Wide angle zoom for SL2/M10R system - WATE for both or 16-35mm SL just for SL2? Or third party option?

[pmendelson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Now that this forum has helped me decide to keep both my M10R and SL2 ;), I am trying to decide what lens to get for my wide angle needs.  For my M I have the CV 15mm III but don't love it, so I am considering getting the WATE 16-21mm (used to have it when I had my M10 and really liked it).  I could also use it on my SL2 of course.  Then there is the 16-35mm SL, which is great but of course then I can't use it on the M10R.

Options:

1) Get the WATE and use it on both.  Pros: really nice lens, compact size, can use filters with 67mm filter adapter.  Cons:  No AF, optically not as good as 16-35mm SL, only goes to 21mm.

2) Get the 16-35mm SL for the SL2 for most of my wide angle needs, use the CV 15mm on M10R on occasion.  Pros: AF, great optically, can use filters.  Cons: huge, expensive, can't use on M10R.

3) Get the WATE for the M10R, and a third party lens for the SL2 like the Sigma 14-24mm, or the Canon 11-24mm for an even wider view.

I am thinking option 3 may make the most rational sense?

Note: my next widest lens is the 21mm SEM, which is amazing on the M10R, so I do have the 21mm focal length covered on the M10R although it's not as wide as I would like.

Thoughts?  Thanks!

Peter

[Advertisement]

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

[beewee]

I think it would be helpful to get an idea of what you want to shoot at 16-21mm and in what kind of environment you are using this focal length. Do you need a light/compact setup for this situation? If so, then I would put more consideration on the WATE. Otherwise, I would lean towards an L-mount solution which has other benefits with the main drawback being size and weight.

Looking at your other post, it seems your M kit is setup for 21/28/50/135. So a 16-21 would take the place of the 21 on a light kit but may also be in the same bag if you want the highest edge sharpness at 21mm then your 21mm SEM is still the best tool for the job. However, for me personally, I don’t think I would want to swap between a WATE and 21mm SEM during shooting just to get that extra bit of corner/edge sharpness at 21mm. If edge/corner sharpness mattered that much to me, I would probably go for the Sigma 14-24mm + SL2.

The WATE is a pretty old design. It was one of the very first lenses designed for the digital M era and at that point Leica didn’t even know if they would be able to ever make a full frame M sensor that would work with older M lenses. When stopped down f/8, the lens is fairly sharp (at 24 MP) to the corners but at f/4, it already starts to soften beyond the APS-C image circle. Even when stopped down, it would be foolish to think you can get the biting sharpness that you know from the 21mm SEM. This will be especially noticeable going beyond 24MP such as with your SL2 and M10-R. Another note is that, this era of lenses, although great for its time does tend to suffer a bit of loss in contrast at close focus distances. It seems like, to date, only the modern Leica APO Summicron SL and 35/50 APO M are able to achieve amazing sharpness at all focusing distances with minimal loss in contrast.

The 16-35mm SL is a more modern SL lens and it is probably one of, if not the sharpest, 16-35 zoom around but it should be noted that even the best 16-35mm zooms from all makes were never really that great at the edges/corners. They tend to suffer from a combination of coma, chromatic aberration, and/or loss in sharpness. Leica’s version minimizes much of these issues and I too had looked hard at this lens since the 16-35mm is one of the most useful range for my own shooting but I cannot bring myself to pay $6000k+ for a lens that is still going to leave me wanting at the corners at 16mm. Probably the most detailed review I’ve seen is the one from Vieri Bottazzini. To be fair, the 24mm and 35mm corner crops are actually pretty respectable but If I’m paying $6k+ for a 16-35mm, I want decent corner sharpness at 16mm, not just at 24-35mm. Otherwise, why not just use the 24-90? All that being said, the 16-35 will still be sharper than the WATE regardless of whether you’re comparing the WATE on the M10-R or the SL2 based on some images that I’ve seen.

To me, if you’re interested in ultra-wide, I’d probably at least start with the Sigma 14-24mm DG DN. It really performs way above its price bracket. From 16-21mm, it will be sharper than both the WATE and the Leica 16-35mm SL. The main drawback is that it does not take any front filters and it’s size is absolutely huge compared to the WATE. However, for its price, relative to the other two options at least, even if you sold it later, the loss you take on it will be minimal - like the amount you may pay for renting a WATE or Leica 16-35mm SL for a week or two. Whereas if you bought a WATE or Leica 16-35mm SL new, selling it afterwards would mean you would have paid for most of a Sigma 14-24mm DG DN. That being said, in real world landscape shooting, I do find that the 14-24mm a lot less useful than a 16-35mm range and this is coming from someone who shoots probably 90+% of my landscape images at 24mm which says a lot. If 28mm is your primary focal length then the 14-24mm range will feel even more limiting and it would mean you would find even less use for such a range and end up having to carry a second lens for your primary shooting. Whereas a 16-35mm may serve as a single lens option for certain scenarios.

