New SL 24-70 or second hand SL 24-90 Glass, which one to choose?

[satijntje]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello Leica friends.
I am very close to hit the button to get a mint second hand SL2 Camera Body.
As I have the M-L Adapter already , I will use my 21-50-90mm M lenses.

For the AF glass, I am not sure.
Maybe some Sigma or Pana lenses in order not to explode my budget, and for the time being one native Leica zoom lens.
Now, I am not sure if I should get a new SL 24-70 f2.8 lens or a second hand SL 24-90 f4 lens.
Prices are nearly identical.
I am shooting street, family, nature and buildings, so in fact all kind of things  but not on a professional basis.
Would love to get some advise here which of the 2 zooms to get.
Thanks in advance

John

[BernardC]

I would go for the 24-90, since you don't mind buying used. The main disadvantage is the extra weight and size, so try it out if you can.

The 24-90 is the ultimate Leica mid-range zoom, you won't regret it.

[Advertisement]

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

[Logon]

6 hours ago, BernardC said:

I would go for the 24-90, since you don't mind buying used. The main disadvantage is the extra weight and size, so try it out if you can.

The 24-90 is the ultimate Leica mid-range zoom, you won't regret it.

I'm perfectly agree

 

[hansvons]

I know the 24-90 very well and the Sigma 24-70 a bit from a Sony camera, which is said to be close to the new Leica 24-70. In my biased opinion, I'd prefer any day the 24-90. But I'm sure that Leica leicavised the 24-70 in a way that it performs well to Leica's standards. However, because you are willing to buy used, the 24-90 is a no-brainer. As with most Leica glass and the myth to be the best standard zoom on the planet, I'm convinced that you won't lose much money later when selling time is due.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Check the 24-90 thoroughly and if it's not abused, damaged or mis-aligned then I too would choose it over the 24-70.

The 24-70 is a fine lens. Optically it's identical to the Sigma 24-70 so you could save more money with that option. However from my (admittedly limited) testing I prefer the way my 24-90 draws. Actually I've not found a 135 format standard zoom from anyone I prefer to the 24-90. Both lenses are sharp enough (the 24-90 is best to 70mm) but the drawing and extra reach are worth it, to me.

Gordon

[chris_tribble]

24-90…

[SiggiGun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24-90mm if size is not an issue. Also if you're Interesse in other Zoom lenses from Leica, p.ex the 16-35mm. Same answerv zoom direction is the same. The 24-70mm turns in the opposite sense (like Sigma) 

[Pixeleater]

18 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Check the 24-90 thoroughly and if it's not abused, damaged or mis-aligned then I too would choose it over the 24-70.

The 24-70 is a fine lens. Optically it's identical to the Sigma 24-70 so you could save more money with that option. However from my (admittedly limited) testing I prefer the way my 24-90 draws. Actually I've not found a 135 format standard zoom from anyone I prefer to the 24-90. Both lenses are sharp enough (the 24-90 is best to 70mm) but the drawing and extra reach are worth it, to me.

Gordon

I agree with this. I've been looking at used 24-90's and they have dust particles inside the lens. Not sure if this is common to the lens or a coincidence, but it has given me pause about buying used.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

4 hours ago, Pixeleater said:

I agree with this. I've been looking at used 24-90's and they have dust particles inside the lens. Not sure if this is common to the lens or a coincidence, but it has given me pause about buying used.

It's common with zoom lenses. Especially telescoping ones. Generally not a big deal and unlikely to affect optical performance. Dust will move around over time too...

Gordon

[DadDadDaddyo]

24-90 - a truly wonderful lens!

[Mdol]

24-90.

This is The one you should buy. All rounder (90 is very useful). Ultra high IQ, optical stabilisation. 

[Jeffry Abt]

I have an order in for the 24-70. I like the constant f/2:8 Aperture.  

Edited June 20, 2021 by Jeffry Abt

[Njom]

24-90

[Ktsa5239]

24-90 all the way! I compared the two and ended up spending over my budget and bought the 24-90 new. It’s incredible in every way. Don’t even know if I could go back to my M anymore

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Slender]

Wonderful little bird 😍

[i-Leica]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb Ktsa5239:

24-90 all the way! I compared the two and ended up spending over my budget and bought the 24-90 new. It’s incredible in every way. Don’t even know if I could go back to my M anymore

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Do you have the SL2 or SL2-S?

[Ktsa5239]

6 hours ago, i-Leica said:

Do you have the SL2 or SL2-S?

I have the SL2

[nucky]

If you don't shoot much at 90mm get the 24-70 for the constant f2.8. With the 24-90 unless you are shooting mostly at 24-30mm, you will not have f2.8 I have the Sigma  24-70 on my SL and it is a stellar lens.  I shoot events and high fashion with it and I am very happy. The 24-90 is great too but it was a bit too heavy to carry all day as I shoot with the hand grip most of the time. 

Btw, I was not able to find out how many blades does the 24-90 have, 24-70 has 11 and in my opinion bokeh  transition is fabulous.

[Jk1002]

I was wondering about the same question and settled on the 24-90 over the extra reach.

I had one one preowned on order from a dealer on the west coast but fedex messed up delivery, dealer wasn’t responsive and now its traveling back to west coast looks like.

So now I am back thinking but I dont understand what I get for the 1800$ Leica surcharge if its really a rebadged Sigma.

JK

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[beewee]

2 hours ago, Jk1002 said:

I dont understand what I get for the 1800$ Leica surcharge if its really a rebadged Sigma.

From what I’ve gleaned from various sources, the Leica version is similar but not identical optically. Whether the differences are worth the higher price is for the buyer to decide.

The differences are as follows:

• Optically, the Leica version has one additional element that’s a partial anomalous dispersion glass as compared to Sigma (9 vs 8 elements)
• Electronically, the Leica version fully exposes/implements the L-mount communication protocol which allows Leica SL/SL2/SL2-S bodies to get extra information for additional corrections.
  • In contrast, Sigma L-mount lenses do not necessarily expose all elements in the L-mount communication standard
  • Panasonic supposedly does a bit better job than Sigma in this regard
  • With the Leica version, you get the benefit of setting your preferred amount of turning for manual focus by wire, just like other SL lenses with exceptions being the 16-35 and 50/1.4.
• Mechanically, the Leica version has an all metal exterior that shares the same aesthetic as other SL lenses. The Sigma version has some very high quality engineered composites for parts of the lens barrel.
• Manufacturing wise, the Leica version supposedly has more stringent requirements for manufacturing tolerances compared to the Sigma version and there are more stringent quality control elements in the production process.
• Functionally, at least based on the comparison performed by RedDotForum in one of their youtube videos, the Leica 24-70 is noticeably sharper compare to the Sigma in the corners but the Leica 24-90 is still sharper than the Leica 24-70.

All that being said, Leica is doing a terrible job marketing the Leica 24-70 and informing potential buyers why they should pay extra as compared to Sigma.

Edited June 25, 2021 by beewee