Jump to content

Question-Vario-Elmarit 24-90mm lens: practicalities


jrp

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm enjoying my SL with a range of M lenses.  It is on the limits of what I am prepared to carry around, to make cityscapes, with anything up to half a dozen lenses on a particularly indecisive day.

 

I am whether it would not be more sensible to get the zoom (Vario-Elmarit).

 

Looking at weight only, the Vario-Elmarit is the equivalent of about 4 M lenses.  But it does give you AF and, perhaps more importantly for my type of subject matter, the ability to change focal length without changing lenses.  The weight issue does not, however, end at the lens itself.  Instead of making do with a table top tripod, which serves me well for 80% of what I need, I'd have to carry a heavier and more obtrusive tripod, adding another kg to the load, and being even more attention-seeking than the zoom.

 

I would also lose the ability to take widest aperture shots (although I often do so only to limit ISO, which can also be accomplished by the Vario-Elmarit's optical image stabilization).

 

Have I missed anything?  What have been your real-world experiences?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the zoom I recon has the same image quality as prime lenses..bulky yes, but it is versatile for particular type of shoot (stage, documentary, wedding, some sport). When I want to shoot street I'll leave it at home (probably  :rolleyes: ) but its quality is without doubt.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I am outside in daylight I mainly use the Zoom. I only switch to M-primes inside in low light situation.

THE IQ of the zoom is excellent and the handling is very good.

If you switch focal length often and if you are fine with f2.8-4.0 the zoom is one of the reasons to buy a SL IMO.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Have I missed anything?  

 

The zoom is weather sealed.

 

If you shoot, or plan to eventually shoot, with much longer and/or much wider focal lengths, the current zoom will pair well with the forthcoming 90-280 and, I anticipate, a wide zoom (perhaps along the lines of 16-35).  While only three lenses to cover myriad focal lengths would be nice, the obvious size and weight would get you into another mode of photography.....think backpack, full size tripod, etc....slower and more contemplative picture taking.  In other words, the mirrorless version of some DSLR use.

 

For many, the appeal of the SL is that it is not an M....it CAN be a different system and approach altogether.   Depends what you want.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use the SL primarily with a nice kit of R lenses, but the 24-90 is a nice thing to have when I just want to carry one lens and still have the versatility of a bag full of lenses. It's big, it's heavy ... but it also handles well, supports AF when I want that, supports image stabilization for when that's useful, is weather-sealed for inclement conditions, and is an excellent performer.

 

I haven't used it too much as yet, but I could see a very nice "travel the world" kit being the SL with the 24-90, an Elmar-R 180/4, and a Super-Elmar-R 15/3.5. Toss the R 60 Macro in as well and that accounts for 98% of what I ever shoot. I always have a decent, medium-size tripod with me for any serious photo expedition so that's no big addition to my kit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If cityscapes is what you want i.e. landscapes in cities without much interaction with people, then the SL zoom is ideal. But if you want intimate discreet portraits and street photographs, then it is too big (IMHO). I have just had lunch with a person, taking occasional photos of them, using my M and APO Summicron 50. This would have been totally impossible with the SL+zoom both on a physical level (I'd have hit them as I moved the combo around) and an emotional level, whereas the M just kept out of the way.

 

Too often on this forum we concentrate on camera and lens specs without thinking about how they are used. In photography involving people the performance of the photographer and how the camera can actually be used take the forefront, not its resolution, buttons etc.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

If cityscapes is what you want i.e. landscapes in cities without much interaction with people, then the SL zoom is ideal. But if you want intimate discreet portraits and street photographs, then it is too big (IMHO). I have just had lunch with a person, taking occasional photos of them, using my M and APO Summicron 50. This would have been totally impossible with the SL+zoom both on a physical level (I'd have hit them as I moved the combo around) and an emotional level, whereas the M just kept out of the way.

 

Too often on this forum we concentrate on camera and lens specs without thinking about how they are used. In photography involving people the performance of the photographer and how the camera can actually be used take the forefront, not its resolution, buttons etc.

 

 

LOL! That's what an M and a 35mm lens is for. Why would you expect to do discreet lunch photographs with a bazooka?  :rolleyes:

That's why I have both an M-P and an SL ... !

Edited by ramarren
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For all the talk about the size of the 24-90, I find it balances really well with the SL. Some of the other mirrorless systems I own are too small, with their standard zooms on them to balance nicely.

 

I didn't purchase the zoom straight away as I thought I'd be mostly using M lenses. But I do like the image quality and convenience of the zoom on the SL and that's the lens that is there most of the time.

 

Gordon

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

The size in photos and the weight quoted are very misleading ...... in practice it is not a heavy or bulky camera to have on a shoulder or round your neck all day ...... and it can dangle off a hand with the strap wrapped round your wrist for security quite comfortably.

 

For the average male user it is comfortably under the size and weight that would have you cursing it by day end. 

