24-90 performance

[orc999]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After further use(not testing) I can say th 24-90 is really great up to 70 or so, at 90 it is not really great, but may depend on your application.

It's true the 24-90 AF will certainly give better results then a slightly misfocused 90mm apo.

 

Pictures down to 24mm are ok, nothing to complain.

Compared to the Q at 28mm, the Q has a better look in my opinion. Q is really a great cam, only limitation is the 28mm focal length.But of course the dedicated lens construction makes it far easier.

if they would produce a 50mm like this I would immediately buy it

 

So I can say I'm still happy with the 24-90 and it will be my workhorse.

If I need 90mm, I will need to switch for most jobs.

 

[MRJohn]

get a hand strap such as the Herringbone .... the camera suddenly becomes a much more portable and usable proposition..... plus you have a tripod plate permanently attached for instant use ......

 

https://www.amazon.com/Herringbone-Heritage-Leather-Camera-Stitching/dp/B00FR74GOW/ref=pd_sim_421_6?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=8BGD2Y518G1W420SDCJS

 

many thanks, I do have a Peak Design handstrap, but this suggestion looks nice.  The reason for a half case was that when hiking with a backpack, I sometimes like to have my camera ready on a diagonal neckstrap (I am using an adjustable slider A&A on the SL and M which works great). I find the naked SL with 24-90 uncomfortable in this situation. I had Luigi in the past, but the last case from him did not fit very well (and before that I had returned one for the same reason), his SL half case has loops on the top and I wonder what they are good for. The Angelo Pelle has a tripod screw, which I do not want to fix all the time when changing the battery, and then Arte di Mano is very expensive compared to the other two. But perhaps somebody has great experience with one of them or knows about yet another model. - Sorry, this is off thread but this is how it sometimes goes.

[Peter Branch]

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

 

In my opinion the most powerful arguments about the IQ of the 24-90mm lens are made by pictures.

 

 

[Peter Branch]

There seems to be a census developing that the IQ of the 24-90mm lens deteriorates at the 90mm setting.

I've reviewed many of the pictures I've taken at this focal length and found that portraits are fine but out of focus highlights are imaged as little annular rings - rather like a mirror lens.

Why this should be I have no idea - but see below.  

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[MRJohn]

There seems to be a census developing that the IQ of the 24-90mm lens deteriorates at the 90mm setting.

I've reviewed many of the pictures I've taken at this focal length and found that portraits are fine but out of focus highlights are imaged as little annular rings - rather like a mirror lens.

Why this should be I have no idea - but see below.  

 

 

0185 Paris 160812 ES Leica.jpg

 

I can confirm this ring behavior with my 24-90 in images at 90mm focal length when they display out of focus highlights. It is not visible in highlights using the M Apo 90 mm 

[thighslapper]

This OOF behaviour is a common feature of almost all the SL and T (much less)  series zooms ...... and depends on aperture and the distance the focussed subject is relation to the camera and OOF area behind. 

 

Mostly absent, sometimes distracting ...... and at other times actually adds interest. 

 

Similar effects are used creatively with Petzval design based lenses ..... and again the camera-subject-background ratio dictates the degree to which the effect is apparent. 

[MRJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

By the way, maybe it is time to adjust the SL folder structure of the forum as there are now 2 native lenses (and more to come) similar to the M folder structure, perhaps something like "SL native lenses", "SL non-native Leica lenses" and "SL third party lenses". 

[ramarren]

By the way, maybe it is time to adjust the SL folder structure of the forum as there are now 2 native lenses (and more to come) similar to the M folder structure, perhaps something like "SL native lenses", "SL non-native Leica lenses" and "SL third party lenses". 

 

 

Why? The community of SL users is still pretty small. Why should one want to have to scan three forums to see what's up in SL-Land?

[LocalHero1953]

If you use the "View new content" facility, the structure of forums is neither here nor there. Just a tip.

[MRJohn]

Why? The community of SL users is still pretty small. Why should one want to have to scan three forums to see what's up in SL-Land?

 

I agree with your current assessment, but my suggestion is forward looking. Once it is busy, then nobody will remap the old posts to a new structure (at least I am highly doubtful), better start early with this, in my opinion.

[ramarren]

I agree with your current assessment, but my suggestion is forward looking. Once it is busy, then nobody will remap the old posts to a new structure (at least I am highly doubtful), better start early with this, in my opinion.

 

 

I doubt that SL chatter will ever reach the kind of 'gaggle of geese' noise level that you see in other brand forums. I'd rather it was all in one place so I can browse it easily. 

[Jeff S]

The S system has been around a lot longer than the SL, and one forum section seems to suit just fine, even as it also can adapt lenses from other brands.

 

Jeff

[MRJohn]

The S system has been around a lot longer than the SL, and one forum section seems to suit just fine, even as it also can adapt lenses from other brands.

 

Jeff

 

It's fine, I think structure helps a lot but this is my preference - to your point, the SL forum already has almost the same number of topics than the S and outnumbers the S by replies, and has been around much less long. Just extrapolate it...

[scott kirkpatrick]

Why? The community of SL users is still pretty small. Why should one want to have to scan three forums to see what's up in SL-Land?

 

Look at it from the perspective of someone posting -- why should they have to write multiple posts to show images made from more than one lens?  Asking a technical question (more often a challenge --  "my Sony 99 mm runs rings around a Leica equivalent!!") can be precisely identified in the thread title.

 

scott

[Guest]

This is my first post since changing over from a Leica M based outfit to a Leica SL system and it amounts to something of a confession.

 

 I now realise that I had become obsessed with IQ and sought to have the "very best lens" in any focal length and tolerated the limitations of the M system in the belief that I was gaining IQ.

 

After several trips to remote locations it slowly dawned on me that although I might, (emphasis might), be getting the best possible IQ with the Leica M I was at the same time missing a lot of pictures because I frequently had an inappropriate focal length lens on the camera.  Changing lenses in hot dusty conditions was fraught with problems not least how to carry the alternatives which were heavy.

 

I've just finished taking the first ~ 500 pictures in all sorts of conditions with the SL fitted with the 24-90mm zoom and I can honestly say that if there is any loss of IQ it is not evident in practice.  However I've taken many pictures which I would not have been able to take with the M without a great deal of extra effort and inconvenience.

 

My 18mm f/3.8 SEM and 35mm f/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH FLE have been kept because they give me something the SL currently can't provide - but I'm a covert to the SL because of the IQ which is much more than good enough.  

 

I also moved to the SL, but I also went down the M and R lens route with adaptors of course. So Manual Focus, for the past twenty years I had only AF, and I can honestly say I am getting more images and less duds with this setup.

[jrp]

I don't think that people use the M for IQ, but for the rangefinder experience, and the small lenses (which in many cases have exceptional IQ). However, those same lenses work better on the SL (because you can focus on what you want to take, rather than centre + recompose, which is great for fast lenses with wavy fields of focus, although wider lenses may be weaker in the corners).

 

In addition, the zooms that Leica have released have been exemplary, if you can tolerate the weight.

 

Yes, there is room for improvement with the SL: it can be hard to focus in very bright light, and some of the technical features of the Sony line -- IBIS, eye focus (and focus acquisition), higher dynamic range sensor, etc -- would be nice to see in the Leica. These would extend the usability envelope of the SL to people / event photography in particular. Some firmware updates optimise the shooting experience for manual lenses (eg, allowing peaking and the level to be combined) would add polish to the SL.

 

But I discard far fewer photos for technical reasons with the SL than I did with the M240, which means that I can concentrate on composition... which is where I want to be: the camera gets out of the road.

[Jeff S]

Not specific to the Leica zoom, but I thought this article from Roger C. was informative regarding wide zoom performance, in general, at the wide end vs the long end....  and skip the ad.....

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

 

We'll see how things go when the SL 16-35 emerges.

 

Jeff

 

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Notice in Roger's article, that the lenses with OIS seem to sacrifice some resolution in order to get stabilization.  (When on a test jig, that is.)

 

scott

[Jeff S]

Notice in Roger's article, that the lenses with OIS seem to sacrifice some resolution in order to get stabilization. (When on a test jig, that is.)

 

scott

Let's hope Roger addresses your comments below the article I linked.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[caissa]

Not specific to the Leica zoom, but I thought this article from Roger C. was informative regarding wide zoom performance, in general, at the wide end vs the long end....  and skip the ad.....

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

 

We'll see how things go when the SL 16-35 emerges.

 

Jeff

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).