Zooms or primes for a travel/landscape kit on SL(3) system

[VikB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

New to the forum.

I have been using a Q2 as an extremely convenient and compact tool for taking pictures while traveling. But am now missing the width and reach to really pull out pictures from some exotic locations. 

Trying to put my money down on a leica 16~35 and a leica 90~280 which I will eventually pair with an SL3 (out in March). But have been contemplating on some points where any guidance in the forum would be welcome/helpful.

I use a lot of ND /grads and polarizing filters

- should one buy a 21 APO instead of a zoom 16~35 (any 14~24 is not an option because it won't take filters) ?

- fill the mid range void with a used Leica 24-90 ?

- for landscape Tele range, is the 90~280 enough or should one consider compromising on APO and lens character and go for more reach with a leica 100~400 + TC?

I used to shoot with a Fuji 50r and since I got my Q2 have sold my entire fuji kit. The "Leica Look" is addictive!

Thanks

Vik

[jaapv]

You'll develop some serious muscle using this - and a 24-70- as a travel kit.

[Advertisement]

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

[VikB]

Haha.. I agree Jaapv. There doesn't seem to be an easy out. I had a 20  a 32-64 and a 90 with the Fuji and it was always a challenge taking everything with me. But having traveled to some spectacular landscapes in the last 2 years, I feel I could have done a much better job with my pictures, had I had more than just 28mm on either side of the spectrum. Especially with that beautiful q2 sensor which resolves spectacularly. And once you get used to that picture quality, there is no turning back. 

So days of my "light weight" camera bag are behind me I guess. I will still keep the Q2 when there is really no space for the wile kit. 

Edited January 27 by VikB

[helged]

1 hour ago, VikB said:

New to the forum.

I have been using a Q2 as an extremely convenient and compact tool for taking pictures while traveling. But am now missing the width and reach to really pull out pictures from some exotic locations. 

Trying to put my money down on a leica 16~35 and a leica 90~280 which I will eventually pair with an SL3 (out in March). But have been contemplating on some points where any guidance in the forum would be welcome/helpful.

I use a lot of ND /grads and polarizing filters

- should one buy a 21 APO instead of a zoom 16~35 (any 14~24 is not an option because it won't take filters) ?

- fill the mid range void with a used Leica 24-90 ?

- for landscape Tele range, is the 90~280 enough or should one consider compromising on APO and lens character and go for more reach with a leica 100~400 + TC?

I used to shoot with a Fuji 50r and since I got my Q2 have sold my entire fuji kit. The "Leica Look" is addictive!

Thanks

Vik

Welcome to the forum!

SL21 is - I believe - a superb choice on the wide end. Personally, I have used and sold SL16-35, Sigma 14-24 and Sigma 14; SL21 covers them all (for me). If manual focus is fine, and smaller size/lower weight is key, Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M is an option. Not as optically super as SL21, but still very good. 

The SL-Crons are all outstanding, but SL21 + SL24-90 is possibly a package that is not too large/heavy, very versatile, and covering all focal lengths from 20-ish to 100-ish mm. A natural choice for me. I typically leave the sun shade at home; its on the large/bulky side, I rather use an arm if shade is needed. 

On the longish end, SL90-280 is very, very good, but also quite large and heavy. Certainly not a lens to put in your 'pocket'. Very nice for landscape, but too short for wildlife (for me). 

A (used) Canon 400mm f4 DO v2, with the Sigma MC-21 adapter, is optically brilliant and has an impressively good optical stabilisation, but manual focus only (af works technically, but is too slow and not reliable, so essentially unusable in the field; this can be improved with SL3, as hinted by users of Panasonic S5ii). I have used both of these lenses, but I prefer the Canon for longer reach, relatively small size and low weight. On the plus side, add that the (Canon) 1.4x extender works (almost) without loss of quality.

There are several Sigma, Panasonic and Leica long lens offerings in L-mount, but I have no experience with these (except for SL90-280). Personally, I would like to see a 400 or 500mm prime in L-mount, but nothing in sight as of today (but I suspect it will come, possibly from Sigma). 

Many options... In addition to cost (and whether to buy new or used lenses), I would try to identify acceptable weight/bulk for the intended use. I have made week-long hikes with SL24-90 only. Carried in a toploader case, this works just fine, no problem. Accompanied with SL21, I would carry an additional pouch for the lens, ensuring that the lens pouch is sufficiently large to store the SL24-90, to ease changing of lenses.

