21 SEM or 16-35mm SL for landscape?

[augustwest100]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wondering whether the landscape photographers out there have any advice on what would go best with the SL2S and the Sigma 28-70 2.8. I have the SEM 21mm already for my M kit, but for the SL2S it would not be a weather sealed solution, and something like the 16-35 (either Panasonic or Leica) would give a little more flexibility of focal length and protection from the elements. 

Strangely, although I have the L to M adapter, I find myself mostly using M lenses on my M kit and SL lenses on the SL. My dreams of simplification have resulted in complication once again!

Thanks in advance for any feedback you might have.

 

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

Augustwest100,   My many years experience with Leica M, S and SL cameras for my photography business tells me, the respective Leica lenses work best on those cameras.  I can also say, the Leica SL 16-35 is superb for landscape photography.  A good number of SL photographers that own/use the SL 16-35 for that purpose would support that claim.  You can find photograph examples for the SL 16-35 here:  https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=4090&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32  

The M 21 SEM is excellent too.  The difference is how the M sensor pairs with the M lenses.  Same goes for the SL camera and lenses.  The other aspect of the SL camera and lenses is the weather sealing.  So you have choices.  As for third party lenses, I cannot say but others will chime in with their ideas.  Hope this helps.  r/ Mark

[tom0511]

I just compared WATe and 21 SEM and 16-35... 21 see beats wate, 16-35 beats 21sem. The SEM 21 is quite good IMO and its a great small option to throw in the bag. If-however-you often shoot UWA and the 16-35mm range is used often. I would go for the 16-35. Not thing is the flexibility of focal length, and the other thing its optically really good with lots of detail and very good micro contrast.

[BlackDoc]

vor 33 Minuten schrieb tom0511:

I just compared WATe and 21 SEM and 16-35... 21 see beats wate, 16-35 beats 21sem. The SEM 21 is quite good IMO and its a great small option to throw in the bag. If-however-you often shoot UWA and the 16-35mm range is used often. I would go for the 16-35. Not thing is the flexibility of focal length, and the other thing its optically really good with lots of detail and very good micro contrast.

Actually we could stop the thread as this is my opinion too….

[Sandokan]

For landscapes the zoom lens is better than fixed focal length. Most shots will be made at f8 or smaller; I usually settle on a spot with an idea of the view I want and I refine that view with the zoom lens, rather than move the tripod around. 

[augustwest100]

35 minutes ago, Sandokan said:

For landscapes the zoom lens is better than fixed focal length. Most shots will be made at f8 or smaller; I usually settle on a spot with an idea of the view I want and I refine that view with the zoom lens, rather than move the tripod around. 

That makes sense. When doing street photography, the fixed lens is great for me to be able to "pre-visualize," but for landscape, I think the flexibility would be useful.

Anyone have any experience with the Panasonic 16-35? 

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve been pretty happy with the 16-35 SL. It needs to be stopped down to f/5.6-8.0 to get sharp corners on the SL2-S, especially on the wide end from 16-24mm.

Is there a specific focal length you prefer? If 24mm is something of interest, the Sigma 24/3.5 DG DN is very sharp and better than the 16-35 SL. If you care more about the wider end, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 DG DN has better sharpness than the 16-35 SL. However, it is also more prone to flare due to the bulbous front elements. The 16-35 SL is very flare resistant if used without filters but I haven’t had good luck with it while using filters. For 28mm, the APO SL is exceedingly good but can be limiting for landscapes. I have all these lenses that I mentioned but tend to gravitate towards the 16-35 SL due to the focal range that it covers. It’s a one-lens solution for landscapes.

[beewee]

There’s also some additional related discussions here: 

 

[Photoworks]

I have struggled with the same decisions .  16-35, 21 SEM, canon STE lenses.

The 16-35 lens has better sharpness and micro-contrast. wide open not so hot across the frame.

21 SEM is a great little lens, small filters, but most of all it is a lens that has little distortion that you can even do portraits with it.

so I have all 4 lenses

[beewee]

9 hours ago, Photoworks said:

21 SEM is a great little lens, small filters, but most of all it is a lens that has little distortion that you can even do portraits with it.

I’m not sure about M lenses on the SL bodies but native L-mount have distortion parameters stored on the lens and the body corrects it in the final image as well as in real-time on the EVF/LCD. 

