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

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Didn't get a reply in the customer forum.

 

https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/283889-28-90-r-on-m10-vs-24-90-sl-on-sl

 

 

Options:

1. no-one who knows saw it

2. no-one knows

3. no-one cares

:-(

 

 

Can anyone offer any advice?

please...

 

 

[thighslapper]

I’ve replied ...... I suggest you re-post here and the M10 forum.

 

‘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. ‘

[MarkP]

I’ve replied ...... I suggest you re-post here and the M10 forum.

 

Done!

 

 

Thanks so much for that advice and the prompt reply.

I agree about the 80-200 and APO-Extender

I do have the latest 15mm CV.

 

I'd probably also take a 35 Summilux FLE, not for the hikes, but other times as a light general-purpose lens.

 

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 24, 2018 by MarkP

[SiggiGun]

Hi I have had the same consideration 4 weeks ago.

1/ Do I need a SL? The answer was NO but I would like to have YES => So I bought one :-)

2/ now I ask, do I need ... a SL 24-90 or may the R 28-90 do the deal ?

My Leica Dealer convinced me ... the 28-90 with SL adapter is approximately as long as the 24-90. Smaller yes, but older without ois and AF. ... And the price difference isn’t so big. So, for my next trip... I think I need it

 

 

Envoyé de mon iPhone en utilisant Tapatalk

[helged]

I’ve replied ...... I suggest you re-post here and the M10 forum.

 

‘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. ‘

 

 

+1. Yes, its hard to beat the 24-90 SL optically. The lens looks big, but not compared to 2-3 primes. For hiking, the triple 21SEM+50APO+90MacroElmar has served me well for many, many years. But for the past two years, SL+24-90 has been my preferred combo. Easy, quick, reliable and robust. On the short end, Voigtländer 15mm III is a good alternative (check off-center sharpness due to sample variations), but 24mm is usually enough for me. And stitching can often be used to go wider. Sometimes I bring with me Voigtländer 180mm APO Lanthar (f4) as a smallish, technically quite good 200mm-type of lens. If longer reach is wanted, the 90-280 SL will be high up on the list, although 280mm is generally too short and, importantly, the combined 24-90+90-280 is quite heavy. So I would consider the small and sharp Nikon 300mm PF (f4), plus a 1.4 extender as a longer lens; it's hard to find a smaller 400mm. The latter without stabilisation, unfortunately. Also without af and with fixed aperture on any manual adapter; with slowish af, variable aperture and max 3 fps on an electronic Novoflex adapter. Many choices, but the 24-90 SL will always be a part of the mix. For me. At least until the 16-35mm SL eventually arrives...

Edited April 24, 2018 by helged

[tritentrue]

I used both lenses at various times on the SL.  Subjectively I preferred the look of the R 28-90 for most of its range. But I found it very useful to have 24mm available at the wide end. And at 80-90mm the 28-90 loses contrast badly if there's a light source in or anywhere near the edge of the frame.  I eventually ditched both lenses and have since gone back to using R primes.

[MarkP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi I have had the same consideration 4 weeks ago.

1/ Do I need a SL? The answer was NO but I would like to have YES => So I bought one :-)

2/ now I ask, do I need ... a SL 24-90 or may the R 28-90 do the deal ?

My Leica Dealer convinced me ... the 28-90 with SL adapter is approximately as long as the 24-90. Smaller yes, but older without ois and AF. ... And the price difference isn’t so big. So, for my next trip... I think I need it

 

Thanks, I hadn't appreciated the length of the adapter.

It does however, weigh up to 155/240 gm (with/without tripod collar), significantly adding to the weight of the 28-90 R lens, and bringing it up TO near the weight of the 24-90-SL

Furthermore I just saw it costs $750 AUD which is probably better put towards the 24-90 SL lens.

It's just the the 24-90 is so BIG!

 

I think I can see an R camera and lens sale coming up.

Edited April 24, 2018 by MarkP

[MarkP]

+1. Yes, its hard to beat the 24-90 SL optically. The lens looks big, but not compared to 2-3 primes. For hiking, the triple 21SEM+50APO+90MacroElmar has served me well for many, many years. But for the past two years, SL+24-90 has been my preferred combo. Easy, quick, reliable and robust. On the short end, Voigtländer 15mm III is a good alternative (check off-center sharpness due to sample variations), but 24mm is usually enough for me. And stitching can often be used to go wider. Sometimes I bring with me Voigtländer 180mm APO Lanthar (f4) as a smallish, technically quite good 200mm-type of lens. If longer reach is wanted, the 90-280 SL will be high up on the list, although 280mm is generally too short and, importantly, the combined 24-90+90-280 is quite heavy. So I would consider the small and sharp Nikon 300mm PF (f4), plus a 1.4 extender as a longer lens; it's hard to find a smaller 400mm. The latter without stabilisation, unfortunately. Also without af and with fixed aperture on any manual adapter; with slowish af, variable aperture and max 3 fps on an electronic Novoflex adapter. Many choices, but the 24-90 SL will always be a part of the mix. For me. At least until the 16-35mm SL eventually arrives...

 

As a single package, albeit heavy,  I can see how the 24-90 on an SL would offset 3-4 primes with respect to convenience, weight, and weather/dust sealing.

 

I rarely shoot longer than 90mm, the 3.4/135 APO-Telyt occasionally, so I'm not fussed about having a longer lens.

 

The 16-35 SL has a lot of overlap with the 24-90 (at 21, 24, 28 and 35) and although I have the 15mm, I rarely shoot wider than 21mm.  So I could also pack the 21 SEM instead of the 15 CV.  Stitching is also a good idea.

Edited April 24, 2018 by MarkP

[MarkP]

I used both lenses at various times on the SL.  Subjectively I preferred the look of the R 28-90 for most of its range. But I found it very useful to have 24mm available at the wide end. And at 80-90mm the 28-90 loses contrast badly if there's a light source in or anywhere near the edge of the frame.  I eventually ditched both lenses and have since gone back to using R primes.

 

Thanks, yes I very much like the look of photographs from the 28-90 but can't justify having both lenses. I agree with your comments about 24 and 75-90 o the lens. However, as a zoom on the M10 with Visoflex (accepting it's limitations) it gives great results and is a relatively light package.

 

I would not go to R primes on the SL as I mighty as well stay with M primes on the M10 with far less bulk and weight.

 

The other big advantage of the SL is the long exposure times as I do a fair bit of long-exposure, low-light work for which the M10 is suboptimal.

[helged]

As a single package, albeit heavy,  I can see how the 24-90 on an SL would offset 3-4 primes with respect to convenience, weight, and weather/dust sealing.

 

I rarely shoot longer than 90mm, the 3.4/135 APO-Telyt occasionally, so I'm not fussed about having a longer lens.

 

The 16-35 SL has a lot of overlap with the 24-90 (at 21, 24, 28 and 35) and although I have the 15mm, I rarely shoot wider than 21mm.

So I could also pack the 21 SEM instead of the 15 CV.  Stitching is also a good idea.

 

 

Regarding 16-35: I am thinking that 16-35 + 75Cron (all SL) could be an interesting (wider) alternative to the 24-90mm. Time will tell...

 

Regarding 24-90: The lens balances quite well on the SL. I was very sceptical initially, but I hardly think about the size/weight any more. The sun shade is large; many don't use it - I do...

[MarkP]

Regarding 16-35: I am thinking that 16-35 + 75Cron (all SL) could be an interesting (wider) alternative to the 24-90mm. Time will tell...

 

Regarding 24-90: The lens balances quite well on the SL. I was very sceptical initially, but I hardly think about the size/weight any more. The sun shade is large; many don't use it - I do...

16-35 + 75 is an interesting idea. I like the 75 FL but I think I’d really miss 50.

 

The 24-90 sunshade is indeed horrendous

Edited April 24, 2018 by MarkP

[ramarren]

I've been adapting lenses to EVF cameras since 2009, but in all honesty I find adapted zoom lenses rather clumsy to work with.

 

R prime lenses are beautiful complements to the SL24-90 for when you want a prime that's a bit smaller and/or faster, but the SL24-90 outperforms nearly any of the R zooms (and even many R and M primes) and adds much more functionality to the SL. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

The 24-90 is a big lens, no doubt. However since it balances so well on the SL it doesn't feel as heavy as it might in extended use. I have lighter lenses on other systems (I'm looking at you sony...) and they are front heavy. So even though they're lighter overall they are much less comfortable after a days use.

 

I do find the hood huge and leave that at home. Unusual for me as I'm a hood fan usually. It's also not particularly well designed. Almost pointless at the longer end. The 24-90 has that cool water shedding coating so a bit of rain isn't a big problem.

 

The 135APO telyt works brilliantly on the SL, as does the WATE if you want a light and flexible add on to the standard zoom.

 

Gordon

[IkarusJohn]

Hi Mark,

 

You seem to be blinding yourself with options!

 

Simple question - how is the SL with 24-90 SL zoom? Fabulous. Don’t fret about size (it actually isn’t that big compared to other lenses of the same range), weight (it balances well on the SL), the fact that it telescopes in and out as you zoom (it keeps the size down and you won’t notice whe the camera is to your eye) or the hood - it’s just a hood!

 

When we went to the States last, I took two SL zooms, SL, Noctilux and 21 Summilux - waste of time. I might as well have just taken the 24-90 zoom and have done with it. It covers the usable range of your M10 (without messing about with that pretty average EVF), you need never change a lens (avoiding dust and other crap on your sensor - mine is currently in desperate need of a clean) and it’s weather sealed. I carried mine around NY and the eastern seaboard and was neve bothered by its size or weight.

 

If I were you, I’d start trimming down systems - I did, and it was liberating. On my next trip (not sure when that will be), I will take the SL, 24-90 zoom, maybe the fabulous 50 Summilux-SL, TL2 and 11-23 TL zoom for those days I want something smaller or wider. The 28 Summaron-M and adapter might find a way in for a pocketable camera with TL2 (fov 42mm). And I will probably just use the SL and 24-90 zoom.

 

Good luck!

