16-35 vs 24-90 ...which you prefer/ use more often?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So far I skipped the 16-35 since I Thought it is better to have a faster lens with ois in the 24-90 and to use 21/3.4 SEM when I need wider.

On the other side I am somewhat intrigued to use more often wider focal lengths than 24mm. Due to weight I dont see to carry both lenses all the time (eventually sometimes).

And I have started to often use the 75/2.0SL for family/portraits/kids images.

 

So I wonder if not maybe 16-35 + 75 could often replace my 24-90....

 

For those who own both lenses, any opnions how often you use which and how yo get along would be appreciated.

 

[helged]

One-lens shooting (like on hiking or in very dusty regions or in very harsh weather): SL24-90 only.

 

When I can carry two or more lenses/have time to switch lenses: SL16-35 + SL75. The latter is optically superb, and f2 can be good to have/interesting to play with. The SL16-35 is likewise an outstanding zoom that, importantly, hardly flare, leaving most primes (and certainly all wide zooms that I know about) far behind. With this duo, I don't miss the classical 50mm, but others may feel differently.

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

When I’m carrying one lens it’s the 50SL or the 24-90. If I’m carrying multiple it’s the 16-35 + 50 or 16-35 + 90-280.

[hillavoider]

yes I agree the 16-35 images look amazing but its really hard to justify the MAAAASIVE cost when you already have the 24-90 so I am also skipping it until I win lotto and then i'll get it for sure - sorry for not really answering your question

[Sandokan]

I have a Canon 16-35/4 which I am happy with and usually carry that with me as well as the 24-90 and a M75 Summilux. On a sling or backpack the weight is OK to carry. The 16-35 gets used most for landscapes and street photography, although I do like the Zeiss 18mm for that genre too as it is so inconspicuous. The 24-90 is just my all purpose lens and I love it a lot. I I like the combinations these 3 lenses offer. 

[Fedro]

the 16-35 is great for landscape and architecture/city, the 24-90 is a fabulous all purpose lens

 

I like to match the 24-90 with a fast 50, but the 16-35 with a longer lens (i.e. a 75) is a wonderful combo that covers well most needs (for me, that is)

 

If I had to keep only one it would be the 24-90, but that depends on what I use them for

[lanetomlane]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

If I could only have one lens it would have to be the 24-90. However, on a serious photography trip; like when I go to Iceland in September, I would take all three zooms which together with the SL body fit nicely into the larger Billingham Back Pack.

Edited August 2, 2018 by lanetomlane

[otto.f]

Depends on whether you have an M along the SL. For me the range 28-90 is M work: quick, handy, close, low profile. With the big SL I prefer to keep distance.

[ramarren]

If I were buying an SL again today, I'd skip the 24-90mm lens entirely and order the camera with the 35/2 and 75/2 lenses. And then I'd buy the 16-35 and the 90-280. That way, I'd have two relatively compact, fast, native lenses as what I use all the time, and two ultra-performing zooms to cover the wide and tele range that I use a bit more infrequently. 

 

The only thing missing from that scenario is a native macro lens pair: a 60mm and a 120mm would be perfect.

[jrp]

Chacun a son gout.  I'm disappointed with the 24-90 only because I have yet to take a picture with it where the lens defects are worse than my own (eg, composition) shortcomings.  So there is no one else to blame.  Actually it makes picture taking almost boring (compared with my Nikon gear, where CA or misfocusing ruins a lot of shots).

 

The 16-35mm is a great lens, too, for particular styles of shooting (eg, exaggerate the foreground subject).

 

And then there are those situations where a wide aperture to remove the background is really what you need.  The 21/24mm Summiluxes-M render beautifully.  That said, the 16-35mm is sharper / apparently flatter fielded, even allowing for the higher ISO needed, if that is what rocks your boat.  

 

So I think that Leica got it right.  the 24-90mm gives you 80% of what you need; the other lenses are what the yanks would call "specialty", like Early Grey tea.

[Irakly Shanidze]

The lens choice is obviously based upon a subject matter. That is exactly the reason why I do not have 16-35, despite its outstanding image quality. In those rare instances when I need anything wider than 24mm, 4/18 Zeiss works just fine, without the added bulk and weight. In fact, I would prefer a 28-85 range to make the lens smaller and possibly less extending at the tele end.

[sillbeers15]

If I were buying an SL again today, I'd skip the 24-90mm lens entirely and order the camera with the 35/2 and 75/2 lenses. And then I'd buy the 16-35 and the 90-280. That way, I'd have two relatively compact, fast, native lenses as what I use all the time, and two ultra-performing zooms to cover the wide and tele range that I use a bit more infrequently.

 

The only thing missing from that scenario is a native macro lens pair: a 60mm and a 120mm would be perfect.

You’ve just mentioned my choice of SL native lenses Ramarren. Therefore I look forward to the 35/2 coming end of this year. However I’ll still keep my 24-90 as it will be my best choice if I were forced to select one lens only.

As for now, I bring along my M10 with 35lux. When the SL35 arrives, I’ll switch on my 21lux to pair with my M10.

 

Although there are not as many native lenses available as the Sony Mirrorless system today but it is definitely adequate for most users while there are still the M & R manual focus lenses to go along. More importantly the image quality produced by the Leica lenses are much more desirable. Well there are still those that bitch about not enough SL native lenses and always those that bitch about heavy and expensive. Sigh.

[IkarusJohn]

I feel spoilt for choice, I must say.

