Lens help: Leica Super-Vario-Elmar-SL 16-35mm f/3.5-4.5 ASPH. Lens

[AnnieP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just purchased a SL3 and need help choosing a lens. I'm coming from a Q2 and Sony A7R5. My most used and favorite Sony lens is the FE 2.8/16-35 GM. 90% of what I shoot is with that lens. I loved the Q but I am not a prime lens person I guess; the 28mm just didn't work. I needed a wider lens.

I looked at the available Leica lenses and chose the subject lens based on the focal length. I haven't read anything negative about it, but I just wanted to ask the experts on here if there is anything I should be aware of before purchase. Or if there is any alternative that might fit my needs?

Many help for any input or suggestions.

 

[jaapv]

An option that  you may have overlooked is using M lenses on an adapter. Both Leica and Voigtländer offer excellent choices. The Super Elmar 18 or 21 for instance, or even wider Voigtländers 15, 12 and 10. Or the Tri-Elmar 16-18-21, etc. That these lenses are manual focus is of little relevance, there is little to no need for super wide-angles. 

[AnnieP]

You're right - I've not considered non-SL lenses. And I've always steered clear of manual focus. Something to think about. That Tri-Elmar does look interesting. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

How important are filters?

The SL 16-35 is excellent, but the corners need to f8 to catch the centre. The Panasonic f4 is also very very good. And fully compatible. It'd be hard to choose the Leica over the Panasonic.

If you don't use filters then there's a few better options. Both the Leica and Sigma 14-24's are superb. As is the Sigma 16-28.

The SL 16-35 out performs the tri-elmar and the 14-24 thumps it, for less money.

I have the 16-35 Vario, Sigma and Leica 14-24's, tri-elmar and Panasonic 20-60. My first choice in wides is the 14-24 (both the same lens with better build on the Leica) followed by the 20-60 (city travel lens). I only bother with the SL16-35 when I need filters.

I tried out the Sigma 16-28 but do not own it. But I'm tempted because I really liked it.

Gordon

[davidmknoble]

@AnnieP a lot will depend on what you are going to use the wides for.  Note that the native Leica SL lenses are fully weatherproof and the 16-35 is an internal focusing lens, no barrel extension, and has the same filter size as the other major zooms (24-90, 90-280), so square filter systems are easy to use on those lenses.

The Sigma and Panasonic lenses are weather resistant, but generally only seal near the camera mount, not all over.

So, I’d first define your usage, and then pick the lens.  Just my thoughts.

D.

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

How important are filters?

The SL 16-35 is excellent, but the corners need to f8 to catch the centre. The Panasonic f4 is also very very good. And fully compatible. It'd be hard to choose the Leica over the Panasonic.

If you don't use filters then there's a few better options. Both the Leica and Sigma 14-24's are superb. As is the Sigma 16-28.

The SL 16-35 out performs the tri-elmar and the 14-24 thumps it, for less money.

I have the 16-35 Vario, Sigma and Leica 14-24's, tri-elmar and Panasonic 20-60. My first choice in wides is the 14-24 (both the same lens with better build on the Leica) followed by the 20-60 (city travel lens). I only bother with the SL16-35 when I need filters.

I tried out the Sigma 16-28 but do not own it. But I'm tempted because I really liked it.

Gordon

Have you tried Panasonic 14-28mm f/4-5.6? I am quite happy with the results and the lens is very light.

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

The Panasonic f4 is also very very good. And fully compatible.

Because of the MF clutch. Panasonic 16-35/4 does not work with BBF.

[huwm]

12 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Because of the MF clutch. Panasonic 16-35/4 does not work with BBF.

but I love the clutch and it's very light too really, only 500g and fully sealed

it replaced my 14-28 but mainly because I needed the 35 more than 14 in a walkabout wide zoom

[LocalHero1953]

I had the Leica 16-35, but have just sold it for lack of use. For the limited amount I needed a lens that wide I prefer a Super Elmar-M 18. Not as good at the edges as the SL lens, but good enough for me, and much smaller. I have had the SEM 21 before now which, from my recollection, is better at the edges. At that FL, focusing is rarely an issue.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, huwm said:

but I love the clutch and it's very light too really, only 500g and fully sealed

it replaced my 14-28 but mainly because I needed the 35 more than 14 in a walkabout wide zoom

It's 345g vs 500g. There is still a significant difference in weight, but the 16-35 range would be more usable for me.