For me, I primarily got the 14-24mm for astrophotography which it excels at. I also have taken it on a number of hikes for which I take most of my landscape photos but I have found it too bulky and the range of focal lengths being less useful as a single wide-angle lens solution. The 14-24mm range works best when you truly need the ultra-wide focal lengths (i.e. 14-21mm) so for me at least, a 16-35mm range would make more sense as a single wide-angle lens solution as it would be a 24mm plus some flexibility on either side where you may compromise a bit in the corner sharpness department, at least on the wide end with the Leica option. As far as my value judgement goes, if the Leica 16-35mm SL was $2500-3500, then I would probably get it. But at $6000k+, for its compromise in size, weight, and corner sharpness at 16mm, it just doesn’t quite cut it for me.

Edited June 27, 2021 by beewee

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The WATE is a good lens but no where near the much more modern Leica or Sigma offerings. Once you have shot with either of those, would you go back to the WATE and be happy? Mine gets less and less use as time goes on.

The Sigma is difficult regarding filters. Other than that it's fabulous and a great match to the 24-90 with no crossover. Optically the 16-35 is the (slightly) better lens and it has filter compatibility.

I have all three (16-35, 14-24 and WATE). I keep the WATE because I don't shoot a lot of wide angle on my M and it covers a lot of ground. I'm more likely to shoot 28mm or longer. If I did I would probably get the 21mm.

For the SL I take the 14-24 with the 24-90 or 16-35 with the 50mm Summilux depending on subject and mood. The 14-24 is excellent for Astro and roaming cities. The 16-35 is a great all rounder for landscapes and travel.

Difficult decision. I wish you luck.

Gordon

[Virob]

Have you ruled out the Panasonic 16-35? Considerably lighter than either the Leica 16-35 or the Sigma 14-24 . Just ordered one. I like the range better than the sigma plus it takes front filters.  I have read some issues with decentering so will check mine carefully when it arrives.

[Photoworks]

I have the 21 SEM, and love it, it has less pillow distortion then all the zoom lenses. you can actually do portraits with it in small spaces.

I would consider adding the 18mm to the mix.

I do lots of interiors and use the canon 17 TS-E lens and the 24 quite a bit, buy often the 21mm SEM is much nicer rendering.

 

[beewee]

I have the 18 SEM. It works alright on the M10 at 24MP but 40MP might be pushing it. It doesn’t work quite as well on the SL2-S, even at 24MP. Corners look smeared.

[pmendelson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks All.  The question was answered for me - I found a mint used 16-35mm SL at a price I couldn't refuse, so that's the direction I am going.  For my M10R, I will see if my 21mm SEM will fulfill my wide angle needs for that camera...

[SiggiGun]

After long hesitations, my choice is SL = ZOOM = 16-35MM and M is fixe = 21 24 28...

[Tailwagger]

On 6/27/2021 at 11:00 AM, pmendelson said:

3) Get the WATE for the M10R, and a third party lens for the SL2 like the Sigma 14-24mm, or the Canon 11-24mm for an even wider view.

Bingo.

Have the WATE on M10-R along with the SEM21,  the Lumix 16-35 for the SL2, but the latter is scheduled to get swapped for the Sigma 14-24 at some point.  Not a bad lens, but for whatever reason,  I'm overly fond of the way the Pano draws.  That said, AFAIC, it is far better option than adapting either the WATE or SEM.

[pmendelson]

I’m set. Found a great deal on a 90-280mm too, so I have the three SL zooms, 28mm SL and 50mm SL Summilux.  For the M10R the WATE would be nice but I’m going to stick with the 21mm for now. 

[Andrew Gough]

The Pana 16-35mm is a very good lens. However, be careful, because they can be 'not centered'. I recommend buying from a store where you can try several copies. Once you get a good one it's a keeper. Much lighter than the Leica 16-35mm, 98% as good, and better than the WATE.

