SL vs A9 with their respective 16-35mm glass

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, jyrkialanen said:

At 16mm there's a really broad band of sharpness across the frame that doesn't tend to deflate until you're well past halfway to the corner. At the other end (35mm) things aren't so great, reminding me a lot of my old Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8: we've lost some sharpness in the center, and the sharpness falloff into the corners is more significant and clearly visible. I’d say that the lens starts at very good in the center at 35mm and falls to fair-good in the extreme corners. In between (24mm), the lens performs much more consistently and better than the 35mm focal length: I’d call that excellent."

Sony is not perfect , especially at 35mm, but I would really like you to provide some links backing up your claim the lens is poor wide open.  

.... and therein lies the issue ....... just what is the definition of a 'corner' as far as performance is concerned ? 'Past halfway to a corner' is my book is still part of the central image. 

Real world comparisons are further complicated by the fact that the corners in the bottom of the frame (and top with interior shots) at 16mm are very close to the camera and often OOF with wider apertures. 

I posted a whole sequence of WA comparison shots when the SL was initially released comparing M lens performance with the M240 ..... and found the whole business a real technical challenge when trying to find meaningful real world subject matter that showed true corner performance that could be accurately compared. Anyone can take a shot of a wall at 2m @ 16mm, but that situation probably amounts to a vanishingly small percentage of the circumstances that these lenses are used in. 

I've just spent a couple of days taking interior shots of our flat in Poland ..... all at 16mm and cannot find a single one where I could assess corner performance because of the above considerations. All I can say is that overall the images are the best I have ever seen from a wide angle lens ..... let alone a zoom.

It's not too late to get one for Xmas ...... you won't be disappointed ...... 

Edited December 23, 2018 by thighslapper

[mmradman]

14 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

Read performance charts if you want to get technical. 

To me the camera lens is tool for artistic translation of a scene onto a 2D visual media. 

Why bother with brick walls when my pics provide straight lines and distant details right up to the edge of upper left hand corner?

Comparing brick wall pics is no different from counting pixels. Same goes for boys comparing car performances from spec sheets.

Why so defensive, please read my post and try not to stress over this. It is festive season and I am not looking for an argument just pointing out that a picture with 3 out of 4 featureless corners like clear sky or body of water is not best example to demonstrate lens corner performance, for which, I repeat, I have no doubt is flawless.

Reading Tightslapper’s post #21 or 22 I see and appreciate measured response, and yes I heeded to his advise but chose 16-Xmas lens equally suitable for SL and M camera - WATE.

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

I think the user interface is quite different so one should try to get hands on both.

I had A7 and A7s for some time but I prefered Leica color and I prefer the SL user interface including menu-logics.

I also really like the top display of the SL and the viewfinder.

Another thing I love is the range of the 24-90 midrange zoom. Very usefull for my taste.

The SL16-35 from 2 months experience I could not detect any weak sindes, but I am not a pixel peeper.

I woud not recommend to decide this based on size charts, you should take the time and check out the user interface.

What I do NOT like about the SL: Leica takes to long time to bring lenses to market.

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, mmradman said:

Why so defensive, please read my post and try not to stress over this. It is festive season and I am not looking for an argument just pointing out that a picture with 3 out of 4 featureless corners like clear sky or body of water is not best example to demonstrate lens corner performance, for which, I repeat, I have no doubt is flawless.

Reading Tightslapper’s post #21 or 22 I see and appreciate measured response, and yes I heeded to his advise but chose 16-Xmas lens equally suitable for SL and M camera - WATE.

😁

One replaced and one misplaced letter and you could end up in court

Edited December 23, 2018 by LocalHero1953

[thighslapper]

23 hours ago, mmradman said:

I heeded to his advise but chose 16-Xmas lens equally suitable for SL and M camera - WATE.

Although I now use the 16-35 exclusively I spent the previous 2 years using the WATE and the results are comparable.

It’s one of a handful of M lenses I will never sell. 

[Bob Andersson]

Thanks for all the replies. Not surprisingly, and actually quite usefully for yours truly, there has been some great feedback on the 16-35mm SL lens. As I contemplate my next system I am comfortable that this lens will be at its core but which L-mount body I choose is still very much up for grabs! There's no question that the ergonomics of the SL appeal greatly and in the right hands it certainly takes wonderful photographs. It will be interesting to see to what extent the Panasonic S1, or even the S1R, highlights the age of the SL sensor, whether Leica finally chooses to announce the SL2 and how those cameras compare to the deep wells of the GFX/X1D, a sensor I somewhat unreasonably choose to use as a benchmark for IQ, but that's all for the coming year.

In the meantime may Santa (replace with a seasonal icon of your choice as needed) bring joy to your festivities.

Bob.

[Big John]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Can’t comment on the lenses but today I tried out the Sony A9 and also the A7RIII.  Super fast focus, processing, responsiveness. Smaller and a bit fiddlier than SL. Busier menus, both in terms of structure/content and also colours/font. The A9 high speed shooting without blackout was impressive (if you’re a sports photographer)  

Quick pic alongside my SL with Zeiss 35/1.4 distagon. 

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[caissa]

On 12/23/2018 at 7:50 AM, jyrkialanen said:

That's funny. I have read many Sony GM 16-35 reviews also during the last few days (thinking of maybe buying the lens in the near future) and none of the reviews I have read says the lens is poor wide open -quite contrary actually. I guess we have been reading different reviews altogether. 

For example dxomark  https://www.dxomark.com/sony-fe-16-35mm-f28-gm-lens-review-highest-rated-wide-angle-zoom/ writes: "The Sony’s sharpness performance is especially impressive, as it retains its ability to render high-resolution images across its entire focal range. It also delivers that sharpness from wide-open at f/2.8 until diffraction starts to get in the way at smaller aperture"

Digital picture https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-16-35mm-f-2.8-GM-Lens.aspx writes: "In the central and mid portions of the frame, this lens is remarkably sharp at f/2.8 over the entire focal length range with a slight drop in sharpness at 35mm being the exception. Throughout this significant portion of the frame, stopping down to f/4 makes little difference and a difference is not needed except perhaps at 35mm and at f/4, the 35mm results are also tack sharp."

Sans mirror http://www.sansmirror.com/lenses/lens-reviews/lenses-for-sony-efe-mount/sony-16-35mm-f28-gm-lens.html writes: "Sharpness: For a fast wide angle zoom, things are pretty darned good at the wide angle end. At 16mm the center is at or near excellent wide open, and there's not a terrible drop into the corners as you see with many similar lenses, including Sony’s f/4 lens. At 16mm there's a really broad band of sharpness across the frame that doesn't tend to deflate until you're well past halfway to the corner. At the other end (35mm) things aren't so great, reminding me a lot of my old Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8: we've lost some sharpness in the center, and the sharpness falloff into the corners is more significant and clearly visible. I’d say that the lens starts at very good in the center at 35mm and falls to fair-good in the extreme corners. In between (24mm), the lens performs much more consistently and better than the 35mm focal length: I’d call that excellent."

Sony is not perfect , especially at 35mm, but I would really like you to provide some links backing up your claim the lens is poor wide open.  

p.s. I have no doubt that SL 16-35 is a sharper lens still than Sony - it is double the price, stop slower and 300g heavier also so it well should be.

I read the full report from the-digital-picture. And in there many flaws of the Sony lens are shown in detail. Of course it is still a very well usable lens. But I cannot find the same faults in the SL lens. So it is definitely my preferred choice.

And I simply wonder why so much noise is made about this lens and why some people think that this fight with words about the quality of  camera lenses/systems leads anywhere. Of course I would like to use this lens if I was a Sony camera owner. And of course I chose the SL lens as a SL owner. Nothing to argue about - both users have no other choice once they made a decision about the platform. So it is completely useless to try to talk bad about the “foreign” product.

But in the end the Leica lenses are probably also a reason to continue living happily with a camera that currently does not have the latest and most advanced features of all existing cameras. This will probably change soon with the new Panasonic cameras. (At least as far as highest resolution is asked for).

[thighslapper]

3 hours ago, caissa said:

But in the end the Leica lenses are probably also a reason to continue living happily with a camera that currently does not have the latest and most advanced features of all existing cameras. This will probably change soon with the new Panasonic cameras. (At least as far as highest resolution is asked for).

Lens performance lifts SL image quality above what you would expect considering the mpx count. It's nice to know you have lenses where body technology and resolution may take many years .... if ever ..... to exceed their potential, rather than the other way round ...... which is the case with many other manufacturers. 

[helged]

2 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Lens performance lifts SL image quality above what you would expect considering the mpx count. It's nice to know you have lenses where body technology and resolution may take many years .... if ever ..... to exceed their potential, rather than the other way round ...... which is the case with many other manufacturers. 

The latter is good for the vintage-threads, though ...