Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 37 of 37

Thread: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

  1. #1
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    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
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1110590_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	21 
Size:	790.3 KB 
ID:	133920
    Likes 6 Member(s) liked this post

  2. #2
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Walking along Arlington St in Boston. SL, 16-35 at 17mm and f5.6, iso400, 1/500sec
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1110570_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	815.3 KB 
ID:	133921
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  3. #3
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Walking in Boston here looking up Boylston St
    SL, 16-35 at 29mm and f6.3, iso400, 1/800sec
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1110573_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	915.2 KB 
ID:	133922
    Likes 5 Member(s) liked this post

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    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?

  5. #5
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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.

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    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?

  7. #7
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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.

  8. #8
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1110577_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	23 
Size:	861.1 KB 
ID:	133930
    Likes 3 Member(s) liked this post

  9. #9
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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

  11. #11
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1110658_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	11 
Size:	617.2 KB 
ID:	133931

    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)
    Likes 8 Member(s) liked this post

  12. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by RMR View Post
    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 by scott kirkpatrick; 2 Weeks Ago at 13:19.

  13. #13
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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.

  14. #14
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    '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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1120264_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	920.8 KB 
ID:	133958
    Last edited by RMR; 2 Weeks Ago at 16:11.

  15. #15
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Thanks. That's a great brick wall shot. I've got your zipped file and will look at them in the morning.

    scott (2 am)

  16. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    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?

  17. #17
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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?

  18. #18
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    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!

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1110597_SL601_RMR_Apr_2018-Edit_FB.jpg 
Views:	7 
Size:	901.8 KB 
ID:	133978
    Likes 7 Member(s) liked this post

  19. #19
    Senior Member Robert Campbell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Norn Iron
    Posts
    1,124
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    1

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    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 by Robert Campbell; 2 Weeks Ago at 00:35.
    Sláinte

    Robert.

  20. #20
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by RMR View Post
    '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).

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Here's what is going on with "design for digital" including the final software correction in the total lens design. Capture One 11.1 (the standard edition) shows the example image this way, shown in the lens profile page with the crop tool selected in the top line:

    Screen Shot 2018-05-05 at 7.11.32 AM (2) by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    Very wide angle lenses, left to their own devices, will have barrel distortion, pulling in extra stuff in the corners. Optical correction of the corners leaves you with mustache distortion, which is worse. So today's designers pass the barrel image through for software to fix. In the screenshot, I have unchecked "hide the distorted area," and left distortion correction at 100%, so I see the scene that the lens has actually captured. The black area is the result of trimming this actual, but extrapolated image back to 6000x4000 pixels. If there is something interesting at the edges, I can push the crop lines out quite a bit. Here is the upper left quarter of the image, with distortion fully corrected (click through to Flickr to see it bigger):

    L1120264_SL601_RMR_May_2018 by
    scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    Since the reconstructed image was extrapolated, creating each new pixel out of several raw pixels, some like to turn off the distortion correction, and just use the raw image. Here's what that looks like:

    L1120264_SL601_RMR_May_2018 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    Not a very good idea for bricks or architecture, but it adds a little extra crispness to foliage or rocks.

  22. #22
    Senior Member pegelli's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    2,299
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Thanks Scott for showing what you can still see in C1. Since my version can't deal with Leica files I wasn't sure what it looked like in the full version.

    What surprises me however is that I have not found a way in Lightroom (6.14) to make these extra pixels visible, there the image is restricted to what is shown within the crop guides of the C1 screen (or the area that is shown on the embedded jpeg). Reducing scale or shifting the image vertically or horizontally immediately creates a white border and these pixels that are there in C1 vanished in Lightroom.
    My Pics
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  23. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Yes, Adobe has decided what you should do, and that's what they give you. I like C1's approach better, even though I usually go with the defaults.

    The information that corrects distortion is in the DNG files (a standard form derived from TIFF). In your C1 copy, can you go to the lens profile page (it's icon is () ) and click the options that I showed. If so you will see the transformed "true" image that I showed in my screenshot. My copy of version 11.1 also contains two profiles, generic DNG and camera-specific, for each of M9, M10, SL, CL, ... models. You might not have those. The DNG generic profile uses color mapping information in the DNG file. The camera-specific profiles are developed by Phase One and usually take some time to appear, but they are often better. Color mapping and distortion correction occur at different points in the pipeline and are independent steps.
    pre 2015: http://www.pbase.com/skirkp
    current: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/albums
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  24. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    290
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    My Initial Preview of the 16-35mm is up, with sample images. Please feel free to share!


    http://www.aphotovid.com/super-vario...-asph-preview/
    Home page: www.aphotovid.com

    Check out my gear blog!

  25. #25
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Wow, guys some great info here. I love learning about these kinds of things. Didn't know that LR was 'robbing' me of part of the image!
    I find it interesting to see how wide angles can kind of distort what the human eye can see. I'll continue to post here as I'm really liking this lens but I do want rectilinear results, etc as opposed to distorted images. Here's one I just took the other day at 21mm, f6.3, iso 200 and 1/320 sec

    Pegelli, thanks for the kind words on my processing. My 'strategy' is really this (and it applied to my Kodachrome days as well): If I'm taking a color image I want it to be colorful and sharp and detailed. I guess I kind of have a reputation with many folks here in New England for 'sharpness'! If it'll be processed to a B&W I (typically) don't want it to be gray & white (except for very rare occasions!). As I like to say for both color & B&W I like to "give it some gas".

