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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/5/2024 at 5:45 AM, jaapv said:

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

Personally I find it gets in the way in normal use as well. It covers about 20% of the ring in normal use and it’s not a wide ring to begin with. Plus the hood mount is awful. I’m already looking for alternatives. I find the position of the zoom ring less of an issue than the hood design.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

 I do not mind that, but I do dislike that the locking screw assembly is quite fragile. I already broke one hood this way on the 150-600 - reversed and inside the bag! Another minus is that removing the Arca-Swiss foot does not reveal a second tripod thread, like on the 150-600.

[KenLW]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I choose based on how it fits into my kit.

Understood! Thanks for the detailed explanations! I would prefer to travel light so 24-70 ii from sigma is probably the way to go. I will just continue to experience the Leica magic through SL primes and M lenses. I’m very curious about 24-90 because there were some promotional technical video where Peter Karbe mentioned that it is not natural to do fixed aperture zoom lens which is why they did variable aperture for the 24-90 and one of the reasons why it performs very well.

[PeterBoyadjian]

24-90 over the 24-70, the Sigma 28-45 is quite amazing as well. 

[Stuart Richardson]

13 hours ago, KenLW said:

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.

Zooms are still zooms. The 35mm APO is a dramatically better lens. If having the one focal length is enough, just get that. If you primarily use a zoom as a backup, the 24-70mm version 2 seems like the right choice instead of the Leica.

[Photoworks]

18 hours ago, KenLW said:

Understood! Thanks for the detailed explanations! I would prefer to travel light so 24-70 ii from sigma is probably the way to go. I will just continue to experience the Leica magic through SL primes and M lenses. I’m very curious about 24-90 because there were some promotional technical video where Peter Karbe mentioned that it is not natural to do fixed aperture zoom lens which is why they did variable aperture for the 24-90 and one of the reasons why it performs very well.

Yes, but less good on the 90mm end.

You will be happy with the sigma, I use both.

[KenLW]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

10 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Zooms are still zooms. The 35mm APO is a dramatically better lens. If having the one focal length is enough, just get that. If you primarily use a zoom as a backup, the 24-70mm version 2 seems like the right choice instead of the Leica.

Sounds like 35mm APO SL + Sigma 24-70 II is the way to go!

[JIEFACHE]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb Stuart Richardson:

Zooms are still zooms. The 35mm APO is a dramatically better lens. If having the one focal length is enough, just get that. If you primarily use a zoom as a backup, the 24-70mm version 2 seems like the right choice instead of the Leica.

I will never understand why someone buys a Leica body to use a Sigma lens. There are  better bodies than the SL series, but no better lenses than the Leica prime lenses.If I didn't have the money for real Leica lenses, I'd rather buy a Canon R5 and fit it with Canon L lenses, which are almost all better than Sigma zooms. Leica is about lenses, lenses made by Leica, not about Sigma second rate stuff. It is like fitting a Ferrari with those crappy Continentals instead of Michelin or Pirelli tires.Paying a Leica price for a "Leica improved" Sigma? LOL!

PS: All my Leicas huse exclusively Leica lenses with the exception of the brilliant Zeiss ZM 2,8/25

Edited July 17, 2024 by JIEFACHE

[KenLW]

21 minutes ago, JIEFACHE said:

I will never understand why someone buys a Leica body to use a Sigma lens.

I own 3 Leica M bodies (one M6, one MP, and one M10) but only one Leica lens and the rests are Voigtlander, TTartisan, Light Lens Lab lenses. This might be unpopular opinion in a Leica forum but the truth is modernized simulation and quality control have made third party lens much better to a point that Leica lenses are no longer a good value to buy IMO. For example, the VM APO-Lanthar is probably 98% of Leica M APO performance with 1/8 of the price. And it’s not just for modern lenses, many third part lenses can even achieve the older look of Leica lens such as the Light Lens Lab 8 element.

On the other hand, film and digital Leica bodies are great which give you a unique experience especially with the Leica M and manual focusing with the Leica SL. You can get very close to a Leica color with their party lens + a Leica body but for a much affordable price. I have owned A7RV + 35GM in the past but I sold it because of the images color and feels coming from the Sony camera, not the amazing 35GM lenses 

With that said, the Leica SL APO is undoubtedly the best of the best full frame lens. For M lenses, I’m also in the process of getting more Leica lens for the sake of uniformity and nostalgia. 