 

[tom0511]

90-280 is excellent but quite heavy.

I have carried it even on hikes, but only if I know I would need the reach.

If 200mm is enough the Panasonic 70-200/4.0 or 70-300 could be lighter and more travel friendly lenses.

21 vs 16-35...Do you want the 16-21 range? Do you prefer flexibility ...zoom. Do you prefer shallow DOF, max. IQ, do you also shoot in low light...21 prime.

Personally I more often bring my 18 or 21 M prime than my 16-35.

21 SEM, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4.0 is a nice travel combo as well.

[Stuart Richardson]

If it were my money, I would definitely get the 21mm APO over the 16-35mm. That does not seem to be all that beloved of a lens. Seems a lot of people prefer the Sigma 14-24mm or the other 16-35mm lenses. I cannot say myself, however. The 21mm APO, however, seems to be excellent. Another option would be the excellent and compact Sigma 20 and 24mm lenses, which are inexpensive, light and more than good enough for most uses. I use the 24mm 3.5 alongside my APO Summicron 35 and 50, and it fits in well. It is not as sharp, but it is was good or better than the Q2 lens in my experience. So if you are happy with the Q2 lens then it should do you right. 

The 90-280mm is enough for landscape in my use. I find it to be superb for that. But I would encourage you to try it in person, as it is about as big and heavy a lens as you might expect to find other than super telephotos. It does not scream "travel" to me at all. For that kind of use I would rather bring a 90mm or 135mm prime. But I guess it depends on just how much reach you need and what you feel is possible to carry.

The other question I would have is do you need a wide angle for the SL at all when you have the Q2? The sensor in the SL2 is the same and the Q2 is a better travel camera to have around. You have one camera that is somewhat light and compact to use for times when you don't want the larger system, allowing you to leave the SL and big lenses at home.

Edited January 27 by Stuart Richardson

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

One more thing...How do you travel? Do you have time for switching lenses, do you shoot mainly landscape?

For example as a "family" kind of guy I often switch between taking a landscape, the an image of some details, then maybe an image of the kids or dog etc. etc.

For this kind of shooting a (midrange) zoom is very useful.

[VikB]

1 hour ago, helged said:

Welcome to the forum!

SL21 is - I believe - a superb choice on the wide end. Personally, I have used and sold SL16-35, Sigma 14-24 and Sigma 14; SL21 covers them all (for me). If manual focus is fine, and smaller size/lower weight is key, Leica 21mm Super-Elmar-M is an option. Not as optically super as SL21, but still very good. 

The SL-Crons are all outstanding, but SL21 + SL24-90 is possibly a package that is not too large/heavy, very versatile, and covering all focal lengths from 20-ish to 100-ish mm. A natural choice for me. I typically leave the sun shade at home; its on the large/bulky side, I rather use an arm if shade is needed. 

On the longish end, SL90-280 is very, very good, but also quite large and heavy. Certainly not a lens to put in your 'pocket'. Very nice for landscape, but too short for wildlife (for me). 

A (used) Canon 400mm f4 DO v2, with the Sigma MC-21 adapter, is optically brilliant and has an impressively good optical stabilisation, but manual focus only (af works technically, but is too slow and not reliable, so essentially unusable in the field; this can be improved with SL3, as hinted by users of Panasonic S5ii). I have used both of these lenses, but I prefer the Canon for longer reach, relatively small size and low weight. On the plus side, add that the (Canon) 1.4x extender works (almost) without loss of quality.

There are several Sigma, Panasonic and Leica long lens offerings in L-mount, but I have no experience with these (except for SL90-280). Personally, I would like to see a 400 or 500mm prime in L-mount, but nothing in sight as of today (but I suspect it will come, possibly from Sigma). 

Many options... In addition to cost (and whether to buy new or used lenses), I would try to identify acceptable weight/bulk for the intended use. I have made week-long hikes with SL24-90 only. Carried in a toploader case, this works just fine, no problem. Accompanied with SL21, I would carry an additional pouch for the lens, ensuring that the lens pouch is sufficiently large to store the SL24-90, to ease changing of lenses.

 

Hi helged! Thanks for the post. The more I think of it, the more I am leaning towards the 21 APO Prime. Surprisingly its release has been overshadowed by the M11P and not a lot of reviews out there. But I too believe the Lens is tack sharp with classic character. I am also worried that I may not always get a scene to use the full wide 16 optic distortion, likely more often than not. 

