SL2 Landscape Set

[agencal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have been a long time M user who started to shoot landscapes.So i sold my M10 and go with medium format. I bought fuji GFX 50r for landscapes.(gfx 100 for a couple of months but did not like the ergonomics) .I used 23mm(18mm), 32-64mm(24-50mm), 110mm(90mm).It was quite nice when you zoom in the images but never look like leica files in fit in screen position. So really missed leica. Last week i had a chance to compare SL2 and Gfx 50r at landscape distance. SL2 with 16-35mm,50mm lux and 90mm apo.They were nearly identical but SL2 gave me that dimentional warm files.So decided to make a switch in the near future. I need  a starting point for lenses. I still have M 50mm apo cron and Zeiss 35mm C f2.8 biogon.( i can sell them or use on SL2)

I want to buy at least one SL Apo Cron because i think they make SL2 a medium format like camera😊

1. Sigma 14-24mm, SL 35mm Apo  , 75mm apo 

2. SL 16-35mm, 50mm M apo(adapted) , 90mm apo

3. SL 16-35mm, 50mm SL Apo, 90mm apo

Which of these sets would be a better choice for me?  I want to choose depending on the SL apo cron i sould buy. I know when stopped down they are all great but i need to know 35 or 50 has that leica pop and contrast more.

note: I did not like 24-90mm so it is not an option..

thanks

Edited September 18, 2020 by agencal

[Advertisement]

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

[Gavin Cato]

I tried the GFX system as well and didn't fall in love with it either.

I'd go option #1 but swap the 75 for the 90.

The 35 & 90 are really quite special. I haven't used the 75, just if I was you I'd want something a bit longer for compressing. The 90 is just stupidly good.

btw I bought the Sigma 14-24 and it is very good, but if I was a dedicated landscape guy I'd prob get the Leica 16-35. I'm a wedding guy mostly, so I bought the Sig 14-24 to tide me over until they release a native SL 21 or 24. It's extremely sharp (to put it mildly) but I haven't much to compare it to.

 

 

[meerec]

75 cron is just as amazing as 90, I use the 75 and it is more versatile than 90 in my opinion and if you go with 35 then 75 is a better match, 35 to 90 is too much separation of focal length.  

[Jeff S]

All the SL lenses are superb optically. Choose the focal length(s) that suit your style. And unlike M lenses, each is fully weather sealed.

 

Jeff

Edited September 19, 2020 by Jeff S

[Mdol]

I would choose set 2. I think the 16-35 is an absolute must have for landscape photography. The SL crons are all fantastic, I firstly bought the 90 and never regret that. Keep your APO !

[sillbeers15]

The SL16-35mm lens is a must have for Landscape shooters using the SL2. The Color rendering, construct and distortion correction at the corners by default when the lens is paired to SL/2 is just superb.

I’m taking delivery of a WATE in a couple of days. I would like to compare the WATE on M10R over the SL16-35 on SL2 on IQ later.

[Fedro]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

The SL16-35mm lens is a must have for Landscape shooters using the SL2. The Color rendering, construct and distortion correction at the corners by default when the lens is paired to SL/2 is just superb.

I’m taking delivery of a WATE in a couple of days. I would like to compare the WATE on M10R over the SL16-35 on SL2 on IQ later.

that would be interesting, let us know how you get on/what your findings are

[markforce]

I have the Sig 14-24 and APO SL 50, considering adding APO SL 90. Adds a bit of reach, and the mid-FL is covered by 50.

[agencal]

Thank you all dear friends.

I feel more confident to choose 16-35mm - 50mm Apo SL and 90mm Apo SL but whenever i here Karbe saying “my favorite is 35mm apo.Or it may be the best lens ever been made” i am getting confiused.

16-35mm with 35mm Apo is a overlap. Do you think 35mm is way better than 50? Which one has better contrast and pop(seperstion feel) ?Thats why i used 50mm M Apo for M system.It had a great contrast and pop thet you can nevere replicate at post with an other lens.

[Stuart Richardson]

I do not have the 35mm, but I have the 50mm and it is incredible. If you look at the MTF for both lenses, they are very very similar. I would imagine that any practical differences would be invisible. I suspect Karbe has it as a favorite as it is so much better than a typical 35mm lens. But at least according to the MTF, the 50mm is absolutely in the same league. Both have substantially better MTF figures than the 16-35mm, which still offers great performance on center. The issue is how important edge to edge performance is to you. In the landscapes I am used to photographing in, the zoom lenses are not ideal, as the difference between center and corner performance is very clear. It is not so much that the corners are bad, it is more that the center is so insanely good that the drop-off becomes readily visible. I think if you are interested in portraiture, street work or travel, a lens like the 16-35mm is a superb option. But if you are interested in tack sharp edge to edge landscape images, a prime will likely serve you better. For now, however, it is the only game in town for Leica. When the 21 and 24 summicrons come out, those will be the ones to get, at least to my mind...