    I use LR and a few of the presets available with it for most images. Some images I will process with OnOne Software (OnOne Effects is my go to for a lot of my images as it does a good job for me). My experience is that OnOne Effects results in less additional noise whereas Nik Silver Efx Pro seems to add noise which I typically don't want.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1120349_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	5 
Size:	888.5 KB 
ID:	134042
    Likes 1 Member(s) liked this post

  26. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    The funny thing is that if your scene doesn't have straight lines running through it, the barrel-distorted image may look better. Faces out near the edges are rounder and thus more pleasing in appearance. I think it is important to have the option.

  27. #27
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    An afternoon walk on the boardwalk with the SL Vario 16-35 at 16mm, f7.1, iso400, 1/640sec handheld. Processed in LR.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1000029_SL601_RMR_May_2018_FB.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	922.0 KB 
ID:	134095
    Likes 2 Member(s) liked this post

  28. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images Of The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    We have to stop meeting this way...

    S1010760 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    16-35 got as far as Washington DC, where I had a meeting, but only got here just in time before I have to leave. Maybe I'll get some pictures early tomorrow.

  29. #29
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images Of The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    We have to stop meeting this way...

    S1010760 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    16-35 got as far as Washington DC, where I had a meeting, but only got here just in time before I have to leave. Maybe I'll get some pictures early tomorrow.
    Scott it looks like you can't help yourself.....☺

  30. #30
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    May 15 here in New England and it was a summer-like day (hot & humid) with summer-like storms. I went out to the coast (Plum Island, MA) and here's one with my SL & 16-35mm SL lens at f7.1, 16mm, iso400 at 1/320sec (processed to taste)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1000508_SL601_RMR_May_2018-Edit_FB.jpg 
Views:	1 
Size:	828.7 KB 
ID:	134177

    And another at 19mm in the rain at f7.1 at 1/40sec on a tripod (processed to taste)

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1000522_SL601_RMR_May_2018-Edit-Edit_FB.jpg 
Views:	2 
Size:	953.3 KB 
ID:	134178
    Likes 4 Member(s) liked this post

  31. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    I like the moonscape shot near Plum Island. Do you ever fly from there? Actually that part of the coast is easy to reach from Beverly or Hanscom, but the little Plum Island strip has always looked appealing. I have pretended to lose an engine and prepared to land there power-off a few times, but have not actually been on the ground there.

  32. #32
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    I like the moonscape shot near Plum Island. Do you ever fly from there? Actually that part of the coast is easy to reach from Beverly or Hanscom, but the little Plum Island strip has always looked appealing. I have pretended to lose an engine and prepared to land there power-off a few times, but have not actually been on the ground there.
    I live about 15 mins from Plum Island! If you ever come to this area plan to spend a day and we can go over to Cape Ann if you're interested (Rockport, Gloucester, etc)
    Bob

  33. #33
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by RMR View Post
    I live about 15 mins from Plum Island! If you ever come to this area plan to spend a day and we can go over to Cape Ann if you're interested (Rockport, Gloucester, etc)
    Bob
    I've spent quite a bit of time in the Boston area, hope to be back again this summer although no definite plans just yet. Here's a shot from the Cape Ann area with my M8, 24 Elmarit about 10 years ago:


  34. #34
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    Quote Originally Posted by scott kirkpatrick View Post
    I've spent quite a bit of time in the Boston area, hope to be back again this summer although no definite plans just yet. Here's a shot from the Cape Ann area with my M8, 24 Elmarit about 10 years ago:

    Cool shot. I go out to Cape Ann often as it's got a lot of subjects to photograph and it really seems to say "new england" for me!
    Thanks 1 Member(s) thanked for this post

  35. #35
    Member RMR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Massachusetts
    Posts
    104
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    3

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    AUTO GARAGE: I took this yesterday morning as I had the opportunity to photograph in and around a garage that repairs and services all kinds of autos. The owner had helped me with my '68 Chevelle Malibu (obviously not the car in the doorway!). Photo with the SL and 16-35mm and (of course) processed to my taste which is give it a little extra color!) at 16mm, iso400, f6.3, 1/250 sec

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	L1000726_SL601_RMR_May_2018_AuroraHDR2018-edit_FB.jpg 
Views:	3 
Size:	953.0 KB 
ID:	134191
    Last edited by RMR; 2 Days Ago at 10:51. Reason: clarify the note

  36. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Use latest firmware for The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    I wanted to check something so I saved some test shots made with firmware 3.1 and my new 16-35 and compared them with the same situations using the newest firmware 3.2. There are some changes in the distortion corrections at the wide end of the range. The corrections applied when the lens is focused at its closest limit are the same for the two firmware releases, but the corrections have been reduced a bit when the lens is focused at longer distances. For the 16 mm setting, I would guess that longer distances are merely a few meters. I tested at 5 meters, across the kitchen. Short distances are lens hood to object distances of as little as 7 - 8 cm. So this is a reason to be sure to upgrade to the new firmware.

  37. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Jerusalem, Israel
    Posts
    1,363
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Images With The 16-35 Vario Lens For SL

    I'm, well, skeptical about all aspects of the US decision to establish an embassy to Israel in Jerusalem, and I was away during the dedication festivities this week. I grabbed an SL and 16-35 to go looking for the signs of the event today. Didn't find much in the city itself (we get national delegations every week, and decorate for them appropriately), but the new embassy is now gloriously decked out in flags:

    S1020050 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    S1020058 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

    but the actual changes are quite underwhelming to date:

    S1020061 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr



    scott

    album at: https://www.flickr.com/gp/[email protected]/vaiC0w has more. I posted more commentary on the LUF with a few pictures.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •