fastcar888 Posted December 18, 2015 Share #1 Posted December 18, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) Do you find the Leica 24-90 lens produces better pictures than the Leica primes on the SL? Although I don't own the SL (yet), it appears the 24-90 photos are superior to Leica prime lenses. Thank you. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 18, 2015 Posted December 18, 2015 Hi fastcar888, Take a look here 24-90 lens on Leica SL. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
jip Posted December 18, 2015 Share #2 Posted December 18, 2015 Superior in what way? Busy out of focus areas? I would not call this superior, also looking at the MTF curves its a damn good zoom lens, but it doesn't beat certain primes for the M series. I think the 24-90 is an amazing lens, but I think I prefer the rendering of primes over that of the zoom. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
farnz Posted December 18, 2015 Share #3 Posted December 18, 2015 No. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jip Posted December 18, 2015 Share #4 Posted December 18, 2015 No. ^^ 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 18, 2015 Share #5 Posted December 18, 2015 I think you need to consider that the SL zoom is designed specifically for the SL body/sensor. Also it is a digitally corrected lens - in camera processing corrects things like distortion and vignetting. So it would be surprising if M lenses were actually better on the SL than dedicated SL lens(es) to me. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted December 18, 2015 Share #6 Posted December 18, 2015 I've spent most of my shooting time with R prime lenses thus far, and also a few shots with a couple of M lenses. The tests I've shot with the SL 24-90 zoom are right in there with both of them. It's a very solid performer. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott kirkpatrick Posted December 19, 2015 Share #7 Posted December 19, 2015 Advertisement (gone after registration) I think you need to consider that the SL zoom is designed specifically for the SL body/sensor. Also it is a digitally corrected lens - in camera processing corrects things like distortion and vignetting. So it would be surprising if M lenses were actually better on the SL than dedicated SL lens(es) to me. Vignetting and any color casts are corrected in camera, stored in the raw file image, saved as a DNG file. Distortion correction is done while rendering the DNG file on the computer, using parameters that are passed in the DNG in a standard format. Color curves appropriate to the camera are applied while rendering as well. Adobe LR has issued these. Others, such as Capture One, are probably working on them still, but the generic curves in COne, which I use, are pretty good already. Several years experience with the M[240] and the Q are now behind this, and there are reports of several M lenses, such as the Karbe Summiluxes, which perform better on the SL than they do on the M, by a small margin. Comparing M lenses on the SL to the one AF zoom SL lens on the SL is apples to bananas, the two are so different. The framework is in place for providing R lenses with the same support that makes the bigger M lenses work so well, but the actual profiles will probably take 6-12 months and some customer pressure to get refined to the same level. There seems even to be a place in the R lens DNG for distortion correction, which wide angles and zooms at their wide end typically can use, but I haven't found any parameters there as yet. scott 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2015 Share #8 Posted December 19, 2015 I don't own any of it, but I would bet that IQ depends more on the user's subject matter, workflow, abilities and display intentions (screen, print, print size, lighting, etc) than on lens characteristics in most cases. I don't see how you could judge what you've already seen by looking at some screen shots, with myriad intervening and unknown variables. By 'better pictures' I would instead be more concerned with picture captures in the first place....changing primes vs using a zoom, carrying a heavy zoom around all day vs a small prime or two, is lens speed critical?, etc. Small IQ differences hardly matter if you don't get the pic you want to start, and even then, will the audience care or know what was used if your pic is worthy? Jeff 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
fastcar888 Posted December 19, 2015 Author Share #9 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) I don't own any of it, but I would bet that IQ depends more on the user's subject matter, workflow, abilities and display intentions (screen, print, print size, lighting, etc) than on lens characteristics in most cases. I don't see how you could judge what you've already seen by looking at some screen shots, with myriad intervening and unknown variables. By 'better pictures' I would instead be more concerned with picture captures in the first place....changing primes vs using a zoom, carrying a heavy zoom around all day vs a small prime or two, is lens speed critical?, etc. Small IQ differences hardly matter if you don't get the pic you want to start, and even then, will the audience care or know what was used if your pic is worthy? Jeff I fully acknowledge that my position is subjective, and what I have viewed is on a high resolution computer. Steve Huff's review of the SL (his camera of the year) certainly opened my eyes, especially when paired with the 24-90. Given that, I went online and looked at virtually all photos with the SL. Those, subjectively, with the 24-90 appeared to have a more realistic appearance of life to my eyes. They attract my esthetic sense of beauty, intellect, held my interest, and had more of an emotional flavor, with a wow factor. Of course, the some of empirical scientists in any Leica group will adamantly disagree with me. It has been my experience of four decades plus that Leica is not simply about science. It is about successful outcomes and engaging results. This is simply my opinion. Since my intellectual employment is not directed at the science of Leica, I don't care to be in a holy war. Rather, just seeking out the perspective of others. Thank you. Edited December 19, 2015 by fastcar888 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
