Why so Few Reviews of the 16-35 SVE???

[jplomley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just asking! Plenty of reviews on the 24-90, 90-280, 50/1.4 Lux and 75 APO, but pretty quiet on the 16-35 front. 

[Advertisement]

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

[caissa]

It's maybe too perfect, so there is not a lot to discuss about it. Already the first reviews were quite positive, not like other lenses that started wit a lot of bad publicity (like SL 50). The only "scandal" I remember is that Konica has filed the patent.
And after Vieri Bottazinis review everything that needed saying was said.  

Edited March 17, 2019 by caissa

[fotonutzz]

Yeah....I'm also trying to get more reviews on this lens too.  

Still trying to decide if I should get the SVE or get the Canon EF16-35/F2.8L II with a Novoflex adapter. 

The Canon seems sharper on the SL as it does not have any AA filter according to some reviews.

 

[helged]

1 hour ago, fotonutzz said:

Yeah....I'm also trying to get more reviews on this lens too.  

Still trying to decide if I should get the SVE or get the Canon EF16-35/F2.8L II with a Novoflex adapter. 

The Canon seems sharper on the SL as it does not have any AA filter according to some reviews.

 

The last sentence must be a misunderstanding - if I am reading it correctly, that is... The AA-filter sits on the sensor, so it is totally independent of the lens. I don't have the the Canon EF16-35/F2.8L II, but I do understand that this is a very fine lens. Good. But I find it hard to believe it is superior to the SL16-35. Actually, I would say that SL16-35 is on par with or optically better than any WA primes I have tested, including the most modern Leica, Nikon and Sigma lenses. Another advice is to stay away from the Novoflex-adapter, since it will never, ever match non-adapted lenses. The last comment is based on the Novoflex adapter for electronic Nikon lenses. It work ok-ish, but nothing more. And based on reports from quite some members on this from, the Novoflex adapter for electronic Canon lenses is (possibly) even less ok-ish than that for Nikon lenses. Others may correct me, but this is my understanding.

Edited March 17, 2019 by helged

[Peter Branch]

There were posts about the 16-35 SEV when it was first made available however it seems very few examples were shipped initially so not many people had one.

In summary there is no distortion, no Chromatic Aberration and for all practical purposes it is pin sharp right into the corners at any aperture and any focal length..

If that were not enough there is no flare even under extreme backlit situations with a UVa II filter fitted.

I've used many of the latest M ultra-wide lenses on an M240 and the 16-35 SEV is simply better.

Only reasons to hesitate are the price and the size / weight.

One of my neighbours has the Canon 16-35, which he uses on a Canon EOS 1DX Mk II, and even he accepts that the Leica lens produces superior results.

He then points out that the Leica Lens is more than twice the price...…….  

[dfarkas]

5 hours ago, jplomley said:

Just asking! Plenty of reviews on the 24-90, 90-280, 50/1.4 Lux and 75 APO, but pretty quiet on the 16-35 front. 

 

LOL. I was thinking the same....which is why I'm currently working on a 16-35 SL review. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I got mine last spring sometime and posted quite a few shots.  I also found that it was very flare resistant, although those tests didn't produce great art.  The lens is so good that Jono Slack, who has one,  let his APO 35 SL go back to Leica without much protest.  I've got some Purim parties coming up this week, so I'll see how it does as an events lens.  I'll also be interested to see what David Farkas comes up with.

Here's an example -- from a little album I put together just after the US consulate in Jerusalem had been upgraded to an embassy by hanging a lot of flags in the streets and putting a plaque on the wall (and by closing the older consulate that had served the Arabic-speaking population of East Jerusalem).  First, a lovely Mandate period home that has long been the Belgian consul's residence:

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!

S1020042 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

then check out a series taken around the American embassy, nee consulate here.

Edited March 17, 2019 by scott kirkpatrick

[meerec]

16 hours ago, fotonutzz said:

Yeah....I'm also trying to get more reviews on this lens too.  

Still trying to decide if I should get the SVE or get the Canon EF16-35/F2.8L II with a Novoflex adapter. 

The Canon seems sharper on the SL as it does not have any AA filter according to some reviews.

 

 

I’ve just come back from a tour of northern and Central Europe (Iceland, Norway/Lofoten, Poland). Used the SVE 16-35 for five weeks and the lens stayed on my SL for 95% of the time. The conditions were extreme: frost, wind, snow and rain. And lots of it. The lens never failed despite being in rain for several hours at a time non-stop. It has made fantastic images.

The only thing that failed miserably was the hood. It had been a brand new lens and the hood started to come off in the first week. It became loose to a point that it would come off every time I grabbed the SL out of my Billingham bag. A number of times the hood fell down to the ground and got scratched. This is a very very poor design. I guess Leica excels in the optics not in the hood design. However, honestly, I never owned a Canon lens before with hood issues. Never. So this really sucks. 