I do not mind the clutch, except that it prevents me from using BBF with Leica. If you do not care about BBF, the Lumix 16-35 is a great choice.

 

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

@AnnieP a lot will depend on what you are going to use the wides for.  Note that the native Leica SL lenses are fully weatherproof and the 16-35 is an internal focusing lens, no barrel extension, and has the same filter size as the other major zooms (24-90, 90-280), so square filter systems are easy to use on those lenses.

The Sigma and Panasonic lenses are weather resistant, but generally only seal near the camera mount, not all over.

So, I’d first define your usage, and then pick the lens.  Just my thoughts.

D.

Sigma Art lenses are weatherproof, Contemporary and Sports lenses are weather resistant. 

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, AnnieP said:

You're right - I've not considered non-SL lenses. And I've always steered clear of manual focus. Something to think about. That Tri-Elmar does look interesting. 

With wideangle lenses it is quite hard to think of any disadvantage to manual focus, especially on a camera where it is so well implemented as the SL series which is designed to be compatible with M lenses. 

[SrMi]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

With wideangle lenses it is quite hard to think of any disadvantage to manual focus, especially on a camera where it is so well implemented as the SL series which is designed to be compatible with M lenses. 

For me, it is much harder to focus wide angle manually with EVF than longer focal lengths. Too much appears in focus to be able to place the focus precisely. With wide angle lenses on M, I always use rangefinder instead of EVF/LCD to focus.

[jaapv]

Magnification? Wideangles are generally leisurely lenses. The problem you mention is an advantage as well. Deep DOF often does not require critical focus 

[jplomley]

I just traded in my SVE 16-35 for the 21 APO.....no regrets, the 21 absolutely smokes the 16-35 in all regards (resolution, corner performance) and for street, the f/2 opens new opportunities. I will add the 28 APO next  as my preference is most definitely a 21-28 APO combo over the SVE, which 99% of the time I used between 21 and 28 mm.

[Sohail]

1 hour ago, jplomley said:

I just traded in my SVE 16-35 for the 21 APO.....no regrets, the 21 absolutely smokes the 16-35 in all regards (resolution, corner performance) and for street, the f/2 opens new opportunities. I will add the 28 APO next  as my preference is most definitely a 21-28 APO combo over the SVE, which 99% of the time I used between 21 and 28 mm.

I have the 28 APO and am thinking about adding the 21 APO. But the 21 will not give you those ultrawides at 14mm which can be a lot of fun:

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!

Sigma 14/1.8 L mount.

 

Edited April 6, 2024 by Sohail

[ImmerDraussen]

I´m absolutely happy with the SL 16-35, because you can shoot against the sun and still get great colours. Together with the APO 90mm, I have a light kit for walks.
 

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!

 

[Virob]

2 hours ago, ImmerDraussen said:

I´m absolutely happy with the SL 16-35, because you can shoot against the sun and still get great colours. Together with the APO 90mm, I have a light kit for walks.

 

Those 2 lenses weight almost 1.7kg. A Panasonic 16-35 + Sigma 90 is about 0.8 kg. Not knocking your choice, I comfortably walk around with the 21/75 apo combo which isn’t much lighter, but I wouldn’t call it light.

[Manicouagan1]

The difference between the field of view at 16mm is noticeably different from 14mm.  Often I use my Sigma 14-24mm for interior shots in confined spaces where that last 2mm makes a difference.  The Sigma is very good.   Just another thing to think abut in choosing a lens.  Note that used Leica 16-35 lenses are available at steep discounts.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ImmerDraussen]

vor 33 Minuten schrieb Virob:

Those 2 lenses weight almost 1.7kg. A Panasonic 16-35 + Sigma 90 is about 0.8 kg. Not knocking your choice, I comfortably walk around with the 21/75 apo combo which isn’t much lighter, but I wouldn’t call it light.

It always depends what the reference is. In my case it would be an S007 with two or three lenses…..and suddenly a SL feels light.😂

But seriously, a 3kg combo in a shoulder bag does not disturb me. Anything more requires a backpack. That slows down the access to the camera. Everything more than 8kg meanwhile becomes a pain for me.