28-90 R on M10 vs 24-90 SL on SL?

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am considering an SL to supplement my M10 and extensive  (excessive) M lens collection. I have used the M10, Visoflex and 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R previously when travelling and found it overall very good.  For slower landscape/travel photography the Visoflex is adequate but no comparison with the SL viewfinder. I need 3 batteries (which I have) to be sure I can get through the day using the Visoflex.

 

We will be going to the Utah national parks for 2-3 weeks in September and I've been considering an SL with 24-90, and selling the 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R. Furthermore I also have a 2.0/50 Summicron-R v2, 80-200 Vario-Elmar-R, 2xAPO-Extender also for use on an R7. However, as I have an M7 these get little use. I am of two minds about selling off the R system but if I get an SL with zoom I'd sell all my R equipment.

 

We are travelling to the Utah national parks, touring and hiking. I can see that an SL with 24-90 would probably be all that I need (except maybe a 15 CV or 21mm ultra-WA-M, and a fast 35-M or 50-M,  i).

 

The M10 & Visoflex and 28-90-R (and the extras mentioned above but with 3 spare batteries) would save me buying the SL and 24-90.  The SL and zoom is a more self-contained package with better VF (and is dust and water-sealed for the desert, not that that has been a major issue for me with the M system). 

 

I thought that the M10, Visoflex, R-M adapter and 28-90 R would weight significantly less than the SL with 24-90 but it is only 1785 vs 1985gm (incl battery) but the SL with lens is certainly much more bulky than the M10 with R lens.

 

The sensors, although different, seem to image very much the same and I really like the look of the M10 sensor.

 

So that's the background. Much of the decision may down to the quality of the 28-90 R vs 24-90 SL lenses (and of course the SL is wider at 24mm).

 

Sorry for the long post but does anyone have any thoughts, and in particular, has anyone directly compared the R and SL zooms?

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2018 by MarkP

[thighslapper]

The 24-90 will beat any other zoom and most primes in terms of image quality.

 

It has AF and OIS. It’s a no brainier. You want something you can use quickly and with no fiddling about changing lenses.

 

The 15 CV is a great performer and would be a light add on for wide landscapes.

 

That’s all you would need. Dump the rest apart from the 80-200 and the apo extender. You could probably leave them off your hiking list as they will get little use and you will come to curse the extra weight.

 

I’ve been on plenty of trips and landscape workshops in the last 2 years and used the 24-90 and WATE 95% of the time and only used the other superfluous junk I took with me to try and justify bringing it. Get a Peak Design Slide and carry the camera across shoulder and chest and a wrist strap like the Herringbone and you will find carrying it effortless and instantly to hand.

Edited April 24, 2018 by thighslapper

[Advertisement]

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

[Bill W]

Personally, I tried a 35-70 R on my M10 and really did not like the setup. If I am needing a zoom then I go for my SL with 24-90. As "Grumpy Old Fart" said, it is a no-brainer. I carried my SL with 24-90 around Scotland for two weeks and it was all I needed but I also had an M10 and 50APO plus 28 cron. From my perspective, the M10 or any M was not really designed to be a zoom lens camera. It will work if that is what you must do but it did not work for me.