I had shot with Canon for 20 years in the past. I owned the 16-35 f/2.8L lenses both I and II. To me there’s no doubt about superiority of the SVE 16-35. The handling and ergonomics of the SVE are just superb, it is so smooth and easy to use, I can’t describe it. The SVE has no distortions, no chromatic aberrations, no flaring wth or without the hood. Colour is true-Leica-consistent. The closest I find to the SVE that used before was the SEM 18/3.8 which was great but I sold it to fund the SVE and it was a great move, never regretted it. 

[Peter Branch]

There have been comments, ("Complaints"?), about the poor fit of the 16-35 SL lens hood previously.

I contacted Leica about this as I have experienced the same problem and received the following reply from Peter Brieger, Leica Camera AG Customer Care:-

             "The lens hood of the Super-Vario-Elmar 16-35mm snaps slightly lighter than the Super-Vario-Elmar 24-90mm lens.

               This is constructive Condition and does not represent a fault of the lens hood."

So it would seem that this is a deliberate design feature.

I think that Leica has made a mistake but, true to decades of form, they will never acknowledge it in public. 

[scott kirkpatrick]

My theory is that the hoods are designed in Portugal and made far up the Amazon in Brazil.  They seem to get no respect at Leica.  The CL hoods suck, too.  The exceptions are the cylindrical hoods that slide smoothly out from a lens and are never removed (APO 50 SC-M, for example) and the hoods for the SL Summicrons, which look like the CL hoods, but actually work well.

[Peter Branch]

22 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

My theory is that the hoods are designed in Portugal and made far up the Amazon in Brazil.  ……...

It may be that the hood designed for the Super-Vario-Elmar  24-90mm fits perfectly.  Nobody knows as no such lens has emerged into the real world.

I can confirm that the lens hood of Its extant relative, the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24–90 f/2.8–4 ASPH., does indeed "snap more tightly".

Just another example of the sloppy practice which has crept into the Leica Camera company in recent decades.

It may seem trivial but it erodes confidence in the rest of the response. 

 

[meerec]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

My theory is that the hoods are designed in Portugal and made far up the Amazon in Brazil.  They seem to get no respect at Leica.  The CL hoods suck, too.  The exceptions are the cylindrical hoods that slide smoothly out from a lens and are never removed (APO 50 SC-M, for example) and the hoods for the SL Summicrons, which look like the CL hoods, but actually work well.

No — those summicron lens hoods are equally bad if not much worse. They suck in a big way as they fall apart not just come off the lens body.. This was also mentioned / reported in this forum earlier. My SL-75 lens is 6 months old and hasn’t been yet used a lot. I took it with me on my trip to Europe and kept the lens with the hood attached in a reverse position for storing in the bag for most of the time. Already in the first week of my trip the hood “un-glued” itself in lower temperatures of around 0°C and slightly below. This cylindrical hood is constructed of two pieces, and they became separated. I can attempt to glue it myself, as suggested earlier by someone or just throw it out. Another example of poor really poor quality of a lens that costs thousands of $$$. Unbelievable!!

[scott kirkpatrick]

2 hours ago, meerec said:

No — those summicron lens hoods are equally bad if not much worse. They suck in a big way as they fall apart not just come off the lens body.. This was also mentioned / reported in this forum earlier. My SL-75 lens is 6 months old and hasn’t been yet used a lot. I took it with me on my trip to Europe and kept the lens with the hood attached in a reverse position for storing in the bag for most of the time. Already in the first week of my trip the hood “un-glued” itself in lower temperatures of around 0°C and slightly below. This cylindrical hood is constructed of two pieces, and they became separated. I can attempt to glue it myself, as suggested earlier by someone or just throw it out. Another example of poor really poor quality of a lens that costs thousands of $$$. Unbelievable!!

I haven't had my Summicron hood long enough to really compare.  Both the CL 35 and 60 hoods (also the 23) use an inner ring which locks onto the end of the lens.  It is slid into the hood from the outer end, and is held in place by a lip on the camera end of the cylindrical hood.  So if it is positioned right, and attached to the camera facing out (taking position), it is held securely.  But if it comes loose, it slides away from the base of the hood, and you can't attach it because the end of the lens can't reach it.  Get some dirt in there, or add your own glue, and it never again seats properly.  Turn the hood around to storage position, and the inside edge of the ring still works.  On the summicron hood, the inner ring is inserted from the camera end, and there seems to be something that keeps it from going too deep.  So in that direction it always works, as long as it doesn't come loose.  But it looks as if a little glue could fix that without making things worse.

[rpittal]

grey tape fixed my 16-35 hood, but a pain to have to use it all the time. I use  stubby hood on my SL50/1.4 but haven't noticed any issues with my SL90/2 hood (haven't used it much though). the SL24-90 hood is very nice though, as is the 90-280 hood, in my experience. 

