SVE 16 -35 versus 21/28 APO! Can anyone Provide Comparisons?

[jplomley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking at trading in my 16-35 for the 21 and 28 APO SCs. They will be used for both street/ travel and landscape applications. I'm curious if at f/8.0 (for landscape) the 16-35 and APO SCs demonstrate similar performance (resolution across the frame, corner performance) etc etc. Anyone able to do this comparison and post results?

[Advertisement]

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

[beewee]

3 hours ago, jplomley said:

I'm curious if at f/8.0 (for landscape) the 16-35 and APO SCs demonstrate similar performance (resolution across the frame, corner performance) etc etc

No, they are not comparable stopped down. Not even close.

16-35 SL is a very good zoom, comparable to Sigma 14-24 DG DN at same focal length and aperture but the APO SLs are on another level. I don’t have the 21 APO but I do have the 16-35 SL and 28 APO and I’ve done controlled testing at all marked focal lengths and full stop aperture increments on the 16-35 and 28 APO, among other SL zooms and Sigma zooms and primes.

[Pierre68]

Of course they are not comparable. You do not use a zoom and two different primes the same way. Last summer I went on a trip in Iceland with S007 and all the S prime you can think of. But when I was shooting in the rain or the spray of som Icelandic waterfall and wanted to change focal length... I wished I had a zoom!

Remind yourself that a zoom might get you the shot you would not get if shooting with primes in certain situations.

Then primes will definitely get you better IQ if you have time to handle and swap between them

 

[jplomley]

On 3/23/2024 at 5:15 PM, beewee said:

No, they are not comparable stopped down. Not even close.

16-35 SL is a very good zoom, comparable to Sigma 14-24 DG DN at same focal length and aperture but the APO SLs are on another level. I don’t have the 21 APO but I do have the 16-35 SL and 28 APO and I’ve done controlled testing at all marked focal lengths and full stop aperture increments on the 16-35 and 28 APO, among other SL zooms and Sigma zooms and primes.

Somewhat surprised to here this as I would have expected the performance of the APO primes to degrade around f/8.0 given what I have observed with the 35 APO. Sounds like this is not the case on the wide angles....perhaps because wide open they do not have the same ultra-high resolution as the 35 APO????

[Planetwide]

2 hours ago, jplomley said:

Somewhat surprised to here this as I would have expected the performance of the APO primes to degrade around f/8.0 given what I have observed with the 35 APO. Sounds like this is not the case on the wide angles....perhaps because wide open they do not have the same ultra-high resolution as the 35 APO????

I have not seen any degradation in the performance of my SL 35mm APO Summicron at F8 - FYI

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!

[jplomley]

7 hours ago, Planetwide said:

I have not seen any degradation in the performance of my SL 35mm APO Summicron at F8 - FYI

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!

Interesting, if I shoot from f/2 to f/11 the same scene, at around f/6.7, I notice the resolution start to drop off across the image. I think this is because the resolution already starts so high at f/2, there are negligible gains in stopping down, other than for DOF. But the onset of diffraction starts much sooner. Splendid image by the way!

 

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

31 minutes ago, jplomley said:

Interesting, if I shoot from f/2 to f/11 the same scene, at around f/6.7, I notice the resolution start to drop off across the image. I think this is because the resolution already starts so high at f/2, there are negligible gains in stopping down, other than for DOF. But the onset of diffraction starts much sooner. Splendid image by the way!

 

Are you shooting the SL3, if so it will show the effects of diffraction will be evident at a lower F-stop. The above image was on my SL2. On the SL2, beyond F/8, diffraction was definitely evident. I'll have a look at some images to see if F5.6 was any better.

The image was a test shot. Thanks!

Edited March 25, 2024 by Planetwide

[Virob]

12 hours ago, jplomley said:

Somewhat surprised to hear this as I would have expected the performance of the APO primes to degrade around f/8.0 given what I have observed with the 35 APO. Sounds like this is not the case on the wide angles....perhaps because wide open they do not have the same ultra-high resolution as the 35 APO????

With the 21mm APO, the effects of defraction can be seen at f5.6 using multishot mode with the SL2 in the center. I would not say the performance is degraded, it becomes limited by optical laws and is giving the maximum performance at that aperture. 
 

[tom0511]

Any further insights about the zoom vs the primes?