 

Like others I have taken it on trips with a few other lenses, just in case, and have never used them ....... the 24-90 can do 95% of what you will ever need.

 

I'm also used to tiddly manfotto tripods etc for my M and have yet to find anything suitable ..... and the tripod hole is at the very back of the body which makes it even more of an issue...... so I'm back to propping it up with guidebooks/wallets/mobile phones on bits of furniture/walls etc. Having said that I can handhold down to 1/30sec at 90mm with OIS on .....  so not much gets missed.

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I picked one up on the strength of this feedback. I now need to figure out how to configure the body for best results. A whole world of new settings that I have blissfully ignored until now remain to be mastered. The lens is bigger than I would like, but smaller than it looks. Just. I'll make do without an 82mm b+w uv filter pro tem. I guess that I'll have to look into some of those sturdier, but less flexible, German table top tripods as I doubt that the Manfrotto will take it.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I picked one up on the strength of this feedback. I now need to figure out how to configure the body for best results. A whole world of new settings that I have blissfully ignored until now remain to be mastered. The lens is bigger than I would like, but smaller than it looks. Just. I'll make do without an 82mm b+w uv filter pro tem. I guess that I'll have to look into some of those sturdier, but less flexible, German table top tripods as I doubt that the Manfrotto will take it.  

 

 

You might look at bean bag supports. They work well for bulkier cameras. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree.

 

The size in photos and the weight quoted are very misleading ...... in practice it is not a heavy or bulky camera to have on a shoulder or round your neck all day ...... ..............

 

 

That's very subjective. I borrowed one for a day and was relieved to give it back because I found the weight of the 24/90 was influencing and restricting my shooting, which is the very last thing I want or need.

 

The camera has a lot going for it, and I'm not knocking it as a photographic tool, but the bulk and weight of it with the zoom, whilst not being a problem for everyone will be an issue for some. I don't think it would be wise for anyone in any doubt to buy it before giving it an extended trial. The photos it produces are lovely though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I complained about the weight of the SL when it was introduced, especially with the 24/90. Now I have one. Yes, it's "deadweight" is heavy. But in practice the zoom and camera balance well, holding the assembly with your left hand and operating the camera with your right. It is lighter in action than you expect. It's also quick on the trigger because your focus is automatic and the shutter well positioned and with a nice feel and sound. To me the shutter touch and feel is closer to a film Leica than the current rangefinder 240.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Love the handling of the SL. Don't mind the weight. Love the image quality of the 24-90, especially at the wide end. Love the fact that it nails the autofocus every time with static subjects--much faster than I can with a rangefinder, at least at focal lengths of 50mm and greater. Hate the size and bulk of the 24-90. There may be no way around it, especially if you want image stabilization and quick autofocus, but I hope they will release a smaller, non-IS 35-70 or so f/4 zoom in the future and maybe a couple more primes. For now, I find myself using my M lenses much more than the 24-90 at least in situations where I don't need the responsiveness of the 24-90.

 

I also know myself and my bad habits. When Inhave a zoom, I get lazy with composition.

 

- Jared

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I got one of theses beasts and my initial impressions are quite favourable.

 

If I don't take the 5 assorted M lenses that I normally do on a "just in case" basis, it's not that much heavier on the back.  It is, however, achingly heavy to carry around on the camera around your neck.

 

The image quality is surprisingly good.  (So it should be for the price.)  Surprisingly for a zoom, that is.  It renders beautifully and is sharp at the point of focus.  I haven't seen the sort of funnies (aberrations) that I am accustomed to seeing with the fast M lenses.

 

I haven't yet played with all the settings on the SL that come into play when you have an AF lens, but I can see that some optimizations are not yet available (e.g. I would like to set the Auto ISO shutter speed to 2/f since the OIS takes out 2-3 stops of shake).  (Similarly, I would like to see 1/(4f) for manual lenses on a 24Mpx sensor.)

 

Having the a fixed set of focus points that the joystick can select is slightly painful: the eye, or critical focus point always seems to be between two focus points,

 

As others have pointed out, this is not a discreet lens.  It is attention grabbing, which limits its usability on the street.

 

Jury still out, but on the whole favourable verdict.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I haven't yet played with all the settings on the SL that come into play when you have an AF lens, but I can see that some optimizations are not yet available (e.g. I would like to set the Auto ISO shutter speed to 2/f since the OIS takes out 2-3 stops of shake).  (Similarly, I would like to see 1/(4f) for manual lenses on a 24Mpx sensor.)

 

 

 

I tend to switch to T and set speed manually ...... only takes a couple of button presses and I can now do it on auto pilot ...... also have OIS on/off toggled as top of my favourites list when TR is pressed so that is simple as well. Digging  2/f out of the menu if it existed would save a bit of effort ..... but then people like me would want 3/f as well for the wider angle settings ......  :unsure:

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...