Jump to content

SL 16-35mm oder Panasonic 16-35mm auf SL2 ?

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Welchen unterschied in IQ gibt es zwischen SL 16-35 mm lens und Panasonic 16-35 mm auf der SL 2   (und SL /typ 601) ?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ich nutze nur das SVE-SL 16-35, mit dem ich seit es erschienen ist sehr zufrieden bin; neben IQ aber auch auf Gewicht/Größe achten, da scheint mir das Pana durchaus interessant zu sein (und konstante Lichtstärke); 

übrigens hält Pana auch das Patent an der optischen Konstruktion des Leica SL 16-35, was immer das auch bedeuten mag...

Hier was von heute mit dem SL 16-35 direkt aus den "heiligen Hallen"




Share this post

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.

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.


  • Similar Content

    • By Vieri
      Hello everyone,
        my review of the new Leica Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH is finally published! I compared it with the Voigtlander 15mm at the wide end, and with the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm at the long end. I hope you'll find it interesting, here it is:   LEICA SUPER-VARIO-ELMAR-SL 16-35MM F/3.5-4.5 ASPH IN-DEPTH REVIEW   Thank you for your time and for reading the article! Best regards,   Vieri
    • By jrp
      I do like my wide angle M mount lenses that cover the 15-35mm range, but quite often I would find a zoom much more convenient for more precise framing. (Avoids the need to change lenses in the dark or dusty environments, etc)
      The prospective 16-35mm variable aperture zoom would be convenient for that purpose, but it seems likely to be bulky.  AF would be useful, although I don't know how reliable it will be on such a wide, slow lens.
      The WATE would be an obvious alternative, although it would be either poorer at the edges of the frame, or slower, than existing wide angle lenses that I have.  I assume that the SL 16-35mm will perform at least as well as the WATE.
      How do others that have used the WATE and/or 16-35mm lenses in other systems feel?
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use. We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue., Read more about our Privacy Policy