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

[kobra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I recall reading Jono's excellent review. Re-reading it now, it seems that so many of the differences end up with "nothing in it", with certain advantages to each one. In fact, I get the impression that after all of the work was done, Jono made a somewhat subjective decision on which one he wanted to keep. Don't we all? 

To me, I do like the idea of the extra reach of the 24-90 and that on the long end the corners may be a bit sharper. And, every time I use the 24-70, I have to adjust my brain to the direction of the zoom. However, I've chosen the 24-70 largely due to size and weight with the thought that any differences in IQ will be small enough that they will not come down to the lens, but the idiot behind the lens  

Brad

Edited February 5, 2023 by kobra

[akiralx]

I just bought the 24-70 and have been amazed at its sharpness.  The zoom direction doesn't really register with me, even though my TL zooms go in the opposite direction.  It's certainly a substantial, superbly-built lens which handles beautifully - I'm not sure I could deal with the extra weight of the 24-90, not that I have ever handled one.

[Sid Bolan]

On 2/4/2023 at 1:21 PM, EJS73 said:

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.

Could you say more about the difference between the Nikon Z line-up and the Leica zoom. I use Nikon Zs alongside my Leica m10. I’ve  considered switching but cost difference had deterred me. 

[bherman01545]

15 minutes ago, Sid Bolan said:

Could you say more about the difference between the Nikon Z line-up and the Leica zoom. I use Nikon Zs alongside my Leica m10. I’ve  considered switching but cost difference had deterred me. 

I've heard that the Leica Z series lenses are very, very good. What sort of differences are you looking for? Are the pictures going to be dramatically better? Probably not. Probably no difference in sharpness of micro contrast on the Leica zooms. The Leica primes may be a different story as they are APO lenses. I do like the Leica colors and the ability to use M or R lenses on the SL2x. 

Also, the user experience with the Leica cameras is completely different that the Nikon cameras. The Leica is way more intuitive (IMO), simpler menus, etc. Feels more like a camera than a computer. A completely different beast.

The Nikon has a more advanced focusing system than the current Leica's, The Leica uses Contrast Detect, which is fine for stationary objects, but a bit hit-or-miss for moving subjects. With that said, they should be upgraded to Phase Detect in the newest yet to be released products.

Also, if you use flash, Leica is not known for its flash capabilities, whereas the Nikon Speedlights are quite good. 

-Brad

[Kristofferpaulsen]

I have the 50 Summilux, the 90 Summicron and the 90-280, and honestly i use the 24-90 the most.. to the point where i often feel like an idiot that shelled out all the money for the other lenses. It's stupidly good.

[Aram Langhans]

4 hours ago, Sid Bolan said:

Could you say more about the difference between the Nikon Z line-up and the Leica zoom. I use Nikon Zs alongside my Leica m10. I’ve  considered switching but cost difference had deterred me. 

I cannot compare it with the L zooms as I do not have that system but I have a few comments on the Z lenses. I have the Z7ii and a few Z lenses.  They are so much sharper than the Nikon F mount lenses it is ridiculous.  I was going to adapt some of my F lenses until I saw the differences.  I think they might have tapped into some of the Solms pixy dust.  I was also shooting some old Leica R glass on my Nikon as it was also superior to the Nikon F glass, but the new Z lenses can give the R glass a run for their money.  Only R glass I am considering keeping is my 100/2.8 APO but I have not had the opportunity to compare it with the new Z 105 macro.  My other Leica is the Q2 and the Z 14-30 is about as good as the Q2's 28.  Better for astrophotography as the Q2 has a goodly amount of coma in the corners. 

[Camaro5]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I went for the 24-70 when I got my SL2-S.  Cost was on reason, but also the size and weight and the fact that the 24-70 is a constant aperture vs. the variable aperture of the 24-90.  I have not been the least disappointed in the 24-70.  The image quality and handling is excellent.  

As some point I'd like to rent a 24-90 just for comparison purposes and to see how it handles & shoots.  

[EJS73]

5 hours ago, Sid Bolan said:

Could you say more about the difference between the Nikon Z line-up and the Leica zoom. I use Nikon Zs alongside my Leica m10. I’ve  considered switching but cost difference had deterred me. 

The Leica has a charm that slowly won me over and keeps getting better; the Nikons started out great, then slowly grew stale. My main reason for selling the Nikons is that I just didn't enjoy carrying and using them anymore. I considered keeping one (Z7 or Z9) in case I wanted autofocus, until I found that the SL2S is more than capable enough in this field for my purposes. Beyond all this, the Leica 24-70 is just an excellent lens, perhaps a bit better than the Z 24-70 2.8 (my copy suffered from some field curvature).

[EJS73]

... 

Edited February 9, 2023 by EJS73

[Sid Bolan]

On 2/9/2023 at 12:09 AM, EJS73 said:

The Leica has a charm that slowly won me over and keeps getting better; the Nikons started out great, then slowly grew stale. My main reason for selling the Nikons is that I just didn't enjoy carrying and using them anymore. I considered keeping one (Z7 or Z9) in case I wanted autofocus, until I found that the SL2S is more than capable enough in this field for my purposes. Beyond all this, the Leica 24-70 is just an excellent lens, perhaps a bit better than the Z 24-70 2.8 (my copy suffered from some field curvature).

Thank you for this. I feared as much. That old Leica charm does get to one. I've been known to spend extravagantly on garden tools. The holes they make are no better than cheap tools but they're  a lot nicer to hold in the hand. One last question. The SL2-S is considerably heavier than the Nikon Z6 & 7. Has that been an issue?

