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

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Of course. But an apples for apples comparison carries more weight.

[Peter H]

Of course. But an apples for apples comparison carries more weight.

 

 

No, that's the same mistake repeated.

 

A lot of people are very fond of the many qualities that Leica specialise in. So they are not comparing the SL with the Nikon D5 or whatever, they are simply looking at the SL in its own right, in the hopes that it is the camera for them. And why shouldn't they since it offers a lot and is in some ways a unique camera with which no direct comparisons are possible. And even if they were, no cross-brand comparisons are necessary for those who would rather stay with Leica.

 

So, attracted by its many qualities, they then discover that it's too big and/or too heavy for them, so decide not to buy it. Not because the M is everything they need, and not because a Nikon would be a better comparison than an M, but simply because they discover that the SL doesn't work for them.  Maybe, probably, nothing else does either, but that doesn't help: a decision as to whether to buy the SL has to be made, and if size and weight becomes the deciding factor in the decision, that is a perfectly rational.

 

Apples to apples comparisons are not always relevant or even possible.

[IkarusJohn]

And it its own right, I'd have to say it's neither large nor heavy - for what it is ...  while you duck the comparison, there is nothing similar which is smaller and lighter.

 

I sense we're heading into old territory here, Peter.  But put another way, in terms of what the camera and lens combination offers, do you think it could have been smaller and lighter?  I don't.  Those Leica lovers who find the camera not to their taste were not thinking it through, in my view.  That's fine, I've done the same - but we both know there's a difference between saying "this camera's not for me" and saying "this camera is too big and heavy" - it isn't, for what it is.  It's a bit like being a Porsche lover and complaining about the size of the Cayenne ...

 

The whole nature of a comparison is you have to look at something, otherwise it isn't a comparison.  The Sonys strike me as theoretically the closest, but the comparison isn't very helpful.  Or perhaps it is - Sony shows their mastery of cramming extraordinary functionality and technology into a tiny package, and their complete lack of understanding of haptics.  Their tie-up with Zeiss has helped them with optics, but their user interface and processing lets them down.  The Zeiss lenses which match the Leica offerings are similarly huge.

 

Perhaps it is a fair comparison after all.

 

I have no particular difficulty with people saying - the SL and zoom are too heavy for me (the last bit is missing, but I guess it is less interesting with that qualification added).  Might as well join the fanboys and say "This camera because is too bit and heavy" - such a statement informs the discussion as well as a Huff-like "This is the BEST camera EVER".

 

And, no.  I'm not getting at you.

[Jeff S]

I've played with the SL a bit, but for me, the reason it doesn't make it is the EVF.  As good as it is, especially compared to others I've seen (let alone the dreadful by comparison M add-on),  it doesn't come close to OVF for me.  It's still TV-screen like....just not my cup of tea.   And the VF experience is paramount in my camera evaluation process.....if that doesn't suit, nothing else matters.   I still don't love the user interface, preferring labeled buttons, but I assume that's something I could have gotten comfortable with.  

 

A shame, since otherwise I found the SL, including weight and size, to be just fine. Big zooms are part of the turf, and I have no reason to doubt the capabilities of the zoom discussed here.

  

So, for some larger landscape applications that I'm considering,  I'll pass on the SL, while the next series Canon (either the Mark iV, or the expected 5DS/R refresh) remain in contention.   The good news is a lot less cash....and a lot more AF lenses to choose.

 

Jeff

[IkarusJohn]

Why not hunt around for one of those S system bargains?

 

I could never justify a camera like that (I can barely justify what I have - actually, no, I can't even do that), but the OVF is truly fabulous and in the hand the camera feels great.  I don't think they make a mid-range zoom in the S series, but for what you want that is probably no hardship.

 

When the SL came out, at first I thought the S might be a better deal ...

 

PS - B&H has the S(006) with a 70mm lens for $13,000.00!

 

OR - Vario-Elmar-S 30-90 for $10,340

 

Either the kit above for $13,000 or the S(007) for $17,000

 

Compare the SL plus zoom $12,500.  I guess that makes the SL look cheap.  But an entry kit, with the potential add far more lenses surely makes the S look attractive?

[Peter H]

And it its own right, I'd have to say it's neither large nor heavy - for what it is ...  while you duck the comparison, there is nothing similar which is smaller and lighter.

 

..................

 

 

In its own right, it isn't large and heavy to anyone to whom it isn't large and heavy. To anyone who finds it large and heavy, it is large and heavy.

 

You want to make comparisons, and I'm saying that for many people, comparisons are beside the point.

 

And yes, this is very old ground that we're now treading into a quagmire. Let's walk elsewhere shall we?

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Why not hunt around for one of those S system bargains?

 

 

I love the S viewfinder....from the first time I held one to my eye.  But a few things work against the S for me, despite the bargains (even better in some cases than you suggest). First, there isn't the range of long and zoom system lenses like the Canon, or even like the SL is building.  The one zoom that does exist costs more (over $10,000, discounted) than a complete Canon system, including camera....5DSR + 3 L weather sealed zooms....16-35, 28-70 and 70-300....all terrific optics built like tanks.  I could even buy a bigger RRS tripod and head with the savings.  The older S versions also don't have LV, which is nice for tripod based landscape work.

 

Besides that, I've been very discouraged by reports on the forum related to mechanical and reliability problems with both the S bodies and various lenses.  I know that many folks experience none, but even some of the formerly best supporters of the S system (working photographers) now have multiple tales of woe.  I sure as heck wouldn't want to spend 3-4x the price of a Canon system and then be without the S or some lenses for periods on end.  Even E. Puts has noted lately (since retracted from his site) that Leica seems to be treating its customers as beta testers.  Not good.  I hope that the SL suffers no such trends.

 

Jeff

[scott kirkpatrick]

 

.... Even E. Puts has noted lately (since retracted from his site) that Leica seems to be treating its customers as beta testers.  Not good.  I hope that the SL suffers no such trends.

 

Jeff

 

Nope.  We are beta testers.  Mostly our complaints help to get the "todo" list, of functions that weren't ready when the camera shipped, finally implemented.

 

scott 

[cpclee]

Some interesting passages from David Farkas' SL review.

 

"Starting with the S lenses and carrying forward to the TL and now the SL lenses, Leica started designing lenses for higher resolving power. The published specs show MTF testing up to 40 lp/mm, but internally, technicians now test up to 60 lp/mm, in order to guarantee the highest performance level for this latest generation of cameras, as well as what is to come in the foreseeable future." 

 

"The first SL lens, the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH has more in common with the 30-90mm Vario-Elmar-S lens than the previous 28-90mm Vario-Elmarit-R. In fact, both zooms, the 30-90 S and the 24-90 SL, were designed by Dietmar Stuible, with the new SL lens loosely based upon his earlier S design. With 18 elements in six moving groups, four aspheric elements and eleven elements using glass with anomalous partial dispersion, the standard zoom is packed with exotic glass. And, the end result is probably the best zoom lens that Leica has built to date. Looking at the MTF charts for the new lens, you can see that even wide open, the lens is resolving 80% contrast at 40 lp/m. At all focal lengths. At both infinity and close focus. Yes, this is impressive, especially for a zoom. In fact, the MTFs stay very consistent at all distances, focal lengths and apertures. The lens has no weaknesses. Certainly none that I could see in any of my test shots. If the rest of the SL lenses are as outstanding as the 24-90 we’re in for a real treat."

 

The bit about the 24-90 resolving 80% contrast at 40 lp/mm at wide open is very telling.  In comparison, the very excellent last version of the 50 Summicron-R did not reach that level (80% contrast, 40 lp/mm) until its optimum aperture of 5.6 and only in the center one-quarter of the image circle.

 

Source: LEICA SL (TYP 601) REVIEW: A PROFESSIONAL MIRRORLESS CAMERA by David Farkas

[thighslapper]

there has been some speculation that the Sony G Master 24-70 2.8 may prove comparable ...... but I note Sony's MTF's only show 10 and 30 lp/mm.....

 

whatever, there seems to be a general shift to producing high end well corrected lenses so Zeiss and Leica had better watch out ..... 

 

as it is increasingly difficult to produce new cameras with enough product differentiation to empty customers wallets .... the next trend appears to be towards shiny new exotic lenses ...... 

[cpclee]

Interesting comment about the Sony zoom. Will Sony and Zeiss start encroaching on each other.

 

Having said that I don't fully understand why the various Zeiss lenses for canikon mounts have never included zooms or long teles.

[Jeff S]

Why not hunt around for one of those S system bargains?

 

I could never justify a camera like that (I can barely justify what I have - actually, no, I can't even do that), but the OVF is truly fabulous and in the hand the camera feels great.  I don't think they make a mid-range zoom in the S series, but for what you want that is probably no hardship.

 

When the SL came out, at first I thought the S might be a better deal ...

 

PS - B&H has the S(006) with a 70mm lens for $13,000.00!

 

OR - Vario-Elmar-S 30-90 for $10,340

 

Either the kit above for $13,000 or the S(007) for $17,000

 

Compare the SL plus zoom $12,500.  I guess that makes the SL look cheap.  But an entry kit, with the potential add far more lenses surely makes the S look attractive?

 

Despite my follow-up comments above, I couldn't let the S option pass without at least giving it a try.  So I spent a week with an S006 and the 30-90 zoom.  

 

It was a fine combination, but for me it didn't ring the bells.  In part, it turned out to be a combo best suited for dedicated tripod use and not more casual handheld work.  Many of course use it handheld, and I expected to use it both ways, but with the slow zoom (and no IS), substantial bulk and weight, low ISO range (and expected medium format considerations....DOF, etc), it lacks the apparent versatility of a comparable Canon setup, or the SL and 24-90.  Plus the 006 lacks LV, which could assist in tripod work (the S007 has LV....and the ISO range is extended....but the cost is not in the cards for me).

 

The S primes offer more speed, but other than the 70mm, all are really about the same size as the zoom.  A full set of S primes can also drain a wallet quickly....and that's even considering that there aren't any native lenses beyond 180.

 

All of that aside, I was mostly expecting a more dramatic difference in IQ between my M (with primes) and the S with zoom, as evidenced in prints. While the difference was there, it didn't blow me away at my desired print sizes....I think I'd need to print much larger than I want to really justify the expense (even though moderated by substantial discounts).  

 

I'm still intrigued by the SL, wondering if I can warm to the EVF.  It would make a great complement to my M, extending the range of lenses beyond 28-90, and offering more aids like AF, lens IS, more robust weather sealing, etc.  I might have to rent one for a week with the zoom to get a better idea.  And do the same with the Canon 5DSR and 24-70 f2.8Lii (which unfortunately has no IS like the SL zoom).  

 

I'd sure like to know what lenses are planned for the SL beyond the 50.....limited native lenses are a big deterrent for me, especially since the reportedly stellar 90-280 is probably too big for my taste.

 

I think the M will continue to get a workout for some time to come.

 

Jeff

[tom0511]

Hi Jeff,

I also slightly prefer OVF.

On the other side I enjoy the SL quite a bit. The 24-90 lens is very usefull range and optically very good.

The EVF of the SL beats any other EVF I ahve used before (A7/EM1/Visoflex/...). Its still an EVF but its large and very good resolution.

Also there are some very nice advantages as well: Great for movie recording, AF points all over the frame, no messing around with AF fine tuning of the lens.

The SL EVF is the first EVF I have experienced where I sometimes forget its an EVF. (not always)

[Jeff S]

Yep, I've thought about those benefits (apart from video, which I wouldn't use), especially not having to micro-adjust lenses.  I'll need to test it for a while, as I did with the S.

 

Jeff

[steppenw0lf]

And do the same with the Canon 5DSR and 24-70 f2.8Lii (which unfortunately has no IS like the SL zoom).  

 

Jeff

 

Jeff.

 

Why don't you try instead the 24-70 f4.0 (Canon EF 24-70 f/4 L IS USM) which has IS and also a macro feature ?

Or the very popular 24-105 f4.0   (Canon EF 24-105 f4L IS USM )  ?

The first is quite small - it is about half the length and half the weight of the 24-90. I can recommend it as a normal zoom for the 5DSR.  And the second is somewhat larger, but still much lighter than the 24-90.

Actually I was surprised about the price of the 24-70 f4 : At the beginning announced with a very high price, I got it for a moderate 580$ .

 

I think the SLs EVF is much nicer (brighter and clearer) than the 5DS' OVF - I have both and often prefer the SL despite its lower resolving sensor. I like the 10x finder increment and use sometimes also focus-peaking, and miss it when using other cameras.

 

Stephan

[Jeff S]

 

 

Why don't you try instead the 24-70 f4.0 (Canon EF 24-70 f/4 L IS USM) which has IS and also a macro feature ?

Or the very popular 24-105 f4.0   (Canon EF 24-105 f4L IS USM )  ?

 

 

Pluses and minuses....for me, IQ is paramount (I actually prefer primes unless a zoom is extraordinary), and the f2.8 is better reviewed in that regard.  Of course testing and making prints is the only way to know.

 

Do you have the SL zoom for IQ comparison to Canon?

 

Jeff

[steppenw0lf]

Hi Jeff,

 

I am a bit like you and usually prefer primes with the SL, so I did not buy the SL 24-90. I ordered the SL 90-280, but I am still waiting. So I have no new zooms to compare.

From the MTFs the 24-90 should be much better than the Canon EF 4/24-70, but I think MTFs are not everything, especially for wideangles.

I found the Canon 4/24-70 quite good, even in close-up (stepped down to 8 or 11) it is better than expected.

 

The first tests I saw were uninspiring, but later tests show very high resolution (e.g. http://www.photozone.de/canon_eos_ff/798-canon2470f4?start=1). I do not know what Canon changed or fixed, if anything at all. I did not follow this in detail.

I like it at 24mm, while many other Canons are weak in this area. I have many primes (from 80 to 100mm) and so did not expect too much at 70mm. 

Now I remember again what was the negative point about it: It had a RSA (focus shift) problem. But strange enough diglloyd found that problem also with the SL 24-90 at the long end. No idea how bad these problems really are.

 

The midrange zoom is for me always a compromise. I say this because for me there is no "brilliant" zoom in this range, and you look for an extraordinary lens. I still think the Contax 3.4/35-70 was a good compromise. And I regard the Canon EF 4/24-70 IS USM as a similar choice (but of course more modern).

But it is not a lens that makes me dream - like the R 1.4/80 or the Apo Macro R 100, or the M 1.4/35 AA, etc.

 

As a 50mm or 35mm prime is for me a valid option, I have a size limit for a midrange zoom, that the SL 24-90 unfortunately exceeds.

 

Stephan

 

Sorry, no direct IQ comparison to Canon - but I am confident the SL 24-90 wins.

[Jeff S]

I'm never confident about any gear comparisons without making my own prints....far too many variables in the overall print workflow.   But, by the reviews, the Canon 24-70 f2.8 Lii is a superior lens compared to its siblings and to various other brand mid-range zooms.  So one of these days I'll probably rent both the Canon f2.8Lii  (and 5DSR), along with the SL/zoom, to see for myself.  Unfortunately, it will be a long wait before I can compare SL primes to anything else.

 

Jeff

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Pluses and minuses....for me, IQ is paramount (I actually prefer primes unless a zoom is extraordinary), and the f2.8 is better reviewed in that regard.  Of course testing and making prints is the only way to know.

 

Do you have the SL zoom for IQ comparison to Canon?

 

Jeff

 

I do. And I have regular access to files from the 2.8 L version as well. With the Canons the 2.8 is slightly better at f4 than the slower one but they're essentially the same around f8. The Canon 2.8 is a bit sharper in the centre however my f4LIS is more consistent across the frame than my friends 2.8.

 

The SL zoom is at least as good as the Canons, possibly a little bit better. My copy also seems to be more consistent throughout the zoom range than the Canons, which are a bit weaker at the long end. Background rendering is also nicer on the Leica.

 

I haven't used the Nikon but there are a few zooms that have caught up to the Canon. The SL, Sony GM and the little Fuji 16-55 are all very competitive to Canons crown as best standard zoom. I also find the extra reach of the SL and Fuji zooms a real world benefit over the "normal" 24-70 range. The Fuji has no IS so the SL is the best overall zoom I have in a normal range.

 

Of course I have exactly one sample of each lens I own so I can't speak for copy variation But I currently have the F4LIS (on a Sony), the Fuji 16-55 and the SL 24-90. The Canon is the weakest ( I have also used it on a 1Ds3 and it's no different optically) and I'll probably sell it and replace it with a Sony GM. I do like the Fuji but since the new firmware the SL is the camera I reach for the most.

 

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[steppenw0lf]

I checked with photozone again and found that the Canon 24-70 f2.8 Lii is not far away from the Canon EF 24-70 f/4 L IS USM, while the price difference is huge (more than 1 to 3). But other testers are more favourable. So you are right, it is very difficult to make a decision just based on what others found.

But I am still happy with the lens, the IS serves me better than the 2.8 aperture, and do not regret the selection. But if quality matters I prefer a prime anyway. And for a while I am (and have to be) happy with my R and M primes.

 

Stephan