Jump to content

Leica 24-90mm Vario-Elmar IQ vs Panasonic S Pro Primes


ron777

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It would be interesting to compare the IQ of the Leica 24-90mm Vario-Elmar at its 50 mm setting to that of the new Panasonic S Pro 50mm lens at equivalent apertures.  While I own a 24-90, I do not yet own any of the new S Pro lenses, and cannot make that comparison.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest when you get to comparing lens performance in this price bracket and optical quality you are into hair splitting territory. 

The 24-90 throughout most of its range gives most primes a run for their money ....... as Leica deliberately keep the apertures fairly modest to preserve optical quality.

From what I can gather from reviews the Panasonic Pro 50 is broadly comparable to the SL 50/1.4 ....... which is not surprising as it has a 'Leica certified' tag. 

At these levels of optical performance I don't think there is any discernible difference in normal usage so  I'm not that bothered which is closest to perfection. 

That's why I buy Leica :D

Edited by thighslapper
  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

The purpose of the query was not to determine which might be better but, rather to see if it made any sense to.purchase said prime when one already owns the zoom in question. From your response I would guess that it does not make sense, given that the prime is rather large and heavy in its own right and little would be gained, other than a bump in aperture that can be compensated for with ISO.

Edited by ron777
Link to post
Share on other sites

It is true that modern well made zoom lenses are very good optically but primes are still better when pixel peeping. Especially in the corners. In the case of the Lumix 50mm, I would buy it for its excellent sharpness and shallow depth of field. The SL 24-90mm will never be able to give you that look for close-up portraits but it is a very versatile lens for general use. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Using primes at maximum open aperture will result in another look. At same aperture as the zooms I have doubt that without pixel peeping there will be difference and esp. not in prints - even not at A3 +. Weight is another thing, the 90/280 is bulky, but at 90 mm and 2,8 aperture it is very useful for portraits too, and it is an excellent lens in every respect. A very interesting prme lens could be the Sigma 105mm F1,4 if and when it will be available for the L mount. Very bulky but an extraordinary lens for special purposes because of its bokeh. But all these written there are only my 5 cents.

 

Edited by HeinzX
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, AlanYWM said:

It is true that modern well made zoom lenses are very good optically but primes are still better when pixel peeping. Especially in the corners. In the case of the Lumix 50mm, I would buy it for its excellent sharpness and shallow depth of field. The SL 24-90mm will never be able to give you that look for close-up portraits but it is a very versatile lens for general use. 

I do not disagree, but I do not do closeup portraits, and if I were to do portraits I'd probably be using a entirely different lens and focal length.  And, fortunately for me, I'm not a pixel peeper.  So I'm still on the fence in re the Lumix 50mm, and will likely remain there to wait for the appearance of other new "L" mount offerings.  For the time being, the 24-90 serves me well.  But thank you for your input.

HeinzX has, however, reinforced my own intuition in regards to the initial question ... thank you all once again.

Edited by ron777
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more interested in the S 24-105 (not pro) than in the primes to compare with the 24-90. It’s macro range is very attractive and it is also lighter and more compact than the 24-90. So I would also like to see a comparison at equal focal lengths.

Wonder how much weaker it is than the 24-90, if at all. Maybe in practice differences in IQ are neglectable anyway ?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, caissa said:

I am more interested in the S 24-105 (not pro) than in the primes to compare with the 24-90. It’s macro range is very attractive and it is also lighter and more compact than the 24-90. So I would also like to see a comparison at equal focal lengths.

Wonder how much weaker it is than the 24-90, if at all. Maybe in practice differences in IQ are neglectable anyway ?

I think most of us here on the forum buy Leica lenses because we can ...... rather than because we need to... :rolleyes:

There is a whole world out there perfectly happy with the quality of Tamron lenses ...... and taking great photos ....

As has been pointed out by many a photographer ..... the 10000 euros spent on a Noctilux might be better used financing a few photographic trips to interesting locations ... 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, AlanYWM said:

It is true that modern well made zoom lenses are very good optically but primes are still better when pixel peeping. Especially in the corners. In the case of the Lumix 50mm, I would buy it for its excellent sharpness and shallow depth of field. The SL 24-90mm will never be able to give you that look for close-up portraits but it is a very versatile lens for general use. 

Have you used the 24-90? Which primes have you compared it with?
More generally, I find that in portraits I rarely look at or need sharp corners. That said, the 24-90 doesn't perform badly in the corners, in real world usage (though one can always find better).

DoF is another matter. Although I don't often find myself limited by f/4 at 90mm in the SL's zoom, I admit I like to have f/2 in hand for when I want it - and so I have the SL Summicron 90.

Edited by LocalHero1953
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Have you used the 24-90? Which primes have you compared it with?
More generally, I find that in portraits I rarely look at or need sharp corners. That said, the 24-90 doesn't perform badly in the corners, in real world usage (though one can always find better).

DoF is another matter. Although I don't often find myself limited by f/4 at 90mm in the SL's zoom, I admit I like to have f/2 in hand for when I want it - and so I have the SL Summicron 90.

Of course. If you are convinced that the 24-90mm is equal in IQ to a good prime, power to you. But I am of another opinion 😊

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 8 Stunden schrieb caissa:

I am more interested in the S 24-105 (not pro) than in the primes to compare with the 24-90. It’s macro range is very attractive and it is also lighter and more compact than the 24-90. So I would also like to see a comparison at equal focal lengths.

Wonder how much weaker it is than the 24-90, if at all. Maybe in practice differences in IQ are neglectable anyway ?

The S 24-105 is not ground breaking in terms of resolution, in short this is the conclusion of 'digitalkamera.de' , in German: https://www.digitalkamera.de/Testbericht/Testbericht_Panasonic_Lumix_DC-S1/11246.aspx?page=2

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, AlanYWM said:

Of course. If you are convinced that the 24-90mm is equal in IQ to a good prime, power to you. But I am of another opinion 😊

Please read what I wrote, which isn't how you have paraphrased it. Sadly, misreading of posts, deliberately or not, is how internet rows start.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 41 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

Please read what I wrote, which isn't how you have paraphrased it. Sadly, misreading of posts, deliberately or not, is how internet rows start.

Oh, I'm so sorry about that. I hope you can apologize my mistake. 😖

You compare the 1:1,4 50mm Panasonic prime lens with the SL 24-90 zoom lens of course.

PS: I can't help you, but remember a standard zoom is made for a different photographic purpose compared to a fast prime lens.

Edited by saxo
PS
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, saxo said:

Oh, I'm so sorry about that. I hope you can apologize my mistake. 😖

You compare the 1:1,4 50mm Panasonic prime lens with the SL 24-90 zoom lens of course.

PS: I can't help you, but remember a standard zoom is made for a different photographic purpose compared to a fast prime lens.

No need to apologise to me - my post was a response to someone else. But I agree with your PS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Please read what I wrote, which isn't how you have paraphrased it. Sadly, misreading of posts, deliberately or not, is how internet rows start.

First, you start by questioning  if I have used the SL 24-90mm. Why the need to do that? Because you think I am wrong in my general assessment of zoom lenses, right? Otherwise why the question?

Then you say you "rarely look at or need sharp corners. That said, the 24-90 doesn't perform badly in the corners..."  🙄

Next time, read carefully what I have written before commenting. Like I said, power to you 😄

Link to post
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, thighslapper said:

There is a whole world out there perfectly happy with the quality of Tamron lenses ...... and taking great photos ....

Indeed, not least because some of the Leica SL lenses are Tamron designs.  (Design is one thing, build is another.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...