Lighter wide angle zoom option for travel to Scotland and lots of trekking and climbing.

[ellisson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As in the title, I would like some opinions on a wide angle zoom lens to use on my SL3- S camera, something lighter than either the Leica 14-24 or 16-35 zooms.   One that I’m considering is the Sigma 16-28 mm f2.8 zoom that weighs about 300 g less than the Leica L-mount zooms.   I suppose another option would be to carry one or more wide angle prime lenses like a 20-21 mm and/or an 18 mm lens.   I’ll be bringing a Leica 24-70 f 2.8 zoom , so that covers a fair bit of wide angle perspective.   But the landscape perspectives will be fantastic, with much foreground to cover in many images from e.g., Isle of Skye region.  I’d like to keep the added weight to 500-600 grams or less.  

[Advertisement]

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

[Al Brown]

I shot the entire Isle of Skye on 35mm. Some of my fav images from this amazing destination.

[LocalHero1953]

FWIW I rarely use wider than 35mm for landscapes, especially big mountainous landscapes (including Scotland highlands and islands). I did use 90mm occasionally in Skye, and as that was on 4x5 sheet film it equates to 24-28mm-ish. But my large format backpack is 10kg loaded up, so it doesn't fit in your lightweight category.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, ellisson said:

As in the title, I would like some opinions on a wide angle zoom lens to use on my SL3- S camera, something lighter than either the Leica 14-24 or 16-35 zooms.   One that I’m considering is the Sigma 16-28 mm f2.8 zoom that weighs about 300 g less than the Leica L-mount zooms.   I suppose another option would be to carry one or more wide angle prime lenses like a 20-21 mm and/or an 18 mm lens.   I’ll be bringing a Leica 24-70 f 2.8 zoom , so that covers a fair bit of wide angle perspective.   But the landscape perspectives will be fantastic, with much foreground to cover in many images from e.g., Isle of Skye region.  I’d like to keep the added weight to 500-600 grams or less.  

For wideangle landscape AF is not very relevant. Look at the Voigtländer M wideangle lenses. They perform surprisingly well on SL cameras 

[ellisson]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

For wideangle landscape AF is not very relevant. Look at the Voigtländer M wideangle lenses. They perform surprisingly well on SL cameras 

 

12 minutes ago, jaapv said:

For wideangle landscape AF is not very relevant. Look at the Voigtländer M wideangle lenses. They perform surprisingly well on SL cameras 

Great point, a definite consideration and one that can save significant weight.  

[Photoworks]

I am going to Scotland in August too.

I was thinking of taking the SL3 and 24-90 and a 50 1.2.  in addition to the M11-28 and 50.

If you have any other suggestions, I am still in the planning phase.

[trix4ever]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Perhaps the Panny 14-28mm will complement the 24-70mm, very very light, cheap and surprisingly sharp.

The slow aperture probably doesn't matter outside. 

[beewee]

Sigma’s 17mm and 20mm contemporary primes are also worth considering at 225g and 370g.

If you’re willing to carry a bit more weight while lightening your wallet, the 21mm APO SL is really unparalleled.

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!

[jaapv]

And what about the WATE. 335 grams.?

[TVP]

Unless you use such extreme wide angle a lot... I would vote for the panasonic 18mm 1.8 prime.  That whole series of primes is excellent.  And if stopped down, the lens should be fairly solid performer.  It's small and light though.  Great compliment to the 24-70.  If I need wider than 24... it's probably enough around 16-18mm and at that point I don't need the zoom.  The wide zoom is just super convenient if you spend a lot of time below 50mm and just need those options without switching lenses.  

 

The other option is just bringing a wide zoom and then a small prime for 50, or 85 for example.  16-35 + 85 for example.  Just depends where you spend most of your time.  

