16-35 SVE vs 24-90VE

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the 24-90mm VE together with my SL purchased as a kit 2 years ago. The 24-90 is a capable lens not any less in performance compared to the M primes. Only complaint I hear is about it’s weight & size which did not bother me a single bit.

With the arrival of the 16-35mm SVE together with the 24MP SL, the images the combo could deliver certainly elevated what a 24MP FF could deliver in terms of sharpness, contrast and color rendering throughout the frame. I know it sounds cheesy to say it looks like coming from a MF sensor camera but honestly I am sold to say the line between FF and MF just gotten blurred.

 

I hope to hear more from others who have experience using the 16-35 to know if My thoughts were biased or there are others who have similar experience.

[sunil]

I do not own the SL yet but from what I've read, the 16-35mm does not have image stabilization whilst the 24-90mm does. I imagine shooting handheld, the 24-90 will yield better results, particularly at slower speeds. On a tripod one would expect both to excel. From my perspective, the 16-35mm is still too heavy to shoot handheld for any period of time (based on the specs regarding weight). Since I do not make large prints, I cannot tell the difference between the M-50mm APO and MF systems, let alone the SL 16-35; so for me it is kind of irrelevant. Personally, that line between FF and MF got blurred some years ago. More serious photographers on this forum may naturally disagree given their level of experience and style.

[tom0511]

Do you believe the 16-35 is optically better than the 24-90?

I thought of replacing the 24-90 with the 16-35 + 70 (since I like the 70 so much), but I also like the IS in the 24-90 as well as the f-stop. So I will probably rather continue with the 24-90 + 70 and use my M 21/3.4 if 24mm is not wide enough.

[sillbeers15]

Do you believe the 16-35 is optically better than the 24-90?

I thought of replacing the 24-90 with the 16-35 + 70 (since I like the 70 so much), but I also like the IS in the 24-90 as well as the f-stop. So I will probably rather continue with the 24-90 + 70 and use my M 21/3.4 if 24mm is not wide enough.

Go try out the 16-35mm. Without experiencing the performance of the lens you cannot understand what I’m talking about. My M21/1.4 is no where near in performance compared to my 16-35mm even though it cost more in $.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I will have to give it a try. However, if the 50SL and 90SL don't match what I can get with miniMF I doubt I'll see it in the 16-35.

 

I would say that the SL lenses do lift the SL compared to most every other 24MP camera on the market and some with higher resolution sensors but lesser lenses.

 

Gordon

[Donzo98]

Do you have both the 16-35 and 24-90?? You finding the 16-35 better than the 24-90??

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Go try out the 16-35mm. Without experiencing the performance of the lens you cannot understand what I’m talking about. My M21/1.4 is no where near in performance compared to my 16-35mm even though it cost more in $.

 

In my experience the M21/1.4 is not the strongest UWA lens, I believe they did some compromises in performance in order to achieve the speed, so I am not too surprised that the new UWA zoom is better.

[mmradman]

Go try out the 16-35mm. Without experiencing the performance of the lens you cannot understand what I’m talking about. My M21/1.4 is no where near in performance compared to my 16-35mm even though it cost more in $.

 

 

In my experience the M21/1.4 is not the strongest UWA lens, I believe they did some compromises in performance in order to achieve the speed, so I am not too surprised that the new UWA zoom is better.

 

Comparing two lenses is comparing apples and oranges; Summilux-M  21mm is fast M lens pretty decent excellent  at all F stops providing user don't expect it to be as good as lens with native three F stop slower like Super Elmar-L 16-35, which is  is designed and corrected for SL camera.

[Jeff S]

Most all Leica lenses are sufficient for my print needs. As I wrote in the ‘Lens Roadmap’ thread, I would be an SL owner by now if the zoom trio had been smaller and lighter, without such broad focal lengths, for example, 21-35, 35-90 and 90-180. The issue for me isn’t some last bit of IQ, which is already superb, rather it’s about having the gear with me in the first place.

 

Jeff

[sillbeers15]

Do you have both the 16-35 and 24-90?? You finding the 16-35 better than the 24-90??

 

 

Yeap. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Where the two lenses overlap (24-35) the wide angle is giving its best performance, while the 24-90 is stretching a bit.  The technical specs document shows this.

[helged]

Where the two lenses overlap (24-35) the wide angle is giving its best performance, while the 24-90 is stretching a bit.  The technical specs document shows this.

 

 

Both zooms are stellar, delivering high up in prime-land. And yes, the 16-35 is outstanding, although I have only been using the lens for about 2 weeks. So still very early days. But a very impressive lens, nevertheless. Any ideas how to set up a demanding, real-life (read: no wall bricks) test between the two? For fun, if nothing else...

[Jeff S]

Both zooms are stellar, delivering high up in prime-land. And yes, the 16-35 is outstanding, although I have only been using the lens for about 2 weeks. So still very early days. But a very impressive lens, nevertheless. Any ideas how to set up a demanding, real-life (read: no wall bricks) test between the two? For fun, if nothing else...

The 16-35 will be much better from 16-23, and the 24-90 will win from 36-90.

 

Jeff

[helged]

The 16-35 will be much better from 16-23, and the 24-90 will win from 36-90.

 

Jeff

 

 

Thanks, Jeff.

[Alistairm]

I have both lenses and both are exceptional, but to my eye the 16-35 delivers (even) richer and more saturated colours and the detail level is really crazy for a wide angle lens.

 

I’ve finished editing some photos from the weekend and not once did I regret taking the SL instead of the X1D on the trip and not once have I edited a photo and thought I wish I’d had more resolution or dynamic range. I’m not suggesting the SL can replace mini-medium format for those who need to print really big, and I love the depth of the X1D images (and lots else about the camera), but I’ve never used a system with glass that is as good as the native SL lenses and I think the 16-35 may just be the “best” of the three zooms in sheer IQ terms.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Alistairm

[sillbeers15]

Thanks to the user feedback from

 

scott Kirkpatrick

Alistairm

helped

 

about the performance of the SL w. 16-35mm. Now I know that there are others who see the distinct performance of the lens above others.

[Peter Branch]

There is to my eye something which distinguishes images taken with the 16-35 when compared with those taken using the 24-90.

 

My instinct is to credit the 16-35's very low level of flare.  The dynamic range and colour saturation of the 16-35 seem just that bit better than the 24-90. 

Of course wide angle lenses always seem to have higher resolution simply because they tend, unaviodably, to record more detailed structures.

In fact, despite the lack of OIS, the 16-35 images do exhibit exceptional detail resolution.

 

Both are, within their limitations, exceptional lenses.  If I have to go out with only one lens then it is most likely to be the 16-35.

[sillbeers15]

There is to my eye something which distinguishes images taken with the 16-35 when compared with those taken using the 24-90.

 

My instinct is to credit the 16-35's very low level of flare. The dynamic range and colour saturation of the 16-35 seem just that bit better than the 24-90.

Of course wide angle lenses always seem to have higher resolution simply because they tend, unaviodably, to record more detailed structures.

In fact, despite the lack of OIS, the 16-35 images do exhibit exceptional detail resolution.

 

Both are, within their limitations, exceptional lenses. If I have to go out with only one lens then it is most likely to be the 16-35.

Well said Peter. To me the level of micro contrast and sharpness exceed the 24-90mm in turn produces the 3D effect modern Leica lenses have been known about. The color rendering is also pleasing to the eye with just the correct level of saturation.

[Vieri]

If anyone is interested, in my review of the Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm I compared it side by side with the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm for the overlapping focal lengths. You can find it here:

https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05/leica-super-vario-elmar-sl-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html

 

Best regards,

 

Vieri

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount