Lever Posted April 21, 2023 Share #1  Posted April 21, 2023 (edited) Advertisement (gone after registration) Hi, I currently have a SL2-S with VE 24-70mm lens, and a M10-P with a Noctilux 0.95 50mm. I am going to travel in a few months and would like to buy a wide-angle lens for landscape photography.  I have considered two options: 1. Buy Super Vario Elmar SL 16-35mm f3.5-4.5. Bring SL2-S and both L lens. 2. Buy Tri-Elmar M 16-18-21 f4. Bring SL2-S with the 24-70, plus M10-P with Tri-Elmar  Appreciate if anyone can provide any advice on my options, or other suggestions. Thanks!  Edited April 21, 2023 by Lever Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 21, 2023 Posted April 21, 2023 Hi Lever, Take a look here Advice requested for Landscape : SL2-S with SuperVE 16-35 or M10P with TriE 16-18-21. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jaapv Posted April 21, 2023 Share #2  Posted April 21, 2023 .The Tri-Elmar is a fantastic lens, However, the SL lens beats it for fine detail. For travel stick to as simple gear as possible - So just take the SL and two zooms. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jean-Michel Posted April 21, 2023 Share #3  Posted April 21, 2023 I have the Tri-Elmar (WATE). I also have an SL2 and a M-P(240). The Tri-Elmar works quite well on the SL2 (with the Leica M-L adapter, of course) but I prefer to use it on the M body with an EVF, focusing using the rangefinder and framing in the EVF. As JAAPV writes, the Tri-Elmar is a fantastic lens; it does show a bit of 'moustache' distortion, but that is totally invisible in a landscape type image. I do not have the 16-35 so cannot comment on it. The WATE is however smaller and lighter, and if you are planning to take your M10-P and already have an EFV, that could be a good option. Of course, the 16-35 has AF and your SL2-S has IBIS, so that throws a different perspective on your choices. At my dealer, the cost of both lenses is almost the same. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mak67 Posted April 21, 2023 Share #4  Posted April 21, 2023 If you dont care the extra bulk, the 16-35, is a really really good Lens ! From my sample it's even better than the 24-90, which is supposed to be one of the best zoom lens on the market. Very good sharpness at all focal, very good CA control, coma and flare are very good too. And you get 24 28 35 as a bonus . But definitly not a light Lens .... This Can be a real considération if you need to shoot all day long with the Lens on the camera or if you need to travel light, then the water on m10 is best option. You could also get a look at the elmar 18mm, a very nice lens on M caméra, but no Idea how it perform on the SL ...    Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mak67 Posted April 21, 2023 Share #5 Â Posted April 21, 2023 (edited) And if you Can wait a bit, there is a sigma 17mm coming out, if it's on par with the 24 then, it might be a good option .... Edited April 21, 2023 by Mak67 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dem331 Posted April 21, 2023 Share #6  Posted April 21, 2023 I would consider the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art. Everyone seems to say it is on par with the VE. I have one and it is great, but I have never tried the VE. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
beewee Posted April 22, 2023 Share #7  Posted April 22, 2023 Advertisement (gone after registration) 9 hours ago, dem331 said: I would consider the Sigma 14-24mm f2.8 Art. Everyone seems to say it is on par with the VE. I have one and it is great, but I have never tried the VE. I have both the Sigma and the 16-35SL. The Sigma is a bit sharper but the 16-35 SL has a more useful range. My 24-90SL is definitely sharper than the 16-35 SL. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SrMi Posted April 26, 2023 Share #8  Posted April 26, 2023 You should consider Sigma 16-28/2.8. It is very sharp and light. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Photoworks Posted April 28, 2023 Share #9  Posted April 28, 2023 I can see the need of taking 2 cameras, I like to take a serious camera when I travel to take photos and a walking camera for all the other time. weight should be a consideration as it should be an enjoyment. better leave something at home and or hotel. get good camera insurance. The SL16-35 is a lens made for a modern camera, so it would be better quality. the Wate is older and with be adaptable to both cameras. I had the WATE only a few years, made for older cameras, I remember it being heavy and slow F-stop for most of the time I have used it. I ended up with 21 SEM and didn't need anymore, I would do sticking is more was needed. the 21 SEM is a good lens but does not have the bite of modern lenses, the cheap Panasonic 20-60 zoom was performing equally on the SL2. I would consider other options too as the WATE is not a lens to use all day, you get lots in but that makes everything far away.  here is an image on the sl2-s and 16-35 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!   1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!   ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/375825-advice-requested-for-landscape-sl2-s-with-superve-16-35-or-m10p-with-trie-16-18-21/?do=findComment&comment=4760187'>More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now