Leica 24-90 or Leica 24-70 for SL2S ?

[Jox]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,
I know the 24-90 well: its advantages (manufacturing quality and results very Leica, ibis, range...) but also its disadvantages (weight, sliding opening).
Both for photography of all types and for video, I would be very interested in comparative experiences of these 2 lenses, especially with regard to the resolution and the Leica side of the images (3D effect, separation of planes, colorimetry. ..).
Best regards,
Alain from France

[hansvons]

The longer end of 90mm is a massive advantage for video and portraiture. I can't say much about Leica's 24-70, but the 24-90 is sharper in the corners than Canon's and Nikon's offerings. I also find the 24-90 renderings highly dimensional; even at 90mm, faces are not rendered flat. The lens coatings are exceptional. Shooting into the sun is as flare-free as possible (that can be a bummer for video as we all love flares). It shows barrel distortion on the wide end and pincushion distortion on the long end. But it is digitally well-controlled and not too pronounced to disadvantageously influence sharpness in the corners. 

It's the industry's best standard zoom, hands down. In terms of size and weight, it's a beast. But you already know that.

[SiggiGun]

It depends of your requirement. 

The 24-70 ist an excellent lens, BUT if you're working with other Leica SL Lenses, especially the 16-35mm, the 24-90 is the right choice. Zooming goes in the same sense from right to left. If you take the 24-70 (which is a SIGMA design) It turns in the opposite sense.

The only disadvantage of the 24-90 is size and weight. I sold it for this reason, but bought it again 😉 for his exceptional image quality. 

[Luke_Miller]

44 minutes ago, SiggiGun said:

It depends of your requirement. 

Exactly.  I ordered my SL with the 24-70 and changed the order to the24-90 after reviewing the most used focal lengths in my Lightroom catalog.  With my Nikon 24-70 I was often at 70mm and my most used lens was the 70-200.  So, the extra 20mm of the 24-90 was worth the extra expense.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Consider trying the Panasonic 20-60mm L mount which is regularly listed by WEX, ex demo / used / OB,  for less than £250; it's a superb lens if prepared to accept its 'plastic' build quality. I would not be without mine and regard it for the £250 price paid, as a 'disposable' i.e. easily replaced. I've used it for magazine assignments and often in preference to the SL 24-90 – especially when the 20mm (ish) setting is more useful than 24mm. 

[Jox]

Oh ! Thanks again for all these comments.
I hadn't thought to look at Panasonic...
Especially if other experiences can complete all this...

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Since SL2 has in camera stabilizer, the optical stabilizer in 24-90mm is less critical.

Then it is a matter of price, focal length, and max aperure.

I would assume price has the top priority if price is even an issue. 

if price is not a concern,  then depends on which is more important, the 70-90mm focal length, or f2.8-f4 max aperture. 

Personally I see the focal length is more of the fact, while the max aperture is just the opinion. I definitely would choose 90mm over the f2.8. 

IQ wise, to me that are close enough to split the hair, though I prefer 24-90mm largely because I am used to it. Weight? Why we are here? Go for M or CL if that matters. Otherwise, take the devil and live with it. 

[robb]

I could do just about anything exceptionally well with the 24-90…

not so other lenses.  I’m planning on keeping mine a very long time.
Robb

[MediaFotografie]

vor 5 Stunden schrieb dkCambridgeshire:

Consider trying the Panasonic 20-60mm L mount which is regularly listed by WEX, ex demo / used / OB,  for less than £250; it's a superb lens if prepared to accept its 'plastic' build quality. I would not be without mine and regard it for the £250 price paid, as a 'disposable' i.e. easily replaced. I've used it for magazine assignments and often in preference to the SL 24-90 – especially when the 20mm (ish) setting is more useful than 24mm. 

I also like to use this Panasonic 20-60 because it's compact and light - and because the focal length range is very clever. But it is slow and optically not on a high level.
A practical lens for on the go! (Sony introduced a 20.70/4 these days, which is probably similar).

[Jean-Michel]

First, I purchased an SL2 with the included M to L adapter. Later, I decided to add an AF general purpose lens and ended up with a nice deal on a demo Leica 24-70 and a Sigma 85 mm f/1.4. The Sigma does come close to 90mm and of course opens up much wider. For a f/4  90mm lens, I have the tiny Macro-Elmar (much less massive than the 24-90 😀)

For a general purpose lens, the 24-70 is more than adequate. I chose the Leica model rather than the Sigma after eventually finding reliable comparisons between the two, and speaking with my dealer (who sells both brands) and being convinced there were real differences in the speed of focus …

[Photoworks]

I do a full range of photography, In studio portraits, events, travel.

I have been using 24-90 for years and have gotten pano 24-105 and L 24-70 to put on personal test.

I studio portait, I only have 20 min to shoot and have to get multiple looks. before using Leica, canon was the to go camera and the lens most use was the 24-105.
The lighting setup was good for closeups to full length . Aldo the focal setting where great, the exposure changes when zooming in and out where to much.

This is when the Panasonic came into play with 24-105. Putting it into comparison to the other 2 lenses in just a few min the optical performance of the PANA was not good.

