Jump to content

24-90 - reaching f4 fast


fnuernberger

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Do I understand Leica's technical charts right? At 50mm we're already down to f 3.6?

 

So, we're talking about an f4 lens that happens to open  up to f2.8 at the very wide end?

Looking at the size of the 90-280 (not much bigger than a usual pro 70-200/2.8 lens) I assume it is also closing down to f4 rather rapidly?

 

http://us.leica-camera.com/content/download/128358/1596835/version/1/file/Datenblatt_Vario-Elmarit-SL_24-90_e.pdf

 

Not having f2.8 throughout the zoom ranges and some hints over at dpreview that the camera struggles with foucssing in really low light would kill the camera for the pro market. (That and a non-existent system - like no tele lenses, no super-wides, no flash-system to speak of). And I haven't even begun complaining about the price which is kinda OK for a good camera body. But a variable aperture zoom for 4.300 is rather demanding compared to excellent performers like the Canon 24-70/2.8 (fine for  a 50 MP camera for less tha 1.700 €) or Nikon's new 24-70/2.8 VR (a bit pricy at 2.400 €)

Oh Leica. I really want you to be sucessful in the pro market. I really would love to have an alternative to Canikon. I would even accept stupid prices. You got so much right: two sd-card slots - check. Fast continuous at 11 fps - check. Rather silent - check. Apparently a great evf - check. Non f2.8 lenses: no go.

 

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

I won't buy such an expensive, large, and slow lens that is compromised, difficult/awkward to use, because of its variable aperture. How can they think people want this?

 

How can Leica seriously market this new system as "no compromise", and then in the next breath explain that the 2.8-4 aperture is a compromise on size/IQ?

 

It's an awkward compromise that I have no interest in what so ever. What's worse, it is the very first and only lens on offer, the others coming later the following year, the Summilux apparently coming late next year.

 

I loved this design and am excited by what it might be some day, I really wanted to consider it, but using stopped down M lenses on it it will be an awkward compromise too. It's full of compromises and I have lost interest.

 

I guess R lens owners may feel differently. I hope, for Leica, this works out. I think it was a mistake to launch this so soon when it has no lenses.

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

I bet it is sweet!  Canon has a 24-105 L that is constant f4.0.  So, what is the problem with a 2.8-4?  It is probably 2.8 pretty close to 70mm like the great Canon 24-70 L 2.8.  Plus it has a MFD of 12"  which will be great for product shots and of course is much better than Canon's pro lenses I mentioned.

 

Rick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I bet it is sweet!  Canon has a 24-105 L that is constant f4.0.  So, what is the problem with a 2.8-4?

You mean the £400 budget L kit lens that students buy?

 

It is probably 2.8 pretty close to 70mm like the great Canon 24-70 L 2.8

No, it's close to f4 at 50mm. If it were 2.8 at 70mm it wouldn't be such an issue. Yes, the Canon 24-70 2.8 is great. and small. and cheap.

Edited by Paul J
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't yet got to read an authoritative review of the lens - started to read the fruit and vegetable man's first article and gave up in frustration.  I did read a review somewhere, though, that suggested that the lens held to wide apertures well into the zoom range - I've read so much over the last few days, I doubt I could find it and I doubt it is authoritative. 

 

We do know this lens has a wider range than comparable lenses - 24-90, rather than the more common 24-70 or the R 28-90, and at f/4 at the top end rather than 4.5 (the R lens). Those with more knowledge of pro Canon and Nikon lenses can fill in the gaps, and sizes please. 

 

I think we can be pretty confidence that a fixed f/2.8 24-90mm AF zoom with image stabilisation would be even bigger. I can read the complaints now. I'd love a 180mm Summicron or Elmarit, but for a zoom, this doesn't look bad to me at all.  If the lens is sharp across the frame at f/4 at 90mm, I'd be happy - 6mm depth of field at 1 metre, 1.7 metres at 5 metres. At 5 metres, if the 2.8 aperture was maintained, the depth of field would be 1.15 metres. So, not such a difference, actually, on depth of field. 

 

So, if the issue is low light shooting, there's a change of one stop, gradually, from 24mm to 90mm. If going from, say, 1/250 to 1/125, with a stabilised lens, is a problem, then you could shift ISO one stop from, 400 to 800, or 800 to 1600, or on to 3200?  Initial tests do seem to show that 6400 looks pretty good. 

