SL 24-90 comparison

[ski542002]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello I'm a working pro, using the SL with M lenses about 95% of the time; 5% with Canon DS body & zooms. To completely transition away from my DSLR roots, I do need to get the 24-90 for situations that require the speed & flexibility of a zoom. I have 2 Canon L zooms, the 24-105, & the 70-200; both F4. I don't shoot sports, but make heavy use of Servo-AF, especially for subjects moving towards me/the camera. The Canon body always maintains accurate focus tracking.

 

2 questions...

 

1. How does the SL 24-90 zoom compare? I'm aware of the slightly different zoom range, more interested in comments on focus tracking speed, front to back and side to side in lower light levels, i.e. Indoors, incandescent lighting. Accuracy of single-shot focus. For the Canon, I make heavy use of the Canon speedlight IR, which helps with tracking accuracy. Won't have that with the SL.

 

2. I should know this, but would like clarification. IF camera to subject distance remains unchanged, and I'm shooting a 35mm prime (my Summilux-M 1.4) at f4, and I shoot the same scenario at f4, with the 24-90, would the depth of field be the same in both scenarios?

[jaapv]

@ 2.

If the sensor size, focal length and aperture are the same, the DOF will be the same in a mathematical sense. However, the lens contrast and design (i.e. abruptness of the change in sharpness) may give a slight optical difference. After all, DOF should be defined as "range of acceptable unsharpness", which introduces a subjective component.

[HeinzX]

@1

 

I cannot answer exactly to your question, but perhaps this may help you anyway.

 

Before I bought the SL I used some Canons, last one a 5 D III and a lot of lenses from Canon.

Regarding similiar zoom range as yours these were the 24/70 2,8 II and the 70/200 2,8 IS II USM.

Both execellent and with quick AF on the 5 D III. The 24/70 I sold when I bought the SL together with

the 24/90. I have the impression, that the AF of the 24/90 together with the SL is not slower than the

AF of the 24/70 with the 5 D III. The 70/200 I kept, when I bought the SL and used it for a while

together with the SL and the Novoflex adapter. Results where good, AF slower than with the 5 D III

but not really slow. At the end I sold it and bought the 90/280 because of longer zoom range and

quicker AF, which is really the case - there is significant difference. What I kept from Canon are some

macro lenses - the performance of the AF is weak - where there is a AF. The MP-E 65 has noc AF even on the Canons. These are special lenses and Leica has no native macro lens. not even in the road map.

And I have sold my Canon 11/24 which performed very well on the SL with quick AF, but I did nit use it so much and this is a heavy lens too. Perhaps I will go for a 15mm Voigtländer, which is small and not a heavy weight, for the few occasions I still need a ultra wide angle lens.

[thighslapper]

1. No Canon gear to use to compare, but I have no complaints about the 24-90 focussing speed/accuracy - and low light performance with firmware 3.0 is now very good. Bear in mind with the EVF on the SL you can focus manually in almost complete darkness if AF proves unreliable. Tracking performance is much better with v 3.0 ....... but there again I don't know what you expect or what you would find acceptable ..... and depends what you mean by 'lower light levels'.

 

2. Theoretically - yes.

 

I think your best option is to borrow one and try it ...... or buy it with assurances you can return within a few days if it doesn't come up to expectations. 

[ski542002]

1. No Canon gear to use to compare, but I have no complaints about the 24-90 focussing speed/accuracy - and low light performance with firmware 3.0 is now very good. Bear in mind with the EVF on the SL you can focus manually in almost complete darkness if AF proves unreliable. Tracking performance is much better with v 3.0 ....... but there again I don't know what you expect or what you would find acceptable ..... and depends what you mean by 'lower light levels'.

 

2. Theoretically - yes.

 

I think your best option is to borrow one and try it ...... or buy it with assurances you can return within a few days if it doesn't come up to expectations.

 

Thanks to everyone for their prompt replies. I'll rent for a short period but will plan to buy regardless. IF the lens doesn't auto focus as I expect, I'd have to keep investing in Canon gear and dump the Leica As pleased as I've been, don't think that'll happen! Because I don't shoot sports, (more people walking and static subjects) I don't need to have the AF react extremely fast; just need accuracy.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Focus accuracy is high on on-sensor focusing systems. There's no need for calibration and misses are more rare than DSLR's because the focusing is done exactly on the sensor plane. SAF is speedy and accurate in most situations. Unlikely you'll notice much difference.

 

Any way the focus assist light is built into the SL body if you need it. No flash required for AF assist.

 

Contrast detect focus does struggle more in low light. The SL is fine in most reception halls but you need to adjust technique a bit to see and focus on areas of contrast. For example I wouldn't use CDAF to focus on a grooms face in a reception room. I'll aim the focus on his shirt and tie instead. You'll get used to it soon enough. And manual focus is easy on the SL as well.

 

The CAF is reasonable. But not up to Sony A9 or Olympus EM-1.2 standards. For walking subjects it'll be fine. In fact for walking subjects SAF is usually fine.

 

Gordon