The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

RMR

New member
New thread for this wonderful lens? I just got mine this morning at the Leica Store Boston from Tim there. First one to get the lens! I walked around Boston after the purchase and on a somewhat cloudy/rainy day here in New England and I got some great images. Here's one to start off with.

SL, 16-35 at 35mm and f4.5iso400, 1/1000sec
L1110590_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg
 

RMR

New member
Walking along Arlington St in Boston. SL, 16-35 at 17mm and f5.6, iso400, 1/500sec
L1110570_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg
 

RMR

New member
Walking in Boston here looking up Boylston St
SL, 16-35 at 29mm and f6.3, iso400, 1/800sec
L1110573_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Lucky you! Nice colors for a rainy day. How does it balance on the SL?

Last night firmware 3.2 had still not surfaced unless you knew to look on the Leica owner's site and login with a password. Did you get the new firmware or use the old one (which apparently works, but doesn't produce EXIF information.) Does the new lens work on your CL?
 

RMR

New member
Lucky you! Nice colors for a rainy day. How does it balance on the SL?

Last night firmware 3.2 had still not surfaced unless you knew to look on the Leica owner's site and login with a password. Did you get the new firmware or use the old one (which apparently works, but doesn't produce EXIF information.) Does the new lens work on your CL?
Scott the 3.1 firmware includes this lens so it worked fine with no updating even within the camera. When I turned on my SL with the 50mm ‘lux the camera did an internal update before i could use it.
It balances quite well on the SL. Smaller than the 24-90 and about the sz of the 50.
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
David Farkas on the RedDot Forum claims that the 16-35 (and perhaps all the lenses promised for 2018) is already hosted in firmware 3.1. But you never know what changes might be applied in more experience is obtained with the lenses. The 50/1.4, in particular, benefited from things Leica learned about faster autofocus, and thus when you bring it up the first time on 3.1 the lens firmware gets updated. The 16-35 has very lightweight focusing elements and probably already knows the tricks that the 5/1.4 SL needed to be taught.

Still, I am curious about any differences in firmware support that represent recent learning with the 16-35. Would you be willing to put some DNG files, especially those shot at the wide end, that could be downloaded for study?
 

RMR

New member
David Farkas on the RedDot Forum claims that the 16-35 (and perhaps all the lenses promised for 2018) is already hosted in firmware 3.1. But you never know what changes might be applied in more experience is obtained with the lenses. The 50/1.4, in particular, benefited from things Leica learned about faster autofocus, and thus when you bring it up the first time on 3.1 the lens firmware gets updated. The 16-35 has very lightweight focusing elements and probably already knows the tricks that the 5/1.4 SL needed to be taught.

Still, I am curious about any differences in firmware support that represent recent learning with the 16-35. Would you be willing to put some DNG files, especially those shot at the wide end, that could be downloaded for study?
Absolutely willing to share some wide angle dng files. Will do that later today when I get back.
 

RMR

New member
A view of Arlington St in Boston, MA with the 16-35 at 16mm, f6.3, iso400, 1/400sec

L1110577_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg
 

RMR

New member
Lucky you! Nice colors for a rainy day. How does it balance on the SL?

Last night firmware 3.2 had still not surfaced unless you knew to look on the Leica owner's site and login with a password. Did you get the new firmware or use the old one (which apparently works, but doesn't produce EXIF information.) Does the new lens work on your CL?
Scott, I process all of my images to my taste which is: if it's color I personally like a little 'extra' and if B&W I prefer good blacks and whites. I see too many images that are gray and don't like that unless the image warrants it.
 

RMR

New member
David Farkas on the RedDot Forum claims that the 16-35 (and perhaps all the lenses promised for 2018) is already hosted in firmware 3.1. But you never know what changes might be applied in more experience is obtained with the lenses. The 50/1.4, in particular, benefited from things Leica learned about faster autofocus, and thus when you bring it up the first time on 3.1 the lens firmware gets updated. The 16-35 has very lightweight focusing elements and probably already knows the tricks that the 5/1.4 SL needed to be taught.

Still, I am curious about any differences in firmware support that represent recent learning with the 16-35. Would you be willing to put some DNG files, especially those shot at the wide end, that could be downloaded for study?
Hello Scott (and others), here is the download link for a raw dng file I took this morning:
https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/Rmq5dgFXu3
 

RMR

New member
L1110658_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg

Taken this morning while walking around Portsmouth, NH
SL 16-35mm at 30mm, iso 200, f6.3, 1/1000 sec with the SL camera held over my head (to minimize distortion)
 

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Hello Scott (and others), here is the download link for a raw dng file I took this morning:
https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/Rmq5dgFXu3
Thanks. I'm looking it over now. The basic EXIF is all there (there was a complaint about this on the LUF). No GPS info; was that turned off? Did you square things up a bit in processing the file? In Capture One, I usually let the software do this, but level things with the viewfinder level, which is very accurate. Looking into the opcodes for distortion correction, the lens has a small geometric correction, but very little color correction. Of course this is 30 mm focal length. Do you have a 16 mm example handy, like the shot you have posted close to the Boston Common?
 
