24-90 as the SL line's favoured portraiture lens

[cpclee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I often see fast SL primes (50/1.4, 50/2, 75/2, 90/2) recommended for portraiture.  I think the 24-90 does not get enough mentions, even though it seems to be favoured by many commercial / fashion shooters of the SL system.  Personally I  use this lens almost exclusively.

http://s-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/digital-features/lightship-2454.html

http://s-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/digital-features/salomon-2516.html

http://s-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/editorials-and-ads/gentelman-s-journal-2390.html

http://s-magazine.photography/ceemes/en/digital-features/mosh-2195.html

[Stuart Richardson]

I think the zooms are great for this use, as it tends to require flexibility with framing, high working speed, usually allows the photographer some control of the light. The Leica zooms tend to have really nice color and nice bokeh, and most commercial work does not benefit from extremely wide open apertures (generally clients are paying you to show something other than bokeh). Furthermore, the absolute best edge to edge sharpness is seldom required, as generally the focus is on the model, not on the landscape, and most of the work is not printed much bigger than A3 unless it is used for displays/billboards.

I remember from back when I started with the R system, I got the 28-90mm zoom, and I was very impressed by how well it rendered for portraits at the long end. I think the reason that most people recommend prime lenses is that, especially when shooting 35mm, the moderate focal lengths from 35mm to 50mm do benefit from a bit of speed to help with isolation, and with longer lenses shooting them wide open can indeed truly make the background melt away, but that is really not always what you want.

Personally, I stick to primes, but that is more because I am mostly focused on landscape imagery, where the sharpness and edge to edge uniformity are more important. For portraits, Leica's zooms have a lot of appealing characteristics.

[cpclee]

38 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the zooms are great for this use, as it tends to require flexibility with framing, high working speed, usually allows the photographer some control of the light. The Leica zooms tend to have really nice color and nice bokeh, and most commercial work does not benefit from extremely wide open apertures (generally clients are paying you to show something other than bokeh). Furthermore, the absolute best edge to edge sharpness is seldom required, as generally the focus is on the model, not on the landscape, and most of the work is not printed much bigger than A3 unless it is used for displays/billboards.

I remember from back when I started with the R system, I got the 28-90mm zoom, and I was very impressed by how well it rendered for portraits at the long end. I think the reason that most people recommend prime lenses is that, especially when shooting 35mm, the moderate focal lengths from 35mm to 50mm do benefit from a bit of speed to help with isolation, and with longer lenses shooting them wide open can indeed truly make the background melt away, but that is really not always what you want.

Personally, I stick to primes, but that is more because I am mostly focused on landscape imagery, where the sharpness and edge to edge uniformity are more important. For portraits, Leica's zooms have a lot of appealing characteristics.

Most often I get enough background isolation by 2.8 at 50mm or 4.0 at 90mm.  When I need even shallower DoF, which doesn't happen often, I will use my 75/2 APO M or 50/2 R. 

[globalwander]

@cpclee thanks for sharing this link. I got into the SL system with the SL 601 and the SL 24-90. Then I sold the 24-90 so I could experience the perfection of the SL primes. I had and loved the SL 35 and 50 primes. But recently sold them to go back to my beloved 24-90. The flexibility, simplicity, minimalism and extraordinary performance bring me joy every time I use it. These days, I use the SL2-S with the 24-90. The combo is superb. Here’s a photo of my daughter taken with the 24-90. Hand held, 50mm, 1/100sec, f/3.6, ISO 5000. 

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!

Edited December 11, 2021 by globalwander
Added a sample photo.

[LocalHero1953]

I agree the 24-90 is excellent for portraits. If it was just for formal/posed portraits I wouldn't look elsewhere. However, I do quite a bit of drama photography where one cannot control the backgrounds; the 90SL wide open really does make the face stand out, whatever the background, at the expense of the occasional missed focus when heads are moving quickly.

That said, I can see that the 90SL, even stopped down, does not just behave the same as the 24-90 at the long end. It's colour and clarity, perhaps enhanced by how the out of focus areas drop off, make me pick it when I can for portraits, simply because I have it.

[cpclee]

13 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I agree the 24-90 is excellent for portraits. If it was just for formal/posed portraits I wouldn't look elsewhere. However, I do quite a bit of drama photography where one cannot control the backgrounds; the 90SL wide open really does make the face stand out, whatever the background, at the expense of the occasional missed focus when heads are moving quickly.

