Jump to content

Wide alternatives to the V-E 16-35 zoom?


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 24-90 Vario-Elmarit-SL zoom and the 21 Summilux-M prime. The overlap of the new 16-35 gives me 16-21 more range. 5mm of focal length. Furthermore, I’m not convinced I need AF or zoom at this wide end.

 

I used to have the rather lovely Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 ZM prime, but I got sick of correcting red edge.

 

Sadly, Leica hasn’t announced a wide prime for the SL. I’m sorely tempted to go back to the Distagon. What alternatives do people use? I wouldn’t go wider than 12 or longer than 18. What are people’s thoughts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 24-90 Vario-Elmarit-SL zoom and the 21 Summilux-M prime. The overlap of the new 16-35 gives me 16-21 more range. 5mm of focal length. Furthermore, I’m not convinced I need AF or zoom at this wide end.

 

I used to have the rather lovely Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 ZM prime, but I got sick of correcting red edge.

 

Sadly, Leica hasn’t announced a wide prime for the SL. I’m sorely tempted to go back to the Distagon. What alternatives do people use? I wouldn’t go wider than 12 or longer than 18. What are people’s thoughts?

 

SEM 18, WATE, Distagon ZF 15, Voigtlander 15/4.5 v3...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest VVJ

I have the Voigtlander 10mm lens and in the beginning of the year also acquired the Voigtlander 15mm.

 

I unfortunately sold the SEM 21mm when getting into the SL-system.  I have been thinking about buying it again, or alternatively the SEM 18mm.

 

I also use the Elmarit-M 28mm, mostly to go light though... 

 

I am sure the 16-35mm is optically brilliant but it is also expensive, heavy, slow, has too much of an overlap with the 24-90 and comes with no OIS... 

 

With no wide angle primes in sight yet I have also started considering the Hasselblad X1D with the upcoming 21mm (to be announced Monday) and the Sony A9 with 12-24mm (565g).

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Leica 18mm is a little gem and the reason I haven't purchased a WATE,  it's sharper.  It will compliment your 21mm when you prefer a smaller option.  The distagon ZM had issues for me, maybe my copy only exhibited smeared edges and corners.    There have been rare occasions when 18mm was not wide enough so I stitched, a preference lately with wide coverage and less background recession.  Nonetheless the 16-35 beckons.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Gordon - I think I will stick with the 11-23 on the SL for now (just under 17 to just under 35 field of view, albeit in in APS-C crop).  The 21 Summilux handles well on the SL, so I think this is enough ...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 24-90 Vario-Elmarit-SL zoom and the 21 Summilux-M prime. The overlap of the new 16-35 gives me 16-21 more range. 5mm of focal length. Furthermore, I’m not convinced I need AF or zoom at this wide end.

I used to have the rather lovely Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 ZM prime, but I got sick of correcting red edge.

Sadly, Leica hasn’t announced a wide prime for the SL. I’m sorely tempted to go back to the Distagon. What alternatives do people use? I wouldn’t go wider than 12 or longer than 18. What are people’s thoughts?

SEM 18

VC 10

I’m happy with both

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the WATE and CV 12 (and rarely the CV 10) for landscape and the image quality is excellent, plus it is a light and small combo...

 

...but ..... I use filters for landscape and fitting adapters to both of them involves a hacksaw, file and a lot of fiddling to avoid light leaks. For that reason alone I will replace the WATE with the 16-35 so I have a uniform 82mm thread. I also have the option of leaving the 24-90 and and taking my 75/2 SL for longer shots. The CV12 now has an 82mm adapter ring permanently fitted and takes up minimal room.

 

Each new SL lens gives yet more options to tailor things to your precise needs ......

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi !

 

I have the SL with VE SL 24-90. To go wider, I use both SEM 21 and the marvelous Voigt 15 vIII. This one is really good and far less expensive than other alternatives from Zeiss or Leica. It is very well controlled in both distorsion and CA, and despite its quite slow aperture, it is also very good at dark skies photo. I would surely elect it as the best quality/price ratio of all the gear I own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How's the Voigtlander 10 in the corners Meerec?

 

Gordon

It is excellent in my opinion. Some vignetting that is dealt easily with.

It fits my lenses collection well: 10, 18, 24, 35, 50, 75, 90, 90-280.

I used to have CV 15 but replaced it with the CV 10 when I bought the SEM 18 to make a better separation of focal lengths.