[tom0511]

OK,

I did some comparisons today, since I got my hands on a used 21mm. 

first impressions:

1) the 16-35 holds up not bad for a zoom IMO

2) the 21 APO shows a little better corner performance

3) the 21 shows more consistent exposure over the full frame/ less vignetting, and a little more microcontrast

4) The 21 prime seems to let in more light at same aperture. If you shoot at same aperture and exp time and ISO, the 21 prime will deliver a brighter image

5) bot the 16-35 and the 21 seem to clearly beat the SEM 21/3.4 M in the corners

6) of course the prime offers f2.0 and the others not

7) the 21 prime is quite compompact and balances nice on the SL2-S body.

All this with a SL2-S

 

[robb]

The only real problem with the apo summicrons is that using them breaks you from ever wanting to shoot with an m lens wide open or any other lesser performing lens…

so I simply had to have the whole 6 apo lens set.  They are all without peer to me and put all the pressure on me to deliver.  No excuses on why the image didn’t turn out when using the apo’s.

I would go get the summicrons and sell the zooms.  Better to just zoom with your feet and body and always count on those no excuses, amazing images..

Robb 

[tom0511]

Am 28.4.2024 um 22:52 schrieb robb:

The only real problem with the apo summicrons is that using them breaks you from ever wanting to shoot with an m lens wide open or any other lesser performing lens…

so I simply had to have the whole 6 apo lens set.  They are all without peer to me and put all the pressure on me to deliver.  No excuses on why the image didn’t turn out when using the apo’s.

I would go get the summicrons and sell the zooms.  Better to just zoom with your feet and body and always count on those no excuses, amazing images..

Robb 

Robb, something I also experienced - better don't compare a 21 or 28 M lens with the APO SL equivalent.

But hey, I never missed anything before. But one thing is obvious, quite a bit more vignetting with M lenses, wich is not unlogic regarding the size.

Anyways, the M has its place and is something special.

I wouldn't want to sell my zooms...as soon as it rains, sandy, ... they can be quite useful.

[Planetwide]

On 4/28/2024 at 4:52 PM, robb said:

The only real problem with the apo summicrons is that using them breaks you from ever wanting to shoot with an m lens wide open or any other lesser performing lens…

so I simply had to have the whole 6 apo lens set.  They are all without peer to me and put all the pressure on me to deliver.  No excuses on why the image didn’t turn out when using the apo’s.

You could always blame the AF 🤣

[Ghiry6591]

On the RedDotForum YouTube channel, as is known, there is a beautiful (and very long) video on the recent SL 21/2 and 14/24 super wide angle lenses (title: “The new Leica SL Super - Wides”). However, the competent friends also show comparative photos with the Super Vario Elmar 16/35 and the Super Elmar - M 3.4/21. Undoubtedly the Apo Summicron 21/2 offers the best results, especially in the corners, such as vignetting and image homogeneity, but the SVE 16/35 shows overall excellent results at all focal lengths and at almost all effective working apertures (therefore excluding those naturally affected by diffraction). A result, from my point of view, much more relevant, because the EVS offers not one, but six focal lenses autofocus. Indispensable for those who, like me, travel and take photos of urban architecture and archaeological architecture. I know, it weighs a lot and costs a lot, but... chapeau!

[FlashGordonPhotography]

There's a few way to look at this.

If you compare the zooms to the APO primes it's no contest. The APO's win. Wide open it's a bit more than at f5.6, which is a little bit. Sloppy technique will eradicate any differences.

The zooms aren't poor because they don't quite meet the APO standards. If I now compare the Leica zooms to other zooms they do as well or better than many. They do well even compared to some primes, like the Panasonic 1.8's and some lenses from other brands.

The zooms are good enough that they don't get in the way of making great images. And they give you more flexibility and are lighter than a bag of APO's. I always use zooms on longer walking days when I don't have a particular subject in mind. When I'm after something specific I'll move toward primes (or even *a* prime). Sometimes I want the limitations that a prime gives. Sometimes I want the relative freedom of a zoom.

So although the 21 and 28 are so very very good I usually carry a zoom. In my case I mostly prefer the 14-24 over the 16-35 VE. I only use the latter when I know I'll need filters. When I'm making the biggest prints and I'm prepared to use the most careful technique or I want f2 I'll use the APO's and revel in their remarkable IQ.

