Leica SL 16-35 vs. the Leica SL 12-24 and Leica SL v24-70

[AnnieP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I purchased the SL 16-35 but there was a problem with the lens so had to send it back for replacement. Since it’s been gone, I find myself wondering if I would be  happier with the SL 12-24 and 24-70. Most of my shooting takes place around the 18 to 22 range but two lens setup would give a bit more range.

anything I should know about the individual lenses that might make my decision easier?

Thanks for any input. 

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

AnnieP,   As you will soon find, there users who will offer their ideas of which lens(es) are best to include myself.  Some will reference MTF charts, others results or both.  It really gets down to your genre of photography and how you "see" the scene to create the photograph.  At the end of the day, it's your decision alone to make and asking someone to give you the answer may lead  to a result you don't like or doesn't work for you.  IMO, the best lens is the one you originally selected that is being replaced.  I suggest you wait to get it, use it for at least 1/2 year, shoot it a lot and see if it does what you want and then decide.  Last, my suggestion is based on decades of photography;  Do not second guess your original decision, get out and create masterpiece photographs and enjoy your photography.  r/ Mark

Edited May 15, 2024 by LeicaR10

[Virob]

12 hours ago, AnnieP said:

Most of my shooting takes place around the 18 to 22 range but two lens setup would give a bit more range.

anything I should know about the individual lenses that might make my decision easier?

Thanks for any input. 

Sounds like you should be considering the 21 APO 😂! Maybe add the 50 APO for a two lenses setup?
 

back to your question, the 24-70 is a reworked Sigma 24-70 and Sigma will be announcing an update to that lens tomorrow that is supposed to be sharper, more colour accurate, smaller and lighter. In all likelihood that means it will also outperform the Leica 24-70 for significantly less.
 

[dpitt]

Did you ever consider a WATE Tri-Elmar 16-21 mm M lens? 
It is in the same price range new, and of course cheaper and easier to find used.

Of course you have to do manual focus, but I do not think that is an issue with super wides....

Same concerns as @Virob about the 24-70 SL lens. I am saving up for the 24-90 SL, and in the mean time, I use my R zooms and primes on the SL.

[BLeventhal]

15 hours ago, AnnieP said:

I purchased the SL 16-35 but there was a problem with the lens so had to send it back for replacement. Since it’s been gone, I find myself wondering if I would be  happier with the SL 12-24 and 24-70. Most of my shooting takes place around the 18 to 22 range but two lens setup would give a bit more range.

anything I should know about the individual lenses that might make my decision easier?

Thanks for any input. 

I won't speak to optical quality or the need for perfectly distortion-free images. The desire for  the "perfect" optic is one that is pervasive on this and other forums. It really does not matter whether you use Leica, Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Sony, etc... as forum discussions about "which lens is best" general fall into that rabbit hole. 

I am a recent adopter of the Leica SL system, and I use my SL2 & SL2-S for more contemplative photography. I am a nature shooter and rely on my Nikon gear for 70% of my work, however the SL's are a joy to use... thus my adoption of the system. The 16-35 Leica is a best in class lens, and if that it most important to you, then that is the lens you should get/keep. Because I am more budget conscious and am less picky about absolute perfection in optics for everything but my wildlife photography, I opted for Leica's "B-Squad." Rather than putting $5000 into one lens, I split the money and purchased the 14-24 f2.8 and 24-70 f2.8 SL Vario-Elmar... optics. I completely recognize that the optical forumal and glass is by Sigma, but the Sigma Art and Sport lenses are among the top in the market. I valued the Leica barrel simplicity, build, and weather-sealing, thus I was willing to "pay-up" for the Leica branded lenses. 

I recently posted a shot from the 14-24 f2.8 taken with the SL2-S on the SL2-S images thread. The photos I've taken with that lens more than meet MY expectation and needs.

bruce

[Simone_DF]

@AnnieP Sigma announced a newer version of the 24-70 yesterday. It's smaller, lighter, sharper, has better weather sealing, new and faster AF motors, closer minimum focus distance compared to the old model which was rebranded by Leica. Given all these benefits, you may want to consider this option rather than the Leica, which is also a very good lens. The bottom line is that you can't go wrong with whatever you pick, so choose based on your preferences. 

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a024_24_70_28_ii/

Edited May 17, 2024 by Simone_DF

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 5/14/2024 at 8:29 PM, AnnieP said:

I purchased the SL 16-35 but there was a problem with the lens so had to send it back for replacement. Since it’s been gone, I find myself wondering if I would be  happier with the SL 12-24 and 24-70. Most of my shooting takes place around the 18 to 22 range but two lens setup would give a bit more range.

anything I should know about the individual lenses that might make my decision easier?

Thanks for any input. 

I am considering a wide angle lens right now and wondering which you lens you decided on.

[rsh]

On 5/17/2024 at 5:15 AM, Simone_DF said:

@AnnieP Sigma announced a newer version of the 24-70 yesterday. It's smaller, lighter, sharper, has better weather sealing, new and faster AF motors, closer minimum focus distance compared to the old model which was rebranded by Leica. Given all these benefits, you may want to consider this option rather than the Leica, which is also a very good lens. The bottom line is that you can't go wrong with whatever you pick, so choose based on your preferences. 

https://www.sigma-global.com/en/lenses/a024_24_70_28_ii/

I really believe that Leica lenses derived from Sigma and Lumix designs should be called re engineered lenses.  If they were indeed re brands, Leica would have just put its name on the respective Sigma and Lumix lenses rather than require their own housings and coatings. As to whether or not some of the elements have been changed within the original optical design or interior lens components are different, only Leica can answer that question.  

