24-90 Vario-Elmarit v the 24-70mm

[lanetomlane]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Following a post I made in the Landscape & Travel section, someone asked me my thoughts about the SL lenses and I thought it may be worthwhile to share my response and in particular about using the 24-90 and 24-70 zooms along side each other.

 

When I bought the original SL (601) in 2015/2016, I had only intended to use my M lenses on it. However, after reading the many rave reviews about the 24-90 Vario-Elmarit, I decided to buy it and to be honest it's probably the best and most used lens I've ever owned. I felt that by not having the 24-90 I was not using the full benefit of the SL. Over the following couple of years I also bought the 16-35 and 90-280 lenses which are both great lenses, particularly the 90-280mm.

I did have a 50mm SL Summilux f1.4 lens which was wonderful, despite the slow auto-focus and weight, but I just wasn't using it, mainly because of the weight and size. After much thought I decided to trade it for the 50mm SL Summicron last year and I certainly do not regret the dicision.

The 24-90 is a big and heavy lens, but the results and slightly longer reach make it a really great lens. This trip was the first time I've used the 24-70mm and I must say that I'm really impressed with it and cannot see any difference in IQ. Had the 24-70 been around when the 24-90 was introduced it would have been a very difficult decision to make. The 24-70 together with the SL, or SL2 make a very nice and relatively convenient package, but I must admit that when going anywhere spectacular (like next month when we're going to the Norwegian Fjords) I think I would favour the 24-90.

Beware, once you buy one of the native SL lenses you'll want more, they really are superb.

[Advertisement]

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

[dpitt]

Please add some side by side pictures if you have the time. Same subject if available or your top keepers from both otherwise.

[lanetomlane]

23 minutes ago, dpitt said:

Please add some side by side pictures if you have the time. Same subject if available or your top keepers from both otherwise.

If you look on my website, under the National Trust https://photographybytomlane.com/elementor-1706/ the 24-70 was used for the first two places; Cragside and Gidside; and the 24-90 would have been used for most of the others. If I get chance I will take the same images with both lenses but at the forum resolution, I don't find these to be much good.

[dpitt]

56 minutes ago, lanetomlane said:

If you look on my website, under the National Trust https://photographybytomlane.com/elementor-1706/ the 24-70 was used for the first two places; Cragside and Gidside; and the 24-90 would have been used for most of the others. If I get chance I will take the same images with both lenses but at the forum resolution, I don't find these to be much good.

At first sight, I think I see why you like the 24-90 so much. It is hard to be sure, but my first impression is that it provides more micro contrast and 3D pop compared to the 24-70. All images look heavily processed to me so maybe it is hard to compare them this way. I am looking forward to see your side by side tests.

[jcraf]

Hope you’re well Tom.

I agree. I use my 24-70 a lot on the SL2; it generally lives on that camera 90% of the time. I always found the 24-90 too heavy and bulky for my liking, and that’s now been sold.
Some find the 24-90 better’ than the ‘cheapo’ 24-70, but my ageing eyeballs can’t see much difference, and for me the reduced weight, size  and much more reasonable cost outweigh that. Doesn’t bother me that it’s built by Sigma either…..

[kobra]

I read many threads comparing these before I made my choice. In the end, it did seem like there was little difference when it came to IQ, and people made choices for other reasons. I chose the SL 24-70 and it has been a fantastic lens. I do wish for that extra length at times, but with the 47mb of the SL2, a bit of cropping works just fine. In fact, switching the camera to APS-C mode makes the lens an equivalent 36-105 with the light gathering of f2.8 the whole way. OTOH, there are a lot of folks with way more experience than me that say the 24-90 is the best mid range zoom ever... so it was not a clear decision for me, and I others will make their choice different than me. 

One really interesting fact - there are a lot of used 24-90 lenses for sale just now. One Leica dealer shows 18 total used SL Leica lenses and 14 of those are 24-90s. There must be a reason why so many people are selling their copies of the 24-90. I'm not sure why, when it gets such positive reviews. 

Brad

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24-90 was first SL lens offered.  Primes have been released subsequently, as have third party options, no doubt resulting in sales/trades for many, especially given size and weight concerns.  Concerns about IQ have been few and far between; mostly just those preferring primes for ultimate performance and speed.

Jeff

[davidmknoble]

I don’t know that we’ll ever get one in the 24-90 or 24-70 range, but I much prefer internal focus lenses.  This is in part because I shoot on the coast and it’s just one less point of entry for ‘stuff.’  This is what I love about the 16-35 and the 90-280 - they are really well sealed - as are the primes.  The Leica R has a 35-70 f/4 which does not move much at all, very little, and I think if Leica could produce one that is just a little less in range but was internal focus, I’d be all over it.

Not holding my breath, though.  I used the 24-90 for a good while, including some work in Haiti.  I love that lens and it is very crisp.  In the end, I’ll carry the weight.  It’s more about total weight for a travel kit.  One heavy lens that replaces three lenses that weigh more in total is good. 

Just thoughts…

[Jeff S]

9 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

I don’t know that we’ll ever get one in the 24-90 or 24-70 range, but I much prefer internal focus lenses.  This is in part because I shoot on the coast and it’s just one less point of entry for ‘stuff.’  This is what I love about the 16-35 and the 90-280 - they are really well sealed - as are the primes.  The Leica R has a 35-70 f/4 which does not move much at all, very little, and I think if Leica could produce one that is just a little less in range but was internal focus, I’d be all over it.

Not holding my breath, though.  I used the 24-90 for a good while, including some work in Haiti.  I love that lens and it is very crisp.  In the end, I’ll carry the weight.  It’s more about total weight for a travel kit.  One heavy lens that replaces three lenses that weigh more in total is good. 

Just thoughts…

I’d prefer internal zoom.

Jeff 

[Chris Nebard]

Sorry if I’m responding to an oldish thread but, like I suspect many others did, I bought the SL 24-70 VE as a package with my SL2-S because it simply made good sense as a purchase. And, 3 years in, I have not one regret. From the Reviews I’ve read, the 24-90 is obviously a great lens, although I’ve not used it myself, and it has a devoted following which I am sure is more than justified. I don’t place much importance on whether the 24-70 is a refined Sigma rebrand - even if it is, Sigma are currently on fire with some of their L Mount releases, so what’s not to like?  And, in any case, the 24-90 is rumoured to be based on a Panasonic patented design. I don’t know - and I care even less - so long as they are outstanding lenses. And they obviously are, both of them. I can’t fault the 24-70. When I first got it, it sucked dust onto the front element. Purely cosmetic, but Leica cleaned and sorted it; no problems since. Choose whichever you prefer based on weight, extra reach, constant f2.8 aperture. Whatever. I can only speak for the 24-70 and it is a fabulous lens. 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

I have not tried the 24-70, but I couldn't go without the extra reach of the 24-90. It's my most used lens on the SL/SL2-S by a long way, simply because of its versatility. IQ is only one reason for selecting a lens. I would prefer it to be internally focusing like the magnificent 90-280, but then it would probably take up more space in the bag. Free lunches and all that.

Edited June 29, 2024 by LocalHero1953

[lemonsz]

Although 90 - 280 is superb, but it is way too damn bulky. I would rather prefer the new Sigma 70 - 200 DG DN OS Sport L mount, the only downside was the zoom ring located at the front, rather than the usual way that focusing ring supposed to be, which I found this is quite an odd design. 

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!

[Luke_Miller]

8 hours ago, lemonsz said:

Although 90 - 280 is superb, but it is way too damn bulky. I would rather prefer the new Sigma 70 - 200 DG DN OS Sport L mount, the only downside was the zoom ring located at the front, rather than the usual way that focusing ring supposed to be, which I found this is quite an odd design. 

The zoom rings on my current Nikon zooms are in the front also.  In use I have to hold the lens with the lens foot in the palm of my left hand.  If I hold it by the barrel, I will invariably contact the focus ring and stop the lens from autofocusing.  One more thing to appreciate about the Leica L Mount zooms.

