24-90 performance

[HeinzX]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am fully satisfied with the 24/90, but ist is correct that many wide zoom lenses are weaker on the long end. I.e. that is the case with the very good Canon lens 24/70 2,8 II, which is weaker from 60 - 70 mm against the other range. The 70/200 2.8 II IS USM (which I use on the SL) is better at 70 mm than the 24/70. But anyway - the 24/70 is good enough at 70 mm. And that seems to be the same with the Leica 24/90 at 90 mm.

[Advertisement]

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

[Leicaiste]

It seems then that the SL 24-90 has a different behaviour than the R 28-90 and the R 35-70/2,8 which are both improving continuously from their widest angle positions to the longest.

[scott kirkpatrick]

Interesting, and it confirms also my impressions with several of these zooms.

To address these weaknesses I use the WATE for the wide end and a 24-35 zoom for the long end. And the 24-35 is even slightly "crisper" - and much faster - than the WATE. But here again the 24mm end is slightly stronger than the 35mm end.

Both have a certain amount of distortion (and vignetting), that has to be dealt with separately. That is "better" with the 24-90, as it applies the corrections automatically.

The 16-35 will need to be in a new league to fix these problems. I am afraid that technically and pricewise it will also be a special effort. But Leica has the advantage that they can fix many problems in software (as for the 24-90).

 

Automatic correction of distortion and a sharpening up of the color aberrations at the edges of the frame with the SL comes from parameters ("opcodes") that the SL puts into the DNG file, and which the development program (at least COne and LR) can use to apply the corrections as the image is rendered.  There are such opcodes for the WATE and for the Leica R 21-35 (is that what you mean by the "24-35"?) and other R lenses.  They depend on the actual focal length, which is passed for the 21-35 if you have the Leica R to L adapter.  For the WATE, I guess you have to input the focal length you have selected.  It seems to be a result of engineering optimal designs with today's materials and knowledge, that correcting these errors in software leads to a better overall result, so I expect that we will see the same strategy followed with the 16-35 SL zoom.

 

scott

[caissa]

Since a few days I use the Art 2.0/24-35 . (It is no typo).

Like the WATE is a three-prime-in-one, it is a bit like 3 "Summicrons" of 24, 28 and 35mm. It has only a very limited focal range, but is a zoom and in quality "equivalent" to primes. It seems to be even better (in resolution) than my R primes.  I am surprised how well corrected it is, but still it follows the trend of the "new law" (slightly stronger at the wide end).

Of course I also checked several "tests" and found that it is at least equal or superior to many professional primes (of course 1.4 is missing). The numbers are not so important for me, but the images were excellent - especially here: https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sigma-24-35mm-f-2-dg-hsm---a-lens-review-27974

Scroll down to the sample photos. Use a big monitor, because you can look at them in full detail. (only from a Canon 6D, but still very impressive/convincing for me)

 

After seeing the completely corrected images of the 24-90 it is first weird to see that there is some distortion (at 24mm barrel and at 35mm cushion) and of course there is vignetting wide open (like all primes typically have wide open).

I never bought the 21-35, it was always too expensive. So I cannot compare directly. The Art lens is much bigger, but really usable from 2 (or better 2.2) and with AF. I accept the weight because of the many advantages.

But it is still "much" ( ) smaller than the 24-90. First about 200g less weight, also shorter, but mainly because of its constant length - zoom as well as focusing are internal. This improves the handling a lot, as I know from the 90-280. 

But the 24-90 is not in danger, as this Art lens has no OIS and a much smaller range.

[Jeff S]

And apparently not weather sealed.

 

Jeff

[caissa]

Do you know how to get weather sealing ? Use a rubber band (of a suitable length).

I found it works perfectly (as long as only the connection between lens and camera needs to be sealed).

But I give no guarantee.

(I know you are almost famous/notorious for it, but I would not worry too much about it.)

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

(I know you are almost famous/notorious for it, but I would not worry too much about it.)

 

Huh?  It's one of many factors I consider when buying (some) systems....and quite a way down the list.  But it is a selling point for the SL native system....at a cost, likely in dollars and perhaps size/weight.

 

Jeff