[Jeff S]

On 1/31/2022 at 7:09 PM, augustwest100 said:

When doing street photography, the fixed lens is great for me to be able to "pre-visualize," but for landscape, I think the flexibility would be useful.

 

Well, the fellow who popularized the term ‘visualization’* for photography, Ansel Adams, was a landscape photographer.  Part of that concept and process involves post-processing, not just composition. Visualizing the end (print) result can be done using any gear; it’s more about the user and technique than the equipment.
 

Most any focal length can be used for landscapes, which encompasses a broad range of subject matter.  I often prefer longer lenses for ‘grand landscapes’ for subject isolation and compression, as opposed to wider angles that are used ubiquitously and that can reduce the visual impact of grand landscapes IMO if one is not careful.

Bottom line, only you can decide what best suits your visual style and working method.

* Adams disliked the term ‘pre-visualization’, which he considered redundant.

Jeff

[augustwest100]

On 2/1/2022 at 10:58 PM, Jeff S said:

Well, the fellow who popularized the term ‘visualization’* for photography, Ansel Adams, was a landscape photographer.  Part of that concept and process involves post-processing, not just composition. Visualizing the end (print) result can be done using any gear; it’s more about the user and technique than the equipment.
 

Most any focal length can be used for landscapes, which encompasses a broad range of subject matter.  I often prefer longer lenses for ‘grand landscapes’ for subject isolation and compression, as opposed to wider angles that are used ubiquitously and that can reduce the visual impact of grand landscapes IMO if one is not careful.

Bottom line, only you can decide what best suits your visual style and working method.

* Adams disliked the term ‘pre-visualization’, which he considered redundant.

Jeff

Interesting thoughts, thanks. I mostly meant that with a fixed focal length,  I am better at guessing what will be in the frame when I quickly put the camera up to my eye to take a picture as something is happening in front of me. I agree that pre-visualize is redundant. I should have pre-thought about that before typing it. LOL. Thanks, Ansel!

If you were going to only have one zoom lens, say for reasons relating to weather conditions, or wanting to avoid lots of lens swapping, would you think a better option would be the 24-90 or the 16-35? 

[Jeff S]

14 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

If you were going to only have one zoom lens, say for reasons relating to weather conditions, or wanting to avoid lots of lens swapping, would you think a better option would be the 24-90 or the 16-35? 

Only the user can determine that, just as with every other aspect of picture taking, processing and printing.  Thankfully.

The 24-90 and 90-280 cover all my SL system uses.  The M serves a complementary role, using 28/35/50 primes.  Others will of course have different needs and preferences.

Jeff

[Jeff S]

15 hours ago, augustwest100 said:

I agree that pre-visualize is redundant. I should have pre-thought about that before typing it. LOL. Thanks, Ansel!

 

Incidentally, Minor White later borrowed from Adams and created his own distinctions and thoughts, using the concepts pre-visualization vs post-visualization.  That’s when Adams commented on redundancy.

Jeff

[davidmknoble]

I also think this kind of decision goes along with what fits everything you have.  If you have an M camera and the 21 SEM, then try it.  I’ve used it on the SL and it works well.  It also keeps the kit versatile.  However, if like me, you shoot a lot on the coast, a full weather resistent system with the SL 16-35 also works well.  I have not used the sigma glass, so I cannot comment there

I’ve used the 16-35 for over a year and like many of the SL lenses it has more distortion than I would like, but that is fixed in post processing.  I recently traded it because I prefer the S system for various reasons (dynamic range, less distortion, just pure bliss with the RAW files).  But, for the SL system, the 16-35 is a super lens, just don’t think you will get bokeh smooth portraits at 35mm.

As an aside, I added the SL 35 and SL 50 to my 5 year old SL 90-280 kit with the Sl2-S.  I use those and a lot of R glass with these.  As a second aside, there are good threads here on R glass usage as well.  The R 21-35 has more distortion, but is really inexpensive and has good clarity and color.  I like the R 28 elmarit v1 stopped down to f/8 or f/11 but the corners are still soft so I crop a little.  Not replacements for SL glass, but inexpensive alternatives to M glass.  ROM’s will carry the lens to the EXIF through the adapter, non ROM’s require you to pick the lens from a list in camera….