 

[ellisson]

1 hour ago, TVP said:

Unless you use such extreme wide angle a lot... I would vote for the panasonic 18mm 1.8 prime.  That whole series of primes is excellent.  And if stopped down, the lens should be fairly solid performer.  It's small and light though.  Great compliment to the 24-70.  If I need wider than 24... it's probably enough around 16-18mm and at that point I don't need the zoom.  The wide zoom is just super convenient if you spend a lot of time below 50mm and just need those options without switching lenses.  

 

The other option is just bringing a wide zoom and then a small prime for 50, or 85 for example.  16-35 + 85 for example.  Just depends where you spend most of your time.  

 

I'm considering adding a Panasonic 18 prime (340) lens or the Sigma 17 f4 (225g) and my Voigtlander 21/3.5 M lens with M-L adapter, plus the Leica vario-elmarit 24-70 zoom (1.9 lbs). I'm also carrying a tripod and I'll be climbing several of the munros and hiking significant distances, so I'd like to carry no more than 15-16 lbs total.  My backpack and tripod are ~7lbs, so that leaves 8 lbs for camera and lenses.  The SL3-S weighs ~2 lbs (with batteries and my power pack).  The Voigtlander M/adapter combo plus one of the wider primes together are about 1 lb lighter than the 16-35mm zoom, which weighs 2.18 lbs.  With this package, I'm at about 13 lbs.  

If I took the Leica 16-35mm zoom plus my 50 mm summicron aspheric (~1 lb) and my 90 apo-summicron (1.5 lbs), that package would total 13.7 lbs.   Pretty close in weight to the other lens combination.   Throwing in a rain jacket, some water and snacks, and I'll be carrying 15-16 lbs.   One zoom or the other.......

 

[beewee]

1 hour ago, ellisson said:

I'm considering adding a Panasonic 18 prime (340) lens or the Sigma 17 f4 (225g) and my Voigtlander 21/3.5 M lens with M-L adapter, plus the Leica vario-elmarit 24-70 zoom (1.9 lbs). I'm also carrying a tripod and I'll be climbing several of the munros and hiking significant distances, so I'd like to carry no more than 15-16 lbs total.  My backpack and tripod are ~7lbs, so that leaves 8 lbs for camera and lenses.  The SL3-S weighs ~2 lbs (with batteries and my power pack).  The Voigtlander M/adapter combo plus one of the wider primes together are about 1 lb lighter than the 16-35mm zoom, which weighs 2.18 lbs.  With this package, I'm at about 13 lbs.  

If I took the Leica 16-35mm zoom plus my 50 mm summicron aspheric (~1 lb) and my 90 apo-summicron (1.5 lbs), that package would total 13.7 lbs.   Pretty close in weight to the other lens combination.   Throwing in a rain jacket, some water and snacks, and I'll be carrying 15-16 lbs.   One zoom or the other.......

 

Personally speaking, I would ditch the tripod unless you want to use multishot. The only time I carry a tripod in the mountains is for night photography. For day time and even dawn/dusk, you can get by with increasing the ISO.

If you really want a tripod, I’d get something light like a Leofoto LS224C + LH25. I’d also stick with a light non-photo specific daypack and just use lightly padded camera inserts with a drawstring closure. You can use spare jackets and stuff to provide additional cushioning if needed. These two alone can probably save you 3 lbs.

I normally hike with an Arcteryx FL30 pack which weighs 1.5 lbs and is waterproof and seam taped. I was in chest deep water going through the Narrows in Zion last fall and it kept everything in my pack dry.

If I’m traveling light and I don’t need much gear, I often use the Black Diamond Distance 22L backpack which weighs less than a pound. It has enough support for about 8-10 lb of gear.

Edited Wednesday at 06:56 AM by beewee

[wattsy]

2 hours ago, ellisson said:

so that leaves 8 lbs for camera and lenses..

If I took the Leica 16-35mm zoom plus my 50 mm summicron aspheric (~1 lb) and my 90 apo-summicron (1.5 lbs), that package would total 13.7 lbs.   Pretty close in weight to the other lens combination.   Throwing in a rain jacket, some water and snacks, and I'll be carrying 15-16 lbs.   One zoom or the other.......