So 24-90 and 24-70 are the next. I found that the 2 lenses are both very good. weakness on the 24-90 is the softer look at 90mm. the sigma lens is less good at 24mm. but be are talking minimal differences , all around the 24-90 does what you want most of the day.

for travel and events I would like to take a lighter option and faster f-stop.
The sigma offers 2,8 tryout the range and it is very good on the SL2. since AF become an issue in dark environments having 2.8 really helps.

I now have both lenses, and the 24-90 get the most use.
Most of the time the summicron-SL stay home. to heavy and not fast enough. Where is the 35 summilux-SL?

[kobra]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

I do a full range of photography, In studio portraits, events, travel.

I have been using 24-90 for years and have gotten pano 24-105 and L 24-70 to put on personal test.

I studio portait, I only have 20 min to shoot and have to get multiple looks. before using Leica, canon was the to go camera and the lens most use was the 24-105.
The lighting setup was good for closeups to full length . Aldo the focal setting where great, the exposure changes when zooming in and out where to much.

This is when the Panasonic came into play with 24-105. Putting it into comparison to the other 2 lenses in just a few min the optical performance of the PANA was not good.

So 24-90 and 24-70 are the next. I found that the 2 lenses are both very good. weakness on the 24-90 is the softer look at 90mm. the sigma lens is less good at 24mm. but be are talking minimal differences , all around the 24-90 does what you want most of the day.

for travel and events I would like to take a lighter option and faster f-stop.
The sigma offers 2,8 tryout the range and it is very good on the SL2. since AF become an issue in dark environments having 2.8 really helps.

I now have both lenses, and the 24-90 get the most use.
Most of the time the summicron-SL stay home. to heavy and not fast enough. Where is the 35 summilux-SL?

Thanks @Photoworks, really good experience. 

When I read your post, it seems you were favoring the 24-70 but then you said the 24-90 gets the most use. I'm curious, why?

(and, just to make sure, you now have the Leica 24-70?)

Thanks,

Brad

[Photoworks]

1 hour ago, kobra said:

Thanks @Photoworks, really good experience. 

When I read your post, it seems you were favoring the 24-70 but then you said the 24-90 gets the most use. I'm curious, why?

(and, just to make sure, you now have the Leica 24-70?)

Thanks,

Brad

one season is that lots of my commercial imagery is shot above f8. 90mm is necessary, and always switching lenses to 90-280 takes to much time. btw the 90mm of 90-290 is better then 24-90. 

the other season is that I got used to the zoom turn from the Leica lenses. So the 24-70 is not so intuitive for me.

Briefly I had 24-70 from Leica and Sigma side by side. Optically I didn't see any differences . Most differences where on the outside.
I returned the Leica version.

[SrMi]

8 hours ago, MediaFotografie said:

I also like to use this Panasonic 20-60 because it's compact and light - and because the focal length range is very clever. But it is slow and optically not on a high level.
A practical lens for on the go! (Sony introduced a 20.70/4 these days, which is probably similar).

No, the Sony 20-70/4 is an expensive ($1000) very high quality lens (according to first reviews). I wish L mount had such a lens.

[SrMi]

OP has asked about resolution and 3D difference between the lenses. Most answers are discussing only the focal range.

I have both but never really bothered to compare their look in detail. Both lenses seem to create great results, and the difference is mainly range vs. weight.

[Don Morley]

18 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Consider trying the Panasonic 20-60mm L mount which is regularly listed by WEX, ex demo / used / OB,  for less than £250; it's a superb lens if prepared to accept its 'plastic' build quality. I would not be without mine and regard it for the £250 price paid, as a 'disposable' i.e. easily replaced. I've used it for magazine assignments and often in preference to the SL 24-90 – especially when the 20mm (ish) setting is more useful than 24mm. 

I agree 100% this is my most used lens. Don (Former Pro Photographer)

[EJS73]

I originally ordered the SL2S with the 24-70, not sure what to expect but found it to be a really excellent lens, a bargain in Leica terms but nothing cheap about it. The lens changed my original plan to use the SL2S with M-lenses; I never went for the M adapter, and was so impressed with the SL2S combination that instead I sold my entire Nikon Z line-up. After a year: no regrets at all.

[SrMi]

I have both 24-70 and 24-90, and they are of very similar quality. Most of the time, because of weight and size, I would pick 24-70. I may combine it with Panasonic 85/1.8 or Sigma 90/2.8.
For me, the most fun zoom is the 20-60, but its IQ is lower than the 24-70. I must figure out the difference and how much it matters to me.

[rtai]

I only have the VE24-90 and it’s the best zoom I have ever used. It is heavy but I have gotten used to it even for street photography where I walk with it for hours. The stock strap is good enough and wear it across the chest. I am sure the 24-70 is a great lens but having been a Leica user for 25 years the 24-90 is up there with the best of the Leica prime lenses. Again I don’t have another L lens for comparison but the SL2 and 24-90 lack the digital hard edgy look I see with other makes something that has kept me away from digital until last year when I switched because of the Monochrom.

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Daniel C.1975]

The 24-90 is the best zoom I ever had. It is big, but it is very versatile with great IQ.

Here a linke to some of my thoughts why I chose it over the 24-70: