Jump to content

Thinking of getting the Leica Super Vario Elmar SL 16-35mm


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I occasionally like to shoot with an ultra-wide lens. I've got a good price for a used Leica Super Vario Elmar SL 16-35mm, but I currently own the Sigma 14mm f/1.8 DG HSM Art Lens (L mount). Here's a picture I recently took with it (below). It's not perfect but does the job. Is the Leica 16-35 going to give me better results at the wider end of the Zoom? There's a lot of talk about how it renders.

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!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

;tldr: The 16-35 is the only Leica SL lens that I would consider a letdown and never recommend.

The Sigma 14-24 f/2.8 is optically superior to the Leica 16-35, and is one stop faster. The Leica performs closer to the Panasonic 16-35 f/4 (which I also own, in addition to the Sigma, thanks to its compact size). Of course, the Leica covers a greater focal range than the Sigma, which may be the reason for some of the compromises made in its design ...

Given the other choices, there is no reason for this lens to exist other than to complete the 'holy trinity' of zoom lenses for people who will only buy Leica?

To back my statements up with Leica's own measurements, here are the MTF charts for comparison (both wide open, Sigma obviously even better when stopped down to the narrower Leica apertures):

Sigma 14-24mm F2.8 DG DN | Art (at f/2.8)

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!

Leica Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35 f/3.5-4.5 ASPH (at f/3.5 and f/4)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mzbe said:

;tldr: The 16-35 is the only Leica SL lens that I would consider a letdown and never recommend.

It's what I'm finding too but I was hoping to be told otherwise. The Sigma 14/1.8 L mount is of course significantly faster too and optically on a par with the Leica 16-35.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Consider the Sigma of Leica 14-24.. Unless you have a need for filters. The 16-35 is superb but I find it very difficult to see any difference at the wide end between them. If it's for occasional use then the Sigma is the one to choose. Bonus is that it's much lighter as well. 

Gordon

Thanks, Gordon. Any pictures you can point to about its superbness. 

Cheers,
S

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've owned all three lenses...Leica 16-35, Sigma 14-24 and the Panasonic 16-35 F4 (Certified by Leica).

I concur with the assessment that Leica's 16-35 is somewhat overrated and certainly over priced. The Sigma is the best of the 3. However the Sigma is quite large and a heavy lens that doesn't accept filters, which in my case proved to be a deal breaker for its intended use.

The Panasonic 16-35 is an outstanding lens. Its an F4 lens versus F2.8 for Sigma but at this focal range in particular not having F2.8 rarely interfere's with light gathering requirements or photographer's creative intent.

The IQ difference between the Sigma and Panasonic is negligible and doesn't begin to outweigh the Panasonic 16-35 many virtues.

The Panasonic is a light compact lens that is well constructed with excellent handling. It also features the manual clutch which I happen to like and it accepts filters. I have my lens setup with Kase magnetic filters and lens cover, which makes adding polarizer and ND filters in the field a breeze.

I sold both the Leica 16-35 and Sigma 14-24. The Panasonic 16-35 is one my favorite lens and doesn't leave my bag.

Edited by NicholasT
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, NicholasT said:

I've owned all three lenses...Leica 16-35, Sigma 14-24 and the Panasonic 16-35 F4 (Certified by Leica).

I concur with the assessment that Leica's 16-35 is somewhat overrated and certainly over priced. The Sigma is the best of the 3. However the Sigma is quite large and a heavy lens that doesn't accept filters, which in my case proved to be a deal breaker for its intended use.

The Panasonic 16-35 is an outstanding lens. Its an F4 lens versus F2.8 for Sigma but at this focal range in particular not having F2.8 rarely interfere's with light gathering requirements or photographer's creative intent.

The IQ difference between the Sigma and Panasonic is negligible and doesn't begin to outweigh the Panasonic 16-35 many virtues.

The Panasonic is a light compact lens that is well constructed with excellent handling. It also features the manual clutch which I happen to like and it accepts filters. I have my lens setup with Kase magnetic filters and lens cover, which makes adding polarizer and ND filters in the field a breeze.

I sold both the Leica 16-35 and Sigma 14-24. The Panasonic 16-35 is one my favorite lens and doesn't leave my bag.

I'm so pleased you wrote this. You've pretty much convinced me to forget the Leica 16-35. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Greetings.  I am very early in the evaluation process of the Sigma 16-28 DG DN f2.8 on SL2 and SL2S.  So far, results are satisfactory.  I am also enjoying the haptics and the fact that it accepts 72mm filters.  Perhaps you would like to give it a consideration.  Best regards.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, ibramr said:

Greetings.  I am very early in the evaluation process of the Sigma 16-28 DG DN f2.8 on SL2 and SL2S.  So far, results are satisfactory.  I am also enjoying the haptics and the fact that it accepts 72mm filters.  Perhaps you would like to give it a consideration.  Best regards.  

Currently, I don't own any Zoom lenses. The Leica 16-35 might have been the first. I'm curious to hear how they stack up against the ultra-wide primes in an L mount. The 21 APO is I suspect the reference lens for that -- though I'm interested in going wider. 

Edited by Sohail
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 16-35 for landscape applications stopped down to f/8.0 is okay-ish. Resolution is not fantastic on the edges/corners. I compared it to my 35 APO and, well, I don't use the 16-35 at 35mm any longer. I have yet to try the 21/28 APO, but I can see heading in this direction. I was actually hoping for the 24 APO to complete my trio of APO primes (24-35-75). But seems Leica has dropped the ball on this unfortunately. The 24 Elmar is my favourite landscape lens on my M10-R and M10M, would buy an APO SL version in a heartbeat.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jplomley said:

The 16-35 for landscape applications stopped down to f/8.0 is okay-ish. Resolution is not fantastic on the edges/corners. I compared it to my 35 APO and, well, I don't use the 16-35 at 35mm any longer. I have yet to try the 21/28 APO, but I can see heading in this direction. I was actually hoping for the 24 APO to complete my trio of APO primes (24-35-75). But seems Leica has dropped the ball on this unfortunately. The 24 Elmar is my favourite landscape lens on my M10-R and M10M, would buy an APO SL version in a heartbeat.

 

I have the 28 APO. Very pleased with it. It's my go-to lens. I'm tempted to get the 21 APO. Much too close. Would be an overkill. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding the Sigma 14-24; do some test images with it. I tested three version before I was satisfied; the problem is - I guess - related to possible misalignment of lens element(s): One copy was never in focus near the edges, another copy was ok-ish, the third copy was sharp & fine. But after getting the SL21APO, I dont use the zoom anymore... And the Leica 16-35 never became a favoritt of mine, so I sold that lens after a year or so.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

In the ultra wide angle lenses, sharpness and contrast are as important as they ever are for each photographer’s photography. But distortion becomes a greater issue, relatively speaking. 

i have the Leica 16-35 and I find distortion quite difficult to manage at the wide end. I discovered this when taking a family group photo from close range. I spent a long time with the Photoshop Adaptive Wide Angle Filter trying to get faces the right shape and bodies the correct length. 

Is this inherent in all wide angle lenses, or would other lenses manage it better? Are primes better than zooms? Since I don’t use this zoom that often, and then only for certain video recording on a tripod, I’m thinking of replacing it with (eg) a smaller, lighter, cheaper SEM 18, or the Elmarit-R 19 (the 90deg angle of view is useful). Would either of these be better?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The SL 16-35mm is a superb lens. It shows Leica colours and saturation.

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!

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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!

Edited by Planetwide
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, huwm said:

Have you given the S Pro 16-35  F4  any thought

I'm very happy with mine, though I don't have your exacting standards 

Much lighter and that lovely focus clutch

I will be looking for a SEM 18mm prime - smaller and lighter than either! Or possible a Elmarit-R 19mm

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...