[Sid Bolan]

On 2/8/2023 at 7:22 PM, bherman01545 said:

I've heard that the Leica Z series lenses are very, very good. What sort of differences are you looking for? Are the pictures going to be dramatically better? Probably not. Probably no difference in sharpness of micro contrast on the Leica zooms. The Leica primes may be a different story as they are APO lenses. I do like the Leica colors and the ability to use M or R lenses on the SL2x. 

Also, the user experience with the Leica cameras is completely different that the Nikon cameras. The Leica is way more intuitive (IMO), simpler menus, etc. Feels more like a camera than a computer. A completely different beast.

The Nikon has a more advanced focusing system than the current Leica's, The Leica uses Contrast Detect, which is fine for stationary objects, but a bit hit-or-miss for moving subjects. With that said, they should be upgraded to Phase Detect in the newest yet to be released products.

Also, if you use flash, Leica is not known for its flash capabilities, whereas the Nikon Speedlights are quite good. 

-Brad

Thank you Brad for the insights. Yes I can confirm that the lenses are excellent. Flash has certainly been one of the reasons I continue to use the Nikon Z alongside my M10. The new Profoto connect pro for Leica may change that. 

[EJS73]

2 hours ago, Sid Bolan said:

Thank you for this. I feared as much. That old Leica charm does get to one. I've been known to spend extravagantly on garden tools. The holes they make are no better than cheap tools but they're  a lot nicer to hold in the hand. One last question. The SL2-S is considerably heavier than the Nikon Z6 & 7. Has that been an issue?

I’m fine with the weight, but don’t hang the camera around my neck (Luigi wrist strap)

[chris_tribble]

On 2/8/2023 at 9:47 PM, Kristofferpaulsen said:

I have the 50 Summilux, the 90 Summicron and the 90-280, and honestly i use the 24-90 the most.. to the point where i often feel like an idiot that shelled out all the money for the other lenses. It's stupidly good.

Stupidly good just about sums it up.  I even find the weight and bulk reassuring now.  The only hassle can be bumping against Lake District stone walls when going over stiles - but I'm mastering the technique for that too 🙂

24-90 is the most useful lens I've ever owned - and that extra reach is invaluable.

Edited February 14, 2023 by chris_tribble

[LD_50]

There is a comparison between the two lenses on Fred Miranda from a few years ago. It shows the 24-90 better across all focal lengths. This doesn’t match the YouTube test I saw, but that one looked like possibly due to focus issues. 
 

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1732372

[SrMi]

2 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

There is a comparison between the two lenses on Fred Miranda from a few years ago. It shows the 24-90 better across all focal lengths. This doesn’t match the YouTube test I saw, but that one looked like possibly due to focus issues. 
 

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1732372

In my tests, I could not see any sharpness advantages of 24-90 (I own both lenses).

[bherman01545]

I've personally compared the two lenses and honestly, they both look good - very similar.

With that said, I have had a few issues with the 24-70. I had to return two copies due to internal dust. One lens came that way, (there were three large dust specs behind the front element straight out of the sealed box) The other sucked in dust during the first two weeks of ownership, and I've had a filter installed since day one. I keep the lenses mounted on a camera in a fairly new Billingham bag. I also never took the lens off of the body in either of these two cases. 

I've also heard from several forum members that when out in the rain, the 24-70 did take in a bit of water/moisture and malfunctioned, while the 24-90 (I've personally had mine out in a pretty good rainstorm for 45-minutes) and I just wiped it dry - no issues.

I feel that the 24-90 is absolutely better weather-sealed against water/dust than the 24-70. My other issue, which was a minor one is that on the 24-70, the focus ring is rather loose and too easy to focus. I use back button AF with the joystick and anytime that my hand even touches the focus ring on the 24-70, it puts the image in high magnification mode. It's very sensitive.

Yes, the 24-90 is a beast, and yes, it is not a constant aperture lens, but for build quality and water resistance, I feel that it's worth the extra money.

[huwm]

I must admit to having been out and about for hours in proper 'cats and dogs' Welsh weather with the SL24-70 and have had no problems at all. No dust either though I did get dust in the Sigma version which they very promptly dealt with. It contributed to my decision to move to the Leica version. I've only briefly handled a 24-90 but it was long enough to put me off. My initial feeling of 'its not much bigger and heavier really' soon became 'no way am I carrying this around for hours'. It just didn't feel right in 'my hands', each to his/her/their own.

[thatkatmat]

24-90 is the best standard walkaround zoom I've ever used. The 70-90mm's makes it so. When I'm out and about with a 24-70 I'm zoomed into 70mm all the time with flowers and faces and anything with background separation. I use it for landscapes and architecture as well, but most of my best shots are at the long end. So, adding 20mm's really made a big difference to me. The painterly like bokeh at 90/4 matches the 90-280 bokeh...Just sensational.

Cheers.

[TAFFY]

On 1/23/2023 at 9:00 AM, Photoworks said:

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.

Did you notice if the Sigma version autofocuses slower on a Leica body vs the Leica Vario Elmarit 24-70?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Chris Nebard]

I bought the SL 24-70 as a kit with my SL2-s - the decent saving made it worth it to me. It’s heavy but sits nicely on an SL and I use a good wrist strap which allows me to carry it securely & comfortably from four fingers in the indented handgrip. The picture quality, as far as I’m concerned, is excellent and the f2.8 is useful. I have zero problem if the lens is made by Sigma and it wouldn’t surprise me at all if the Sigma 24-70 performance is similar; I have a number of their i-contemporary primes which I love. As per previous comments, my 24-70 sucked in dust to the front element. Leica Wetzlar fixed it and I’ve had no more problems. I would never have bought the SL for the APO SL prime lenses alone, or the heavy zooms (regardless of their superlative performance), but the SL 24-70, along with M-lenses and a few small Sigma primes, works very well for me. 
Whatever you choose, enjoy it!