16-35mm not sharp on the edges - copy variation?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can’t speak for the SL 16-35mm. I haven’t seen any issues whatsoever with the S1R and SL 75mm Summicron. Works perfectly for me edge-to-edge, including in high resolution mode. Also, you can assess on DPReview some remarkably high quality studio scenes in high-res mode with the S1R and the SL 90 Summicron.

Personally I wouldn’t buy an SL2 if it didn’t have a high-res mode like I enjoy in the S1R. IMHO, I think the high-res mode provides me with a noticeable image quality improvement compared to normal 47mp mode.

[caissa]

The starter of the thread mentioned that diglloyd was critical of this lens. So I wanted to know what is behind this. I have this lens since a year and had never any complaints about it. It actually solved all problems there were with similar lenses from other brands. And what I found typical of this lens was it’s extreme flare resistance and the extraordinarily satisfying results even under the worst circumstances. (These are my own experiences, not knowledge acquired from reading webpages.)

Without this mentioning of diglloyd I would never have searched for other users with problems with this lens. But I found this : https://diglloyd.com/blog/2019/20190425_1228-PanasonicS1R-LeicaSL16_36-flare.html.     And I find it unbelievable. He uses one item and infers (from his infallible technique) that generally this lens has problems. But he never used it on the SL, but infers that it must have problems there as well. And most important this serves as prove that paying for his website is well worth the (small ?) sum. This actually seems to be the most important (and hilarious) conclusion of his page. 

In short this is such nonsense, I am really surprised. I would like to laugh out loud, but I am too perplexed ...    And I know now for certain that subscription is always out of the question. 

(Several times already the problems that diglloyd listed as prominent, were simply not discoverable by me. I must be old and half-blind. Unfortunately part of that is certainly true and gets truer every day...  ).    😎

 

I know there is a name for the following strategy: Take a real strength of your enemy and spread a lot of FUD about it and in the end everybody will believe it is one hell of a handicap he has. But I forgot the name ...    🤯

[pmendelson]

Thanks everyone for the replies.  If anyone has this lens and can look carefully at a pic taken at 16mm at a distance with a fairly flat plane and confirm whether the edges are in fact sharp or are smeary, that would be greatly appreciated (whether taken on the SL or S1/S1R).  I posted a few sample pics at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1615261/#14994599  Not horrible but for the price of this lens I was expecting better.

I'm still on the fence - I would love to use this lens but since I would use it much of the time at 16mm I just want to get a better sense of the performance I can expect there.

Thanks again,

Peter 

[Donzo98]

2 hours ago, pmendelson said:

Thanks everyone for the replies.  If anyone has this lens and can look carefully at a pic taken at 16mm at a distance with a fairly flat plane and confirm whether the edges are in fact sharp or are smeary, that would be greatly appreciated (whether taken on the SL or S1/S1R).  I posted a few sample pics at https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1615261/#14994599  Not horrible but for the price of this lens I was expecting better.

I'm still on the fence - I would love to use this lens but since I would use it much of the time at 16mm I just want to get a better sense of the performance I can expect there.

Thanks again,

Peter 

I looked at your shot the other day... I really don't see what the problem is, to be honest.

Edited September 29, 2019 by Donzo98

[douglas ball]

Works great on the S1-R so well I have not tried it on the SL. A perfect lens in my opinion. 

[Mr.Q]

Seems to be a polarizing lens. Perhaps sample variation?

[pmendelson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Well, I'm going to try another copy since this focal length range is my most used one.  I'll report back on my findings.

[jrp]

9 hours ago, caissa said:

  And I find it unbelievable. He uses one item and infers (from his infallible technique) that generally this lens has problems. But he never used it on the SL, but infers that it must have problems there as well. And most important this serves as prove that paying for his website is well worth the (small ?) sum. This actually seems to be the most important (and hilarious) conclusion of his page. 

In short this is such nonsense, I am really surprised. I would like to laugh out loud, but I am too perplexed ...    And I know now for certain that subscription is always out of the question. 

This seems to be his business model. Either that or he is extraordinarily unlucky / accident prone. And it’s not just lenses, it’s  Macintoshes, where he uncovers some critical flaw or other.  I did subscribe many moons ago, but when I found that I couldn’t relate the pictures he was offering with the accompanying commentary, I gave  up. That, and the subscription renewal  cost. It is telling that his lens reviews never came to a conclusion or summary, and that all that he seems to be interested in is sharpness and aberrations, with little regard for rendering or practicalities. 

