Jump to content

16-35 vs 24-90 ...which you prefer/ use more often?

tom0511

By tom0511
in Leica SL System

 Share

Recommended Posts

jplomley

jplomley

Posted
Posted

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Tried the 24-90, excellent optic. Then tried the 16-35.......spectacular optic !!!!  Resolution through the roof, well corrected, no lens elongation when zooming to max range, seems to balance better on the SL. Was a no brainer for me, I will be pairing the 16-35 with the 75/2 SL. No problems using the 16-35 for street at all, easy to carry around all day with just a Harry Benz Brogue wrist strap. Just so convenient to have 16-35 in one lens, with the majority of my images between 19-35mm. Were it not for the speed of my 28 Cron Asph and 35 Lux Asph, this zoom would replace them in a heart beat, it gives nothing up optically at all. Truly an engineering marvel.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
helged

helged

Posted
Posted (edited)

Tried the 24-90, excellent optic. Then tried the 16-35.......spectacular optic !!!! Resolution through the roof, well corrected, no lens elongation when zooming to max range, seems to balance better on the SL. Was a no brainer for me, I will be pairing the 16-35 with the 75/2 SL. No problems using the 16-35 for street at all, easy to carry around all day with just a Harry Benz Brogue wrist strap. Just so convenient to have 16-35 in one lens, with the majority of my images between 19-35mm. Were it not for the speed of my 28 Cron Asph and 35 Lux Asph, this zoom would replace them in a heart beat, it gives nothing up optically at all. Truly an engineering marvel.

+1 to the 16-35 + 75 combo! And yes, the 16-35 open a new, optical territory. But if I can only bring one lens with me (or in a very dusty/wet/snowy environment, or if I need stabilisation), it would be the 24-90.

Edited by helged
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
meerec

meerec

Posted
Posted

+1 to the 16-35 + 75 combo! And yes, the 16-35 open a new, optical territory. But if I can only bring one lens with me (or in a very dusty/wet/snowy environment, or if I need stabilisation), it would be the 24-90.

I like the idea of 16-35, 75 and 90-280.

I’m getting there too. Saving for the missing 16-35 now.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Per P.

Per P.

Posted
Posted

Great discussion. Reminiscent of the classic "what lenses should I bring?" just more helpful. Like many others I bought the SL with the 24-90 zoom and it is my first choice for day trips. 

 

I chose to add R 21-35 and 80-200 zooms - originally due to availability, but based on cost and size I have no plans of replacing them. Neither are my most used lenses but for longer trips they both go in the bag, the question is what goes in the middle? Usually not the 24-90 - I want something smaller and with a large aperture so my choice is between a M-50 mm, SL-75 mm, or M-35/SL-75 mm combo. If I want to keep it light (and sensible) it is the 50mm, but for environmental portraits the 35 Summilux is just soooo tempting :-)

 

So, in response to the OP, for me the 24-90 is my most used zoom. This would also be the case if I had the SL 16-35. But, like Ramarren suggests, it is now becoming an option to replace it with the SL 35/75 combo. And then we are back to IkarusJohn: Spoilt for choices - and what great choices they are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
thighslapper

thighslapper

Posted
Posted

Anyone notice poor corner performance between 16-19 mm on the 16-35 at apertures between f/8 and f/11?

 

I did a whole batch of test photos (mainly to establish the nearest in focus point when set to infinity *) and noticed no real differences in corner performance at any focal lengths or apertures. 

 

Image were crisp up till about f14 when diffraction started to creep in but was still not that noticeable even at f20. 

 

* ..... 16mm @ f16 on a tripod at 1.2m ....... everything from 0.7m to infinity was acceptably sharp ..... so I don't think I will need to engage in focus stacking .....  :)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Per P.

Per P.

Posted
Posted

Earlier Irakly had a fine post about subject matter driving the decision. Sometimes it's better to have a need-not than to need a have-not so, optical quality here or there, I could never choose the 16-35 above the 24-90. Some of the folks here are geniuses with a wide angle but I am not one of them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
sillbeers15

sillbeers15

Posted
Posted

Earlier Irakly had a fine post about subject matter driving the decision. Sometimes it's better to have a need-not than to need a have-not so, optical quality here or there, I could never choose the 16-35 above the 24-90. Some of the folks here are geniuses with a wide angle but I am not one of them.

Angle of view aside, the 16-35 picks up light and draws contrast more pronounce than the 24-90 can do. I would love to use the 16-35 more often. My idea is to pair it with my SL75. Oh, will add the SL35 when it is available for preorder later in the year.

  • Like 3
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.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...