 

John

[MarkP]

Sorry Gordon and John. Only just saw your posts.

 

Thanks Gordon,

I think the size of the SL with 24-90 may be similar in size to other systems you've used but is big c/w my M system, and my old Nikon F3/T system.  Good to know the 135 APO-Telyt works well on the SL. That's about the longest FL I use.

 

 

 

Thanks John for your long and detailed post,  

I'm trying to see the light of rationalisation rather than go blind with mental masturbation :-)

Though for someone trying to rationalise, you did take a lot of gear on your last trip:-0

I do want to rationalise, hence considering selling all my R gear including the 28-90 R zoom.

 

So I went to the Leica Store in Sydney today with my 28-90 R (and MATE) to compare it with the 24-90 on the SL. These are my thoughts on the camera and the lens comparison.

 

I want an SL, even if I don't get any SL lenses yet as it will clearly enhance what I do with my current equipment. Because of the better EVF, long exposure times, virtual horizon, adjustable focus & spot meter points, and excellent battery life, it has clear advantages over the M10 for my very-low-light night photography & landscape photography, and for when I do occasionally want to use a zoom over primes. 

 

On comparing the 24-90 SL and 28-90 R at comparable FLs (mainly at f5.6):

1.  No difference in character/rendering of the images. 

 

2.  Little difference in IQ. Had to pixel peep on 24 inch NEC ColorSync monitors to tell. In some comparisons there was little difference and in others the 24-90 SL probably had the edge.

 

3. The 24-90 SL has clear advantage with respect to 24mm, weather/dust sealing, close-focus, image stabilisation, and AF (probably less of an issue for me).

 

4. MATE wasn't bad on SL either. and IQ held up fairly well compared with other two lenses (except for barrel distortion). 

 

5. 24-90 SL is BIG and HEAVY. The 28-90 R, even with adapter, was svelt in comparison.  The 24-90 SL may be comparable in size and weight with other DSLR system zooms but it's humungous compared to what I'm used to using.  

 

Perhaps I should just get the SL camera and take it from there.

Edited April 28, 2018 by MarkP

[IkarusJohn]

The big different, I think, is the relative simplicity of the M10 with any manual focus lens, adapter or not, compared to the relative complexity of the SL system.

 

If you do decide to make the leap, give the SL time and come to grips with the entire camera, all menu settings and all (if you can) before you sell your M10 and 28-90. The SL is a fantastic camera, but its strengths (and weaknesses) are about waaay more than the EVF, weathersealing and its size and weight. It’s a complex electronic system quite different from the diminuitive and relatively “simple” M system (I don’t mean that to be even remotely derogatory).

 

When I go out with my Monochrom (the only digital M I have), it’s a revelation to me and I think I should do it more often. I’m not selling my SL - I have the two zooms and the fabulous SL-50 Summilux, and I’m convincing myself I don’t need the 16-35 wide zoom (just GAS) - but I also haven’t forgotten what got me into Leica in the first place. If Leica releases an M-D version of the M10 with WiFi, I would find that hard to resist, and I might rationalise my SL system (the long zoom might be the victim, good as it is).

 

I don’t think your foray into SL territory is a bad idea - just give it time.

 

Cheers

John

Edited April 28, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[MarkP]

Thanks John, good advice about the SL.

 

However,  you may have missed my point when you suggest I may sell the M10. I am keeping my M system and M10 for exactly the reasons you mentioned.  It's simplicity and compactness and image quality is exactly why I moved to the M system. The SL will also complement the M10 as another M mount camera with a very similar sensor for consistency of imaging.

 

It's the essentially unused and pristine R7, 2.0/50 Summicron-R, 80-200 Vario-Elmar-R, and 2x APO-Extender that I'm considering selling to get the SL ± 24-90 Zoom. The question still is whether to keep the 28-90 Vario-Elmarit-R or replace it with the 24-90 Vario-Elmarit-SL.  You may be right that with time it will be the obvious choice.

 

So for the moment I could just sell the unused R7, 80-200 and 2x APO-Extender, 50 Summicron-R get the SL and see how I like it.  

 

Furthermore, as I already have the R-M adapter (which has the optional tripod collar), I only need the diminutive M-L adapter which gives me an adapter system for M & R lenses should I choose to keep the 28-90 R zoom (if not I can also sell the relatively pricey R-M adapter).

 

 

Regards,

Mark

[MarkP]

I just bought an SL 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

...well it is my birthday this week...

...my wife approved...

Edited April 29, 2018 by MarkP

[IkarusJohn]

Well done, and happy birthday!  You won't regret it.

 

For all the reasons you mention, if I survive my acute myeloid leukaemia (bone marrow transplant coming up in early June), the I will be treating myself with the M10 M-D (whenever it comes) for the reasons you cite.  The combination of the all singing all dancing SL with its truly fabulous lenses and the M system is perfect, in my view.

 

Good work.  I Iook forward to catching up next time I'm in Sydney.

 

Best

John

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[MarkP]

Hi John,

 

very sorry to hear of all this.

Get that transplant done and dusted.

Then treat yourself.

 

Kind regards,

Mark