 

I've been doing some re-organisation around the house; one of the tasks has been to clean and pack lenses into my gun safe (an insurance requirement).  So, I put the SL, three zooms and 50 Summilux-SL into my small Peak Design back pack (I seem to have misplace the hood for the Summilux somewhere) - Christ almighty that bag is heavy!  But then, it has a lot of things in it, and I would never spend a day carrying all four lenses around with me.

 

The SL zooms cover a range I would rarely be constrained by - 16-280mm, and the Summilux gives me a fast prime in my favourite focal length (followed closely by 28mm).  But, realistically if I was to take one SL lens, it would almost certainly be the 24-90.  What's not to like?  I might take the 50 Summilux, if I wanted the extra two stops and just having the 50 field of view was okay for what i wanted to do.

 

Things get more interesting if I want to take more than one lens (say on a trip to somewhere like Italy).  I doubt I would take 4 SL lenses on such a trip.

 

The true strength (to my mind) of the SL is that it's a universal platform, and can take any Leica lens with appropriate adapters.  Following comments on other threads, I would reconsider what multi-lense options I would take on such a trip.  I would almost certainly take the SL and 16-35 zoom.  I would then seriously consider also taking my Monochrom and the T-M adapter with the following M lenses - 21, 28 & 75 Summilux and Noctilux.  All perform admirably on the SL, and they cover most of the 24-90 range, but in primes.  

 

The 24-90 & 90-280 zooms and 50 Summilux-SL, lovely as they are, would not make the cut.

 

It's not that I dislike the 24-90 zoom; it's just that the M system isn't well suited wider than 28 or longer than 75 (for me), and the SL works wonderfully with the 16-35 zoom.  Much like Gordon and others, I was underwhelmed by the focal range of the wide zoom when it was announced - why not a proper wide like Nikon's excellent 12-24mm?  But I admit I had it wrong - for those who like wide, the 16-35 is actually a good general purpose zoom; particularly when coupled with M primes.

 

Hope this helps.

Edited August 3, 2018 by IkarusJohn

[thighslapper]

24-90 is an excellent single lens solution for travel, holidays and generally pottering about with no specific intentions.

 

16-35 sits permanently on the SL for landscape and interiors, with the 75/2 carried as a back-up for longer shots and people. 

 

Apart from dedicated landscape trips of several days ....... when I'm loaded like Nepalese Sherpa, (*) I tend to stick to just one or two lenses + SL, as anything more is both heavy and unnecessary.

 

If I was carrying a load of other junk I would take the CL and a couple of the zooms. 

 

(*) SL, 24-90, 16-35, CL, 11-23, 18-56, 55-135, CV 12/5.6, L brackets, Straps, Batteries, Filters, Rain Gear, Tripod(s), Backpack comes in at 10-12kg which is about my limit these days  ..... why the duplication ??? ...... a 5 minute exposure with the SL means 10 minutes on thumb twiddling so I use the downtime to take further shorter exposure shots or general snaps with the CL........ often swapping over the cameras on the tripod during NR. At sunrise and sunset things can change very quickly so it gives you 2 bites at the cherry ....  . 

[AndreaP75]

I own both lenses, and both have their own reason to be in the camera bag, although not at the same time (at least for what I do).

 

For general photography and travel, the 24-90 is wonderful when you want to keep things minimal. I often take the 24-90 for the day + Leica Q for added flexibility in low light and evenings / more casual shooting. Not to forget that in both cases you have optical stabilization.

 

The 16-35 is a fantastic optic, and on the overlapping focal lengths is slightly sharper than the 24-90, which is quite something.

It's not at all confined to landscape / architecture / interior photography. Think about daytime street photography, simply a dream with this lens. 

 

A setup with SL 16-35 + SL 50 + SL 90 covers pretty much everything, at the very best imaginable quality. Adding a Leica Q will help to leave the 16-35 back home / hotel room for the evening. I would consider this setup for serious photo outing / project.

 

For a two lenses set-up, SL 16-35 + SL 75 would be the way to go. I do not own the SL 75, as I prefer a 50 + 90 combination for what I do.

However, I would still consider a Q (or even better the upcoming SL 35) to pair with the SL 75 for low light shooting.

[scott kirkpatrick]

I don't have the 24-90, but take the 16-35 with me for walks around rapidly-changing Jerusalem, where its ability to bring together old and new things works well.  Here are some examples:

 

S1020530 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

S1020535 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

S1020542 1 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

S1020497 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

 

I use the 90-280 frequently, but take out just that lens, for distant details, critters, and airshows.  I can't imagine carrying both.

 

Among the APO Summilux SLs, the 50 appeals most to me, since I can use it on the SL as the reference lens to top even the APO 50 SC M for clarity and on a CL as a medium (75-eff) telephoto.

Edited August 5, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[Mr.Q]

Something is wrong with your white balance or my screen.

[scott kirkpatrick]

dusty air, I suspect.  all shots AWB.

 

Oops, all were supposed to be AWB, but actually an old grey card setting.  Too much magenta.  Redone using traffic signs as reference.

 

thanks.

Edited August 5, 2018 by scott kirkpatrick

[tom0511]

Trying to resist GAS. I have decided to stay with the 24-90 +21M and skip the 16-35 for now. If I was using the UWA-range more often the decision might be otherwise.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

Trying to resist GAS. I have decided to stay with the 24-90 +21M and skip the 16-35 for now. If I was using the UWA-range more often the decision might be otherwise.

Sounds like a very good compromise for me, particularly if 21M is 21SEM (thinking of the combination of size and optical quality of the latter).