Steve McGarrett Posted July 24, 2018 Share #21 Posted July 24, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) The extra stops are negated by OIS on the zooms........ and if you are using a tripod it is all academic anyway ..... plus with landscape to are usually stopping down to f11 or more to get more DOF. But the 16-35 has no OIS unfortunately... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted July 24, 2018 Posted July 24, 2018 Hi Steve McGarrett, Take a look here 16-35 SL vs. WATE M. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
sillbeers15 Posted July 24, 2018 Share #22 Posted July 24, 2018 But the 16-35 has no OIS unfortunately... So does the SL75 and so does my Noctilux,...for landscape shots which my 16-35 will be used mostly for, I mount it on a tripod. I do not need to remember to switch the OIS off. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted July 24, 2018 Share #23 Posted July 24, 2018 Below is my opinion, WATE SL16-35 Size Compact DSLR Lens equil Functionality Manual focus Autofocus Non weather seal Weather seal Cannot accept std filters Same as 24-90 filter size of 82mm Long term value Mechanical, keeps value Electric motor, electric circuity,..limited life Image quality Great M lens Extraordinary great SL lens Coat M lens prices second most expensive SL lens (just below 90-280) I have the 16-35mm. It is certainly a lens I'll keep. I'll still get the WATE for usage on my M10 when the opportunity comes. Just no hurry. The WATE requires the adapter #14473, which replaces the standard threaded lens hood, to accept standard 67mm threaded filters. It's available at B&H Photo for $120: Leica 14473 - 67mm Filter Holder I have the WATE, and had it when I had the SL before the new 16-35mm lens became available. It is a superb lens and a wonderful performer on the SL, and it works with my M-D typ 262, M4-2, and CL very nicely too. The SL16-35 can only work with the L mount cameras. That said, the SL16-35 seems a superb lens and if I only had the SL, I'd buy that one instead. (For the CL, if I wanted a dedicated zoom lens in this focal length range, I'd buy the 11-33.) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted July 25, 2018 Share #24 Posted July 25, 2018 I had both, and reviewed them both, the WATE against the Voigt 15mm, see here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html and the 16-35mm here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05/leica-super-vario-elmar-sl-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html hope this helps, best regards Vieri 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enbee Posted August 8, 2018 Author Share #25 Posted August 8, 2018 The extra stops are negated by OIS on the zooms........ and if you are using a tripod it is all academic anyway ..... plus with landscape to are usually stopping down to f11 or more to get more DOF. I know it's a matter of semantics, but 'landscape photography' in my book is completely different to travel and general photography .... and the OP specifically mentioned 'landscape' in his questions .... The WATE works fine, but having used the 16-35 for the last 3 months the WATE is living in the safe worrying about eBay ...... ps. actually it's too good (and expensive) a lens to part with ... and will remain part of a small number of M and R lenses that I will never sell..... Thank You! This really helps! Infact most seem to go towards 16-35. As soon as it becomes freely available I will be in line to purchase it sometime this year! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enbee Posted August 8, 2018 Author Share #26 Posted August 8, 2018 I had both, and reviewed them both, the WATE against the Voigt 15mm, see here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html and the 16-35mm here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05/leica-super-vario-elmar-sl-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html hope this helps, best regards Vieri Thank You! Very helpful Vieri! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted August 9, 2018 Share #27 Posted August 9, 2018 Advertisement (gone after registration) Thank You! Very helpful Vieri! You are welcome, glad to be of help! Best regards, Vieri Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted August 11, 2018 Share #28 Posted August 11, 2018 To consider a variation on this theme, I love my various M Summiluxes, but the reality is that the 16-35 produces much cleaner images even when they have to be taken at 2-3 stops of ISO higher than the Summiluxes; the SL is no high ISO demon, yet the extra bulk / weight of the 16-35 do buy you something in image quality. The rendering of the Summiluxes is gorgeous, so we now have more choice. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Enbee Posted October 8, 2018 Author Share #29 Posted October 8, 2018 (edited) Thank You everyone for your help. Finally decided to purchase the 16-35. It will be here this week. Looking forward to using it soon! Edited October 8, 2018 by Enbee 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted October 8, 2018 Share #30 Posted October 8, 2018 Thank You everyone for your help. Finally decided to purchase the 16-35. It will be here this week. Looking forward to using it soon! You will not be dissapointed. The 16-35 is the optically best WA lens I have seen, WA primes included. And it is almost free of flare - which is a BIG plus in my book. 3 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