thighslapper Posted December 19, 2015 Share #10 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) From a purely non scientific and personal opinion the three Leica cameras that I own that have produced the highest percentage of images that I personally find attractive are the X-Vario, Q and SL. Not a clue why, and be honest I don't really care .... but to anyone that takes a lot of photos and uses a variety of cameras, you soon get an eye for the ones that produce the real 'keepers' and are also a pleasure to use. Same goes for lenses ...... and why I tend to get grumpy about the pontificators on this and other forums that pronounce judgements based on tests and reviews without actually having used the damn thing for more that 10 minutes in a dealers ..... Of course it could be that all the current SL users are just great photographers ........ Edited December 19, 2015 by thighslapper 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2015 Share #11 Posted December 19, 2015 (edited) I fully acknowledge that my position is subjective, and what I have viewed is on a high resolution computer. Steve Huff's review of the SL (his camera of the year) certainly opened my eyes, especially when paired with the 24-90. Given that, I went online and looked at virtually all photos with the SL. Those, subjectively, with the 24-90 appeared to have a more realistic appearance of life to my eyes. They attract my esthetic sense of beauty, intellect, held my interest, and had more of an emotional flavor, with a wow factor. Of course, the some of empirical scientists in any Leica group will adamantly disagree with me. It has been my experience of four decades plus that Leica is not simply about science. It is about successful outcomes and engaging results. This is simply my opinion. Since my intellectual employment is not directed at the science of Leica, I don't care to be in a holy war. Rather, just seeking out the perspective of others. Thank you. Whatever floats your boat. My experience since the 70's using everything from 35mm (Leica and other brands) to 8x10, and doing all my own printing and display, is that nobody has any idea what camera/lens was used, and most don't care if the image/print is wonderful....digital or film. Blind showings, even with my photo friends, and various exhibits, have shown this time and again. For screen display, there are many gear options for a lot less money than a Leica, or any other high end gear, that will suffice. I'd rather spend the money on a high end monitor if screen display was my end goal and viewing method (and even then have no control over the other guy's monitor or PP methods). Just my perspective and opinion. As an aside, is there anything that Steve Huff doesn't get excited about? Jeff Edited December 19, 2015 by Jeff S 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 19, 2015 Share #12 Posted December 19, 2015 Having looked at the photo part of the forum for many years, and the various dedicated camera and lens threads too, I honestly can't see any reliable correlation whatsoever between the equipment people use and the enjoyment (or any other response) I derive from seeing their photos. I can recognise photographers whose photos i appreciate and others who regularly leave me cold, but again, these are spread across all types of equipment, which I feel strongly reinforces the aptness of the cliche that it's the photographer and not the the equipment that matters. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2015 Share #13 Posted December 19, 2015 Exactly, Peter. If gear told the whole story, everyone using the same gear would get the same results. History proves otherwise....thankfully. But this is a gear oriented forum, despite the photo section, so I understand the leanings. When it comes to questions about fundamental gear preference, though, I don't understand how anyone can decide without trying it out and incorporating it into one's own shooting style, PP process, display methods, etc. There's generally a way to borrow, rent or demo equipment....or if the urge strikes, just buy it and see....which is one reason why purchasing through a reliable dealer with good inventory and return policy makes more sense to me than saving a few bucks shopping online. Jeff 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 19, 2015 Share #14 Posted December 19, 2015 Indeed Jeff. And I'm certainly not saying that equipment is irrelevant to photography, which would be plain daft, or that it can't be interesting and worth talking about. Different equipment will definitely suit different people and different uses, and by discussing it we can maybe learn something very helpful. But put simply, I'm seeing exactly the same mix of interesting and dull, impressive and disappointing photos in the SL threads as I see in the M threads, the S threads and all the other parts of the forum, and there's something to be learned from that, too. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted December 19, 2015 Share #15 Posted December 19, 2015 Plus the fact that the OP is trying to distinguish here between 'top end' gear....it's not as if we're comparing dramatically disparate lens quality levels. But many differences between zoom and prime lenses should already be apparent to the user, as I noted earlier. Jeff Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 19, 2015 Share #16 Posted December 19, 2015 I would say the 24-90 is the better than any M-Zoom, and the M-Primes are better than any available SL-Prime Frienkly hard to compare, the 50 APO and the 35/1.4 seem to work pretty well on the SL and I like the shallow DOF. My feeling the 24-90 is totally fine in regards of IQ, I sometimes wish it was constant f2.8 for. When I choose between primes or the Zoom it is more about lens-speed and size if I choose a M prime over the 24-90, and its flexibility and AF when I choose the 24-90 over a M prime. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
earleygallery Posted December 20, 2015 Share #17 Posted December 20, 2015 Indeed Jeff. And I'm certainly not saying that equipment is irrelevant to photography, which would be plain daft, or that it can't be interesting and worth talking about. Different equipment will definitely suit different people and different uses, and by discussing it we can maybe learn something very helpful. But put simply, I'm seeing exactly the same mix of interesting and dull, impressive and disappointing photos in the SL threads as I see in the M threads, the S threads and all the other parts of the forum, and there's something to be learned from that, too. Or put even more simply, the photographer matters, not the camera! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter H Posted December 20, 2015 Share #18 Posted December 20, 2015 ......... it's the photographer and not the the equipment that matters. Or put even more simply, the photographer matters, not the camera! Hard to argue with that. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
helged Posted December 20, 2015 Share #19 Posted December 20, 2015 The 24-90 is a highly versatile and a technically fine lens, little doubt about that. At the same time, the 24-90 hasn't the character - or doesn't paint the light or doesn't have the in-focus/out-of-focus rendering - found in many of the R or M primes. This is nothing but a plus; if you are out in heavy rain or need varying focal lengths or opt for auto focus and doesn't care about the weight and bulk, then the 24-90 is the only lens in town and it will do the job (at least for Leica, excluding the S-line). If the focus is on a specific rendering or in case of specific light/size/weight/etc limitations, add one or a few of the myriad of Leica and non-Leica lenses available. This dual nature of the SL is great - it is perhaps the system's biggest advantage - as it increases the usability of the Leica system tremendously compared to, say, the M line. This being said, the M-line remains closest to my heart... 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted December 20, 2015 Share #20 Posted December 20, 2015 shot some images with the 50/1.4 asph and the 24-90 at 50mm at equivalent f-stops...I was really surprised. 24-90 is a great lens. Color wise on the SL I preferred the Zoom, which came out a little warmer. I can not see that the zoom has less chracter, except it is not able to produce the shallow DOF like a fast zoom. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.