24-90 performance

[orc999]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello

 

I shot with the 24-90 and did quite like it. the range is excellent for fashion and portrait, with a bit of cropping it would even be enought for headshots.

 

I then compared it to the 90mm Summarit.

The Summarit is sharper at 2.4 then the zoom lens at f4/f5.6/f8. F8 picks up quite well, so for studio portrait that would still be ok, if not stunning.

On the other hand the Summarit still keeps on getting better until f5.6.

 

Did I get a bad copy? Or is it the weakness of this lens?

 

The results seem better then my 50mm summicron at 50mm. at 28mm compared to the Q it's loosing again.

So it seams like a very good lens around 50mm but lacking at wide and long end.

 

Attached the picture Summarit at 2.4(exif is wrong) vs 24-90mm at f8.

Focus on the iron part, distance about 4meters. 100%crop.

They are sharpened and added clarity/contrast to reflect real world usage. Not sure if the quality on that screenshot is enough to see the difference.

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!

Edited August 22, 2016 by orc999

[thighslapper]

1. ISO is different

2. Exposure is different

3. Point of focus is different (left is metal, right is the brown thing)

4. Despite what you say the apertures used are very different (as shown by the OOF detail in the background)

 

I think you need a more careful comparison than this...... and bear in mind that AF is prone to occasional errors and can be fooled unless you are careful. 

 

Very few zoom lenses come close to prime lens performance ...... but the 24-90 is close enough that I personally cannot see any difference that matters ...... and it is uniform throughout the range. The MTF figures supplied support this. 

Edited August 22, 2016 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

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

[orc999]

1. ISO is different

2. Exposure is different

3. Point of focus is different (left is metal, right is the brown thing)

4. Despite what you say the apertures used are very different (as shown by the OOF detail in the background)

 

I think you need a more careful comparison than this...... and bear in mind that AF is prone to occasional errors and can be fooled unless you are careful. 

 

Very few zoom lenses come close to prime lens performance ...... but the 24-90 is close enough that I personally cannot see any difference that matters ...... and it is uniform throughout the range. The MTF figures supplied support this. 

yes the aperture is 2.4 vs 8. It's what I wrote. (Exif shows 2.8, wrong)

Focus is on the metal with both. focus with the spot cross. At f8 the whole part is in focus, but the ceramic thing shows less details, so it does not matter that much.

Of course exposures is different, as one is at 2.4 and the other at 8.

The image here online does not show enough detail to show the difference, but 500k is the limit, sorry for that.

I will delete that picture

 

In general I would say it's good to have it, and if you really want to take benefit of the SL, use a different lens at 90mm.

Edited August 22, 2016 by orc999

[LocalHero1953]

With respect, the images are too different, both in shooting parameters and the scene itself, to support your comments.

Aside from Thighslapper's comments, the shadows on the object are different.

You may be correct in your comments - I haven't done this check - but the images don't support them.

If these are 100% crops as you say, then problems of sharpness should be visible, even with the limitations of image posting rules.

Can you do a comparison of an identical scene, at the same ISO, aperture shutter speed, and with manual focus (unless you think it is AF that causes the problem). 

And since it is the lens you are assessing, not the sensor, I would rather see the shots with no sharpening/clarity/contrast.

[orc999]

I'm not a professional lens tester. I would refer to the known pay sites for that.

I also shot it in the studio and there is a clear difference.

I took several shots and neither shot at any aperture from the 24-90 at 90mm was able to deliver the detail that the summarit already delivers open at 2.4.

It's not sharp in the center and worse outside. For landscape it might not matter, for a portrait, where eyes need to be critically sharp, it's not a match for the 10kusd value of the bundle. However 35-70mm it is great.

Used at 70mm it is fine. They should just have made it a 35-70 instead, lighter or constant f2.8. Cropping at 70mm will give more resolution probably. 

That's just my opinion I know. I also think the 24-70 from canon is much worse.

[rriley]

With respect, the images are too different, both in shooting parameters and the scene itself, to support your comments.

 

You may be correct in your comments - I haven't done this check - but the images don't support them.

 

 

The comparison is interesting but the inconsistencies in methodology do not permit one to draw any reliable conclusions.  If the study could be repeated with the various criticisms addressed it would be very helpful.  I hope that ORC999 will do that.