caissa Posted October 31, 2018 Share #31 Posted October 31, 2018 Since I have it, the SL 16-35 is my most used lens. The additional range from 24 to 35 is very useful (almost a normal lens) and of high quality. That makes it much better usable than the WATE. It is not extremely fast in this range, but I like its results better than comparable lenses (even better than the SL 24-90 or the Sony 16-35 GM). I was surprised to see how well the IQ is compared to the often praised Sony 2.8 lens. And the additional advantage is that the SL 16-35 is of constant length in the full range, while the Sony 2.8/16-35 GM gets bigger (extends) towards 35mm (which as usual is not obvious in the Sony catalogue). So even though at the time of announcement I was a bit disappointed about the aperture (only 3.5 to 4.5), I am now really impressed by the lens. And to me it does not matter if it is maybe invented by Konica/Minolta (they seem to have it patented), while the WATE is probably "genuine" Leica optical design. 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian C in Az Posted November 7, 2018 Share #32 Posted November 7, 2018 On 7/25/2018 at 9:08 AM, Vieri said: I had both, and reviewed them both, the WATE against the Voigt 15mm, see here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2016/07/leica-16-18-21mm-tri-elmar-vs-voigtlander-15mm-super-wide-heliar-iii-review-leica-sl.html and the 16-35mm here: https://vieribottazzini.com/2018/05/leica-super-vario-elmar-sl-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html hope this helps, best regards Vieri I'm curious, every other reviewer of the 24-90 and one of the 16-35 that I've read mentioned the lss of sharpness due to diffraction didn't start until after f11. You mentioned in your review that both lenses showed a loss of sharpness at f8 or f11, a full stop sooner or even 2 stops sooner that others. I think even thighslapper has mentioned that the lens is perfect at f11. Any suggestion or idea why that might occur? Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted November 7, 2018 Share #33 Posted November 7, 2018 5 hours ago, Brian C in Az said: I'm curious, every other reviewer of the 24-90 and one of the 16-35 that I've read mentioned the lss of sharpness due to diffraction didn't start until after f11. You mentioned in your review that both lenses showed a loss of sharpness at f8 or f11, a full stop sooner or even 2 stops sooner that others. I think even thighslapper has mentioned that the lens is perfect at f11. Any suggestion or idea why that might occur? Biran, I have no idea who these others you refer to are exactly, why other say what they say, nor I know on what basis they ground their conclusions (casual shooting, controlled testing, studio testing, used at close distance, medium distance, infinity, etc), nor I know if they just "say" in their articles / posts that a lens behaves in such or such manner of if they show sets of pictures taken in controlled testing settings to support their conclusions, and so on: therefore, it wouldn't be fair to comment. What I can say is that my articles are there for all to read, and the images in there speak for themselves: I simply describe what I see in the images I did for my testing, with my lenses, used at the distances and in the conditions I use them for testing. Changing any of these variables might result in a slightly different outcome, I guess Hope this helps, best regards Vieri Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted November 7, 2018 Share #34 Posted November 7, 2018 (edited) 11 hours ago, Brian C in Az said: I'm curious, every other reviewer of the 24-90 and one of the 16-35 that I've read mentioned the lss of sharpness due to diffraction didn't start until after f11. You mentioned in your review that both lenses showed a loss of sharpness at f8 or f11, a full stop sooner or even 2 stops sooner that others. I think even thighslapper has mentioned that the lens is perfect at f11. Any suggestion or idea why that might occur? ..... and are we referring to absolutes or what is acceptable ...... ??? Each of us will have our own cut off point beyond which we think the degree of image degradation is more than we would like and try to avoid it. There are plenty of situations where you can use both down to f22 (to get starbursts for instance) where the conditions and subject matter make any loss of contrast/sharpness due to diffraction invisible. ...... and adding a bit more sharpening will bring back most of the lost detail anyway. Whilst I'd prefer to keep below f11-13 with both the 24-90 and 16-35, I wouldn't be that bothered if I had to use smaller apertures, as by the standards of the majority of lenses out there the results are still excellent from a usability point of view. Edited November 7, 2018 by thighslapper 1 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian C in Az Posted November 7, 2018 Share #35 Posted November 7, 2018 Thanks to both of you for your input. You both have contributed greatly to the general knowledge base that makes LUF a superior source of information. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vieri Posted November 8, 2018 Share #36 Posted November 8, 2018 On 11/7/2018 at 1:44 PM, Brian C in Az said: Thanks to both of you for your input. You both have contributed greatly to the general knowledge base that makes LUF a superior source of information. Thank you Brian, that is much appreciated. Just trying to be of help Best regards, Vieri Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.