[thighslapper]

I have trawled through 6000 images and cannot find a single one where I can categorically pronounce judgement on the peripheral performance of the 16-35.

There are so many confounding factors ...... particularly the frequent large distance differential between the central and peripheral elements where it is hard to tell if and lack of sharpness  is down to focus/DOF issues at wider apertures. Taking very close up photos of walls tends to exacerbate any field curvature effects ..... and there are very few several hundred metre high and wide walls to use for distant/infinity photos.

I can find a handful of indoor church ceiling photos taken at f4 where the extreme peripheral 5% of the image is marginally softer than the centre ..... but that's at 100% and it would by unnoticeable under most circumstances. At above f7 I can't find any centre/peripheral difference at all. 

I've used it extensively on the SL as well and found no issues ...... and if anything the increased resolution of the S1R should show up any aberrations more easily, and that has not been the case. 

I think even Leica cannot produce a wide angle zoom that is perfect across the image field wide open throughout the zoom range ...... and bear in mind there is some peripheral image manipulation baked into the DNG's that corrects residual barrel/pincushion distortion that may be contributing to some minor softness. 

I've found the SL 16-35 as good if not better than many of the equivalent Summicron M primes on the SL, so I'm not sure what the grumbling is about....... the original poster seems to think the 16-35 should be performing to a standard which I suspect is optically unachievable. The posted photos are quite acceptable and sharpness across the actual plane of focus is good at the edges as far as I can ascertain .... and I'd be rather wary of attributing softness in the distant buildings on the left to lens issues. 

Also ...... there is absolutely no reason why sensors used in Panasonic cameras should perform any differently to those in Leica cameras ..... it is only with M lenses that there should be issues. All L mount lenses follow basically similar designs and should perform equally well, irrespective of minor sensor variations. 

Edited September 29, 2019 by thighslapper

[nicci78]

JMS from www.lemondedelaphoto.com has just published a teasing about the next special issue of the french magazine Le Monde de la Photo. It will be about lenses review. It will feature all L-mount and some M & R optics tested on SL & S1R. 
 

The Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm asph should be absolutely fantastic from center to edges at every aperture and focal lengths. Very impressive. If not your copy has a problem. 
Diffraction only starts to kick in on the edges at f/16

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!

[thighslapper]

That fits with my observations and tests ...... although noticeable diffraction occurs starting at about f13/14 at 100% on a monitor ..... but I doubt this would be obvious on a big print or the image viewed as a whole.

For landscape I would have no hesitation in using any of the SL lenses at any aperture from wide open to f16 if I had to, as there is no easily observable difference, once processed, on the final image. I was advised on a workshop to test all my lenses at all distances and apertures to avoid any unacceptably soft images with certain settings ...... the spreadsheets ended up looking like the one above, so I won't be repeating the time consuming and tedious exercise for any new SL lenses 

I've dug out my spreadsheet ...... note that 'very slightly soft' is when viewed at 100% on a 5k iMac ..... and that what you consider 'acceptable' is entirely subjective and dependent on how and why you view the resultant image. 

 

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!

Edited October 22, 2019 by thighslapper

[nicci78]

Your 75mm test, quite match JMS finding with both APO-SL 75 & 90 with S1R 

diffraction hits at f/16. 

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!

Edited October 22, 2019 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Just FYI still from JMS, the Q2 test. How excellent SL lenses are compare to it. 

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!

[pmendelson]

Original poster here - got a SL2 and a second copy of the 16-35mm and it's noticeably better - not sure if it was the copy of the lens or switching from the S1 to SL2 made the difference but I'm a happy camper now...

[Jeff S]

On 9/29/2019 at 12:32 PM, Mr.Q said:

Seems to be a polarizing lens. Perhaps sample variation?

No, you need a filter for that.

Jeff

[MarkP]

Sample variation.

 

Vierri did a very detailed assessment  of IQ of the 16-35 SL (and comparison with CV15 v3).  This lens is very impressive to the corners, just got mine this week.

 

However when I went to compare my new Pasasonic 4.0/70-200 at 70 and 90 mm with my 24-90 ( just to get a feel for the character of the lens) I saw the Leica lens to be VERY soft in the corners.  It’s gone off to Leica for warranty service.

[ocean2059]

I am also pretty happy with my copy of 16-35 SL.