can the 24-90 be the best standard zoom Leica has ever produced

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would be churlish of me to pick on the one thing that I disagree with when everything else seems so sensible.

 

I must be feeling churlish I suppose.

That one thing (compactness, balance) is so dependent on what the SL and lens are used for that I don't find the question helpful. For me the whole package is too big for use a street shooter; for events, planned shoots, portrait etc, size and balance just don't figure in the equation.

[Advertisement]

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

[farnz]

... Compared to the 28-90, the MTF looks quite a bit better at the wide end and at 50mm.  At the 90mm end it looks like a draw. ...

Do the 24-90's MTF curves represent pre- or post-digital correction?  If post-digital correction (as seems to be likely) then are you comparing apples with apples?

 

Pete.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

For the cost I'd expect this to be the best Leica zoom ever. This isn't the 1980's and lens design has come a long way since the last R zoom was designed. Though, for me, it doesn't matter if it's Leica's best because I'm comparing it to it's peers not some antique without autofocus. I'm far more interested that it can keep up with some of the excellent lenses available today, like the benchmark Canon 24-70 2.8LII. Even the little Fujifilm 16-55 2.8 for APSC is excellent and for about 1/5th of the 24-90.

 

If you want an AF and IS standard zoom lens to use on the SL system you have a choice of exactly one lens. It's either good or not. Comparisons to older lenses mean little to me because none of them are really a viable alternative due to lack of AF.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

The two R zooms I named are from the late 1990s and early 2000s, so not that old, and optically their performance levels are still very relevant benchmarks.  They are very sought after by Canon or Nikon DSLR users in favor of those manufacturers' own zooms, and used prices have been between $5k and 10k in recent years.

 

The 24-90 may be expensive but no more expensive than those R zooms were when they were new, relative to the prices of M and R lenses at that time.  The 35-70 was about $3000 when you could buy a brand new 50 Summicron-M for $999.  The 24-90 needs to address design considerations (OIS, AF, etc.) that weren't relevant for those two R zooms so I don't know if I want to assume the 24-90 must be better optically just by virtue of being new.

 

Lack of AF doesn't bother everyone, though evidently it bothers you.

 

 

 

For the cost I'd expect this to be the best Leica zoom ever. This isn't the 1980's and lens design has come a long way since the last R zoom was designed. Though, for me, it doesn't matter if it's Leica's best because I'm comparing it to it's peers not some antique without autofocus. I'm far more interested that it can keep up with some of the excellent lenses available today, like the benchmark Canon 24-70 2.8LII. Even the little Fujifilm 16-55 2.8 for APSC is excellent and for about 1/5th of the 24-90.

 

If you want an AF and IS standard zoom lens to use on the SL system you have a choice of exactly one lens. It's either good or not. Comparisons to older lenses mean little to me because none of them are really a viable alternative due to lack of AF.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

BTW I'm inclined to think any of these R and SL zooms can rip apart their Canon / Nikon counterparts.  There was a time when these tests were run routinely on fredmiranda.com and getdpi.com.  As a matter of fact I think these tests (whether or not scientific or reliable) were quite responsible for driving up the used prices of those R zooms.

 

 

For the cost I'd expect this to be the best Leica zoom ever. This isn't the 1980's and lens design has come a long way since the last R zoom was designed. Though, for me, it doesn't matter if it's Leica's best because I'm comparing it to it's peers not some antique without autofocus. I'm far more interested that it can keep up with some of the excellent lenses available today, like the benchmark Canon 24-70 2.8LII. Even the little Fujifilm 16-55 2.8 for APSC is excellent and for about 1/5th of the 24-90.

 

If you want an AF and IS standard zoom lens to use on the SL system you have a choice of exactly one lens. It's either good or not. Comparisons to older lenses mean little to me because none of them are really a viable alternative due to lack of AF.

 

Gordon

[cpclee]

I did a very crude and totally informal test last night of comparing the 24-90 at 35mm to my 35 FLE, both handheld at f4.0 and 1/100s with a subject that was 2 meters away.

 

There was some tiny difference in the signature of the rendering (the 24-90 had snappier colors, the FLE's more subtle), but there was no difference in sharpness, resolution or detail retention.  If anything I needed to take more than one picture with the 35 FLE at full magnification to have result that was as critically focused as what the 24-90's AF could achieve.

 

 

Is quality close enough to prime lenses so that you don't miss them .....yes

[wlaidlaw]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have compared the 24-90 with both the Leica 28-90/2.8 and Zeiss Contax 28-85/3.3, which IMHO are the two best mid range zooms from the film era. Now I don't know how much is in-camera correction and how much the lens but the 24-90 is more rectilinear than both the older lenses, at both ends of the zoom range. The area the new lens really pulls ahead is flare resistance. Both the older Leica R and Zeiss Contax lenses are quite flare prone on a digital camera, the Zeiss more than the Leica. The older Leica lens has very good micro contrast as does the Zeiss, I would say there is little to choose on this between all three. The winners for corner sharpness at the wide end of the range, full aperture are the 24-90 best, the Zeiss next and a close third the older Leica. At the tele end there is very little to choose but if pushed, I would put them in the same order. 

 

Wilson

[Peter H]

That one thing (compactness, balance) is so dependent on what the SL and lens are used for that I don't find the question helpful. For me the whole package is too big for use a street shooter; for events, planned shoots, portrait etc, size and balance just don't figure in the equation.

 

 

 

I know what you mean. You're not wrong.

 

The thing is, it applies to almost every large lens though: when it's the right lens for the job, like a fast super-tele, size is not the primary factor. But for a general purpose lens, it is, or at least certainly can be a factor.

 

So whilst it isn't an issue for everyone all the time, I certainly wouldn't list its size and compactness as one of its positive qualities, which was my churlish response to Mr T Slapper's list!

[cpclee]

Thanks very interesting especially re: rectiliniearity.  The flare resistance is good to know about.  Some people seem to not bother with the hood of the 24-90 because of the size, and perhaps the penalty isn't that huge. 

 

 

I have compared the 24-90 with both the Leica 28-90/2.8 and Zeiss Contax 28-85/3.3, which IMHO are the two best mid range zooms from the film era. Now I don't know how much is in-camera correction and how much the lens but the 24-90 is more rectilinear than both the older lenses, at both ends of the zoom range. The area the new lens really pulls ahead is flare resistance. Both the older Leica R and Zeiss Contax lenses are quite flare prone on a digital camera, the Zeiss more than the Leica. The older Leica lens has very good micro contrast as does the Zeiss, I would say there is little to choose on this between all three. The winners for corner sharpness at the wide end of the range, full aperture are the 24-90 best, the Zeiss next and a close third the older Leica. At the tele end there is very little to choose but if pushed, I would put them in the same order. 

 

Wilson

[Peter H]

Do the 24-90's MTF curves represent pre- or post-digital correction?  If post-digital correction (as seems to be likely) then are you comparing apples with apples?

 

Pete.

 

 

Yes, I think you are.

 

What's the point in comparing the performance of a lens off-camera (uncorrected) if it changes as soon as you use with the camera it was designed to be used with?

 

I think the desire for high non-digitally-corrected performance is taking abstraction a degree or several too far, and going somewhere that is definitely nothing to do with photography.

[wlaidlaw]

I think Leica supplied the big hood for a very good reason. I think I have counted correctly that there are 28 air/glass interfaces in the lens. Even though Leica has done a first class job of flare resistance with this lens, with all those glass/air interfaces as a potential source for flare, for most situations, the hood is vital. I have always suspected this may have something to do with the often mediocre results from phone cameras and point and shoot - no hood.

 

I bought for my son to go on a trip many years ago to the tribal areas of northern Thailand, a little Contax TiX APS camera. He was working on a water supply and irrigation project, where there was no electricity to charge digitals. It had a very neat arrangement on the lens. When it was extended, there was a thin titanium sleeve round the front section, which you could unscrew and reverse to make a hood. An amazingly robust little camera. It was run over by a truck and apart from a few scratches to the black anodisation, it was none the worse. 

 

Wilson

[wattsy]

What's the point in comparing the performance of a lens off-camera (uncorrected) if it changes as soon as you use with the camera it was designed to be used with?

 

 

I think the point of such a comparison (which may well be straying from "photography" too much for your comfort) is that it is quite interesting to those of us who like to know how things work. 

[cpclee]

Agreed Contax made fantastic little compacts if not the best there were.  I still have a T3 and a TVSIII which I use from time to time when I feel like shooting film.  The results are always very, very good.  And the titanium shells are sturdy, robust, and always looking timeless.  

 

 

I think Leica supplied the big hood for a very good reason. I think I have counted correctly that there are 28 air/glass interfaces in the lens. Even though Leica has done a first class job of flare resistance with this lens, with all those glass/air interfaces as a potential source for flare, for most situations, the hood is vital. I have always suspected this may have something to do with the often mediocre results from phone cameras and point and shoot - no hood.

 

I bought for my son to go on a trip many years ago to the tribal areas of northern Thailand, a little Contax TiX APS camera. He was working on a water supply and irrigation project, where there was no electricity to charge digitals. It had a very neat arrangement on the lens. When it was extended, there was a thin titanium sleeve round the front section, which you could unscrew and reverse to make a hood. An amazingly robust little camera. It was run over by a truck and apart from a few scratches to the black anodisation, it was none the worse. 

 

Wilson

[Peter H]

I think the point of such a comparison (which may well be straying from "photography" too much for your comfort) is that it is quite interesting to those of us who like to know how things work. 

 

 

Good point.

 

But aside from that perfectly valid but slightly tangential (from my point of view) interest, do you feel that it matters whether a lens is digitally corrected or not? 

[wattsy]

Good point.

 

But aside from that perfectly valid interest, do you feel that it matters whether a lesson is digitally corrected or not?

 

 

I think no and yes (in that order). Given (presumably) that these lenses will never be used on non-system bodies (including film, which would be tricky with such a short flange to film plane distance ) it doesn't matter photographically that the excellent results obtained come from a mixture of optical design and software correction. However, I think, at least for me, that there is a lingering question (that is no doubt a hangover of the way things used to be) of what it is exactly that you are paying top dollar for. When you pay £3500 for a 35 Summilux ASPH (roughly 3-4 times the price of the very fine Nikon 35/1.4G), you know that you are paying for a piece of optical wizardry – a very compact, optically and mechanically superior device that represents the best efforts of the optical boffins in Germany and which works on any M mount camera for as long as the system exists. When you pay £3000 or so for the SL zoom (perhaps a 100% premium over the latest similarly sized Canon or Nikon F2.8 mid-range zooms – both of which work on uncorrected bodies, including film bodies) I can't help wonder whether you are paying a premium for superior build quality (which remains to be seen if S lenses are anything to go by) and a better quality of German optical 'bodge'.

[jrp]

The 35mm Nikkor f1.4G is not one of the company's great lenses.  It has focus shift, is soft wide open and suffers greatly from CA.  (The 24mm f1.4 is not much better, but has a gorgeous background rendering.)  The Leica equivalents may not have AF, but are lighter and cleaner wide open.

 

These shortcomings are evident in night light shots, where the SL Zoom seems to do the job better, even wide open,.

[wattsy]

The 35mm Nikkor f1.4G is not one of the company's great lenses.  It has focus shift, is soft wide open and suffers greatly from CA. 

 

 

Not in my experience. I have both the 35 Summilux ASPH (current version) and the 35/f1.4 AFS-G and I think the latter is a superb lens. I don't use it for personal stuff (it is far too large for me to want to carry it around) but when I use it for paid work it is right on the money, every time. I'm not into wide-open bokeh and all that shit so maybe that's why we hold differing views?

[steppenw0lf]

Hello Thighslapper,

 

the list you presented to us is mainly commonplace and full of itrerations.

For example, everybody knows a zoom is made for replacing several other lenses - so what a surprise you have a big YES in this place. (So in your opinion this is really an extraordinary strength of this zoom   ).

You mention many general truths and keep repeating "this is a strength of this lens".  

 

So the list is really not up to Leica quality. (shallow)

 

Back to the lens. 24-90

I had once a similar lens - old Leica users will maybe remember the first version of the R 2.8/180 . It was optically quite nice, but terribly heavy and not "user-friendly". A few years later it was replaced by a very slim version (with the same optics) that was lighter and also nice to use.

I have the feeling that this might happen with the 24-90 as well.

A similar lens is also the Nikon AF 2.8/28-70. High quality (THE Pro lens in the 90s) but nobody is nowadays using it anymore, because not "user-friendly".

 

Summary: For a first lens it is ok (and it is THE BEST because it is the only one). With time there will be alternatives and then everybody can make up his own mind if this is still the best zoom.

Currently there are no alternatives, so it is quite unnecessary to discuss if it is the best.

 

Some people say: "This lens is for day-long shooting". So if your job is to shoot without rest from morning till evening, then it is perfect. But as soon as it is dangling around your neck, it is terrible. (This is also valid for many other lenses, like 2.8/300,. etc.)

 

Stephan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pgk]

it doesn't matter photographically that the excellent results obtained come from a mixture of optical design and software correction. However, I think, at least for me, that there is a lingering question (that is no doubt a hangover of the way things used to be) of what it is exactly that you are paying top dollar for. ..... I can't help wonder whether you are paying a premium for superior build quality (which remains to be seen if S lenses are anything to go by) and a better quality of German optical 'bodge'.

Given that its a zoom and that there will probably be variable corrections required throughout its zoom range it has probably needed a significant amount of work to sort all this out. Which costs money too. But we are talking about a physical purchase which compares to other physical purchases so I suppose it doesn't sit well with our existing expectations. I know what you mean. Perhaps its something that we just need to get used to in future.

 

Not in my experience. I have both the 35 Summilux ASPH (current version) and the 35/f1.4 AFS-G and I think the latter is a superb lens. I don't use it for personal stuff (it is far too large for me to want to carry it around) but when I use it for paid work it is right on the money, every time. I'm not into wide-open bokeh and all that shit so maybe that's why we hold differing views?

 

I have the Canon version and mine is very good indeed, although it never impresses as much as my pre-FLE Summilux for some reason which I struggle to put my finger on, but I've come across some complaints about its pro performance too. I'd say that there is variability in such lenses from copy to copy. Which might mean that in order to deal viably with software corrections Leica have to have very tight QC which again is expensive - just a thought.

[wattsy]

Given that its a zoom and that there will probably be variable corrections required throughout its zoom range it has probably needed a significant amount of work to sort all this out. 

 

 

No doubt, but nothing like as many variable corrections and work as would be required if the lens was to be used on a wider range of bodies (including film) like the Nikon and Canon equivalents. Without digital corrections, I'd imagine this SL lens shows very pronounced distortion towards the 24mm end and, possibly, lower sharpness at the other extreme.