[dfarkas]

I never use the lens shades. First thing I do when taking a new lens out of the box is to put the hood back in the box and seal it up. Seriously. I don't use any lens hoods for my SL lenses, TL lenses, or S lenses. Of course, I do use the metal, screw-on shades that are part of the newest M lenses. But that's it. 

Why not:

• I lose them.
• I often use a 4" filter holder or a polarizer, both of which necessitate me removing the hood.
• I see absolutely no need to do so from an image quality perspective. These lenses are so flare resistant that the hood serves little purpose.
• They make the lenses look enormous. Lenses like the 16-35 are large enough. Why make them look twice the size with a lens shade?
• They break easily. The hoods are designed in large part to protect the lens in case of impact - like a crumple zone in a car. If you make the shade too strong, a small knock ends up destroying the lens. So, they are essentially break-away, sacrificing themselves for the greater good. 

No one in my team uses lens shades either. Even if Leica redesigned everything and they were amazing, we still wouldn't use them. 

 

[Helmut99]

I'd like to use this thread to get some feedback on 16-35 lens flare.  I saw some comments stating that SL lenses are flare resistant in general. I've made different experience with the 24-90 to a point the lens is driving me nuts because of its flaring, especially during blue hour or night, long exposure shots with bright street lights in my immediate vicinity with the hood mounted. In fact, it's not better than the VL15, VL10 or the Canon TS/E 17 on the SL. 

Would consider buying the 16-35 if it indeed was without or with very little flare under such conditions. Unfortunately, there's no one I can borrow the lens from near Detroit, so I'd be very glad if someone could provide some real-life user experience with the 16-35.

Thanks, Helmut

[helged]

13 minutes ago, Helmut99 said:

I'd like to use this thread to get some feedback on 16-35 lens flare.  I saw some comments stating that SL lenses are flare resistant in general. I've made different experience with the 24-90 to a point the lens is driving me nuts because of its flaring, especially during blue hour or night, long exposure shots with bright street lights in my immediate vicinity with the hood mounted. In fact, it's not better than the VL15, VL10 or the Canon TS/E 17 on the SL. 

Would consider buying the 16-35 if it indeed was without or with very little flare under such conditions. Unfortunately, there's no one I can borrow the lens from near Detroit, so I'd be very glad if someone could provide some real-life user experience with the 16-35.

Thanks, Helmut

Having the three SL-lenses, I can clearly - and without hesitation - state that SL16-35 is in a class of its own. You have to work very, very hard to get it to flare. The SL24-90 does, however, flare more than I like. In the image below there are some reflections in the lower, left portion of the image. Otherwise hardly any loss of contrast/flaring, even with the sun in the upper right corner. This is only one example - I have looked for flare and loss of contrast in lots of images - with hardly any 'hits' at all.

 

Edited March 18, 2019 by helged

[jonoslack]

4 hours ago, dfarkas said:

I never use the lens shades. First thing I do when taking a new lens out of the box is to put the hood back in the box and seal it up. Seriously. I don't use any lens hoods for my SL lenses, TL lenses, or S lenses. Of course, I do use the metal, screw-on shades that are part of the newest M lenses. But that's it. 

Why not:

• I lose them.
• I often use a 4" filter holder or a polarizer, both of which necessitate me removing the hood.
• I see absolutely no need to do so from an image quality perspective. These lenses are so flare resistant that the hood serves little purpose.
• They make the lenses look enormous. Lenses like the 16-35 are large enough. Why make them look twice the size with a lens shade?
• They break easily. The hoods are designed in large part to protect the lens in case of impact - like a crumple zone in a car. If you make the shade too strong, a small knock ends up destroying the lens. So, they are essentially break-away, sacrificing themselves for the greater good. 

No one in my team uses lens shades either. Even if Leica redesigned everything and they were amazing, we still wouldn't use them. 

 

My Feelings exactly - all my lens hoods are safely stored in the original box (with the nice bag!)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jonoslack]

Because, there isn't much to say about a lens with so few vices

I love mine 

[meerec]

7 hours ago, dfarkas said:

They break easily. The hoods are designed in large part to protect the lens in case of impact - like a crumple zone in a car. If you make the shade too strong, a small knock ends up destroying the lens. So, they are essentially break-away, sacrificing themselves for the greater good. 

You’ve nailed it on the head. That’s exactly why I use the hoods, the lens protection. 

In case of the SVE 16-35 the hood is so loose it comes off by itself so offers poor protection. 

In case of the SL-75 summicron the hood fell apart without any impact, the glue got unstuck in lower temp around 0°C, so it’s been useless right from the start. 

In case of the 90-280 zoom the hood is so big it lives in storage permanently and I bought a small metal hood that screws into the filter thread. This has worked for three years now. But not the original hood that is humongous.