It’s remarkably small and light and so well made. Can’t fault it.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the 24-90 Vario-Elmarit-SL zoom and the 21 Summilux-M prime. The overlap of the new 16-35 gives me 16-21 more range. 5mm of focal length. Furthermore, I’m not convinced I need AF or zoom at this wide end.

 

I used to have the rather lovely Zeiss Distagon 15/2.8 ZM prime, but I got sick of correcting red edge.

 

Sadly, Leica hasn’t announced a wide prime for the SL. I’m sorely tempted to go back to the Distagon. What alternatives do people use? I wouldn’t go wider than 12 or longer than 18. What are people’s thoughts?

 

To me, it all boils down to what you photograph. If you do landscape photography and use filters heavily, as I do (and as thighslapper does, at least when he is in the field with me during my Workshops), this makes a lot of sense:

 

I use the WATE and CV 12 (and rarely the CV 10) for landscape and the image quality is excellent, plus it is a light and small combo...

 

...but ..... I use filters for landscape and fitting adapters to both of them involves a hacksaw, file and a lot of fiddling to avoid light leaks. For that reason alone I will replace the WATE with the 16-35 so I have a uniform 82mm thread. I also have the option of leaving the 24-90 and and taking my 75/2 SL for longer shots. The CV12 now has an 82mm adapter ring permanently fitted and takes up minimal room.

 

Each new SL lens gives yet more options to tailor things to your precise needs ......

 

 

More, the SEM 18 and the Distagon 15mm f/2.8 aren't in fact much faster than the 16-35mm at 18mm and 16mm: 15mm f/2.8 vs 16mm f/3.5 (half stop), and 18mm f/3.8 vs the 16-35mm at 18mm = f/3.6, so the zoom would be minimally faster here.

 

Also:

- The 15mm Distagon + your 21mm = 820 gr + 580 gr = 1.400 gr in the bag, vs 990 for the 16-35mm

 

More, primes are not weather-sealed, and don't have autofocus - in case either is important for you. Just some food for thought to reconsider the convenience that the 16-35mm offers, but as I said at the beginning, it all boils down to what you photograph.

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the WATE and CV 12 (and rarely the CV 10) for landscape and the image quality is excellent, plus it is a light and small combo...

 

...but ..... I use filters for landscape and fitting adapters to both of them involves a hacksaw, file and a lot of fiddling to avoid light leaks. For that reason alone I will replace the WATE with the 16-35 so I have a uniform 82mm thread. I also have the option of leaving the 24-90 and and taking my 75/2 SL for longer shots. The CV12 now has an 82mm adapter ring permanently fitted and takes up minimal room.

 

Each new SL lens gives yet more options to tailor things to your precise needs ......

 

I have the proper 67mm adaptor ring for my WATE. It comes with the little light shield and I taped the viewing hole. To that I can add a Lee adaptor (I use Lee and NiSi filters) or a 67-82mm step up ring (if I just want to carry a polariser) and get no leaking issues. I haven't tried filters on my CV 12 yet as I rarely use the SL for landscape shooting. If I did I'd use the Sigma 12-24 and 150mm filters. Much bigger but much more versatile.

 

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I first heard about the 16-35, I was concerned about the over lap and how fast it was.

 

Leica is brilliant, giving me what I want before I even knew it.

 

Yesterday, I spent the day with just the 16-35, a hike in the afternoon with one group and a nephew's concert in the evening.

 

The SL with the 16-35 was the perfect lens for the day.

 

I agree with everything Vieri said above.

 

The difference between 16 & 24 is huge in composure and being able to go to 35 without changing or carrying another lens is sweet.

 

I have a lot to learn with this lens and I won't be buying another lens for quite a while because there is so much I will be able to pull out of the SL with this lens.

 

Grateful, I could buy as it is pretty pricey but wow, I wasn't missing any lens yesterday.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to use zooms like I would a series of primes. I look for photos that work with the available focal lengths. I don’t find myself looking for shots and trying to find a focal length that works.

 

That said I would have been happy with a 14-24 or wider just as I will be if I end up purchasing the 16-35. I’ll make use of the focal lengths either way.

 

I do appreciate the ability to use my 100mm filters. The Nikon 14-24 was a pain with the bulbous front element for filter use, protection, and flare resistance.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the comments, guys.

 

Looks like the 21 Summilux might go on the block to fund the 16-35 zoom. No hurry as yet - will look more at the photos and will take the Summilux out a bit more to see what I think.

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...