I did try my hand at wildlife/birding and figured that it is not for me. zero control over being able to set the stage for a picture. I think the 90-280 should do just fine. The trouble with the 24-70/90 range is that sometimes on "bad light or bad sky" days out on landscape shoots, the 150+ range really helps capture details where one can make the light a little irrelevant to the shot. I will perhaps add it in phase-2 to my kit. 

Appreciate your inputs. 

[VikB]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

90-280 is excellent but quite heavy.

I have carried it even on hikes, but only if I know I would need the reach.

If 200mm is enough the Panasonic 70-200/4.0 or 70-300 could be lighter and more travel friendly lenses.

21 vs 16-35...Do you want the 16-21 range? Do you prefer flexibility ...zoom. Do you prefer shallow DOF, max. IQ, do you also shoot in low light...21 prime.

Personally I more often bring my 18 or 21 M prime than my 16-35.

21 SEM, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/4.0 is a nice travel combo as well.

Thanks tomo511! 

I understand the 90-280 is quite a heavy lens and I've almost lost practice shooting with big body+lens setups. But it is very tempting to have it in mountainous terrains and seascapes. and I've only read great things about this lens. Some have even mentioned it to have IQ very similar to primes if not the same. 

I haven't shot below 20mm in a very long time and I am not sure if I will be able to use the range fully. but the FOMO factor sometimes plays on the decision. But I do remember that my 20mm on GFX format gave me some astounding results. A prime is a prime and that too an APO prime! 

I usually am alone on my walkabout shoots and manage them on weekends or between working days when I travel. And very rarely capture family or even street for that matter. 24-70/90 is a very versatile range, but I've managed to love without it for now. will likely add it at some point in my kit.  I am missing that deep compression of 150+ for dramatic landscapes right now. its even more evident to me as I keep cropping my pictures to very small scenes within them to make more frames. 

Thanks again for your suggestions. 

[Planetwide]

The 21mm, while optically excellent, is limiting. It really comes down to your planned use for the wide end. If you need to go wider, then the 16-35mm range is probably the best. I have travelled with this lens a fast 50, and the 24-90mm. Sometimes, for night work, I will use a fast wide (such as the zoom or  new 21mm) 35mm APO SL, and a 75mm SL APO with a light tripod. The above is light enough to walk around with. I have travelled extensively with the 90-280mm, but it tends to stay in the pelican a lot - if I am walking. I do pack it along, in boats, vehicles etc... It is a superb lens. The Leica 16-35mm, 24-90mm, and 90-280mm are heavy but very versatile.

Edited January 27 by Planetwide

[VikB]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

If it were my money, I would definitely get the 21mm APO over the 16-35mm. That does not seem to be all that beloved of a lens. Seems a lot of people prefer the Sigma 14-24mm or the other 16-35mm lenses. I cannot say myself, however. The 21mm APO, however, seems to be excellent. Another option would be the excellent and compact Sigma 20 and 24mm lenses, which are inexpensive, light and more than good enough for most uses. I use the 24mm 3.5 alongside my APO Summicron 35 and 50, and it fits in well. It is not as sharp, but it is was good or better than the Q2 lens in my experience. So if you are happy with the Q2 lens then it should do you right. 

The 90-280mm is enough for landscape in my use. I find it to be superb for that. But I would encourage you to try it in person, as it is about as big and heavy a lens as you might expect to find other than super telephotos. It does not scream "travel" to me at all. For that kind of use I would rather bring a 90mm or 135mm prime. But I guess it depends on just how much reach you need and what you feel is possible to carry.

The other question I would have is do you need a wide angle for the SL at all when you have the Q2? The sensor in the SL2 is the same and the Q2 is a better travel camera to have around. You have one camera that is somewhat light and compact to use for times when you don't want the larger system, allowing you to leave the SL and big lenses at home.

Thanks Stuart! Thats a vote of confidence for the 21 APO. 

I too personally feel the 280 on the long should suffice for most landscapes and with potentially 60+ MP files there could always be room to crop into the frame and make presentable frames. 

I have been using the Q2 for 2 years and it does a fantastic job. It will remain in my kit for the run and gun trips. I am thinking of it as a buffer till I fill with either a 50 APO prime or a 24-90 or likes. But the 28 mm is restrictive a lot of times in urban environments. So I definitely think/know I need something wider but whether or not I can fully use an ultra wide, I am still unsure. 

[LocalHero1953]

If it were my money......none of the L-mount lenses and not the SL of any iteration. For travel, if it has to be Leica, then a M with a Visoflex. If it has to be AF, then a CL system.

[jaapv]

The 100-400 is an excellent choice for travel, despite the unchallenged quality of the 90-280. It is a tripod lens in my book.And, as mentioned, too short for wildlife.

Second the CL and the three zooms, and possibly a fast M lens.

[Jeff S]

No need to buy an entire kit at once.  Pick one for your first priority and live with it for a while.  You’ll know better than anyone else what feels right and what, if anything, is missing. All of these choices can yield sufficient IQ for most humans.

(For me, the SL 24-90 served this initial role, with wide and long enough FLs to complement my 28/35/50 M kit.)

Jeff

Edited January 27 by Jeff S

[Olaf_ZG]

As the 24-90 is my most used range, I opted here for the Leica lens, next to this I added a panasonic 16-35 and 70-200/4, both light and still could stand some rain.

However, this would be for travel. If I go out for long exposure landscapes, I will still take some zeiss ef lenses: the apo135 and the makro 50. Might need to add a 24 though, but for this the 24-90 will do for now.

[VikB]

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

The 21mm, while optically excellent, is limiting. It really comes down to your planned use for the wide end. If you need to go wider, then the 16-35mm range is probably the best. I have travelled with this lens a fast 50, and the 24-90mm. Sometimes, for night work, I will use a fast wide (such as the zoom or  new 21mm) 35mm APO SL, and a 75mm SL APO with a light tripod. The above is light enough to walk around with. I have travelled extensively with the 90-280mm, but it tends to stay in the pelican a lot - if I am walking. I do pack it along, in boats, vehicles etc... It is a superb lens. The Leica 16-35mm, 24-90mm, and 90-280mm are heavy but very versatile.

Thanks Olaf! 

[VikB]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

If it were my money......none of the L-mount lenses and not the SL of any iteration. For travel, if it has to be Leica, then a M with a Visoflex. If it has to be AF, then a CL system.

Thanks for your post! unfortunately I do use a lot of ND and Grads, not sure the workflow with the M system will be very easy for that kind of photography. The CL system is too old for now. also not available in the Indian market right now. 

[VikB]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

No need to buy an entire kit at once.  Pick one for your first priority and live with it for a while.  You’ll know better than anyone else what feels right and what, if anything, is missing. All of these choices can yield sufficient IQ for most humans.

(For me, the SL 24-90 served this initial role, with wide and long enough FLs to complement my 28/35/50 M kit.)

Jeff

Thanks Jeff. That does sound like a logical way to go. 

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, VikB said:

Thanks tomo511! 

I understand the 90-280 is quite a heavy lens and I've almost lost practice shooting with big body+lens setups. But it is very tempting to have it in mountainous terrains and seascapes. and I've only read great things about this lens. Some have even mentioned it to have IQ very similar to primes if not the same. 

I haven't shot below 20mm in a very long time and I am not sure if I will be able to use the range fully. but the FOMO factor sometimes plays on the decision. But I do remember that my 20mm on GFX format gave me some astounding results. A prime is a prime and that too an APO prime! 

I usually am alone on my walkabout shoots and manage them on weekends or between working days when I travel. And very rarely capture family or even street for that matter. 24-70/90 is a very versatile range, but I've managed to love without it for now. will likely add it at some point in my kit.  I am missing that deep compression of 150+ for dramatic landscapes right now. its even more evident to me as I keep cropping my pictures to very small scenes within them to make more frames. 

Thanks again for your suggestions. 

If you want to have the option to shoot very wide consider a Voigtlander 12 on adapter. It performs exceedingly well on the SL and won’t break the bank. Very light to carry too. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[MakinMemories]

Relatively new to the Leica world (a couple years) but did a deep dive pretty quickly! Received the 21mm Cron a couple months ago and it is fantastic! I also have the 16-35mm, 24-90mm, (SL2 came with 24-70mm which I plan to sell) and the 90-280mm zooms. I really love the 24-90 and 90-280, I have only used the 16-35 once and although there does not seem to be much love for it on this forum, I was not disappointed with shots-however I really did not 'push' it much. I also have the 35mm Cron and the 50mm 1.4 Lux...the 35mm Cron is amazing! I just really wanted a 'fast' 50mm and while it is great at what it does, I rarely use it and grab the 35mm Cron instead.

If I were putting an all-round 'light weight' Leica lens kit together with any SL, I would choose the SL21mm Cron, SL35mm Cron and SL24-90 zoom...