Edited August 22, 2016 by rriley

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not a professional lens tester. I would refer to the known pay sites for that.

I also shot it in the studio and there is a clear difference.

I took several shots and neither shot at any aperture from the 24-90 at 90mm was able to deliver the detail that the summarit already delivers open at 2.4.

It's not sharp in the center and worse outside. For landscape it might not matter, for a portrait, where eyes need to be critically sharp, it's not a match for the 10kusd value of the bundle. However 35-70mm it is great.

Used at 70mm it is fine. They should just have made it a 35-70 instead, lighter or constant f2.8. Cropping at 70mm will give more resolution probably. 

That's just my opinion I know. I also think the 24-70 from canon is much worse.

It's entirely up to you if you provide comparable test results or not, of course - you asked for responses to your conclusions and you got them.

I'm not a professional lens tester either, FWIW, but I haven't "noticed" a difference between my 24-90 and my M primes in the same range. I emphasise "noticed" because I have made no reliable tests that would warrant (eg) "detected".

[thighslapper]

and you have to remember that the Summarit 2.4 .... despite being 'cheap' by Leica standards is optically as good as anything Leica has produced at 90mm 

[steppenw0lf]

The MTFs for the Summarit 90 are excellent at 2.4 and almost perfect at 5.6  (flat)

The MTFs for the SL 24-90 are never that perfect at 90mm (but no need for a universal zoom).

But the SL 90-280 is better again than the Summarit at 90mm. So you know now how to solve this problem.    

Edited August 22, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Despite there being significant differences in exposure I see no reason not to compare. It does look like the light changed somewhat and I, personally, would prefer to see comparisons in the same light. There's more contrast in the lighting on the zoom photo which isn't helping it.

 

Regardless of that, I'm not surprised that a Leica prime should perform better than a Leica zoom. The Summarit is an excellent optic. And 90mm primes are not that complicated in design.

 

I think we need to compare zooms with zooms. Does the Leica zoom keep up with it's contemporaries? I don't have the Nikon but I do have the rough equivalents in Canon, Fuji and Sony mounts and the SL zoom certainly keeps up. I especially like that, unlike the Canon, it is remarkably consistent throughout the zoom range whereas the Canon is noticeably better at the wide end. It also has, IMHO, a better focal range than its competitors (except perhaps the Canon 24-105L to which the SL zoom is vastly better optically) and it has IS, which, for my hands, saves more blurred photos than any optical improvements. The IS in the lens often allows me sharper images than a prime with better optical performance. Perhaps the Sony FE24-70GM is marginally better optically but I'll take the 20mm extra and consistency offered by the Leica. For what it is the SL is a very good zoom lens indeed.

 

I can take nearly any two lenses you want to name and find something better in almost any other lens. In this case the improved optics of the Summarit vs the IS and convenience of the zoom. I have a 90mm AA. I've owned the Summarit. When I need f2.0 I'll use the prime. When I need flexibility, I'll use the zoom. When I need ultimate optical quality I'll use the prime. But mostly I understand that I'll get sharper shots with the zoom than the Summicron because of the lens IS, most of the time because it's me who's the real limitation, not the gear.

 

Gordon

[Guest VVJ]

The comparison is interesting but the inconsistencies in methodology do not permit one to draw any reliable conclusions.  If the study could be repeated with the various criticisms addressed it would be very helpful.  I hope that ORC999 will do that.

 

+1.  I certainly don't feel that I am missing out on image quality with the 24-90mm.  I should add though that I am mostly using it in the 35-75mm range but I am still grateful that it effectively is a 24-90mm.

 

It would be nice to see the 24-90mm tested on LenScore.org and directly compared with the Canon, Nikon and Sony zooms.  

Edited August 23, 2016 by JorisV

[zlatkob]

I also think the 24-70 from canon is much worse.

 

 

I would like to see a side-by-side comparison with the current Canon 24-70/2.8L version II.  That lens is outstanding.  It's a constant f/2.8, super sharp, and fairly compact for a zoom in this range.  Roger Cicala of LensRentals.com described it the best standard range zoom ever made.

Edited August 23, 2016 by zlatkob

[Suteetat]

I would not be surprise if Leica prime is better than Leica Zoom as that is expected and it is always a big surprise, when zoom outperform the prime, I think. Zoom is here for convenience over prime, not quality over prime as a whole.

