Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Share #1 Posted September 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) I'm looking at adding a 90mm lens for portraits and am wondering about how the performance of the SL 24-90 fully zoomed compares to the M 90mm apo? I would only be using the 24-90 for focal lengths in the 50mm-90mm range, and I already own a 50mm apo and a 75mm summilux, but having an autofocus option wouldn't be a bad thing. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 8, 2017 Posted September 8, 2017 Hi Csacwp, Take a look here 24-90 vs 90 apo. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share #2 Posted September 8, 2017 I should have added that I'll be using the lens for fashion portraiture. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackson.gabriel Posted September 8, 2017 Share #3 Posted September 8, 2017 I find it works a treat. I mostly shoot on a tripod with off camera flashes. Please ignore the frizzy hair. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paulb33 Posted September 8, 2017 Share #4 Posted September 8, 2017 I'm looking at adding a 90mm lens for portraits and am wondering about how the performance of the SL 24-90 fully zoomed compares to the M 90mm apo? I would only be using the 24-90 for focal lengths in the 50mm-90mm range, and I already own a 50mm apo and a 75mm summilux, but having an autofocus option wouldn't be a bad thing. I've been underwhelmed by the 24-90 lens fully zoomed for portraits in okay-ish light. Could be my technique, but its caused me to rethink this setup as the "do-all" solution that I was seeking. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted September 8, 2017 Share #5 Posted September 8, 2017 Doesn't do it for me. Okay for a quick portrait on the road and certainly great for a zoom of that range. But a lot less micro contrast at f4 than 90/280 at f2.8. Right now it is 90/280 for me for professional work.24/90 if I need to get shorter, which is not that often. Maybe SL 75 to complement the long vario once it comes out. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share #6 Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) The only scenario in which I could see myself using autofocus is when shooting a walking/moving model. For a still model I would manually focus and would therefore use an M or R prime. The weathersealing would be a bonus but isn't a huge deal to me. Edited September 8, 2017 by Csacwp Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share #7 Posted September 8, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) The 90/280 is enormous. Could you please tell me what you chose it for your professional work over an M or R prime? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted September 8, 2017 Share #8 Posted September 8, 2017 I have both of the SL zooms and the Summicron-R 90mm f/2. All three are excellent performers, but of course they render somewhat differently. I don't understand people saying that the SL24-90 isn't sharp or 'lacks micro-contrast' at 90mm. I've done a huge amount of photos with this lens at 90mm setting (over 2000) and it is very sharp with beautiful rendering qualities. The SL90-280 is a bit harder edged, yes, and defines tonal variations with more punch, but is that what you need for portraiture? My Summicron-R 90mm f/2 (1980 vintage) is softer than either of the SL zooms wide open and razor sharp at f/4-5.6, a typical Walter Mandler design. For portraiture, it is my preferred lens because it is softer and has a more 'glowy' rendering quality wide open, and that rendering is adjustable with the aperture ring. It's more compact than either of the zooms as well. But when I shoot table top work for products, I use either the SL24-90 or SL90-280 because of their better micro-contrast and higher resolution rendering feel. 5 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lx1713 Posted September 8, 2017 Share #9 Posted September 8, 2017 It might be good to wait and see how the native SL 75 and 90 primes perform. It's not too long a wait I think but the queues might be long 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
phongph Posted September 8, 2017 Share #10 Posted September 8, 2017 I'm looking at adding a 90mm lens for portraits and am wondering about how the performance of the SL 24-90 fully zoomed compares to the M 90mm apo? I would only be using the 24-90 for focal lengths in the 50mm-90mm range, and I already own a 50mm apo and a 75mm summilux, but having an autofocus option wouldn't be a bad thing. Hi Csacwp! I have got the same SL 601, SL24-90/Asph, M50 Apo, M75 Lux ... I am also looking for one more len for portrait. I think You can consider one of the below: - SL 90, - SL 90-280, - R Apo 180 f2.8. Ignore 90 Apo or 90 Cron since You have three above lens. Have a nice day! Thanks! Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephan_w Posted September 8, 2017 Share #11 Posted September 8, 2017 I would consider the SL50 first of all, if you shoot portraits. it is a very versatile lens. The 24-90 is fine but not that outstanding at the long end. The 90-280 is simply to heavy for long portrait sessions, but renders fantastically at 90 mm. And yes, given that you own a Summilux 75, I would wait for the 90 SL comming soon. . 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share #12 Posted September 8, 2017 50mm is too wide for tight portraits. I use 75mm for waist shots and 90mm for headshots. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share #13 Posted September 8, 2017 Seems like the general consensus here is that the 24-90 is nothing special. I'm not sure I'd want to buy an SL prime when I can get such good performance out of an M (and use it on my M bodies). Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted September 8, 2017 Share #14 Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) Seems like the general consensus here is that the 24-90 is nothing special. I'm not sure I'd want to buy an SL prime when I can get such good performance out of an M (and use it on my M bodies). The 24-90 is an exceptionally versatile lens! Excellent IQ and fast AF. Here are some shots at 90mm. That is not to say that there are not many other excellent choices for 90mm portrait lenses, but I would not short change the VE 24-90, particularly if you are okay with F4. 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! Edited September 8, 2017 by ropo54 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/276624-24-90-vs-90-apo/?do=findComment&comment=3354884'>More sharing options...
ropo54 Posted September 8, 2017 Share #15 Posted September 8, 2017 VE 24-90@ 90mm 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! 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/276624-24-90-vs-90-apo/?do=findComment&comment=3354888'>More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted September 8, 2017 Share #16 Posted September 8, 2017 I doubt very much if the inherent IQ differences between the lenses discussed here, including the two SL zooms, are significant in creating an outstanding portrait in comparison with the abilities of the photographer to manage lighting (natural and artificial) and get the best out of the model. For those of you who can clearly see the IQ differences between them, please note my emphasis on 'oustanding portrait' - which is rarely dependent on the small IQ differences between such high end lenses. IMO, one is better advised to pick a lens from among these superb products on practical grounds (aperture, focal length, weight, AF/MF etc). 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerhard.hagen Posted September 8, 2017 Share #17 Posted September 8, 2017 Hi, the cron apo 90 is definitely sharper than my copy of the 24-90@90. If you are able to focus adequately, the cron 90 apo is my lens of choice. Gerhard 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Csacwp Posted September 8, 2017 Author Share #18 Posted September 8, 2017 I'm going to go with the 90 apo. I think it's best to manually focus on the eye for portraits anyway, and the M lens gives me a low light option with less depth of field. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cpclee Posted September 8, 2017 Share #19 Posted September 8, 2017 (edited) Quite the contrary. The 24-90 is so good that at comparable focal lengths and apertures it loses nothing to M primes; in fact, it more often beats out the M primes. I often carry one or two M primes when I go out with the 24-90, usually the 35 FLE and the 75 AA, in case I need their light gather power or the shallow DOF. But most often the primes just stay in the bag. Any assertion that the 24-90 is "not good" at 90 is inaccurate. It so happens that at 90mm it is wee bit weaker but that's only relative. Any zoom lens is going to be weaker somewhere in its range but the hallmark of these new varios is that they are virtually faultless across all apertures, all focal lengths, and all distances. These lenses are so glorious that even at their weaker end their performance is not meaningfully surpassed by primes. You could also argue that the 90-280 is weakest at 280mm but that's not saying a lot because even at its weakest it's not meaningfully surpassed by the 280/4 APO, which is stupendously good. I'd like to be able to tell you that the 75AA is my most usedl lens for portraits but it has turned out to be the 24-90 time and again. Seems like the general consensus here is that the 24-90 is nothing special. I'm not sure I'd want to buy an SL prime when I can get such good performance out of an M (and use it on my M bodies). Edited September 8, 2017 by cpclee 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
panoreserve Posted September 9, 2017 Share #20 Posted September 9, 2017 Quite the contrary. The 24-90 is so good that at comparable focal lengths and apertures it loses nothing to M primes; in fact, it more often beats out the M primes. I often carry one or two M primes when I go out with the 24-90, usually the 35 FLE and the 75 AA, in case I need their light gather power or the shallow DOF. But most often the primes just stay in the bag. Any assertion that the 24-90 is "not good" at 90 is inaccurate. It so happens that at 90mm it is wee bit weaker but that's only relative. Any zoom lens is going to be weaker somewhere in its range but the hallmark of these new varios is that they are virtually faultless across all apertures, all focal lengths, and all distances. These lenses are so glorious that even at their weaker end their performance is not meaningfully surpassed by primes. You could also argue that the 90-280 is weakest at 280mm but that's not saying a lot because even at its weakest it's not meaningfully surpassed by the 280/4 APO, which is stupendously good. I'd like to be able to tell you that the 75AA is my most usedl lens for portraits but it has turned out to be the 24-90 time and again. Can't agree more, exactly my own experience too. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.