 

With everyone complaining about size, I'd have thought sharpness and image quality was the critical issue, not speed. There's a very big difference in size between an f2.8 90mm lens and an f/4.

 

I thought you were more concerned about MP count?  A 24MP professional camera is less than half what you were wanting in your next camera, I recall. 

Edited by IkarusJohn
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

As has been pointed out elsewhere there is no point having high mp count sensors without lenses that can match or exceed that resolution with significant distortion or aberrations.

 

For gods sake ..... we are moaning about a lens here with 18 elements, four of which are aspherical and 11 of which have anomalous partial dispersion ....... show me another manufacturer that goes to that extent to optically correct things ......

 

There were loads of moans about the XV, T and Q lenses which were made compact by resorting to firmware rather than optical correction of aberrations ...... and then when Leica does the opposite they get moaned at because the lenses are too big. 

 

Make your mind up Leica folk .... which do you want ????

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

There were loads of moans about the XV, T and Q lenses which were made compact by resorting to firmware rather than optical correction of aberrations ...... and then when Leica does the opposite they get moaned at because the lenses are too big.

 

What makes you think there won't be software correction for distortion, etc. with the new 24-90? It's not as if the lens will be used on a non-SL camera.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the Canon 24-70 2.8 is great. and small. and cheap.

 

Canon = 113mmx88.5mm, 805g, 82mm filter.

Leica = 138mmx88mm, 1140g, 82mm filter. 

 

Yes, the Canon is f/2.8 constant and lighter, probably reflected by the materials used. The Leica gives you more telephoto to work with for decent portrait/people photo options without having to switch to a portrait prime or another zoom. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My guess is that the slow AF in low light will be improved in FW updates or at least I hope so. The low light AF on Olympus MFT lenses certainly has. I remain to be convinced about the need for more pixels. Lens rentals did some tests on the resolving power of various lenses for Nikon D800 when it came out with a 36MP sensor and the conclusion they came to was that most of the lenses resolved to less than 20MP. My guess is that only the Leica 50APO and the Zeiss Otus lenses resolve to much in excess of 24MP. OTOH, when I have been on a day out with just the 35 ASPH Summicron on my M240 and am cropping to get the effect of a longer lens, I do sometimes seem to see pixellation before I see lens softening, so maybe Lens Rentals are wrong and more pixels are beneficial.

 

Wilson 

 

PS Does the SL have an AF illumination light? I assume it must do. 

Edited by wlaidlaw
Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think there won't be software correction for distortion, etc. with the new 24-90? It's not as if the lens will be used on a non-SL camera.

 

Perhaps MJH knows ....... our local repository of Leica info ........

 

I would hope it is no more than what is done to the current M series ...... otherwise I cannot for the life of me see why these lenses are so complex ......

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 so maybe Lens Rentals are wrong and more pixels are beneficial.

 

Wilson 

 

 

 

...... they are ...... but not without cost and issues and trade-offs elsewhere ....... as Leica have indicated in their blurb ...... and they have made a pragmatic decision to stick with 24mp...... which suits me fine 

Edited by thighslapper
Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't yet got to read an authoritative review of the lens - started to read the fruit and vegetable man's first article and gave up in frustration.  I did read a review somewhere, though, that suggested that the lens held to wide apertures well into the zoom range - I've read so much over the last few days, I doubt I could find it and I doubt it is authoritative. 

 

We do know this lens has a wider range than comparable lenses - 24-90, rather than the more common 24-70 or the R 28-90, and at f/4 at the top end rather than 4.5 (the R lens). Those with more knowledge of pro Canon and Nikon lenses can fill in the gaps, and sizes please. 

 

I think we can be pretty confidence that a fixed f/2.8 24-90mm AF zoom with image stabilisation would be even bigger. I can read the complaints now. I'd love a 180mm Summicron or Elmarit, but for a zoom, this doesn't look bad to me at all.  If the lens is sharp across the frame at f/4 at 90mm, I'd be happy - 6mm depth of field at 1 metre, 1.7 metres at 5 metres. At 5 metres, if the 2.8 aperture was maintained, the depth of field would be 1.15 metres. So, not such a difference, actually, on depth of field. 

 

So, if the issue is low light shooting, there's a change of one stop, gradually, from 24mm to 90mm. If going from, say, 1/250 to 1/125, with a stabilised lens, is a problem, then you could shift ISO one stop from, 400 to 800, or 800 to 1600, or on to 3200?  Initial tests do seem to show that 6400 looks pretty good. 

 

With everyone complaining about size, I'd have thought sharpness and image quality was the critical issue, not speed. There's a very big difference in size between an f2.8 90mm lens and an f/4.

 

I thought you were more concerned about MP count?  A 24MP professional camera is less than half what you were wanting in your next camera, I recall.

I'm sure it's a great lens, but as the key pro system lens, it is not enough at f4. Especially so when it's the ONLY lens available. I would have particular uses for it, but it is limited at f4 for a small format and it shouldn't be at such a price and on something being touted as "no compromise". At $3K it shouldn't really have limits like this when the likes of Canon can create an amazing 24-70 2.8L II at a small size and a fraction of the price good for 50MP and beyond.

 

I use a whole mix of lighting. a lot of it is intentionally low with Kinos, LED, Tungsten, HMI, having to balance UK Daylight, I shoot a lot at 2.8 or faster, for necessity, for aesthetic, for a lot of reasons. I don't want to just bump up the ISO, because you are compromising the image in a way I don't have to. I rarely shoot over 400. The was a time when everyone hit everything with flash at f16 because that is what was done. It's not that way now. There are a whole host of nuances in the way we work and also things have changed dramatically again since we shoot so much cine along side now too. Lastly, When it comes to client input, if they want something themselves, you got to make sure you can do it and a slow zoom does not install confidence in that regard.

 

As for megapixels, well i'm trying hard not to bring it up, please don't start me on that. Yes, of corse I'm disappointed, but the 4K cine on this has been a great interest, as has the overall design. Motion, wether you like it or not is the future and I am taking great interest in the system for that. I also don't believe Leica is going to stay low pixel count forever either, particularly as more and more shoot 8K (33mp).

 

I think it was Dr Kaufman who said at the launch that it wasn't a product launch. I'm inclined to actually agree, it was more of an working announcement. The design is incredible and I don't want to take anything away from that, i'm excited by it, but it's not ready for prime time in the sense of pro's jumping into it. That, like the S, takes many years, and I think Leica are working to that.

 

I'm hoping this doesn't come across as overly critical. It's not my intention and I want to see it succeed. But when they want to cater for the pros, they need to give them what they need.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What makes you think there won't be software correction for distortion, etc. with the new 24-90? It's not as if the lens will be used on a non-SL camera.

 

What makes you think that?  It shares a mount with the T (though why anyone would do that, I'm not sure - bigger reach as a backup?).  Similarly, with an adapter, the SL lenses could work in crop mode with the S.  I guess the only camera it might not work with is the M due to the lack of aperture control (even then, I have an adapter at home somewhere for Nikon AF-S lenses which deals with the aperture setting, so even then the SL lenses could be used on an M as well, at a push).

Edited by IkarusJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Similarly, with an adapter, the SL lenses could work in crop mode with the S.

 

How so? I thought S lenses are usable on the SL via a future adapter. Surely both can't be true (unless the SL to S adapter involves removing the mirror assembly of the S camera). I think the same applies to mounting SL lenses on the M.  :)

Edited by wattsy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon = 113mmx88.5mm, 805g, 82mm filter.

Leica = 138mmx88mm, 1140g, 82mm filter. 

 

Yes, the Canon is f/2.8 constant and lighter, probably reflected by the materials used. The Leica gives you more telephoto to work with for decent portrait/people photo options without having to switch to a portrait prime or another zoom.

It was a compromise on size/iq. If it were to be constant, like the Canon, it would be much bigger again. So my comment was in that context.

 

I would trade constant fast aperture for 80-90 focal length any day. Think you might find most pros agree with me.

 

also understand that a changing exposure when you zoom around is really problematic when you're working with fixed and complex lighting. You have to choose the most common and slowest speed, this case being f4. It's the most common reason you need constant max aperture. Therefore, the lens to me is f4 but I understand 2.8 sounds better for marketing.

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...