That said, I can see that the 90SL, even stopped down, does not just behave the same as the 24-90 at the long end. It's colour and clarity, perhaps enhanced by how the out of focus areas drop off, make me pick it when I can for portraits, simply because I have it.

Just curious, if Leica made a 135/2.0 or 135/2.8, would it also work for your drama shoots?  

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 minutes ago, cpclee said:

Just curious, if Leica made a 135/2.0 or 135/2.8, would it also work for your drama shoots?  

I sometimes use the 90-280 for that range. I have a privileged position in that I am taking shots for publicity, and I'm allowed to get in among the actors as long as I don't get in the way. But when I don't know the story or the action I prefer to hang back with the longer lens. I don't like carrying and changing too many lenses though, so I don't think I would get a 135! 

[globalwander]

38 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I agree the 24-90 is excellent for portraits. If it was just for formal/posed portraits I wouldn't look elsewhere. However, I do quite a bit of drama photography where one cannot control the backgrounds; the 90SL wide open really does make the face stand out, whatever the background, at the expense of the occasional missed focus when heads are moving quickly.

That said, I can see that the 90SL, even stopped down, does not just behave the same as the 24-90 at the long end. It's colour and clarity, perhaps enhanced by how the out of focus areas drop off, make me pick it when I can for portraits, simply because I have it.

@LocalHero1953This makes abundant sense. Also, I once watched a RedDotForum video where David Farkas said a perfect combo would be the 24-90 and the 90 SL prime. That way, you get the benefit of the 90 prime at f/2 instead of the VE at f/4. 

[SiggiGun]

The flexibility of this lens is a major argument for portraits.

[hansvons]

@cpclee, great images! You know what you are doing. I shoot 90% of my stuff on the 24-90 simply because it's the best zoom lens in the stills world. full stop - and I work fast-paced. For me, changing lenses means often losing the shot. However, when I haven the time, I often prefer to shoot portraits on old R glass, eg the SummicronR 50mm, because the 24-90 renders tremendously dimensional and there are times when some flatness and less sharpness is desirable. I like to cover the environment as we humans perceive it and hence prefer the 50mm over a 90mm. But in the same time, I like some compression on the faces. The 24-90 definitely doesn't deliver here. However, the 50mm SL Summicron doesn't render flat either, that's why I never felt the urge to get one. So, from my perspective, when dimensionally in on the plate because extroverted emotions are part of the story, the 24-90 is brilliant. But for more subtle portraits, I find it too powerful. 

Regardless, a brilliant lens I had the joy of shooting today and hopefully the years to come.

Edited December 11, 2021 by hansvons

[cpclee]

7 hours ago, SiggiGun said:

The flexibility of this lens is a major argument for portraits.

The flexibility as a portrait lens owes a lot to the fact the lens goes all the way to 90mm.  Other flagship standard zooms on the market tend to stop at 70mm.

The 70mm-90mm range is very important for me, where as 24mm-28mm I could give up if I had to.  Hence the 24-90 is a more useful lens for me than the 24-70.

[cpclee]

10 minutes ago, hansvons said:

@cpclee, great images! You know what you are doing. I shoot 90% of my stuff on the 24-90 simply because it's the best zoom lens in the stills world. full stop - and I work fast-paced. For me, changing lenses means often losing the shot. However, when I haven the time, I often prefer to shoot portraits on old R glass, eg the SummicronR 50mm, because the 24-90 renders tremendously dimensional and there are times when some flatness and less sharpness is desirable. I like to cover the environment as we humans perceive it and hence prefer the 50mm over a 90mm. But in the same time, I like some compression on the faces. The 24-90 definitely doesn't deliver here. However, the 50mm SL Summicron doesn't render flat either, that's why I never felt the urge to get one. So, from my perspective, when dimensionally in on the plate because extroverted emotions are part of the story, the 24-90 is brilliant. But for more subtle portraits, I find it too powerful. 

Regardless, a brilliant lens I had the joy of shooting today and hopefully the years to come.

The 50 Summicron R indeed produces a lot of charm and is the one R prime I still have.  

