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

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

..for the full frame?  Would love to hear from people who have compared it to the 35-70/2.8 and the 28-90/2.8-4.5 for the R.

 

It quite possibly is.  It was designed for digital from ground up and is unusually elaborately constructed even by Leica standards -- 5 aspherical surfaces on 4 elements, and 11 out of the total 18 elements are made of anomalous partial dispersion glasses! To put into context, the 35-70 has 1 aspherical surface and 5 elements with anomalous partial dispersion, and the 28-90 is 2 aspherical surfaces. Erwin Puts wrote the AF mechanism is more precise than even the mechanically focused M can achieve.  

 

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.

 

Compared to the 35-70, its MTF also looks better at the wide end, middle and tele end at comparable apertures despite that its wide end is much wider and the tele end is much longer. (It is better at 24mm than the 35-70 is at 35mm, and is better at 90mm than the 35-70 is at 70mm.) 

 

Given how expensive those R zooms are on the used market, the 24-90 seems like a screaming good deal.

 

Thoughts?

Edited February 29, 2016 by cpclee

[jrp]

Don't know how it compares to other Leica lenses, but it's surprisingly good compared to DSLR lenses of similar range, even without nano-coating, etc.

[Advertisement]

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

[tom0511]

I certainly like my sample of the 24-90 and have not found any weeknesses so far ( except it gets away from f2.8 fast when zooming in ), but I really wouldnt call it a screamin good deal.

Its a very good lens but its also a high price we have to pay.

What I dont understand by the way is the high prices on ebay for the 28-90. Some years ago one could find them for 2000 K, and then last year prices went far up.

[earleygallery]

It certainly seems a complex design but it also relies on digital correction. I know that's part of the design, but it could be argued that it can't be as 'perfect' a lens as one with similar performance which doesn't rely on digital correction.

 

Mount the SL lens on an R body, if you could, and the results wouldn't be very nice!

[Peter H]

It certainly seems a complex design but it also relies on digital correction. I know that's part of the design, but it could be argued that it can't be as 'perfect' a lens as one with similar performance which doesn't rely on digital correction.

 

Mount the SL lens on an R body, if you could, and the results wouldn't be very nice!

 

 

 

You say "rely on" digital correction, but why not see it as using digital technology to produce the best lens performance possible?

 

It is all about the performance on the camera after all.

 

I think we'd be right to feel disappointed if it wasn't the best zoom in the focal-length range lens they've ever  made.

[earleygallery]

Yes I accept that, but surely digital correction is easier and cheaper than a pure optical design.

 

I don't think the lens can really be compared to previous R lenses, but I'd be surprised if the end (corrected) results weren't better.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I do not think that it is easier or cheaper as such. The point is that it allows the designer more degrees of freedom in the optical design. That the result might only be matched -if at all- by an optical design that would be more elaborate/heavy/expensive etc.is another matter

[Leicaiste]

For the SL I don't have the 24-90, but the R-Varios you mentioned above. 

 

What I like about them, other than their optical qualities, is their mechanical design.

 

They both have sliding lens hoods included, and on the 35-70 it adjust to the focal length when zooming. 

 

I would love to have AF and IS, but the size, the weight and the lens hood of the 24-90 stopped me until now.

 

Anyway, I mainly use M lenses these days, and they cohabit very well with either of the Varios in my camera bag(s).

 

[ramarren]

Yes I accept that, but surely digital correction is easier and cheaper than a pure optical design.

 

I don't think the lens can really be compared to previous R lenses, but I'd be surprised if the end (corrected) results weren't better.

 

 

I'm no big fan of midrange zooms and don't own any R series zoom lenses. I bought the 24-90 because I felt that its all-in-one handiness and additional features over my R primes would occasionally prove useful in the long term. 

 

I doubt seriously that a lens with 18 elements in 15 groups, with 4 aspheric surfaces and 11 elements made of low dispersion glass, and with 6 different moving groups within the lens, could be accused of being "easier and cheaper than a pure optical design"! Based on the dismantling article done by Roger C at LensRentals.com, it seems a very well thought out, solid piece of equipment with great durability. The design seems a lot of well-proven concepts that have been carefully orchestrated and implemented. Comparing it to my R primes (24, 35, 50, 60, and 90), its performance is on par or better than all of them. The OIS adds performance on top of that. The lens correction software is surely just complementing an already excellent optical design. 

 

"Best standard zoom Leica has ever produced"? I can't judge that; I've never used any other Leica midrange zoom lens. All I can say is that it's a very well made lens with excellent performance. I don't use it all that much as yet (re^: my preference for R primes on the SL body), but I have not been at all disappointed by its performance. 

[steppenw0lf]

It's always a bit curageous to talk of best and and not to define what best means.

 

For me it is definitely not the best, because I do not like its handling. I dislike its plastic shade. I also hate midrange zooms with 82mm filter size - in my eyes this is a very strange sort of economy that all three new lenses have the ridiculous common 82mm filter size.

It's fine for the 90-280 but nor for the others. You save maybe money on filters, but the lenses are anything but a bargain.

Probably because of this I will also hate the 50mm/1.4 although everybody expects it to be the (optically) best "standard" lens.

 

So you probably mean the zoom lens that gives the best optical results - that can be as it may. And it is the first with fast AF.

 

But optical quality is just one parameter. Besides this, handling, ease-of-transportation, unobtrusiveness could be other strengths that I cannot find in this lens.

 

Everybody has his own likes and dislikes, so do not expect to easily find the best for anybody.

 

Stephan

 

By the way, just because the old zooms are currently offered at ridiculous prices on ebay, does not improve their quality or the quality of any other lens. It also does not make the 24-90 a reasonably priced lens - even if you try to talk yourself into this. Its cost is at least twice that of any other comparable zoom. If you have the money, no problem. But let's not call it a "screaming good deal", if you want to be taken seriously.

If the internet and its current values (in this case prices) are a measure for your life's values, then I'm afraid you have really built on sand.

Edited February 29, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[cpclee]

The 24-90 is actually not larger than the 35-70 when the hood is removed.  Both are 88mm wide, and the 35-70 is only 5mm shorter in length at 130mm which by the time you add the R adapter is actually longer.  Weight-wise it's a similar story.  The 35-70 is lighter by only 90g and once the R adapter is added there is no weight advantage.  

 

What makes the 24-90 to seem much larger is because: (1) the hood is very wide, probably because it zooms out to 24mm, which is probably why it's not made a pull-out hood, and (2) the lens extends when you zoom towards the tele end, which the 35-70 probably doesn't.  I'm not sure why Leica didn't make this lens constant length, but they did say the 90-280 will be.  

 

 

For the SL I don't have the 24-90, but the R-Varios you mentioned above. 

 

What I like about them, other than their optical qualities, is their mechanical design.

 

They both have sliding lens hoods included, and on the 35-70 it adjust to the focal length when zooming. 

 

I would love to have AF and IS, but the size, the weight and the lens hood of the 24-90 stopped me until now.

 

Anyway, I mainly use M lenses these days, and they cohabit very well with either of the Varios in my camera bag(s).

 

[jrp]

It is certainly rather obtrusive, but it is sometimes less weighty than taking a 3 M lenses, say.  Yes it isn't as fast, but the results can be cleaner, to my eye, than the fast M lenses.

[pico]

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

 

Of course! Until the next iteration is introduced.

[steppenw0lf]

What is a good lens and how is this related to a good foto ? A lens that produces a  memorable foto, maybe.

One way to check for quality is to study MTF diagrams. Another more agreeable is to look at the resulting pictures.

 

Rather naively (sorry) you automatically assume that the best MTF graphs help you to get the best pictures. (Marketing is mighty).

On this forum you can find quite a lot of fotos with the SL, that prove exactly the opposite.

I did not find many pictures with the 24-90 or the very "rare" 2.8/35-70 that made a lasting impression on me.

 

But I remember - and probably some others do with me - some fotos made with lenses that you do not even consider as candidates for best or good lenses.

For example with the "common" R 4/35-70 . Try and have a look into the forum.

 

By the way sharpening can be done to a large degree in the software, so I do not know how crucial these MTF graphs are in the future.

 

So after some thought I would regard this a better lens than the 24-90. But I could be proved wrong any time - give it a try.

 

Stephan

Edited March 1, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[pgk]

..... it could be argued that it can't be as 'perfect' a lens as one with similar performance which doesn't rely on digital correction.

 

Actually the exact opposite could be argued. The combination of optical and digital correction might be 'better' as one with similar, purely optical performance may not be possible or if it actually is may have rather unacceptable attributes (vastly heavier, too big, etc.). All lenses are compromises, none are perfect.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I have the 35-70/4 R.  It's not 130 mm long, though.  Mine is a little under 90 mm, from the camera base to the end of the lens at 70mm focal length (lens shade pulled back).  The lens gets longer when you shift to the wide end of its range, but only by a few mm, which has the effect of making the lens hood cover a wider angle.  The R to M to T adapter stack adds about 24 mm to this, leaving the result pretty compact.  I haven't used it much, but having it reduces my susceptibility to 24-90 GAS.

 

My thinking on how to compare the results of an all-optical versus an optical + digital correction lens design is that with more elements in the design, you can certainly control more errors and aberrations.  This fits in with the current Karbe team's preferred style of highly perfected rendering.  If you turn off the digital correction, or use such a lens on film, the results might be a little bit surprising...  Don't forget that AF can be part of the digital corrections as well.  Instead of having to worry about focus shift as the aperture is reduced, this can be accommodated in the AF algorithm.  The 24-90 has something like 6 moveable groups, only one of which is used to focus the thing, the rest apparently used to accomplish its wide zoom range.  In contrast, all the recent M Summilux designs have had two groups which move for focusing, one of them (the FLE part) to correct for closer focus.

 

scott 

[cpclee]

It is the 35-70/2.8 ASPH that is 130mm in length, not the 35-70/4.  And once you add the 24mm of the R adapter stack, it will be 154mm and much longer than the 24-90/2.8-4 at 135mm.  Here I'm referring to without the hood.

 

Both the R adapter stack (M to SL + R to M) and the upcoming R to SL adapter are quite long.  They probably weigh a good 200g too.  This is of often not taken into account when dimensions and weight of R and SL lenses are compared.

 

Correction: 35-70/2.8 ASPH is 133mm and 24-90/2.8-4 is 138mm

 

I have the 35-70/4 R.  It's not 130 mm long, though.  Mine is a little under 90 mm, from the camera base to the end of the lens at 70mm focal length (lens shade pulled back).  The lens gets longer when you shift to the wide end of its range, but only by a few mm, which has the effect of making the lens hood cover a wider angle.  The R to M to T adapter stack adds about 24 mm to this, leaving the result pretty compact.  I haven't used it much, but having it reduces my susceptibility to 24-90 GAS.

 

My thinking on how to compare the results of an all-optical versus an optical + digital correction lens design is that with more elements in the design, you can certainly control more errors and aberrations.  This fits in with the current Karbe team's preferred style of highly perfected rendering.  If you turn off the digital correction, or use such a lens on film, the results might be a little bit surprising...  Don't forget that AF can be part of the digital corrections as well.  Instead of having to worry about focus shift as the aperture is reduced, this can be accommodated in the AF algorithm.  The 24-90 has something like 6 moveable groups, only one of which is used to focus the thing, the rest apparently used to accomplish its wide zoom range.  In contrast, all the recent M Summilux designs have had two groups which move for focusing, one of them (the FLE part) to correct for closer focus.

 

scott 

Edited March 1, 2016 by cpclee

[mike_j]

It's interesting to see what you are getting for your money

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2016/02/a-peak-inside-the-leica-vario-elmarit-sl-24-90mm-f2-8-4-asph

[thighslapper]

The 24-90 is the best zoom lens Leica has ever produced ........ for the SL anyway ......

 

As usual there is a lot of cr*p peddled about 'best' and 'better'........

 

You have to ask the following .......

 

Is optical quality excellent throughout the range .......... yes

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

Is focussing accurate  ..... yes

Is handling and focussing/zooming easy and fast ....... yes

Is it flare resistant and free of most aberrations ....... yes (and that's without the hood which has never been out of the box it came in)

Does it result in a low % of rejects or photos needing cropping ....... yes

Is it usable in low light levels ...... yes 

Is the zoom range wide enough to replace multiple lenses ...... yes

Is the zoom range short enough and long enough to cover the majority of expected usage ...... yes 

Is it compact enough and balanced on the camera enough not to make using it a pain ..... yes

Is it robust enough to survive rough treatment and weather ....... yes

Is it affordable when compared to the prime lens alternatives ...... yes (we are talking Leica here....)

Is it usable without adapters or other gizmos ....... yes

 

I have a safe full of M, R, T and Visoflex lenses (30+) ..... including R zooms and it is the 24-90 that is on the camera by default ...... there is little advantage using anything else except when I need wider, longer or very fast apertures for narrow DOF or very low light use. I have to say that the 3 T zooms are also excellent and I cannot fault them. 

 

I'm sure if you asked Leica if it was their best zoom lens in terms of the image quality produced via the SL they would say yes as well....... 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Peter H]

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

Is it compact enough and balanced on the camera enough not to make using it a pain ..... yes

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

 

 

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.