Edited August 23, 2016 by Suteetat

[steppenw0lf]

I would like to see a side-by-side comparison with the current Canon 24-70/2.8L version II.  That lens is outstanding.  It's a constant f/2.8, super sharp, and fairly compact for a zoom in this range.  Roger Cicala of LensRentals.com described it the best standard range zoom ever made.

 

 

If you like this lens, that's perfect.

But regarding objective/absolute quality this lens is not so special. It's biggest problem is that there is no IS. The slower EF 24-70/4.0L has IS and is therefore often much "better" regarding photographic results. Understand me right, both are fine in the wide-angles, both are weak in the short teles. That is simply the current state of technology (MTFs and tests all show this). Only if you use flash (which makes IS obsolete), then the 2.8L II is maybe preferable. (Or in brightest sunshine)

So it all depends on the special circumstances how a lens is used. That is also why usually only zooms are compared to zooms (of equal focus range).

 

But generally it can be said that the (apo/ED/L) tele zooms (80-200, 90-280, even 100-400) are of higher optical quality than their midrange "partners" (28-70, 24-70, 24-90). The MTFs are really clear about that. (in all brands)

It is currently more difficult to combine both wide-angle and small tele into a common zoom lens. Combining only small and larger tele is currently closer to perfection.

I am sure that in a few years the next and after-next generation of normal zooms will (partially) close that gap. (And the current lenses will look really old ;-).

 

And regarding primes it is even clearer: Today anybody can create a perfect 90 or 100mm lens. The technology is there and widespread (even in "no-name" products). So it is simply to be expected that a 90mm/2.4 Leica lens is close to optical perfection and will beat any midrange zoom hands-down.

But is it important ? Yes, sometimes it is, but rarely. Most of the time it does not matter. So choose your lens accordingly.

 

Regard the midrange zoom as a lens that offers you a big choice of wide-angles with good aperture and occasionally a tele snapshot with the advantage that no slow lens change is necessary. (And OIS of course).

If you use mainly tele and use no WA, then these lenses are not the optimum.

Edited August 23, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Peter Branch]

This is my first post since changing over from a Leica M based outfit to a Leica SL system and it amounts to something of a confession.

 

 I now realise that I had become obsessed with IQ and sought to have the "very best lens" in any focal length and tolerated the limitations of the M system in the belief that I was gaining IQ.

 

After several trips to remote locations it slowly dawned on me that although I might, (emphasis might), be getting the best possible IQ with the Leica M I was at the same time missing a lot of pictures because I frequently had an inappropriate focal length lens on the camera.  Changing lenses in hot dusty conditions was fraught with problems not least how to carry the alternatives which were heavy.

 

I've just finished taking the first ~ 500 pictures in all sorts of conditions with the SL fitted with the 24-90mm zoom and I can honestly say that if there is any loss of IQ it is not evident in practice.  However I've taken many pictures which I would not have been able to take with the M without a great deal of extra effort and inconvenience.

 

My 18mm f/3.8 SEM and 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE have been kept because they give me something the SL currently can't provide - but I'm a covert to the SL because of the IQ which is much more than good enough.  

[tom0511]

This is my first post since changing over from a Leica M based outfit to a Leica SL system and it amounts to something of a confession.

 

 I now realise that I had become obsessed with IQ and sought to have the "very best lens" in any focal length and tolerated the limitations of the M system in the belief that I was gaining IQ.

 

After several trips to remote locations it slowly dawned on me that although I might, (emphasis might), be getting the best possible IQ with the Leica M I was at the same time missing a lot of pictures because I frequently had an inappropriate focal length lens on the camera.  Changing lenses in hot dusty conditions was fraught with problems not least how to carry the alternatives which were heavy.

 

I've just finished taking the first ~ 500 pictures in all sorts of conditions with the SL fitted with the 24-90mm zoom and I can honestly say that if there is any loss of IQ it is not evident in practice.  However I've taken many pictures which I would not have been able to take with the M without a great deal of extra effort and inconvenience.

 

My 18mm f/3.8 SEM and 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE have been kept because they give me something the SL currently can't provide - but I'm a covert to the SL because of the IQ which is much more than good enough.  

 

I agree in many points.

I have used the 24-90 for some time now and the range is very usefull. SO far I have not detected anything bad in IQ.

They slightest miss-focus will by the way make a much bigger difference.

In the end I mainly use M lenses on the M and AF lenses on the SL.

Except for low light I sometimes put a fast M lens on the SL.

Even if the 90 Summarit (or my 75 Summicron) is slightly sharper, the 24-90 is plenty sharp for my taste.

I had Zooms from other brands were I did see shortcomings in IQ but the 2 Leica SL Zooms seems very very good IMO.

[MRJohn]

I was initially not interested in the 24-90 since I have a bunch of M primes which cover the range. Some of them recent lenses from Karbe, like the Apo 50, SEM 21, Summilux 28, and Apo 90. But the pictures posted in this forum (SL image thread) convinced me that the 24-90 follows some similar characteristics as those mentioned lenses, they e.g. have the same great transparency and contrast behavior. In other words, the 24-90 seems to have a closely related "look" at similar apertures compared to those mentioned lenses. People might disagree, but this is my personal opinion. So why would I get it, I am well covered and have the added benefit of being able to shot my primes faster when needed? Turned out that I got a good deal on a used 24-90 at 30% off and was heading for a family vacation where I did not want to bother anybody with that guy again stopping or taking time all the time to change lenses. I also put a Noct in the bag just in case I want to have shallow DOF.

 

Long story short, subjectively, with no formal comparison, I think the photo quality and look and feel of good images are indistinguishable from others I have taken with the mentioned primes when I look at my lightroom library. In addition, I do have a much higher hit rate (exposure, focus and what should be in the frame) with the 24-90, compared to the primes on the M. Did the 24-90 (or the SL) make me a better photographer? Certainly not. But the quality of that lens (in my opinion) is not inferior to the mentioned primes (at similar apertures) and no obstacle to producing great images if light, composition and exposure come together to give me that occasional lucky moment. In addition, the SL has a much faster interface to make adjustments and as a combination with the 24-90 it works extremely well. So in my opinion, the 24-90 performance is very high, but probably also needs to be judged in combination with the SL. Primes still have some advantages when needed, like better subject separation when shot wide open, and allow lower ISO and hence produce less noise compared to a zoom in certain situations, all well known. Economically, with the 24-90 you get like 5-6 lenses in 1 and at that quality it is incredible value for money. - What I do not like is the hulk and bulk of the combination. It is heavy, if I have it around my neck the aluminum of the body is quite sharp since it is top heavy with the 24-90 (so need a good half case next, any recommendations?), it is also not very discreet compared to an M with a prime. Well, I can get used to that for time being. - In summary, the 24-90 performance provides for great opportunities and only few limitations 

 

 

[jrp]

For someone who wears glasses, going back to the M240 feels quite clunky after using the zooms.

 

My hit rate (% pictures that do not need to be discarded for technical reasons -- focus, framing, exposure, etc) is high.  The quality of the zooms is, as others have said, comparable to the primes.  Their bulk is wearisome and conspicuous, but tolerable, unless you are taking candids.   The M lenses remain useful for their wide angles, wide apertures and, in a few cases, rendering, or for when you want to travel light.

 

In all, the SL is a more effective system than I had expected. 

[thighslapper]

 What I do not like is the hulk and bulk of the combination. It is heavy, if I have it around my neck the aluminum of the body is quite sharp since it is top heavy with the 24-90 (so need a good half case next, any recommendations?), it is also not very discreet compared to an M with a prime. Well, I can get used to that for time being. - In summary, the 24-90 performance provides for great opportunities and only few limitations 

 

get a hand strap such as the Herringbone .... the camera suddenly becomes a much more portable and usable proposition..... plus you have a tripod plate permanently attached for instant use ......

 

https://www.amazon.com/Herringbone-Heritage-Leather-Camera-Stitching/dp/B00FR74GOW/ref=pd_sim_421_6?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8BGD2Y518G1W420SDCJS

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[rriley]

get a hand strap such as the Herringbone .... the camera suddenly becomes a much more portable and usable proposition..... plus you have a tripod plate permanently attached for instant use ......

 

https://www.amazon.com/Herringbone-Heritage-Leather-Camera-Stitching/dp/B00FR74GOW/ref=pd_sim_421_6?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8BGD2Y518G1W420SDCJS

 

I agree, the Herringbone is easily the best hand strap I have used.