To be clear, those links are not my images but those of commercial and fashion shooters having been featured in Leica's S Magazine. Interestingly, some of them seem to have switched from the S system to the SL system in recent years or use the two in tandem.  It says a lot about the combination of speed, efficiency, flexibility and image quality of the SL system and the native zooms.  One does not step away from the kind of image quality the S system delivers unless the alternative has something great to offer.

I once spoke with a Leica Academie instructor from Germany.  He said he used to lug around an S with several primes in shooting his landscapes.  Now he just uses the SL system and its zooms.  David Farkas of RedDotForum / Leica Store Miami seems to have made the same move.

[hansvons]

I never understood why the "standard" zoom isn't a 28-90 F 2.8. 24mm definitely is out of our human perception. 

Edited December 11, 2021 by hansvons

[cpclee]

This one was shot at 90mm.  My girls don't ever stop fidgeting so the speed of the 24-90 definitely helped here!  (A portrait session with them means I get about 5-10 minutes from start to finish!) Also because this was the SL the lens' built-in IS was crucial.

SL Typ 601 with 24-90 zoom at 90mm at ISO400, f5.6, 1/400s with SF 64

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!

Edited December 11, 2021 by cpclee

[globalwander]

7 hours ago, cpclee said:

This one was shot at 90mm.  My girls don't ever stop fidgeting so the speed of the 24-90 definitely helped here!  (A portrait session with them means I get about 5-10 minutes from start to finish!) Also because this was the SL the lens' built-in IS was crucial.

SL Typ 601 with 24-90 zoom at 90mm at ISO400, f5.6, 1/400s with SF 64

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!

Wow, you’re very good. Nice results, sir. Inspiring. I’ll try my SF flash next time. This is a beautifully lit shot. 

[Anakronox]

Completely agree.  I’ve shot portraits with the 24-90 and it’s been excellent.  I think I’m past the phase where I must have bokeh at the expense of everything else (like having only a single eye in focus), so I’m perfectly comfortable shooting this at f/4 or smaller, light permitting.  I could argue against it in low natural light, but if using strobes, the lens absolutely shines. 

[cpclee]

27 minutes ago, globalwander said:

Wow, you’re very good. Nice results, sir. Inspiring. I’ll try my SF flash next time. This is a beautifully lit shot. 

I will most often use flash for daylight portraits to reduce shadows on faces. The SF 64 has high speed sync with the SL so i could use a shutter speed of 1/400s which was handy. 

[biswasg]

8 hours ago, cpclee said:

I will most often use flash for daylight portraits to reduce shadows on faces. The SF 64 has high speed sync with the SL so i could use a shutter speed of 1/400s which was handy. 

I didn't realise SF64 is compatible with SL2. I understood only SF60 was compatible. Does it (SF64) work in TTL.

[cpclee]

24 minutes ago, biswasg said:

I didn't realise SF64 is compatible with SL2. I understood only SF60 was compatible. Does it (SF64) work in TTL.

I only have experience with the SL and on this camera the SF64 works in full TTL mode and support high speed sync.  The SF 64 was discontinued not so long ago (2018 or 2019?) that I'd think it retains full functionality with the SL2?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[globalwander]

On 12/12/2021 at 12:48 AM, hansvons said:

@cpclee, great images! You know what you are doing. I shoot 90% of my stuff on the 24-90 simply because it's the best zoom lens in the stills world. full stop - and I work fast-paced. For me, changing lenses means often losing the shot. However, when I haven the time, I often prefer to shoot portraits on old R glass, eg the SummicronR 50mm, because the 24-90 renders tremendously dimensional and there are times when some flatness and less sharpness is desirable. I like to cover the environment as we humans perceive it and hence prefer the 50mm over a 90mm. But in the same time, I like some compression on the faces. The 24-90 definitely doesn't deliver here. However, the 50mm SL Summicron doesn't render flat either, that's why I never felt the urge to get one. So, from my perspective, when dimensionally in on the plate because extroverted emotions are part of the story, the 24-90 is brilliant. But for more subtle portraits, I find it too powerful. 

Regardless, a brilliant lens I had the joy of shooting today and hopefully the years to come.

Interesting. I have an old 50mm R that I’ve adapted to my SL2S. I’ll experiment with this for some comparisons against my 24-90 at 50.