I won't be selling my zooms because I own a few of the APO Summicrons. It's not either/or. It's both.

Gordon

[S Maclean]

On 4/28/2024 at 4:52 PM, robb said:

The only real problem with the apo summicrons is that using them breaks you from ever wanting to shoot with an m lens wide open or any other lesser performing lens…

so I simply had to have the whole 6 apo lens set.  They are all without peer to me and put all the pressure on me to deliver.  No excuses on why the image didn’t turn out when using the apo’s.

I would go get the summicrons and sell the zooms.  Better to just zoom with your feet and body and always count on those no excuses, amazing images..

Robb 

The "walk" from 70 to 200 or 90 to 280 is quite a hike.  from 16 to 35 not quite as much.

Edited October 5, 2024 by S Maclean
add on

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 10/6/2024 at 3:39 AM, S Maclean said:

The "walk" from 70 to 200 or 90 to 280 is quite a hike.  from 16 to 35 not quite as much.

The often quoted *zoom with your feet* is a fallacy. As soon as you take a step you change your relationship with the subject and background. Zoom with your feet should only be used with art reproduction or neg scanning.

And it's backwards. Decide how your relationship with the scene is best expressed. Move to the place where that happens. That should decide which focal length to use for you. Too many people choose the lens and then move to suit it rather than the scene and move to suit that. The exceptions are mostly cliff edges and volcanos. And lions. Don't forget to never zoom with your feet around lions...

Gordon

[S Maclean]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The often quoted *zoom with your feet* is a fallacy. As soon as you take a step you change your relationship with the subject and background. Zoom with your feet should only be used with art reproduction or neg scanning.

And it's backwards. Decide how your relationship with the scene is best expressed. Move to the place where that happens. That should decide which focal length to use for you. Too many people choose the lens and then move to suit it rather than the scene and move to suit that. The exceptions are mostly cliff edges and volcanos. And lions. Don't forget to never zoom with your feet around lions...

Gordon

You’re right, but sometimes you go on walkabout and you don’t know what you want to shoot until you see it.  Unless you carry a bag of lenses at that point you’re stuck with what you have… and your feet.

feet are also very helpful around lions.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[crf59]

I have 3 of the SL APOs (28-35-90) and they are quite good. But I don't think in a 11x14 print or even somewhat larger anyone could tell the difference between them and my SL zooms for IQ. I think there is too much hype over lenses these days. My complaint with the zooms is that they're are beastly - otherwise they're terrific. I think the 24-90 is still one of the best of the SL lenses. It has great color, great sharpness and covers what you'd have to have the 28, 35, 50, 75 and 90 APOs to cover. The 16-35 is at least as good as the 24-90, but it's not as useful for my purposes. Wonderful lens though.

Oddly, if you carry just 2 of the APO primes, the weight is greater than with the 24-90. My constant dilemma is what to take when I travel. My Ms don't do it for me for travel anymore. I'd love to take the 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280, but that's a HUGE load. So normally I go with the 24-90 and 35 APO for low light. I wise SOMEONE would make a 180 or 200mm prime that didn't weigh a ton.

I tried my M lenses on my SL bodies, but they just aren't as good. 

[hoolyproductions]

5 hours ago, crf59 said:

Oddly, if you carry just 2 of the APO primes, the weight is greater than with the 24-90. My constant dilemma is what to take when I travel.

This is the reason for the first year or so I only had the 50mm APO SL (for low light music photography and days when I want to keep it simple) and the 24-90mm. I couldn't bring myself to bring two primes that weigh more than a (more versatile) zoom.

These days I will sometimes carry two (or even three) APOs (28, 50, 90mm) but this is pretty rare - special occassions only. I like the weight/balance of the SL2 + APO, even if the overall weight is a bit much. I agree it does not make a massive difference to the resulting quality. I also got a couple of lighter primes (50mm SL ASPH and 24mm 3.5) which do come in below the weight of the 24-90mm.

I've been thinking for quite a while about getting a fast UWA for astrophotography and northern lights and am hesitating between the 14mm 1.4 Sigma and the 21mm APO SL. The latter would be more versatile for other uses and give me that APO magic. The former would allow more framing options (with a crop) and has a manual focus lock, which I have learned to appreciate after middle of the night sessions trying to focus on infinity with whisky in my veins 😄