 

Andrew

[Virob]

Andrew, it might have been one of your posts where I read about de-centered Lumix 16-35 issues. I received mine yesterday. First thing I did was take  a bunch of pictures of textured building sides wide open at 16 20 and 35. Yes, there is a drop off of resolution going to the corners as would be expected, but nothing unusual,  and I can’t convince myself that one side or corner is better or worse than the others. I think this copy is good and will keep it. 
The one Leica lens I’m most curious about is the upcoming 21 SL. I really like that focal length, but that could still be a long wait.

[beewee]

4 hours ago, Virob said:

The one Leica lens I’m most curious about is the upcoming 21 SL. I really like that focal length, but that could still be a long wait.

If history is any predictor, my best guess is that the 24 APO SL will come in Aug 2021 at the earliest, but there was also talk a while back by more informed people that Feb 2022 was more likely. If the 24 APO SL arrives in Aug 2021, then the earliest the 21 APO SL will come is Feb 2022. Otherwise, if the 24 APO SL gets released in Feb 2022, then the earliest 21 APO SL will get released is Aug 2022, or maybe even later.

I’m guessing part of the reason there was a longer than normal gap between the 35 and 28 APO SL release was due to the exceptionally high demand of the 35 APO SL in combination of shutdown at the Leica factory during the pandemic.

All the APO SL lenses are made on the same assembly line/stations so a prolonged spike in demand of a newly released lens would likely cause the release of the next APO SL to be delayed, like the case of the 28 APO SL.

[thatkatmat]

The 14-24 is probably the best value UW for the L mount. It's BRILLIANT.

Before anyone spends 4-5K for an SL 16-35...Rent, borrow or buy the Sigma. I know it's not posh to say that the Sigma is better than the Leica, but in my opinion it is. 

Edited July 1, 2021 by thatkatmat

[sillbeers15]

I have both the WATE and SL16-35mm.

I actually bought the WATE specifically for my M10R application after having purchased 16-35.

I’ve tested both lenses on same subject / view and found the WATE no less sharp than 16-35.

In my experience, the 16-35 on SL2 produced pics of more micro contrast and straight line correction over WATE on my M10R.

However I still prefer to take landscape pics on my M10R with WATE as I do not require AF and IBIS when mounted on tripod. The M10R with WATE, 35 Sumilux & 90 Sumicron makes my ideal travel kit.

Edited August 31, 2021 by sillbeers15

[Andrew Gough]

On 6/30/2021 at 9:51 AM, Virob said:

Andrew, it might have been one of your posts where I read about de-centered Lumix 16-35 issues. I received mine yesterday. First thing I did was take  a bunch of pictures of textured building sides wide open at 16 20 and 35. Yes, there is a drop off of resolution going to the corners as would be expected, but nothing unusual,  and I can’t convince myself that one side or corner is better or worse than the others. I think this copy is good and will keep it. 
The one Leica lens I’m most curious about is the upcoming 21 SL. I really like that focal length, but that could still be a long wait.

I too, am waiting for the 21mm... Not getting any younger 🙃

[tom0511]

I once decided for the 16-35. It is a beautiful lens. However, I dont bring it as often as I thought. More often I need a longer range and bring the 24-70 or before the 24-90.

And then both, the 1635 and 24-70 is too much weight for hiking. Therefore I sometimes throw the M21SEM in my bag. I dont need AF for UWA anyways.

Another interesting lens is the 21-60 PANA. Not as good as the 16-35, but also not "that bad"

IMO it is the 16-35 if you want the best quality and focal length flexibility. It comes however for the price of high weight. 

[beewee]

I recently picked up a used copy of the Leica 16-35 SVE which turned out to be @Andrew Gough’s lens at one point. It is very sharp when stopped down to f/8 at least on the SL2-S when focused to infinity. I haven’t tried shooting wide open so I don’t have a good sense of how it performs since I’m usually trying to maximize depth of field anyway. I also haven’t tried multi-shot so I’m not sure how it will perform at higher megapixels but so far so good as far as image quality is concerned.

My only gripe is that the lens is quite large for hiking. I normally carry my camera across my chest fairly up high when I’m hiking to keep the camera from swinging around and the lens is just small enough that it doesn’t touch my backpack’s waist belt if I don’t have a hood mounted. However, with the hood on, it will touch the waist belt so I’ve been shooting without the lens hood for now. In doing so, I did notice that there is some minor flare depending the sun angle so it would benefit form having a lens hood. Problem is that it’s just so darn big and the lens hood would take up a large amount of space in my pocket if I were to put it on only when shooting.

In any case, image quality is very good.

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[beewee]

Here’s an example with some lens flare above the hotel at the end of lake on the right. It’s minor but noticeable. The sun was around 70-80 degrees to the right and out of frame.

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!