[Rmccoole]

 

Hello everyone. I have a Leica 24-90 that I use with an SL2 and now SL3. I love it, very versatile for a single lens, but heavy. I may have a chance to get a 24-70 for a really good price. Other than the obvious focal length difference, why would this purchase make sense? I thought I’d ask here because there are many users of these lenses and some users using both. Thanks in advance.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Rmccoole said:

 

 

Hello everyone. I have a Leica 24-90 that I use with an SL2 and now SL3. I love it, very versatile for a single lens, but heavy. I may have a chance to get a 24-70 for a really good price. Other than the obvious focal length difference, why would this purchase make sense? I thought I’d ask here because there are many users of these lenses and some users using both. Thanks in advance.

I have both, but because of weight and size, I take 24-70 when traveling(combined with the excellent Panasonic 100mm for longer reach).

[Luke_Miller]

I have both the 24-90 and 90-280 lenses.  According to Lightroom my most used focal length with the 24-90 is 90mm.  So the 24-90 makes more sense to me than a 24-70.  As an event shooter I get so "focused" on getting the shot that I really don't notice the weight of the gear I am using.  I have no need to give up capability in order to save weight. YMMV. 

[jaapv]

14 hours ago, lemonsz said:

Although 90 - 280 is superb, but it is way too damn bulky. I would rather prefer the new Sigma 70 - 200 DG DN OS Sport L mount, the only downside was the zoom ring located at the front, rather than the usual way that focusing ring supposed to be, which I found this is quite an odd design. 

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!

In use it only turns out to be a problem when the hood is reversed.

[pf4eva]

24-70mm is kinda weird lens, it worse optically than 24-90mm, less reach, no IOS, but faster AF.

Personally, i think if you care about weight - panasonic 24-105/4 is much better choice, it is very good optically and very light.

 

It is probably also worth consider the price used, i saw Leica 24-70mm for <1k£ so depreciation on those Sigma rebadged lenses is huge, which is what you expect.  24-90mm used prices do no change much recently.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[KenLW]

I’m wondering if anyone has used Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 DG DN II Art Lens which is the newer version of the older Sigma lens that Leica’s SL 24-70 is based on (at least according to rumors) The Sigma 24-70 should perform better than the older Sigma and Leica 24-70. And the new one has an aperture ring!

I’m deciding whether or not to get the new Sigma or Leica 24-90 as my first native L mount lens for the SL system. I own multiple systems of cameras but I sold my last standard zoom recently because I don’t use it much but now I miss it. The alternative is to get the 35 SL APO first.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I have the 24-70II and the 24-90SL. Which to choose? I don’t know if there’s a perfect choice. I still prefer the 24-90 in the 24-70 range. I see *slightly* better micro contrast than the Sigma. The 24-90 does drop off slightly at 90mm. The 90-280 is better at 90mm. So is the Sigma 70-200 2.8, just. Not enough not to use the SL Vario but it’s there.

I choose based on how it fits into my kit. travelling a bit lighter then the 24-70II matches nicely with the 70-200 Sigma. If I’m taking the 90-280 or 100-400 then the 90mm makes sense over the Sigma. I’m heading to Iceland next week and taking the 24-90 and 100-400 on two Sl3 bodies. Don’t need to swap out lenses as much this way (also will have the 14-24). Next year I head back to Varanassi. Will need a zoom for Holi but mostly shoot primes so I’ll take the 24-70 as the weight savings mean more than 20mm. And I’ll probably take the 70-200 as I won’t need longer than 200 for that trip. The gear will be well bagged but if there’s powder getting in I’d rather destroy a Sigma than the Vario.

You’ll not get better images with either. I do think the 24-90 is still one of the special few standard zooms (the Canon 28-70 and Hasselblad 35-75) being the other two. I think it’s slightly better than the new Sigma. But not enough that you’d notice unless you literally shot them side by side. IQ is not the issue. Just weight over reach.

Gordon