SL With M Lenses or 24-90mm ?

[agencal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Next week i will be buying my SL.I am now a M 240P user with 50mm Apo.

I will be buying SL with 28mm 1.4 Lux.

So my set will be SL + 28mm Lux + 50mm Apo

 

What dou you think about the zoom lens.To have that range with AF is priceless but do you think it will make a M user,which has the best lenses in Leica M line up,happy?Yes it is big but for a moment let's forget about the size.Is it there with the Canon 24-70mm II technically? When i saw the outputs from Raw Digger i couldn't believe how much distortion 24-90mm has.Ok it is normalized with software of the SL but in the expence of corner softness like in Q? 

 

I will use SL with two M lenses for city trips and street photography.If i buy 24-90mm i will use it for photo specific trips like Cuba,Vietnam,Kambodia etc.But is it worth to give that price for 24-90mm?

 

I have 3 more days.Please help

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

I was originally going to buy the SL body only and use it exclusively with R lenses, but after thinking about it I added the 24-90 to my purchase. I haven't used it extensively yet—still enjoying the R lenses too much—but I have to say what I've seen come out of it looks right up there with the photo quality of both the R and M prime lenses. 

 

The reason I decided to add it to the purchase was that it's the only way to use all of the capabilities of the SL with AF and image stabilization, etc. Might as well have everything the camera can do at your disposal, right? 

 

It's a large lens and, coming from the M, carrying it can seem off-putting. However, as I spend more and more time carrying the SL with R lenses, the 24-90 now just seems a bit bigger than my average lens. The range and versatility it offers, and the close focusing, can be a big plus over using M lenses which typically don't focus much closer than .7 to 1 m. For day to day shooting, I'm happier with a more compact kit (typically SL + Summiux-R 50 and Elmarit-R 24, or similar) in a smaller bag, but when the weather is wet or you just want the versatility of having all focal lengths from 24 to 90 in hand the zoom is the way to go.

[satijntje]

@Agencal: I had the same idea,and bought only the SL body.

Used it with my 1.0Nocti and 50APO.

However, I will make a swap to the .95 Nocti and add the 24-90 lens exactly for the same reasons as you indicate.

So you are not alone :-)

Go for it and enjoy!

 

John 

[tom0511]

In my experience so far the 24-90 is a very good lens. The APO50 still has a special color and contrast.

Frienkly I would see any reason to use a SL instead of a M if I wanted to use just 28 and 50 M primes.

I use the Zoom as long as light is good enough and Leica M prime if light is too low.

[thighslapper]

I took the SL + 24-90 plus the adapter and WATE on a trip to Spain. 

Used the WATE for 6 shots out of a 1000, eventually didn't bother with a bag as the camera is robust, water and dustproof. 

No problem carrying it round and the image quality is easily a match for for most Leica primes.

OIS gets you down to 1/30th at 90mm or less handheld and the excellent ISO performance up to 3200 makes low light a non issue ... so fast primes are no that much of an advantage. 

This camera is designed to function best with its own dedicated zoom ....... I personally would opt for that as the default position, then add additional M lenses if you really think you need them. 

.... and of course its worth it ..... how many Leica primes would you need to cover this range  ? 

[Peter Walker]

For travel photography, you don't need anything other than the 24-90 = no awkward lens changes and a relatively small bag to carry around.  I'm traveling in Japan now and have not wished I had any other lens with me.  Just one camera holster bag (Manfrotto).

[agencal]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

For travel photography, you don't need anything other than the 24-90 = no awkward lens changes and a relatively small bag to carry around.  I'm traveling in Japan now and have not wished I had any other lens with me.  Just one camera holster bag (Manfrotto).

If we think that way,why leica? Nikon d810 + 24-120mm would do the job as well.

 

The main thing i wanted to know is if 24-90mm is as good as leica prime standarts.

Other way why to pay 4300 euro to a average qualiy zoom.

[Peter Walker]

If we think that way,why leica? Nikon d810 + 24-120mm would do the job as well.

 

If we think THAT WAY, just carry an iPhone 6, like all the other tourist hordes - with a selfie stick.  

 

I suspect you'll find that the SL + 24-90 will produce images somewhat better than the Nikon.  But, if that extra Leica edge, both in quality and usability, is not worth much to you, by all means, carry a Nikon.

 

thighsapper already answered your question.  I was simply reinforcing his answer.

 

Regatds

Peter

[tom0511]

If we think that way,why leica? Nikon d810 + 24-120mm would do the job as well.

 

The main thing i wanted to know is if 24-90mm is as good as leica prime standarts.

Other way why to pay 4300 euro to a average qualiy zoom.

Why you assume its an average zoom?

I believe it is one of the best zooms I have used so far.

