Leica 24-90/2.8-4 SL vs Panasonic 16-35/f4 between 16-35 mm focal length

[Hendo]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The Leica 24-90/2.8-4 is very expensive compared to the 16-35. How big is the difference in image quality between these two lenses between focal length 16-35mm when using SL2? Shooting mainly landscapes and architecture.

Edited May 10, 2020 by Hendo
Change typo in headline

[Advertisement]

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

[jackson.gabriel]

Two things: one, the 16-35 is better focal length for architecture and landscApes. Two, You buy Leica gear for the glass. If anything, the reverse should be done. 
 

panasonic body with Leica 16-35mm. 

[Jared]

I own the Leica 16-35 not the Panasonic, so may not be able to answer your question for certain. I will say that the 16-35 Panny has had good reviews.  It is also really light compared to the Leica, which is nice as long as it doesn’t impact durability.  The most important thing, though, is whether the focal length is appropriate for the purpose.  The 16-35 would generally be considered 5e better choice for landscape and architecture. Your habits may be different, but most people would consider 24mm minimum focal length very restrictive for these uses.  Without knowing anything about how and what you shoot, I would recommend the 16-35.

[Jeff S]

The 16-35 will be infinitely better for focal lengths between 16 and 24.  And if you only view online, then you’ll likely see no significant distinctions, without pixel peeping, at overlapping 24-35 focal lengths. If you print, then results will greatly depend on your PP workflow.

Bottom line, choice depends on your shooting style and preferences.  Best to demo if possible.

Jeff

[Ingo]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Jeff S:

The 16-35 will be infinitely better for focal lengths between 16 and 24.  And if you only view online, then you’ll likely see no significant distinctions, without pixel peeping, at overlapping 24-35 focal lengths. If you print, then results will greatly depend on your PP workflow.

Bottom line, choice depends on your shooting style and preferences.  Best to demo if possible.

Jeff

Exactly.
I just use both lenses and don't think about image quality. From my last trip to Iceland I found two RAW-files with the same mountain. See what the differences are.

http://doc.ingo-cordes.de/temp/Iceland-24-90-34mm.RW2

http://doc.ingo-cordes.de/temp/Iceland-16-35-35mm.RW2

Edited May 12, 2020 by Ingo

[Photoworks]

6 hours ago, Ingo said:

Exactly.
I just use both lenses and don't think about image quality. From my last trip to Iceland I found two RAW-files with the same mountain. See what the differences are.

http://doc.ingo-cordes.de/temp/Iceland-24-90-34mm.RW2

http://doc.ingo-cordes.de/temp/Iceland-16-35-35mm.RW2

16-35 looks great, thanks for sharing..

24-90 was focus more on the water so mounter are a little softer..