I should also note that I am a very very picky judge of lenses and a lot of my work has high frequency detail equidistant from the camera (lots of mountains photographed over long views here), which stresses lenses very badly. Combine with that that I work as a printer and making very large prints is easy and convenient for me, so I tend to see problems where other people do not see them. It is not because I am any more talented etc, just that where I live, what I photograph and how I work tends to bring out problems more readily than it does for a lot of other people.

 

Edited September 20, 2020 by Stuart Richardson

[agencal]

29 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I do not have the 35mm, but I have the 50mm and it is incredible. If you look at the MTF for both lenses, they are very very similar. I would imagine that any practical differences would be invisible. I suspect Karbe has it as a favorite as it is so much better than a typical 35mm lens. But at least according to the MTF, the 50mm is absolutely in the same league. Both have substantially better MTF figures than the 16-35mm, which still offers great performance on center. The issue is how important edge to edge performance is to you. In the landscapes I am used to photographing in, the zoom lenses are not ideal, as the difference between center and corner performance is very clear. It is not so much that the corners are bad, it is more that the center is so insanely good that the drop-off becomes readily visible. I think if you are interested in portraiture, street work or travel, a lens like the 16-35mm is a superb option. But if you are interested in tack sharp edge to edge landscape images, a prime will likely serve you better. For now, however, it is the only game in town for Leica. When the 21 and 24 summicrons come out, those will be the ones to get, at least to my mind...

I should also note that I am a very very picky judge of lenses and a lot of my work has high frequency detail equidistant from the camera (lots of mountains photographed over long views here), which stresses lenses very badly. Combine with that that I work as a printer and making very large prints is easy and convenient for me, so I tend to see problems where other people do not see them. It is not because I am any more talented etc, just that where I live, what I photograph and how I work tends to bring out problems more readily than it does for a lot of other people.

 

Thank you for the great reply.

I understand the zoom situation and agree with you for my needs of edge to edge sharpness for landscapes. But if will not buy 16-35mm how would i survive at the field.I mean if buy 35mm what sould be the other lens up to 24mm is out?

[T25UFO]

With Leica there is always something to wait for; the wait is usually long and is always worth it.  A pair of Summicron primes, 75mm and 35mm is a great place to start, then add the 24mm (or 21mm) when they eventually appear.  Patience is a virtue and is needed with Leica ownership.

[agencal]

20 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

With Leica there is always something to wait for; the wait is usually long and is always worth it.  A pair of Summicron primes, 75mm and 35mm is a great place to start, then add the 24mm (or 21mm) when they eventually appear.  Patience is a virtue and is needed with Leica ownership.

When i look at the MTF graphs 75mm is the a bit behind to 50 and 90. 35 and 90 is a big gap.

[Stuart Richardson]

44 minutes ago, agencal said:

Thank you for the great reply.

I understand the zoom situation and agree with you for my needs of edge to edge sharpness for landscapes. But if will not buy 16-35mm how would i survive at the field.I mean if buy 35mm what sould be the other lens up to 24mm is out?

Obviously if those focal lengths are necessary for you, you should take what you can get. If you decide you would like to change later, I imagine that you would not lose a very large amount in resale. Even less if you can find a used or demo copy to begin with. In my own work I have not needed wider than about 35mm, and to be honest, the vast majority are taken with 50mm and longer lenses, but I think there is certainly a place for a good wide lens. For my own use, I will likely wait and just get the 24mm or 21mm once they become available. In the meantime I have a 25mm biogon M lens which works ok from about f5.6, but is not of comparable crispness to the SL lenses.

[Jeff S]

2 hours ago, agencal said:

When i look at the MTF graphs 75mm is the a bit behind to 50 and 90. 35 and 90 is a big gap.

Silly time.  I own the SL75 (as do other happy owners here) and it is stellar.  If I can’t make a worthy print with it and the SL2, that’s entirely on me.  All of the SL primes are at least on a par optically with the 50 M APO, and even exceed it in certain respects; the far bigger size allowed Karbe to work his magic, and each was designed with the same characteristic rapid contrast fall-off. MTF also doesn’t tell you anything about color, distortion, flare, chromatic aberration, vignetting,  focus shift, etc, etc.  The proof is in the seeing. You apparently already tried the16-35; maybe you should rent or demo some others if you have doubts.  You’ll realize that this is much ado about nothing, and that time is better used just picking one and making some pics and prints. If it doesn’t work, sell or trade it.

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

For the zooms. Buy the Leica if you need to use filters. The Sigma if you don't. Then just pick the focal lengths you prefer with the Summicrons. The difference in performance of the Summicrons is like comparing a Ferrari to a slightly faster Ferrari. All of them more than enough for the most demanding applications.

Gordon

[Jared]

On 9/19/2020 at 6:12 AM, sillbeers15 said:

The SL16-35mm lens is a must have for Landscape shooters using the SL2. The Color rendering, construct and distortion correction at the corners by default when the lens is paired to SL/2 is just superb.

I’m taking delivery of a WATE in a couple of days. I would like to compare the WATE on M10R over the SL16-35 on SL2 on IQ later.

I have compared the WATE on an SL2 with the 16-35 on the same camera. Because the WATE is telecentric, it performs quite well even on cameras that don’t have the M’s off center micro lenses.

The WATE has quite a bit more distortion than the 16-35 so I would probably avoid it for architecture (though the lens profiles do a reasonably good job of correcting). Also, the WATE wasn’t as good near the edges of the frame when shot wide open. At f/8? The WATE is absolutely superb and nearly the equal of the 16-35. Strongest performance, at least on my sample, was at 16mm.

The 16-35 is even better, but at the cost of more size and bulk. I find the strongest performance on my 16-35 is between 21mm and 24mm. Distortion is minimal (though that may be due to op codes embedded in the DNG’s). At f/8, the 16-35 is amazing across the field with perhaps even a bit more pop than the WATE.

Overall, the 16-35 makes technically better pictures. It also has a much more useful zoom range. If you are just going to shoot at f/11, though, in order to maximize DOF without too much diffraction, either lens will do an excellent job at the focal lengths where they overlap.

[Jared]

11 hours ago, agencal said:

Thank you all dear friends.

I feel more confident to choose 16-35mm - 50mm Apo SL and 90mm Apo SL but whenever i here Karbe saying “my favorite is 35mm apo.Or it may be the best lens ever been made” i am getting confiused.

16-35mm with 35mm Apo is a overlap. Do you think 35mm is way better than 50? Which one has better contrast and pop(seperstion feel) ?Thats why i used 50mm M Apo for M system.It had a great contrast and pop thet you can nevere replicate at post with an other lens.

35mm way better than the 50 Summicron SL? No. Can you tell the difference? Yes, butnwe’re talking about marginal gains. Just look at the MTF. I have always found Leica’s MYF’s to accurately represent lens performance. 

[sillbeers15]

3 hours ago, Jared said:

I have compared the WATE on an SL2 with the 16-35 on the same camera. Because the WATE is telecentric, it performs quite well even on cameras that don’t have the M’s off center micro lenses.

The WATE has quite a bit more distortion than the 16-35 so I would probably avoid it for architecture (though the lens profiles do a reasonably good job of correcting). Also, the WATE wasn’t as good near the edges of the frame when shot wide open. At f/8? The WATE is absolutely superb and nearly the equal of the 16-35. Strongest performance, at least on my sample, was at 16mm.

The 16-35 is even better, but at the cost of more size and bulk. I find the strongest performance on my 16-35 is between 21mm and 24mm. Distortion is minimal (though that may be due to op codes embedded in the DNG’s). At f/8, the 16-35 is amazing across the field with perhaps even a bit more pop than the WATE.

Overall, the 16-35 makes technically better pictures. It also has a much more useful zoom range. If you are just going to shoot at f/11, though, in order to maximize DOF without too much diffraction, either lens will do an excellent job at the focal lengths where they overlap.

Having own the SL16-35mm for a while. I just absolutely love the lens for architecture & landscape photography on my SL then SL2 now.

Because of my sentiments for the SL16-35, I have decided to get the WATE for my M camera application as the WATE, 35 Lux & 90 Corn will be my M lens kit while the M50 Noc + M21 Lux will be used on my SL2 together with my 4 SL lenses due mainly to both non compact M lenses.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[agencal]

14 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

Having own the SL16-35mm for a while. I just absolutely love the lens for architecture & landscape photography on my SL then SL2 now.

Because of my sentiments for the SL16-35, I have decided to get the WATE for my M camera application as the WATE, 35 Lux & 90 Corn will be my M lens kit while the M50 Noc + M21 Lux will be used on my SL2 together with my 4 SL lenses due mainly to both non compact M lenses.

What is your SL2 kit other tan 16-35mm?