24-90 vs 90 apo

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm not sure what a 90/2 adds over the 24-90 apart from the wider aperture ...... and at f2 DOF is too shallow for good portrait photography.... I usually end up using f4 anyway. 

 

High micro-contrast in portraits can be unflattering ..... and there are a fair few on the forum that like the softer 'Mandler' look anyway of older less corrected and optically perfect lenses.

 

3 or 4 stops of leeway with OIS enables indoor use without extra lighting keeping ISO nice and low.

 

Personally I can't see the advantage of using the 75/2 or 90/2 when you have either of the SL zooms. 

[Lazytiger]

Still figuring out if I see an advantage when it comes to the 90/280 (other than weigh).

 

Speaking about the 24/90. While I agree that f2 is a little shallow for close-ups,that's not all I do. Depending on background, medium close ups can look much better at f2 while still providing enough dof to have the full person in focus. With full body shots a fast aperture gets essential - a situation often met in fashion photography, where you got to feature model and clothes.

 

Secondly, I love having all that micro contrast and then deciding myself in postprocessing where I want to blur and where I want to keep it.

[Advertisement]

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

[ramarren]

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.

 

 

Note that the SL's 'face detect' autofocus mode is specifically tuned to focus on the near eye. 

[Jeff S]

Any zoom lens is going to be weaker somewhere in its range....

 

 

Roger found most wide and normal zooms weakest at the long end...

 

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

 

Jeff

Edited September 9, 2017 by Jeff S

[Leicaiste]

The exception being the R 28-90 and 35-70/2,8.

[Steve McGarrett]

And 70-180...

[Leicaiste]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

According to E Puts, the 70-180 was at is best between 80 and 110mm and was not as good @ 180mm than the Apo 180/2,8.

Edited September 10, 2017 by Leicaiste

[robgo2]

Personally, I would choose the Summicron-M 90 f/2 (Pre-ASPH). It is one of those magical Leica glow lenses, which makes it superb for portraiture. And it is plenty sharp stopped down slightly. Does this preference make me old school? Well, I'm fine with that.   

 

Rob

[Jared]

The 24-90 @ 90mm is more than good enough for fashion portraits. I'd worry much more about other factors when deciding whether this is the right lens for this use. For example, will you want a shallower DOF than f/4 will provide? Depends on your shooting style, of course, and what your subject distance will be. Will you be fine without autofocus? I would expect so for fashion type work, but, again, every photographer is different. Are your models going to be professionals? Will they be intimidated by the size of the zoom? Even more important if you at considering the 90-280. What about your own comfort shooting for an extended session with a relatively heavy lens?

 

I don't think there is a 90mm option in the Leica M, R, or SL lineup (current or roadmap) that would "hold you back" from an IQ perspective. Yes, there are subtle differences in rendering, microcontrast, and so on, but these are all very subtle. I'd worry much more about lighting, makeup, and your ability to draw out the looks you want from the model. The IQ from the particular 90 you choose, while fun to think about and debate , isn't going to be the difference between a great picture and a good one. If you really want to debate the merits of lenses for this particular purpose I'd consider ergonomics, cost, AF requirements, OIS benefits (if relevant), etc. not IQ.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well said Jared.

 

Gordon

[MT0227]

I think Jared hit it on the head:  "consider ergonomics, cost, AF requirements, OIS benefits"   The SL + 90APO fits wonderfully in my hands, and I'm quite happy with the rendering I get with this combination.  At this focal length, AF/OIS is not a real factor for me; I much prefer the smaller, more portable, less aggressive footprint.  

 

SL+90APO

 

 

 2017-02-19_181-298 by Marc Tauber, on Flickr

 

 

 

 

 

[meerec]

Personally, I would choose the Summicron-M 90 f/2 (Pre-ASPH). It is one of those magical Leica glow lenses, which makes it superb for portraiture. And it is plenty sharp stopped down slightly. Does this preference make me old school? Well, I'm fine with that.

 

Rob

I shoot with this lens, made in 1995. It's fabulous. Edited September 10, 2017 by meerec

[cpclee]

It is entirely upto the lens designer how to balance the tradeoffs. The 21-35R ASPH is weakest at 21mm where it under performed even the not-so-new prime available in the catalog at the time. At 35, however, it outperformed the 35 Summicron R..

 

Roger found most wide and normal zooms weakest at the long end...https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/03/rogers-law-of-wide-zoom-relativity/

Jeff

[Steve McGarrett]

According to E Puts, the 70-180 was at is best between 80 and 110mm and was not as good @ 180mm than the Apo 180/2,8.

 

Well, then neither the 35-70 2.8 nor the 28-90 are as sharp as the Apo-M 50/2 for example... I was trying to stay "reasonable" here, the 70-180 was damned good throughout the range, even at 180mm, but you can always find a sharper prime somewhere

 

Btw, the Apo-Elmarit 180 is perhaps the sharpest lens I've ever used... surely among the sharpest...

[lx1713]

In a controlled lighting situation with moving talents, I would have to be pretty desperate to use the aperture f2 unless it's specific to the brief and cannot be achieved by repositioning myself. The magic should not be in the lens 

 

Events on the other hand can sometimes have the magic of the atmosphere enhanced because there's no other way to get it in the time you have.

 

I'd planned to get a few M summiluxes when I picked up an SL but I decided that with mirrorless maybe a native 90 might be a better choice. I find my priorities changing.

[alexzz]

On 9/11/2017 at 8:14 PM, Steve McGarrett said:

 

Well, then neither the 35-70 2.8 nor the 28-90 are as sharp as the Apo-M 50/2 for example... 

Regarding sharpness, as you can see in the Leica MTF, the zoom wide open is as sharp as the APO-Summicron-M 50mm Asph at f/2 or f2.8.

Edited March 2, 2020 by alexzz

[alexzz]

On 9/10/2017 at 10:33 PM, Jared said:

The 24-90 @ 90mm is more than good enough for fashion portraits. I'd worry much more about other factors when deciding whether this is the right lens for this use. For example, will you want a shallower DOF than f/4 will provide?

The 24-90 has a shallower DOF at f/4 than a Noctilux at f/2 : http://wild-traverse.com/blog/2016/3/8/50v50

 

[Jared]

45 minutes ago, alexzz said:

The 24-90 has a shallower DOF at f/4 than a Noctilux at f/2 : http://wild-traverse.com/blog/2016/3/8/50v50

 

I read through the linked document.  I’m not sure exactly sure what is going on, but it is not possible for two lenses, both at 50mm and shot on the same camera, to have shallower depth of field on the f/4 lens than on the f/2 lens.  It is possible that the depth of field is distributed differently on the two lenses—one more in front of focus and the other more behind.  It is also possible for differences in field curvature to play a role since the example posted used crops that were not particularly close to the center of the field (though they weren’t THAT far away).  It is also possible for the falloff from point of best focus to be a bit more or less dramatic depending on just how much resolution one produces at proper focus.  It is possible for there to be alignment issues in a lens such that the Petzval surface is not congruent with the focal plane.  Lots of possible explanations for what the linked reviewer experienced, and I’m not denigrating his approach or his results.  I don’t agree with his conclusion as to what is happening, though.  It is not possible for a lens shot at f/4 to have shallower depth of field than another lens of the same focal length on the same camera shot at f/2.  

[scroy]

Hmm, are definitions being mixed and matched?

Is the depth of field comparison being referred to really referring to  equalizing contrast at the two depths of field? eg. similar to the leica comparison of the 75mm Summicron-SL vs 75mm Summilux-M on the 75mm SL lens overview

 

Edited March 2, 2020 by scroy
grammar

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jared]

2 hours ago, scroy said:

Hmm, are definitions being mixed and matched?

Is the depth of field comparison being referred to really referring to  equalizing contrast at the two depths of field? eg. similar to the leica comparison of the 75mm Summicron-SL vs 75mm Summilux-M on the 75mm SL lens overview

 

I'm assuming depth of field is referring to the size of the circles of confusion at different distances for a given focus point.  Normally, the depth of field is limits the "acceptable" amount of defocus (circle of confusion) that is allowed before an object is no longer considered critically sharp.  It is kind of arbitrary since it depends on print size and viewing distance, but it became standardized back in the days of 135mm film and would be marked on lenses.  I'm sure we are all familiar with those markings.  Lens design plays no direct role in depth of field.  As you referenced, higher resolution lenses may create the perception in a print or image of a narrower depth of field, but it's really just the higher contrast at point of best focus.  Much as Leica wants us to think a 75mm Summicron SL has the depth of field of a 75mm Summilux M it just isn't true.  All 75mm lenses of a given aperture on a given format have the exact same depth of field.  That is, the amount of blur from defocus is the exact same at a given distance.  There can be other contributors to the blur--such as spherical aberration, coma, astigmatism, diffraction, field curvature, and higher order aberrations--but that doesn't change the depth of field.