[Simone_DF]

4 minutes ago, rsh said:

I really believe that Leica lenses derived from Sigma and Lumix designs should be called re engineered lenses.  If they were indeed re brands, Leica would have just put its name on the respective Sigma and Lumix lenses rather than require their own housings and coatings. As to whether or not some of the elements have been changed within the original optical design or interior lens components are different, only Leica can answer that question.  

So by following the same logic, I can just buy a McDonald’s burger, spray it with some different condiments, wrap it in a fancy packaging and sell it as a “reengineered gourmet experience”. Makes sense. 

[rsh]

4 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

So by following the same logic, I can just buy a McDonald’s burger, spray it with some different condiments, wrap it in a fancy packaging and sell it as a “reengineered gourmet experience”. Makes sense. 

Not certain that McDonald’s is a fair comparison.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

6 hours ago, rsh said:

I really believe that Leica lenses derived from Sigma and Lumix designs should be called re engineered lenses.  If they were indeed re brands, Leica would have just put its name on the respective Sigma and Lumix lenses rather than require their own housings and coatings. As to whether or not some of the elements have been changed within the original optical design or interior lens components are different, only Leica can answer that question.  

In the case of the 14-24 and 24-70, I’m not entirely sure the coatings are different. I have both 14-24’s and they are identical in colour and sharpness. As the Sigma is an Art lens and fully sealed I see no reason to buy the Leica version. If you don’t care about filters I think it’s a better option than the 16-35 Vario.

I don’t have the 24-70’s (I do have the new version of the Sigma though). Are they actually different in any real world way? I get the charts are slightly different but that really means little. Are the coatings different? They’re made in the same factory. Unlike the Panasonic/Leica 35 and 50 which are made on different continents but share a design the Leica/Sigma collaboration seems that Sigma make the lens, entirely. Note, I’m not criticising the quality. I like SIgma lenses and have many of them.

Gordon

[Simone_DF]

9 hours ago, rsh said:

Not certain that McDonald’s is a fair comparison.

Sure. It was an example. We can take the cars, where it's very common. For cars in general it's known as "badge engineering". Same car under the hood, different outer shell and coatings interiors. Anyway, feel free to believe what you want, as long as it makes you happy.

[JTLeica]

Consider one more, just to make your decision a little easier. A Sigma 16-28mm F2.8, its getting seriously good reviews and its light and cheap.

The Leica 16-35 is stunning by all accounts, but its heavy, and slow.

The 14-24 is great

The 24-70 is fine, but not stellar. Based off the first Sigma 24-70, there is another one now and I find it a lot better.

But try the 16-28... by Leica standard its basically free

Edited June 28, 2024 by JTLeica

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I don’t have the 24-70’s (I do have the new version of the Sigma though). Are they actually different in any real world way? I get the charts are slightly different but that really means little. Are the coatings different?

The number (and configuration, obviously) of elements that use special glass is different. The configuration of the rear group is different, with Leica using a larger diameter. That became very clear once Sigma released their improved 24-70, which also uses a larger diameter rear group.

I don't know about coatings. The coating technology is the same (unless Sigma has two different coating processes), but Leica may have specified a slightly different mix.

 

In the end it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks. We know we are going to hear loudly from the people who always prefer the cheapest option, but their opinion isn't based on any extra knowledge.

On a personal note, some of my favourite lenses are "rebadged." I have a fantastic 55/1.4 that was made by Mamiya and badged as Rollei or Voigtlander. That lens is my go-to for certain cine shots. Strangely, I never loved any of my Mamiya-branded Mamiya lenses as much as I do that 55/1.4! Contemporary Zeiss 50/1.4's have better snob appeal, but they aren't as good in my opinion. Should I spurn this lens because it doesn't meet someone else's arbitrary criteria for provenance?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

8 hours ago, BernardC said:

The number (and configuration, obviously) of elements that use special glass is different. The configuration of the rear group is different, with Leica using a larger diameter. That became very clear once Sigma released their improved 24-70, which also uses a larger diameter rear group.

I don't know about coatings. The coating technology is the same (unless Sigma has two different coating processes), but Leica may have specified a slightly different mix.

 

In the end it doesn't really matter what anyone thinks. We know we are going to hear loudly from the people who always prefer the cheapest option, but their opinion isn't based on any extra knowledge.

On a personal note, some of my favourite lenses are "rebadged." I have a fantastic 55/1.4 that was made by Mamiya and badged as Rollei or Voigtlander. That lens is my go-to for certain cine shots. Strangely, I never loved any of my Mamiya-branded Mamiya lenses as much as I do that 55/1.4! Contemporary Zeiss 50/1.4's have better snob appeal, but they aren't as good in my opinion. Should I spurn this lens because it doesn't meet someone else's arbitrary criteria for provenance?

Thanks for the info. And I agree. I’m not really fussed about who i makes what as long as it performs to my needs. I have a bunch of Sigma and Panasonic glass for my SL cameras. Viogtlanders for my M’s. Good is good. L mount is especially excellent for lens choice.

I just hadn’t spent much time on the 24-70’s and didn’t know the details. Now I do. Thanks again.

Gordon

[JTLeica]

15 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Thanks for the info. And I agree. I’m not really fussed about who i makes what as long as it performs to my needs. I have a bunch of Sigma and Panasonic glass for my SL cameras. Viogtlanders for my M’s. Good is good. L mount is especially excellent for lens choice.

I just hadn’t spent much time on the 24-70’s and didn’t know the details. Now I do. Thanks again.

Gordon

Yes you are right L mount is superb for lens choice. It’s up there with Sony E already for choice with some premium option that are better then almost anything.