Jump to content

APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 zoom


IkarusJohn

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An overly enthusiastic user has given the SL 24-90 the title of Apo. Well, maybe it deserves it, even though it is a false title.

I'd like to see a comparison of the old and new "normal zooms", of the SL 24-90 to the humble and much older Kyocera built Vario-Elmar-R 4.0/35-70 Macro, which deserves also the title of ASPH..

Has anybody made a comparison of these two lenses or can anybody do it ?

I like the 4/35-70 because of its size. And I like the pictures made with it and that are published here in the forum. They often have a distinctive Leica look. Or simply, they often look good.

On the other side the 24-90 has excellent technical specs, there ought to be splendid photos, but most photos I find rather lack-lustre, sorry.

So I woud like to see a comparison - 1 in technical quality  and 2 maybe more important in "memorable photos".

 

Stephan

 

It is clear that the zoom ranges are different, so no need to repeat this. 

Ad 1   Has anybody made a side by side image quality comparison ? (How sharp it is, the amount of detail etc., comparison in macro mode, ...)

Ad 2   Any examples of memorable photos.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Please define 'lack-lustre', 'distinctive Leica look'. and 'memorable photos'.

 

There is no macro mode on the 24-90 so I cannot see how you can compare it. 

 

I've posted more image comparisons than is healthy for my sanity .... and unfortunately that is one lens I don't have and can't help.

 

Looking at the MTF's the 24/90 is significantly better at 24mm and 90mm than the older lens is at 35mm and 70mm .... so I find it hard to believe it will be 'better' ...... just 'different' by whatever subjective criteria you want to apply. 

 

There are hardly any 'bad' Leica lenses from the last 30yrs and in real-world use I suspect any differences are rather subtle and very subjective..... it's just a matter of what you like and what suits your usage. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not particularly fond of zoom lenses in general, but the SL24-90 performs as well as any of my R prime lenses in the focal length range do on resolution, contrast, etc. I don't have an R35-70 to test against, but if you like it more then that's up to you. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

For thighslapper.

 

I expected this reaction. So I first was reluctant to use these words. But then, so what!

If you want to understand, ok. If not , so what.

I like your photos, but they are not marked with details (at least lens and angle would be useful), so really hard to read anything out of them.

 

It is always a matter of what one likes, so not really amazing stuff you tell. As stated above not really helpful. Nothing to be learned from it. And unfortunately you do exactly what is not the idea, to discuss the obvious, that the mm are different. (What a very deep discussion.) It is also amazing that you say the 24-90 can not be used for macro, because others have talked about it and even added photos.

 

But I am really interested in  a comparison, maybe picture by picture, detail by detail. I have only one lens, so I cannot do it. Probably most are in this situation.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

To make it clear: I'd like to learn more about the differences, NOT start a war between ... whoever.

If there are others who would like to know more about it, great.

If some people do not like this idea, simply ignore it.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

To start the technical part of the comparison I add the links to the MTF graphs of these two lenses. Probably I am not allowed to copy the MTFs here, or am I ?

Vario-Elmar-R 4/35-70 Macro (ASPH)    ASPH is an invention, but deserved as Leica describes.

35mm–70mm f/4 Vario-Elmar-R.pdf

Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90

https://de.leica-camera.com/Fotografie/Leica-SL/Lenses/LEICA-VARIO-ELMARIT-SL  or    Download 

Best link:  LEICA VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 1:2,8-4/24-90 mm ASPH.

 

The MTFs for the 24-90 are incredibly high, even the graphs for close-up (1m). So this lens can also be used for "mild macro" (not for extreme macro). So in the end both lenses address a similar audience (no surprise).

The MTFs for the 35-70 are less impressive, but if you have made comparisons with other famous zooms, like the contax 28-85 or 35-70, the MTFs are clearly better. So the lens can also not be terribly week, even if the "paper-based form" is not as excellent as the new lens.

So I think the MTFs are just a starting point, but maybe not extremely important, anyway.

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

An overly enthusiastic user has given the SL 24-90 the title of Apo. 

 

 

Sorry, typo on my part, rather than enthusiasm - not sure you see me raving one way or the other about this lens.  Perhaps a kind moderator can amend the title for us.

 

As an aside, the designation APO is not necessarily any statement of quality on it's own, and of limited relevant with anything wider than 50mm - convergence of different parts of the spectrum is more of an issue with longer lenses.

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

I like the 4/35-70 because of its size. And I like the pictures made with it and that are published here in the forum. They often have a distinctive Leica look. Or simply, they often look good.

On the other side the 24-90 has excellent technical specs, there ought to be splendid photos, but most photos I find rather lack-lustre, sorry.

So I woud like to see a comparison - 1 in technical quality  and 2 maybe more important in "memorable photos".

| can't offer any comparisons to help you - I don't have the R zoom. But I'm interested in how you will make your judgement when you see images from both. Is a "memorable" image more likely to show the characteristics of a lens than a "lack-lustre" image?

Link to post
Share on other sites

| can't offer any comparisons to help you - I don't have the R zoom. But I'm interested in how you will make your judgement when you see images from both. Is a "memorable" image more likely to show the characteristics of a lens than a "lack-lustre" image?