Personally, I think two prime lenses is plenty when hiking in the fells or mountains (I usually just use a single 36mm equivalent MF lens). In your case, though heavy, I'd take the zoom I think most appropriate to the photography I'm likely to be wanting to do and stick with that. Weight aside, there's much to be said about the simplicity of not changing lenses.

For me, hiking in the summer months, water is the main weight consideration and I prioritise taking as much as I'm likely to need. In the winter, I have additional clothing layers, crampons, spare clothes, etc. You are taking far more photography gear than I would want to. I usually go with around 1kg (2.2lb) of camera and lens and that seems about right.

 

1 hour ago, beewee said:

Personally speaking, I would ditch the tripod unless you want to use multishot.

I wouldn't (though I do use a very lightweight Gitzo that is suitable for c.1kg of camera and lens). I much prefer composing a landscape with the camera on a tripod.

Edited Wednesday at 08:34 AM by wattsy

[wattsy]

7 hours ago, jaapv said:

And what about the WATE. 335 grams.?

Nobody really talks about that lens anymore. You'd think it would be quite a desirable lens for someone who likes to photograph in the ultra-wide range using a mirrorless camera.

[beewee]

The WATE could make sense if someone already happen to have one but I wouldn’t buy one for hiking specifically. This is coming from someone who also owns a decently sized M kit.

The optical design is quite old and don’t perform as well as the latest Sigma wide angle primes or zooms which costs about 1/5-1/8th the price of the WATE and has auto focus. If I’m hiking with an M kit, I’d be shooting on the 24 Elmar. If I need something wider, I’d go with the 18 SEM. Yeah, both are discontinued so if I sold my kit and needed something today for an M kit, I’d either get the 21 Elmar or buy used 18/24, not the WATE.

Also, with how good Lightroom panorama stitching is these days, I’m a lot less inclined to haul a super wide angle lens on a hike. I find a 21/24 more than adequate in the mountains if I stitch in post. The only time I feel I actually need a super wide is if I need to shoot wide but the subject is moving and I can’t stitch in post like for moving water, astro, etc. This also coming from someone who has a Sigma 14/1.4, 14-24/2.8, 16-35SL, 18/3.8 M, 21 APO SL to cover the wide end.

Edited yesterday at 01:10 AM by beewee

[lencap]

The Panasonic S 20-60 f/3.5-5.6 variable aperture zoom weighs almost nothing (350 grams - 12 ounces) and takes reasonable pictures.  The wide FL choices are pretty handy for most situations and can even serve as an "all day" lens depending on what you're shooting.  The slower aperture may be useful in bright sunlight as well, allowing you to shoot at lower ISO for more dynamic range.

Edited 19 hours ago by lencap

[agfa100]

If you want light their is also the Lumix 18-40mm zoom in L mount but to get the size you have to put up with f 4.5-6.3 It is sharp in the center, it was set up for use on the Lumix S9 camera. But you have to use high ISO.

[ellisson]

Thank you for these suggestions and options!   Although I have some time to decide what to bring and carry, now I'm leaning towards taking my 24-70mm vario-elmarit AF lens, plus two light weight wide angle prime M-mount lenses like the Voigtlander 21mm f3.5 color skopar lens and the Voigtlander 15mm f4.5 lens, which I own, with the M-L adapter.  These wide angle primes plus adapter weigh only about 1 pound.  I'll likely add my 90mm apo-summicron SL lens for sites when/where less hiking is needed.  So I can vary what I carry depending on the location, day, and weather.  

If not taking my 24-70mm vario-elmarit zoom, which I like very much, I'd consider getting one of the lighter weight Panasonic zooms.  Not carrying the Leica 16-35mm zoom shaves off a full pound: On longer treks, this will be replaced by water and snacks.    

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear