Wide lens to choose

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have a look at the Sigma 16-28mm, seems to get incredibly good reviews, its small, very light, great image quality and takes screw filters.

Did I mention its cheap?

 

[ALScott]

I have run into a few situations lately where I wanted something wider than the 24-90 so this is not just for Yellowstone trip.  My old 17-35 was my absolute workhorse for many years so it seems old habits (shooting styles) are hard to break. I believe I have narrowed it down to 3 lenses:

Super Vario Elmar 16-35 but I really did not want to drop that much money on another lens right now, even though it would be used, and it's it's almost identical size and weight to my 50 lux.  The Panasonic 16-35, much smaller, lighter and cheaper but just not really sure about it.  Lastly, a late entrant, the Tri Elmar 16-18-21 smallest and lightest of all by far but price creeps back up plus I worry that if I get an M lens then I "must" get, well, you all can guess.😄 

I watched the Red Dot Forum video on all of the wide lenses and the 14-24 Sigma would probably be how I would go if it weren't for the filter issue.  IQ on all seem to be close enough overall to not be disappointed with any.  Their video points out the strengths and weaknesses of each lens.  Now that I see the post above I will check out the 16-28 but wanted at least Art series Sigma.

[JTLeica]

46 minutes ago, ALScott said:

I have run into a few situations lately where I wanted something wider than the 24-90 so this is not just for Yellowstone trip.  My old 17-35 was my absolute workhorse for many years so it seems old habits (shooting styles) are hard to break. I believe I have narrowed it down to 3 lenses:

Super Vario Elmar 16-35 but I really did not want to drop that much money on another lens right now, even though it would be used, and it's it's almost identical size and weight to my 50 lux.  The Panasonic 16-35, much smaller, lighter and cheaper but just not really sure about it.  Lastly, a late entrant, the Tri Elmar 16-18-21 smallest and lightest of all by far but price creeps back up plus I worry that if I get an M lens then I "must" get, well, you all can guess.😄 

I watched the Red Dot Forum video on all of the wide lenses and the 14-24 Sigma would probably be how I would go if it weren't for the filter issue.  IQ on all seem to be close enough overall to not be disappointed with any.  Their video points out the strengths and weaknesses of each lens.  Now that I see the post above I will check out the 16-28 but wanted at least Art series Sigma.

Dont be fooled by the ART name, it doesnt mean much really. Generally just means Fast lens, not good lens, although they are all mostly very good.

An example:

I have their 20, 35 and 65mm DG DN Contemporary and honestly they are three of the absolute best lenses I have ever used. The 65 is as sharp, maybe sharper than the 50mm APO Lanthar Voigtlander. They are F2 but my oh my they are absolutely excellent.

I have the Leica 14-24 and thinking of getting rid for a 16-28. 

 

[Filip Baraka]

23 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Dont be fooled by the ART name, it doesnt mean much really. Generally just means Fast lens, not good lens, although they are all mostly very good.

An example:

I have their 20, 35 and 65mm DG DN Contemporary and honestly they are three of the absolute best lenses I have ever used. The 65 is as sharp, maybe sharper than the 50mm APO Lanthar Voigtlander. They are F2 but my oh my they are absolutely excellent.

I have the Leica 14-24 and thinking of getting rid for a 16-28. 

 

How is that 20mm Sigma compared to Leica 14-24, center/corner sharpens/micro contrast…

[JTLeica]

12 minutes ago, Filip Baraka said:

How is that 20mm Sigma compared to Leica 14-24, center/corner sharpens/micro contrast…

I think it is much better in the corners at F2 vs 2.8. I think at F8 for landscapes there isnt much in it. But I would rather I think use the 20mm F2 for astro than F2.8 with 14-24. There is a significant vignette on the 20 though.

I am debating if I should keep the 14-24, or offload and get the 14mm 1.4 or 16-28. Not sure really.

[JTLeica]

 

On 6/26/2024 at 3:25 PM, ALScott said:

I have run into a few situations lately where I wanted something wider than the 24-90 so this is not just for Yellowstone trip.  My old 17-35 was my absolute workhorse for many years so it seems old habits (shooting styles) are hard to break. I believe I have narrowed it down to 3 lenses:

Super Vario Elmar 16-35 but I really did not want to drop that much money on another lens right now, even though it would be used, and it's it's almost identical size and weight to my 50 lux.  The Panasonic 16-35, much smaller, lighter and cheaper but just not really sure about it.  Lastly, a late entrant, the Tri Elmar 16-18-21 smallest and lightest of all by far but price creeps back up plus I worry that if I get an M lens then I "must" get, well, you all can guess.😄 

I watched the Red Dot Forum video on all of the wide lenses and the 14-24 Sigma would probably be how I would go if it weren't for the filter issue.  IQ on all seem to be close enough overall to not be disappointed with any.  Their video points out the strengths and weaknesses of each lens.  Now that I see the post above I will check out the 16-28 but wanted at least Art series Sigma.

I have just bought one of these 16-28mm lenses... I will let you know what it's like. With my track record it will be going back

 

[JTLeica]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 6/28/2024 at 11:31 AM, JTLeica said:

 

I have just bought one of these 16-28mm lenses... I will let you know what it's like. With my track record it will be going back

 

Just following up from this, it seems very sharp from F2.8 right into the corners, thankfully no de-centring either... Seems consistently sharp at all focal lengths from F2.8. A real, gem of a lens and for the money it's incredible really. Very light too.

[ALScott]

6 hours ago, JTLeica said:

Just following up from this, it seems very sharp from F2.8 right into the corners, thankfully no de-centring either... Seems consistently sharp at all focal lengths from F2.8. A real, gem of a lens and for the money it's incredible really. Very light too.

You would happen to have or have had the SL 16-35 to compare it to would you?

[JTLeica]

9 hours ago, ALScott said:

You would happen to have or have had the SL 16-35 to compare it to would you?

Afraid not no, I have heard good things about the 16-35 but it’s 3 times the price, double the weight and 1 stop slower.

I honestly couldn’t be more impressed with the 16-28. Just extremely impressive sharpness all over the frame. 

[SrMi]

I have good experience with Panasonic Lumix 14-28mm f/4-5.6 MACRO. I picked it over my Sigma 16-28 for a recent trip. I do not remember why 🤣. Maybe because it is wider and lighter.