Last edited:

RMR

New member
Thanks. I'm looking it over now. The basic EXIF is all there (there was a complaint about this on the LUF). No GPS info; was that turned off? Did you square things up a bit in processing the file? In Capture One, I usually let the software do this, but level things with the viewfinder level, which is very accurate. Looking into the opcodes for distortion correction, the lens has a small geometric correction, but very little color correction. Of course this is 30 mm focal length. Do you have a 16 mm example handy, like the shot you have posted close to the Boston Common?
Hi Scott. I dont use the gps so it must be off. All computers are off right now so ill try to get one for you tomorrow afternoon after a shoot im doing.
 

RMR

New member
'Test' image raw files with my Leica 16-35mm Lens. If you'd like you can download the raw files at the link below to check them out. I took shots at 16mm and 18mm at f5.6 and f7.1 on a tripod. I used a bubble level to try and get the camera level and plumb with respect to the wall. Let me know what your thoughts are!

https://spaces.hightail.com/receive/MyWFcY7hHl

L1120264_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg
 
Last edited:

scott kirkpatrick

Well-known member
Well, even a great brick wall shot, with tiny bricks and nice gravel texture right up to the feet of the tripod, needs a flat wall. This one might have a bend in the middle (it's old construction, held up with retaining rods which you can see in the upper center) and the right side is a little less sharp at 100% pixel-peeping resolution. The sidewalk and gravel is rendered really nicely down to the bottom and out to the corners where things are no longer in focus. Distortion of a few percent is being corrected in software so Capture One lets me see this going on and apply any correction from 0 to 110% of the DNG parameters if I want to get the best straight lines vs. gritty detail in the corners tradeoff. I don't use LR or Photoshop, but I understand there you can use the corrections or turn them off, but not tweak. My recommendation is to leave them on. Here are some quick thoughts also published at the LUF:

<<<<
Geometric distortion has disappeared from the technical data sheets for "designed for digital" lenses, which will never be used on film. Parameters for correcting it, along with lateral chromatic aberation (slightly different magnifications for different colors, at least at the edges) are incorporated in a standard way into the DNG raw file, and these corrections are also applied in camera to any JPGs and even before you see the image in the viewfinder and LCD.

You can read these parameters from the DNG files with some effort. Adobe's DNG tools package has a program "dng_validate" that runs in Linux or in the terminal window on a Mac and prints out everything that is human-readable in a DNG file.

I have looked at a few 16-35 files this way. A few quick and superficial conclusions (based on firmware 3.1, but probably not subject to any last-minute changes):

The corrections are visible, but quite small at the long end (24-35mm), where the overlapping 24-90 SL Vario-Elmarit offers a wider aperture, but imposes much stronger corrections.

They are about 8-10X larger at the widest focal lengths (16-80 mm) but still not easily noticeable unless you need 100% image sizes.

There is little difference between the transformations applied to the three color planes. Thus the need for color correction at the edges seems to have been handled almost completely by optical design.
>>>>

A slightly surprising observation: The transforms for each color depend not only on the focal length in use, but also on the aperture. Again, effects are small. This stuff can only be coming from the computer programs used when the lens was designed, so I wouldn't expect it to change between 3.1, 3.2 and future firmwares.

edit: for future study -- I wonder how the optical/digital tradeoffs differ between this lens and the 11-23 CL?
 

RMR

New member
Well, even a great brick wall shot, with tiny bricks and nice gravel texture right up to the feet of the tripod, needs a flat wall. This one might have a bend in the middle (it's old construction, held up with retaining rods which you can see in the upper center) and the right side is a little less sharp at 100% pixel-peeping resolution. The sidewalk and gravel is rendered really nicely down to the bottom and out to the corners where things are no longer in focus. Distortion of a few percent is being corrected in software so Capture One lets me see this going on and apply any correction from 0 to 110% of the DNG parameters if I want to get the best straight lines vs. gritty detail in the corners tradeoff. I don't use LR or Photoshop, but I understand there you can use the corrections or turn them off, but not tweak. My recommendation is to leave them on. Here are some quick thoughts also published at the LUF:

<<<<
Geometric distortion has disappeared from the technical data sheets for "designed for digital" lenses, which will never be used on film. Parameters for correcting it, along with lateral chromatic aberation (slightly different magnifications for different colors, at least at the edges) are incorporated in a standard way into the DNG raw file, and these corrections are also applied in camera to any JPGs and even before you see the image in the viewfinder and LCD.