 

Just my personal impressions, not worth discussing. Just a way to start the comparison.

If you are really interested, open a topic for this.

By the way, do you really insist that everybody who cannot help is obliged to confess it here in public  :D ?

 

Are you a lawyer or in any other way "professionally deformed" ? A comparison does not necessarily result in a "judgement".

If you do not like judgements, does it mean you will make no comparisons anymore ? Would you prefer them to be banned ?

Would this make sense ?

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if you're not interested in explaining how you will judge, l wish you well in persuading others to help you.

 

Well, I appreciate your really great help. Maybe not all are as helpful as you ...

 

Serious: I plan no judgement. I am only interested in the comparison.

One lens is the present or the future, the other the past. So what would it help to have a judgement.

But a comparison is interesting anyway, so maybe others find that, too. 

Edited by steppenw0lf
Link to post
Share on other sites

To start the technical part of the comparison I add the links to the MTF graphs of these two lenses. Probably I am not allowed to copy the MTFs here, or am I ?

Vario-Elmar-R 4/35-70 Macro (ASPH)    ASPH is an invention, but deserved as Leica describes.

35mm–70mm f/4 Vario-Elmar-R.pdf

Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90

https://de.leica-camera.com/Fotografie/Leica-SL/Lenses/LEICA-VARIO-ELMARIT-SL  or    Download 

Best link:  LEICA VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 1:2,8-4/24-90 mm ASPH.

 

The MTFs for the 24-90 are incredibly high, even the graphs for close-up (1m). So this lens can also be used for "mild macro" (not for extreme macro). So in the end both lenses address a similar audience (no surprise).

The MTFs for the 35-70 are less impressive, but if you have made comparisons with other famous zooms, like the contax 28-85 or 35-70, the MTFs are clearly better. So the lens can also not be terribly week, even if the "paper-based form" is not as excellent as the new lens.

So I think the MTFs are just a starting point, but maybe not extremely important, anyway.

 

Leicas philosophy was ... and is,  to design zooms that compare favourably with existing primes ...... and Puts acknowledges that was the case when it was produced in 1997.... but that was 20years ago. 

 

Apart from the current 50/2 apo which produces images of startling clarity that even I can spot, I really can't tell any difference between any of the 25 or so M & R series lenses I have that are <20 years old when used at sensible apertures..... and that includes zooms. 

 

Ok, there are differences wide open. particularly corner issues if you look closely, but nothing that would be distracting even in a large print. 

 

The 24-90 with a +5 Marumi Macro lens produces images that still look 'perfect' to my eye. ..... as no doubt the 35-70 will.

 

If there is anything that images posted to date show, it is that the SL allows the full range of Leica lenses ..... past and present ..... to show their full potential, and the results are consistently excellent. 

 

Anyone out there with both ???  

 

Please post a comparison pair ..... or this is all just pointless speculation and sniping .....  :lol:

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

late evening colours, 70mm

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 by steppenw0lf
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Leicas philosophy was ... and is,  to design zooms that compare favourably with existing primes ...... and Puts acknowledges that was the case when it was produced in 1997.... but that was 20years ago. 

 

Apart from the current 50/2 apo which produces images of startling clarity that even I can spot, I really can't tell any difference between any of the 25 or so M & R series lenses I have that are <20 years old when used at sensible apertures..... and that includes zooms. 

 

Ok, there are differences wide open. particularly corner issues if you look closely, but nothing that would be distracting even in a large print. 

 

The 24-90 with a +5 Marumi Macro lens produces images that still look 'perfect' to my eye. ..... as no doubt the 35-70 will.

 

If there is anything that images posted to date show, it is that the SL allows the full range of Leica lenses ..... past and present ..... to show their full potential, and the results are consistently excellent. 

 

Anyone out there with both ???  

 

Please post a comparison pair ..... or this is all just pointless speculation and sniping .....  :lol:

 

To satisfy my own curiosity, I tested the 24-90, 35-70 F4 R, 28M Lux, 28R 2.8 VII, 50R 2.0 ROM, 80R Lux and 90M 2.0 APO, along with the Zeiss 28 Otus. All of the lenses performed very well and I truly couldn't see much difference between them at 5.6. I will post left edge crops from each lens for evaluation, but understand that this was not a stringent lab test. The light was changing and it took a while to run through all the different lenses, so the images are not completely consistent. It will take quite a few posts to get all of the images up...

 

If anyone is interested, here is a link to download all of the full resolution jpegs: https://www.dropbox.com/s/m2jkovny4bvscoc/Full%20Frame%20Full%20Res.zip?dl=0

 

Full frame image from the 24-90@28mm attached below for orientation...

 

*Edit: added 28M Lux to list of tested lenses

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 by J S H
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

24-90 @ 28 5.6 Left Edge crop

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

28M Lux @ 5.6 Left Edge crop

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

28R 2.8 Version II @ 5.6 Left Edge Crop

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

28 Zeiss Otus @ 5.6 Left Edge Crop

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!

  • Like 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...