[Cliff S]

Tom. You misunderstood him.

 

He wants to know if it's Leica quality or if it's average.

[ramarren]

This is a bit silly. Why would one consider a $5000 Leica lens and think it might only be "average" in quality? 

[rfunnell]

After purchasing the SL over a month ago without the 24-90 as I have many M lenses including 50 Apo to use I reconsidered as the reviews and pictures 

being posted were very compelling.

I always enjoyed light gear but I must say after having the 24-90 for some weeks now you don't even notice the weight issue as much.

One thing is for certain it's not an average zoom.

 

I suggest you consider it.

[fastcar888]

Great topic.

 

I have been thoroughly immersed in the decision to purchase the SL with the 24-90, and get rid of my Nikon SLR system.  This week I will go to the Leica store and spend more time with the SL and 24-90.  I like the idea of having a Leica with a quick auto focus, and a range with one lens that covers a considerable amount of photographic geography. More photos are keepers than with manual focusing. Considerably more.  Manual focusing IMHO, is very old school in 2016, given the technological advancements.  From everything I have read, the SL and zoom gives one three extra stops. That is considerable. The SL with the 24-90 is very versatile. 

 

I have spend many hours online looking at comparisons between the 24-90 and Leica primes. Maybe it is me, however, photos taken with the Leica 24-90 leave very little to be desired, if anything, over Leica primes.  The zoom lens was made with the SL in mind. Moreover, it is weather sealed. The real question from my perspective is simply the weight and bulk; they are almost the same as a Nikon 800 with the 35-70.  After reading a considerable amount regarding this decision, in my judgment if one can afford the 24-90 lens with the camera, then it is a no-brainer. So if I decide to get the camera it will be with the zoom. Besides, it is a perfect compliment to my Leica Q. Good luck with your decision. 

[Jared]

Next week i will be buying my SL.I am now a M 240P user with 50mm Apo.

I will be buying SL with 28mm 1.4 Lux.

So my set will be SL + 28mm Lux + 50mm Apo

 

What dou you think about the zoom lens.To have that range with AF is priceless but do you think it will make a M user,which has the best lenses in Leica M line up,happy?Yes it is big but for a moment let's forget about the size.Is it there with the Canon 24-70mm II technically? When i saw the outputs from Raw Digger i couldn't believe how much distortion 24-90mm has.Ok it is normalized with software of the SL but in the expence of corner softness like in Q? 

 

I will use SL with two M lenses for city trips and street photography.If i buy 24-90mm i will use it for photo specific trips like Cuba,Vietnam,Kambodia etc.But is it worth to give that price for 24-90mm?

 

I have 3 more days.Please help

 

Whether or not it would make you happy depends on what you are expecting from it.  It doesn't have the resolution that the 'M' primes have, but the contrast is pretty good.  It's a little soft in the corners at 90mm, but is solid from 24mm to 75mm.  If you want:

 

- Fast autofocus that gives you a much higher chance of nailing the focus than a rangefinder 

- Image stabilization

- The convenience of a zoom

- Results that are easily sharp enough for large prints

 

Then you won't be disappointed.  If you are looking for performance that fully matches the 'M' primes, then you won't be happy.  Fine detail is rendered much more sharply with my primes than with the zoom--there's just a bit more pop from the primes.  Frankly, whether you are satisfied or not just depends on what you are expecting.

 

Whatever software magic is being performed in software  to address vignetting and distortion does not appreciably affect sharpness.  Almost no light fall off or visible distortion at any aperture or focal length.  I know a lot of people decry software solutions to optical imperfections, but the results on the 24-90 speak for themselves.  It's a really good zoom.  As long as you aren't expecting the impossible from it, you'll be pleased.

 

- Jared

[earleygallery]

All of the technical issues which affect optically corrected zooms are fixed by the digital correction of the SL.

 

It should be about as good as it can get, otherwise the software people haven't done their job properly.

[sillbeers15]

Come January 2016 will be the time for me to get the SL + 24-90mm kit. I've anticipated the offering of AF capability from Leica as I've written in some of my earlier post in the M forum. So I've stopped purchasing anymore M & R lenses in the last 12 mths. As I've said earlier, this is the only way for Leica to continue making money from us.

 

I will be moving my Noctilux and 21mm Summilux to be used on SL as I am pretty sure the SL's new EVF will make it much easier to focus both lenses than my M240. My 21mm Lux is my prime lens for most of my Landscape shots and I intend to use my Noctilux for shots that I have time to focus. I will also look forward to the coming 90-280mm for sports photography.

[tom0511]

I have used the 24-90 for some time now, and also the 35 Summilux FLE and 50 APO.

Today I also checked the 28/2.0asph, the 21/3.4 and the Zeiss 85/2.0 on the SL.

 

The only lens which I regard to have an IQ advantage over the zoom might be the 50 APO in regards of its special color rendering.

 

Other than that the 24-90 seems excellent to me. It also handles just fine on the SL, but of course it is a big lens.

Manual focus with the M lenses is fine, but with AF of the Zoom you are faster and more precise (if you need to shoot quick).

 

For me: 24-90 if there is enough light, 35 or 50 M-prime if I need a faster lens.

[jonoslack]

 

What dou you think about the zoom lens.To have that range with AF is priceless but do you think it will make a M user,which has the best lenses in Leica M line up,happy?Yes it is big but for a moment let's forget about the size.Is it there with the Canon 24-70mm II technically? When i saw the outputs from Raw Digger i couldn't believe how much distortion 24-90mm has.Ok it is normalized with software of the SL but in the expence of corner softness like in Q? 

 

I will use SL with two M lenses for city trips and street photography.If i buy 24-90mm i will use it for photo specific trips like Cuba,Vietnam,Kambodia etc.But is it worth to give that price for 24-90mm?

 

I have 3 more days.Please help

 

Well - I'd say that it's undoubtedly worth the price - I'm pretty certain it's the best zoom lens I've ever used, and unlike most mid range zooms it doesn't seem to have any bad points which might need avoiding. 

 

I had the camera for 2 separate periods of about a month before i bought mine.  The first period I shot pretty exclusively with the zoom - and the second period only with M and R lenses - mostly the 28 f1.4 and the 50 APO. It's a different proposition, but in both cases I was completely satisfied.

 

Shooting with M lenses is great - but the 24-90 adds other opportunities, and the image quality is everything you might expect it to be,

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[solal]

I too bought the 24-90 together with the SL with no doubt for one reason, when I see the stats in Lightroom about my use ol lenses more than 80% was done with a 24-70 or equivalent.

Foe example, I had during 2 years a complete Canon equipment : 5DmarkIII, 16-35 2.8 L, 24-70 2.8 serie II L, 40mm 2.8, Sigma Art 35 1.4, 100 macro 2.8 L, 300 4.0. I used the 24-70 most of the time ( making pictures mostly during travels).

I thought that it will be the same with the SL, and a little bit easier, the 70 mm limit was sometimes not usefull. The 90mm of the 24-90 is a very good approach.

My Canon camera bag weighted 19 kg. I don't want to do the same now.

So I carefully choose my addons. I added just now the Zeiss Distagon 35mm 1.4 ZM (for available light pictures and due to his IQ quality), the Voigtländer 15 mm 4.5 version III (very compact, very good and i think a good complement to the 24mm of the zoom) and a Leica Q (which I really like).

With the 90-280 (to have a complete coverage during travels) and perhaps the Summilux SL 50, I'm convinced I will have everything I need.

 

[Jared]

Next week i will be buying my SL.I am now a M 240P user with 50mm Apo.

I will be buying SL with 28mm 1.4 Lux.

So my set will be SL + 28mm Lux + 50mm Apo

 

What dou you think about the zoom lens.To have that range with AF is priceless but do you think it will make a M user,which has the best lenses in Leica M line up,happy?Yes it is big but for a moment let's forget about the size.Is it there with the Canon 24-70mm II technically? When i saw the outputs from Raw Digger i couldn't believe how much distortion 24-90mm has.Ok it is normalized with software of the SL but in the expence of corner softness like in Q? 

 

I will use SL with two M lenses for city trips and street photography.If i buy 24-90mm i will use it for photo specific trips like Cuba,Vietnam,Kambodia etc.But is it worth to give that price for 24-90mm?

 

I have 3 more days.Please help

 

Hopefully, this should give people a good idea of what is possible with the Leica SL and 24-90 vs. one of the best 'M' primes, the 50 Summicron-APO...

 

I was on a wine tasting outing yesterday in Napa, California with my family--a boxing day tradition for us.  Here are a couple of snapshots from the Stag's Leap winery.  All images were taken with the Leica SL at ISO 100 at around 2:30 in the afternoon, so lighting is not very interesting.  All images were handheld.  Image stabilization was turned on with the zoom lens and not available (of course) with the 50mm.  Manual exposure mode.  I selected f/8 in all cases.  Oh, one other thing that has not been brought up with the 24-90 zoom is it's true speed in terms of throughput: t-stop vs. f-stop.  All that glass definitely absorbs some light.  You seem to lose about half a stop in absorption overall vs. the 50mm.  

 

I don't have exactly matching images in terms of focal length, but you can compare a single shot with the zoom at 40mm vs. a single shot with the 50.  I'll post a down-sampled version of the full image followed by crops from both lenses from the center of the field, the lower left corner, and the upper right corner.