hdmesa Posted September 9, 2017 Share #1 Posted September 9, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) Don't get me wrong: thus far I really am impressed with the 24-90. But I also own a Q, and despite the fact that the SL is better at pulling shadow detail, the Q really is magnificent at 28mm. I'm considering returning the 24-90 while I can and instead get the 90-280. For a while I was using a 5DsR with the 100-400 on a wrist strap, and I wore the Q cross-body for wide shots. I'm thinking this would give me a similar setup, and I wouldn't miss the 24mm and 35-70 range much. Plus that would give me a good excuse to buy 21, 35 and 50 M lenses as budget allows and have no overlap in focal lengths. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted September 9, 2017 Posted September 9, 2017 Hi hdmesa, Take a look here If you owned the Q, would you bypass the 24-90 for the 90-280?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LD_50 Posted September 10, 2017 Share #2 Posted September 10, 2017 I do not own a Q but I do own a Sony RX1 (35mm f2) and the 35 Summilux ASPH, 50 Summilux ASPH and MP 240. I still choose to shoot the 24-90. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted September 10, 2017 Share #3 Posted September 10, 2017 (edited) I never considered the 24-90 because of the small aperture for short focal lengths - I like low light and subject isolation to the max... albeit I haven't bought the noctilux yet. I have a neck strap for my Q, and a sling strap for my SL When shooting weddings, I worked with Q, 50SL, 90-280 for some time I sold the 50SL and I got the 50mm 1.4 Leica-M and continued to use that, actually haven't touched the 90-280 in the last few weddings whilst I try to live with just my new m lenses (24 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 90mm 2.0 - because i'm buying an m10) The 90-280 is an amazing lens Edited September 10, 2017 by dancook 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marac Posted September 10, 2017 Share #4 Posted September 10, 2017 I got rid of the 24-90 simply because it was way to cumbersome for me & my back, marvellous lens for IQ but not for me, I replaced it with a Q, I already own a 50 summilux-M and that now lives on the SL. I also own a Contax 60 Makro Planar, a 28mm E46 M lens, and something longer for the zoo, Leica-R 250mm f4 mkII. I will eventually get myself a decent 90mm for my 3 lens kit for the SL (28 / 50 / 90)but at the moment I am really enjoying the Q. I am happy to of shifted the 24-90, I thought it would be a great 1 camera 1 lens solution (it would be for someone younger & stronger than I) but it did not work out that way for me, it did not balance right around my neck, and cause discomfort when over my shoulder. The 90-280 is a monster and I would never consider it though I imagine the IQ to be amazing. Horses for courses and I prefer to travel light with exceptional IQ. 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ingo Posted September 10, 2017 Share #5 Posted September 10, 2017 Q and 90-280 is a very good combination. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share #6 Posted September 10, 2017 That's where my thoughts are leaning: Q + SL with 90-280 and Summilux-M 50 1.4 Black Chrome But the price of the 90-280 would also allow: Q + SL with 50 + Nikon D850 with 80-400 + Novoflex adapter to use the 80-400 on either body I never considered the 24-90 because of the small aperture for short focal lengths - I like low light and subject isolation to the max... albeit I haven't bought the noctilux yet. I have a neck strap for my Q, and a sling strap for my SL When shooting weddings, I worked with Q, 50SL, 90-280 for some time I sold the 50SL and I got the 50mm 1.4 Leica-M and continued to use that, actually haven't touched the 90-280 in the last few weddings whilst I try to live with just my new m lenses (24 1.4, 35mm 1.4, 50mm 1.4, 90mm 2.0 - because i'm buying an m10) The 90-280 is an amazing lens I got rid of the 24-90 simply because it was way to cumbersome for me & my back, marvellous lens for IQ but not for me, I replaced it with a Q, I already own a 50 summilux-M and that now lives on the SL. I also own a Contax 60 Makro Planar, a 28mm E46 M lens, and something longer for the zoo, Leica-R 250mm f4 mkII. I will eventually get myself a decent 90mm for my 3 lens kit for the SL (28 / 50 / 90)but at the moment I am really enjoying the Q. I am happy to of shifted the 24-90, I thought it would be a great 1 camera 1 lens solution (it would be for someone younger & stronger than I) but it did not work out that way for me, it did not balance right around my neck, and cause discomfort when over my shoulder. The 90-280 is a monster and I would never consider it though I imagine the IQ to be amazing. Horses for courses and I prefer to travel light with exceptional IQ. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hdmesa Posted September 10, 2017 Author Share #7 Posted September 10, 2017 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is exactly what draws me to set down the SL and pick up the Q. I only wish the Leica M lenses could focus as closely. I think if Leica created a set of M-like small autofocus lenses like what is attached to the Q (24+50+90mm – complete with the close focusing and macro mechanism from the Q 28mm) they wouldn't be able to keep the SL in stock. I like low light and subject isolation to the max... Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmradman Posted September 10, 2017 Share #8 Posted September 10, 2017 That's where my thoughts are leaning: Q + SL with 90-280 and Summilux-M 50 1.4 Black Chrome But the price of the 90-280 would also allow: Q + SL with 50 + Nikon D850 with 80-400 + Novoflex adapter to use the 80-400 on either body Nikon 80-400 AF-S is G lens so it will not work in auto focus mode with SL, only latest E (electronic aperture) lenses would work in AF mode via Novoflex AF adapter. G and D lenses can work with plain manual adapter but as manual focus only. But why mix systems? Either stick with Nikon or Leica or operate both but don't expect cross compatibility. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TealWayFilms Posted September 10, 2017 Share #9 Posted September 10, 2017 Looks like I'm going to be the contrarian. I wouldn't do it. I have a Q and an SL. I bought an SL six months ago and used my M 24,28,35,50 and 90 lenses. I have a VC 15mm for really wide. I bought the SL 24-90 and have put the M lenses back in the closet. It is big, but I have a nice wide strap and/or hand strap and I can carry it for hours comfortably. Weather sealing is really important to me and I don't have to hide from bad weather. Part of this may be my style of photography as I have been an M shooter for 30 years. I pre-visualize the shot before I pick the lens and pull the camera up to my eye. I used to have to pick the lens from my bag, and manually change lenses to the correct focal length. With the SL 24-90, I adjust the focal length on the barrel which is quicker. Another way to help lens decisions is to figure out what focal lengths you use routinely. Adobe Lightroom shows me that my favorite focal lengths are 28 and 50, followed by 35 and 24mm. The 28mm is usually used for street or events, and I love the Q for that type of work. The other focal lengths for me are travel and landscape, where the SL shines. I also need the 24-90 for video projects. I won't ever sell my M lenses, but absolutely love the SL with the 24-90. Michael 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robgo2 Posted September 10, 2017 Share #10 Posted September 10, 2017 I see the Q and the 24-90SL as serving different purposes. The former is for traveling light and a minimalist shooting experience with great IQ. The latter is for versatility and great IQ. Horses for courses. Rob 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted September 10, 2017 Share #11 Posted September 10, 2017 I would recommend looking back at, say, your favorite 100 images from your own portfolio. What focal lengths did you use? For most of us, there are "go to" perspectives where we are just really good at seeing the world. Those perspectives are different from one photographer to the next and from one type of photography to the next. I don't think any of us can answer your question without knowing what you shoot. Fir most of us, the 24-90 range covers the focal lengths we need most often. And 90-280 is much less commonly required. But I don't know about YOUR photography. The 'Q' is a great little camera. I love mine and wouldn't want to be without it for travel, family events, or just walking around. But it's no substitute for the SL and the 24-90 in situations where I am trying to "make art". Viewfinder is nowhere near as good, controls harder to use, less flexibility in focal length... 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom0511 Posted September 10, 2017 Share #12 Posted September 10, 2017 24-90 is my most used lens on the SL. The Q is 28 and thats it. For me the 35-90mm range is the most important for my style photography. So no, I would not skip the 24-90 if I had a Q. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazytiger Posted September 12, 2017 Share #13 Posted September 12, 2017 Dunno about the Q since I have none. But owning both varios I can say that 21 SEM, 50 Lux and 90/280 has its advantages as a kit. It covers an impressive range and gives you the possibility to blur your background at 50mm, or work in low light with lower ISO. Did you think about adding a TL2 or possibly Clooney (depending on what it will be) to the mix? TL2 with 21 SEM becomes a premium 32mm. Quite close to the Q and as compact, albeit slower. Could popp on the 50 too, or whatever you want. Great flexibility. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
blacksinner Posted September 13, 2017 Share #14 Posted September 13, 2017 i'll say 90-280mm first. if you already have leica Q, 1 standard lens, 35 or 50mm. and a wide angle. this is for me though. if you can live with only Q, then i say you go for 90-280mm. its super great lens. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted September 13, 2017 Share #15 Posted September 13, 2017 Much as I think the Q is a great camera, after obtaining the M-D and realizing that I'd never again touch the X typ 113, I'd never buy a Q. If I want to have a compact camera with a 28mm lens, I'll buy the 28mm lens and put it on the M-D. (Actually, I have one already but I find it isn't really my favorite focal length, nor is it ideal for the digital M.) I sold a lot of equipment to fund the SL90-280; I now have both SL zooms. Both are superb performers and do justice to the SL very nicely, I use them and three-four of my R lenses as the primaries on the SL. My M lens kit has become smaller and is used almost exclusively on the M-D. I don't find the notion of carrying two entirely different cameras and swapping between them for different focal lengths all that useful for my shooting, so I tend to carry either the SL and two lenses or the M-D and two lenses. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.bridges.3388 Posted September 13, 2017 Share #16 Posted September 13, 2017 I got rid of the 24-90 simply because it was way to cumbersome for me & my back, marvellous lens for IQ but not for me, I replaced it with a Q, I already own a 50 summilux-M and that now lives on the SL. Curious what the SL + 50mm gives you over the Q 28mm? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted September 13, 2017 Share #17 Posted September 13, 2017 (edited) Curious what the SL + 50mm gives you over the Q 28mm? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk A different focal length ? subject isolation with less environment? vertical lines, less distortion and cleaner composition? Edited September 13, 2017 by dancook 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
paul.bridges.3388 Posted September 13, 2017 Share #18 Posted September 13, 2017 A different focal length ? subject isolation with less environment? vertical lines, less distortion and cleaner composition? The point was that your selection seems (to this newbie) quite narrowing (no pun intended). Given two focal lengths, does 28 v 50 really gives you enough variation? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
dancook Posted September 13, 2017 Share #19 Posted September 13, 2017 (edited) The point was that your selection seems (to this newbie) quite narrowing (no pun intended). Given two focal lengths, does 28 v 50 really gives you enough variation? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Yes it does, there's quite the difference between those focal lengths. Shooting a wedding 28 and 50 could cover everything I needed. 28 - wide compositions and close quarters shooting, but more distortion - looks 'dynamic' draws viewer in 50 - less interference with subject, more flattering perspective, more isolation - but keeping context that you might lose with 75/90 Edited September 13, 2017 by dancook 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.