: Versatile wide-angle lens Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16–35/3.5–4.5 ASPH.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The SL manual states that the camera has some sort of on-board stabilization for video, regardless of whether the lens attached to it has image stabilization. I don't shoot much vid and can't comment on how well that works, but if you don't have the SL you may want to borrow one and see for yourself.

The lens does not have OIS, and the "stabilization" setting in the SL and CL simply sets up the camera to shoot video or still with Leica's OIS lenses (they probably couple differently for the different effective focal lengths involved).  Borrow and try it is good advice...

[scott kirkpatrick]

I don't see the data mentioning optical stabilization so I'm going to assume it isn't. Does anybody know otherwise? 16-35 is probably one of my fav travel focal lengths, especially for simple walk around handheld video which would greatly benefit from optical stabilization. Currently, I use the A9 and 16-35g master for this task and it's been awesome. Just wondering/hoping I can do the same with this SL lens.

The SL does 4K formats (lots of them) using the super35 frame size, which is just a skinnier APS-C, so for that quality of image, the best wide angle is the excellent CL 11-23 (16-35 eff), which is very light and focuses fast.  The 16-35 at present will give its natural focal length if you shoot HD (2K) video.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[sdk]

Huge, heavy. I hate zooms. I'm so very glad I am in the Leica M system not the SL system. I would rather carry my Leica M-P and my Zeiss 35mm/1.4, my Leica 28mm/2.8 or 28mm/2, a 24mm/3.8 and a 21mm/3.4. Sure I don't have AF, or 18-16mm, and I might have to switch lenses frequently, while an SL user just zooms this lens. But I would have a couple faster lenses for low light, and my arms and hands won't get tired from holding a heavy weight like an SL user's probably would.

 

To each his own of course. I'm sure this lens will be useful for some people. But Leica still has no 35mm sensor size camera body with a 36 to 50MP sensor, and I'd rather have a new Leica M camera with a high density sensor to complement my D850. Leica is years behind Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Sony in high res sensors. It's a same because their best lenses really would enable making spectacular, large, landscape prints, if they had a high res body.

Your photographic milage may vary.

[helged]

Huge, heavy. I hate zooms. I'm so very glad I am in the Leica M system not the SL system. I would rather carry my Leica M-P and my Zeiss 35mm/1.4, my Leica 28mm/2.8 or 28mm/2, a 24mm/3.8 and a 21mm/3.4. Sure I don't have AF, or 18-16mm, and I might have to switch lenses frequently, while an SL user just zooms this lens. But I would have a couple faster lenses for low light, and my arms and hands won't get tired from holding a heavy weight like an SL user's probably would.

 

To each his own of course. I'm sure this lens will be useful for some people. But Leica still has no 35mm sensor size camera body with a 36 to 50MP sensor, and I'd rather have a new Leica M camera with a high density sensor to complement my D850. Leica is years behind Nikon, Canon, Pentax, and Sony in high res sensors. It's a same because their best lenses really would enable making spectacular, large, landscape prints, if they had a high res body.

 

Your photographic milage may vary.

High(er) res SL sensor will come; the SL-lenses are made for the future.

 

The D850 is a fine body with a fine sensor. And the Nikon 14-24mm G is a fine lens, but it is very, very prone to flare. Particularly for off-centre/side positoned high-lights. So I guess I will rather pick SL+16-35mm than D850+14-24mm for my wide angle photogr.

 

But as long as Leica doesn't offer long lenses and state-of-the-art af, D850 is a very welcome supplement to the SL.

 

In earnest & as a side note: The 12-24G is an old lens with fixed f2.8 aperture, so no wonders that the SL 16-35 is superior, optically speaking. The latter based on MTF-diagrams and initial test shooting, see e.g. https://norbertwindecker.blogspot.no/2018/04/erfahrungsbericht-test-review-leica.html?m=1 higher up in the thread.

[tommydom]

I've got my order placed now.