Wide angle lens dilemma - Sell R 280mm F4 ROM to buy Leica L 16-35 or Sigma L mount 14-24 F2.8 DG Art - or keep my M 16-18-21 WATE

[graeme_clarke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have an SL2-S with a Leica L 24-90 and L 90-280.  

I also have a Leica R F4 280 ROM and a M 16-18-21 WATE from the days when I had a DMR and an M8.  Both lenses are in really excellent condition.

I am contemplating selling the R F4 280 ROM. I could also sell the WATE. 

Now for the dilemma - I would like a very wide angle lens to complement the two L vario lenses I have.  Can anyone from experience say which is the better lens between the Leica 16-35 and the Sigma 14-24 F2.8?  Alternatively would it make as much sense to realise the value of the R 280 ROM and keep the WATE - after all it is a good lens and sits well on the SL2-S!

Looking forward to your opinions please...

Graeme

 

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

Graeme_Clarke,   My experience with the forementioned lenses in yoru post #1 has been excellent with the SL 16-35 and WATE.  The R 280 is a very good lens as well as I used it often when I owned the R system years ago.  I have found over the decades of using Leica, Canon and NIkon systems, the native lenses work best with the cameras.  In the case of the SL2-S and WATE, it renders superbly albeit a dated optical design intended for M cameras.  If you want a more recent optical design the SL 16-35 is a great lens and of course, native to the SL camera.  I suggest you consider how often to you shoot ultra wide photographs for your genre of photography.  If the answer is not too often, you might consider keeping the WATE.  The R 280 might be redundant with your SL 90-280.  But this gets back to what you need vs what you want.  You might find this article useful for the SL 16-35 question.  Try:   https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2018/05/leica-super-vario-elmar-sl-16-35mm-f-3-5-4-5-asph-in-depth-review.html  Last, the three SL Vario lenses make almost any genre of photography possible and all three are superb lenses.  Ulitimately it is your choice(s) vs asking for well meaning forum members advice to include mine.  I am confident you will find what works best for you.   r/ Mark

Edited January 8, 2022 by LeicaR10

[michali]

8 hours ago, graeme_clarke said:

I have an SL2-S with a Leica L 24-90 and L 90-280.  

I also have a Leica R F4 280 ROM and a M 16-18-21 WATE from the days when I had a DMR and an M8.  Both lenses are in really excellent condition.

I am contemplating selling the R F4 280 ROM. I could also sell the WATE. 

Now for the dilemma - I would like a very wide angle lens to complement the two L vario lenses I have.  Can anyone from experience say which is the better lens between the Leica 16-35 and the Sigma 14-24 F2.8?  Alternatively would it make as much sense to realise the value of the R 280 ROM and keep the WATE - after all it is a good lens and sits well on the SL2-S!

Looking forward to your opinions please...

Graeme

 

Graeme, I had a not too dissimilar lens dilemma several months ago with my SL2; as I have the Leica 90-280mm L, I took the decision to sell my Leica R 280mm f4, for a number of reasons: versatility, duplication of focal length @ 280mm & lack of spares, I had an issue & it took 6 months to repair.

I also offloaded my WATE Tri-Elmar which wasn't seeing much use & purchased the Sigma 14-24mm, an outstanding lens with a constant f2.8  aperture at 1/6 of the price of the Leica 16-35mm. There's really not that much difference in IQ between the 2 lenses. This left me with enough change to add an SL2-S & a couple of other excellent Sigma L mount lenses to the arsenal.

Best, Mike

Edited January 8, 2022 by michali

[beewee]

On the wide end, either the 16-35 SL or Sigma 14-24 DGDN will perform better than the WATE but the WATE is not that far behind the 16-35 SL. I personally wouldn’t go out of my way to get the WATE but it’s a different story if you already have it. You can find some comparison here: 

Between the 16-35 SL and 14-24 DG DN, I have both and there are trade-offs to both. You can find my thoughts here and elsewhere on this forum: 

 

[otto.f]

The APO-Telyt 280 was and is a legendary lens, now that you have your SL2-S, you can take advantage of it to the max. The 90-280 will certainly be perfect, the only thing you have to decide upon is the difference in character of these lenses at 280. Especially in the OOF area, which is perhaps less often important with the wide-angles. I own the 280/4 and used it with the SL and APO-Extender and this worked even handheld.  I’m afraid that owning now two autofocus zooms, you will also want a wide autofocus zoom in the end, instead of the WATE. Difficult decision, but the WATE will generate more money I guess.

Edited January 9, 2022 by otto.f

[Stef63]

1) WATE lenses are fairly available, a mint copy of a Telyt 280 is hard to find.  I mention this should you ever regret selling one of the two and would like to purchase one again.
 
2) On the telyt 280 you can add a 1.4x or 2x convertor or even stack them.  That is currently not an option for the SL 90-280.  This would extent your tele range from 90 to almost 800.  Believe me 560 mm @ f/8 is very usable considering you can go high in the iso with the sl2-s and you have also ibis

3) I have neither the Leica or Sigma wide zoom, so I can’t help you there.  What I do know is that for me AF is in most cases not a n°1 priority for wide lenses.  This opens up choices in the M or LTM mount should you want to replace the WATE with something else.  I prefer the wide M lenses on an SL body than on an M body.

My 2cents : either keep what you have or sell the WATE if it really is autofocus you want.  But do keep the 280, my heart would cry if I had to sell mine. 

Edited January 9, 2022 by Stef63