You can read these parameters from the DNG files with some effort. Adobe's DNG tools package has a program "dng_validate" that runs in Linux or in the terminal window on a Mac and prints out everything that is human-readable in a DNG file.

I have looked at a few 16-35 files this way. A few quick and superficial conclusions (based on firmware 3.1, but probably not subject to any last-minute changes):

The corrections are visible, but quite small at the long end (24-35mm), where the overlapping 24-90 SL Vario-Elmarit offers a wider aperture, but imposes much stronger corrections.

They are about 8-10X larger at the widest focal lengths (16-80 mm) but still not easily noticeable unless you need 100% image sizes.

There is little difference between the transformations applied to the three color planes. Thus the need for color correction at the edges seems to have been handled almost completely by optical design.
>>>>

A slightly surprising observation: The transforms for each color depend not only on the focal length in use, but also on the aperture. Again, effects are small. This stuff can only be coming from the computer programs used when the lens was designed, so I wouldn't expect it to change between 3.1, 3.2 and future firmwares.

edit: for future study -- I wonder how the optical/digital tradeoffs differ between this lens and the 11-23 CL?
Well, Scott certainly some 'technical' observations that I'm not too focused on. And yes that building is in Newburyport, MA and may indeed not be plumb and level as we'd like! By my images so far and what I see from others this is a very 'worthy' lens for me. Vieri's extensive image review also reveals some great results. I no longer use M cameras as I really like my SL even though it's a big camera the results are quite pleasing for me. Now.....what lens will I consider next? :)
 

RMR

New member
Spring in Boston, MA a few days ago on the Boston Common with the SL
Data: SL, 16-35mm lens at 32mm, f5.6, iso 400, 1/400 sec and as always processed to my taste!

L1110597_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018-Edit_FB.jpg
 

Robert Campbell

Well-known member
Well, even a great brick wall shot, with tiny bricks and nice gravel texture right up to the feet of the tripod, needs a flat wall. This one might have a bend in the middle (it's old construction, held up with retaining rods which you can see in the upper center)...
The problem is with the roof. In addition to a downward force on the walls, there is an outward force acting on them. This results in the wall, or part of it, bulging outwards. The simple solution is a brace, a rod which passes from side to side, and has a plate on the outer surfaces. This problem was well recognised in Norman cathedrals, where the solution was the use of flying buttresses. There's a similar problem with domes.
 
Last edited:

pegelli

Well-known member
'Test' image raw files with my Leica 16-35mm Lens. If you'd like you can download the raw files at the link below to check them out. I took shots at 16mm and 18mm at f5.6 and f7.1 on a tripod. I used a bubble level to try and get the camera level and plumb with respect to the wall. Let me know what your thoughts are!
Robert, thanks for providing the raw files, even though I have no SL it's always interesting to see what other systems can do. Web presentations are downscaled and processed too much to make a complete valid comparison (imho of course).

I have mainly looked at the files in LR 6.14 and also loaded them in C1 10.2, but in the latter I can just look and not adjust anything because I have the cheap "Sony only" version.

Here's a few remarks on the raw images, no scientific comparison, just some things I noticed when looking at them:

In lightroom:
- I don't think you were exactly parallel to the building, the right side looks marginally closer, it needs about a -10 horizontal transform in Lightroom to make the shop window exactly rectangular (vs. trapezoid "as shot")
- Center and a large part of the frame looks very good re. sharpness and contrast, seems that the lens is indeed very good and living up to it's Leica name
- however in the 18 mm shots the extreme top right corner starts looking a bit mushy, don't see that at the left top corner. Don't think it's dof, because the gravel in front of the building is still sharp a lot closer to the camera. The 16 mm shot has it less (but still a bit) and the extreme top left corners at both apertures and focal length looks a lot better. Since the two bottom corners are a lot closer to the camera no meaningful observations can be made there.

In C1 and selecting the crop tool I can see a lot more picture around the crop outline which is invisible in lightroom, even putting scale to 95% I get a white border around and don't see anything that can be seen outside the crop lines in C1. It's probably the profile information telling lightroom to ignore/not show that area but there is actually a lot more area covered. Maybe it's my "el-cheapo" Sony version which ignores the Leica profile info and shows stuff that's not supposed to be shown. Here's a screenshot of how that looks for me:

Note the extra windowframe on the right and more detail of the windowframe bottoms of the next floor up.

The embedded jpg's also don't show this extra area.

Those are my observations, I'm sure more things can be found, but short of comparing two different lenses or systems side-by-side with the exact same subject/light I'm not sure how relevant these would be for this purpose.

Last but not least, I really like how you have processed the files you showed in the thread, they look very punchy and sharp without being crunchy and oversharpened (all to my taste of course). If you would be willing to share your post-processing strategy to achieve that I know there will be a big learning opportunity for me (and maybe others as well).
 
Top