24-90mm or 90-280mm?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have M primes covering 24, 28, 35, 50, 90, and MATE. Now I want to add SL zoom to my SL.

At first I wanted 24-90mm since this is more often used range, but the more I look, the more I also want 90-280mm. I have nothing beyond 135mm.

 

Now I am to choose 24-90mm plus Lumix FZ300 or 90--280mm plus staying with M prime in the 24-90mm range.

 

Your experience?

[mumu]

Take the 90-280 because your focal range from 24 to 90 is well covered!

That's the way i would do it.

[Advertisement]

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

[steppenw0lf]

What do you want with the Lumix ?

I find 90-280 and several primes (mainly macro) and older (smaller) zooms (35-70) very useful. Plus WATE.

I will add the new SL primes. (whenever budget allows)

[saxo]

Go for 24-90, you will rarly use your old lenses anymore, After a while you may buy the 90-280 depending on your budget.

Martin

[mumu]

What do you want with the Lumix ?

I find 90-280 and several primes (mainly macro) and older (smaller) zooms (35-70) very useful. Plus WATE.

I will add the new SL primes. (whenever budget allows)

 

That´s exactly my position and i will add the new SL primes as well if they are available.

[tom0511]

I would buy the 90-280 only if you do a lot of telephotography.

The 24-90 would be the clear choice if I had to decide for one of them.

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have M primes covering 24, 28, 35, 50, 90, and MATE. Now I want to add SL zoom to my SL.

At first I wanted 24-90mm since this is more often used range, but the more I look, the more I also want 90-280mm. I have nothing beyond 135mm.

 

 

does 'also want' equate to 'also need' ....... ?

 

(the 24-90 is a 'no-brainer')

 

the 90-280 is a lot to carry about unless you specifically know you will need it ...... in which case you will be leaving something behind ..... partly because of weight and partly because of size. 

 

if I'm taking both zooms I go bagless ...... and carry the SL + 24-90 on a peak design 'Slide' bandolier like over one side and the 90-280 in a padded lens bag on another 'Slide' over the other. That's painless and convenient. 

 

a day out with a backpack, SL, both zooms and associated junk/tripod etc. is a game for young men and not something I would engage in for pleasure again in a hurry. I managed to squeeze, camera, both zooms, WATE, Noctilux, Voigt 12/5.6, adapters, filters, and hiking stuff in a Peak Design 20l Everyday Backpack .... which although looking compact felt like I was transporting a load of house bricks.

 

with all these bigger lenses, the main consideration is 'how' and 'when'  you are going to use it, irrespective of how wonderful it is. Stellar optical performance is  no help if it's too much trouble to actually take out of the house. If money is no object, it's nice to have both though ....

Edited September 6, 2017 by thighslapper

[cpclee]

I have four M primes that overlap in range with the 24-90, and they are the latest ASPH / APO versions, yet I see every reason to also own the 24-90. In fact the 24-90 is my number one or two most used lens on the SL.

 

Some of the most compelling reasons for owning the SL will never be realised if you don't have at least one native lens. Yes the SL is a great platform for M lenses but it is so much more.

 

I think either the 24-90 or the 50 will make an excellent starter AF lens.

[Peter H]

Since you know you'll eventually end up with both, why not choose the one you'll enjoy most to start with?

[panoreserve]

Since you know you'll eventually end up with both, why not choose the one you'll enjoy most to start with?

 

To be honest I'd take both, starting with the 24/90. After 1 year of working with the SL-System (2 bodies, both Varios) I'd state simultaneous use of M and SL-Lenses on the SL is possible (needless to say!) but not really ideal. The "look-and-feel" as well as the complete workflow is just too different: M-Lenses are tiny, they have no AF (of course) and, which is essential to me, no OIS - and thus, in the course of time, the simultaneous use of M- and SL-Lenses could evolve into a somehow "frustrating" experience, at least for me. M-Lenses for M-Bodies, SL-Lenses for SL

[Einst_Stein]

24-90mm is in a way redandent to my M primes. It implies, effectively, I am going to struggle to part with my beloved good old M primes. This was and likely continue to be my major used focal range.

 

Getting 90-280 would be simpler.

 

But I am jot sure how useful it will be. Will it be mostly for wild life only? Very often I wish I had a wonderful super tele for bird or animal watching, which I never did. But after thinking the expensive super tele lens, the heavy tripod, the camerouge clothes and face painting, I becane reluctant. Only the recent viewing on the Iceland pictures makes me wanting the 90-280. What I am looking for is the advise how likely this enthusiatic of wanting the bird/snimal watch would last.

 

How many of you tried it then find it is not as fun as you think and quit in the end.

 

Or, what is the other more normal usage of 90-280 other than go wildness?

[MRJohn]

The 24-90 has become a "convenience lens" for me, great performer, but I prefer M primes for the look of those if I can take the time to change lenses etc.

 

The 90-280 is also convenient, but adds many possibilities which are not covered by Ms (at least not at the end of the spectrum). I would not want to part with that one even though it is not the most frequently used lens in my use. It's great to have it when I want it (e.g. landscapes). I do have a couple of tele Rs which I keep, mainly I prefer them for manual focusing when I know the 90-280 in AF use will run into some issues (which have become much less with the lastest FW).

[IkarusJohn]

I have both, and I use the 24-90 more than the 90-280.  That said, I'd hate to be without the 90-280; it's just such a great lens when you have a use for it.

 

I have similar M primes to you - 21-28-50-75 - and I find they have a different use to the 24-90 zoom.  The SL and 24-90 is just such a useful combination - weather sealed, AF and fantastic image quality.  Sure, it's big, and if I don't need that focal range or weather sealing, I'll take the SL with the Noct or some other fast prime.  The fast M primes do serve a different purpose.

 

Which would I buy first?  Hmm, tricky.  Well, I suspect the 24-90 first, because it will get more use than the 90-280; but don't go without the longer zoom for too long; it's pretty special for those times when you do want more reach.  For a trip, I will pack my 20L Peak Design backpack with SL, Monochrom, both zooms and 21-28-50 M primes (and clobber). I won't carry it around for much, though ...

[thighslapper]

 

How many of you tried it then find it is not as fun as you think and quit in the end.

 

Or, what is the other more normal usage of 90-280 other than go wildness?

 

It's far too good to sell. Excellent for portraits, longer landscape shots, mid distance flora and fauna, but like anything 90mm+ is useful for only a small % of the time. 

[LocalHero1953]

I have both zooms and I don't use anything else on the SL. I have used M lenses on the SL, and I have used both SL zooms on the TL2, but in the end all lenses work best and feel natural with the body they were designed for.

 

Like others I use the 24-90 most, for portraits, and for performances where I can get close to the performers. I wouldn't do without the 90-280, though I have never used it for wildlife. I use it for music and theatre performances, dance and lectures (the SL's silent shutter is invaluable here as well).

 

I can understand those who have commented about the mental difficulty of combining the SL zooms (with their AF and IS) with M lenses; I like to have the same set of operating parameters in my head when I'm working e.g. a minimum shutter speed for the zooms to avoid hand shake might be 2/f or even 4/f, but for a M lens it would have to be 1/f - that's a level of mental agility I could do without.

 

I carry the SL and both zooms in a Fogg B-major. It's a heavy collection, especially if you, as I sometimes do, add the SF64 flash, but the Fogg straps go round the whole bag so there's no security risk (I think Billingham are the same, but other big names, like Ona, rely on strap-to-bag stitching for strength). While working, of course, the SL and one lens are in my hand (with a hand strap), so the bag weighs much less.

[Lazytiger]

I completely understand your dilemma. I have both varios now, but every time I put on the 24/90 I kind of miss my beloved M primes. Which is completely different with the 90/280. Mostly because at that range I do not miss the shallow DoF from f1.4. Which doesn't even exist over 90mm, to begin with.

 

90/280, M-lux 50 and SEM 21 are wonderful walkaround set, only about 3,5 kg all in all, covering everything from landscape to portrait and really long, including low light and shallow dof at 50mm. A little less convenient than a 24/90 welded to my camera, but much more versatile and covering a much bigger range.

[Leicaiste]

Still the LEICA VARIO-ELMARIT-R 1:2,8-4,5/ 28-90 mm ASPH. for me.

[Einst_Stein]

Wouldn't life be easier if the two SL zooms are easily affordable?

 

I take it back ,,,, unless they are easily portable too.

[fire2368]

24-90 is a good all in one lens, the 90-280 is great, but it's way too long. 

 

That being said, I got myself a cheap 70-180 APO R and a 2x teleconverter. To me that was the more sensible direction. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[IkarusJohn]

Back in the day, I limited myself to 180mm as being the most practical size and as long as I was prepared to go handheld.  But, with AF and image stabilisation, the 90-280 just gives way more options (at the price of size and weight, it has to be said).  With a long Harry Benz strap, I'm happy to carry the 90-280 across my shoulder, and hanging down my back ...