[jigesh]

Sigma 24-70mm v2 and Sigma 50mm f1.2 are wonderful on SL3. Yes, APO SL are great but so are the newer Sigmas. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Well because Sigma make some interesting options that Leica don’t make, unless you add the Leica lenses that are rebadged Sigmas.

The 14-24 (and Leica badged version) is optically as good as the 16-35 Vario and matches the 24-90/24-70 better. Wider than any Leica SL lens.

The 100-400 is a Sigma made lens. Even the Leica version.

The 500mm 5.6 is fantastic and takes TC’s.

Leica don’t make a 600mm. Sigma offer two.

Sigma make the Leica 24-70 2.8.

The SIgma DGDN *i* primes are tiny, light, sharp and have aperture rings. Half the weight of an APO Summicron. 1/6th of the price.

Leica don’t make a SL macro lens.

The Sigma 105 f1.4. Enough said….

And I disagree on the Canon vs Sigma thing. They’re basically interchangeable. The 28-70 and 24-105’s are unique to Canon vs Sigma. But the v2 of the 24-70 is basically indistinguishable from the Canon. The Canon 70-200’s are great but don’t accept tc’s at all. I do like the f4L though for its ridiculous size. I see no real world difference between my cheap Sigma 100-400 and Canon’s overpriced 100-500 at 400mm. There’s more copy variation in the Sigma though. I have a good one. And it takes TC’s better than the 100-500. Sigma’s 60-600, well my copy, is as good as the 100-500 plus cheaper and longer and faster. There’s no equivalent in Canon to the 500 f5.6. The 400DOII isn’t as good and is AUD10K used. Sigmas new 50mm 1.2 is not quite as sharp wide open as my Canon but I like the draw on the Sigma better. And the DGDN Sigmas wipe the floor with Canon’s 1.8 offerings.

For me one of the benefits of the L mount is the availability of Sigma and Panasonic lenses. Sure the APO Summicrons are epic. But until Leica make a version that’s 500mm, it’s nice to have options. Also we haven’t mentioned the advantages of Panasonic lenses for shooting video.

Canon make great great glass. But so do Sigma.

Gordon

[Stuart Richardson]

I use the 50mm APO Summicron and 90-280mm zoom the most on my SL2. I have the Sigma 24mm 3.5 because I rarely use wide lenses these days. I also have 28mm M lenses, the Q2 (formerly) and the Zeiss Biogon ZM 25mm. The Sigma is the cheapest and also the best. It is not even close with the 25mm Zeiss, which was designed for film and suffers on digital bodies (it is a symmetrical design that does not cope well with cover glass and recessed pixel wells).

Their 105mm Macro is as good as my 120mm APO Macro Summarit S. Only difference is it is 1/3rd of a stop slower, about half the size and weight and focusing to 1:1 instead of 1:2. It is also quieter and faster to focus. Leica’s best lenses are top of the line. Their older lenses are often superseded by newer lenses from other companies. I chose the SL because I like the body and the integration of the system. I could not care less about an R5. I don’t really get the Leica only chauvinism…Leica does not have a monopoly on good lenses by any stretch of the imagination. 

Edited July 17, 2024 by Stuart Richardson

[Photoworks]

9 hours ago, JIEFACHE said:

I will never understand why someone buys a Leica body to use a Sigma lens. There are  better bodies than the SL series, but no better lenses than the Leica prime lenses.If I didn't have the money for real Leica lenses, I'd rather buy a Canon R5 and fit it with Canon L lenses, which are almost all better than Sigma zooms. Leica is about lenses, lenses made by Leica, not about Sigma second rate stuff. It is like fitting a Ferrari with those crappy Continentals instead of Michelin or Pirelli tires.Paying a Leica price for a "Leica improved" Sigma? LOL!

PS: All my Leicas huse exclusively Leica lenses with the exception of the brilliant Zeiss ZM 2,8/25

if you have ever been on one of my celebrity shoots in the studio you would realize the prime lenses are useless. you don't have the time to change the lens every few min.

Also, I have most APO primes, I wouldn't I like to use them for portraits. They are brutal on the skin without diffusion.

PS: Leica has not come out with a decent Summilux in years for SL. Sigma has 85 1.4 , 35 1.4 50 1.2 and 1.4.

On your car analogy, I would suggest looking into parts of the Ferrari and Lamborghini. they are made by other german car manufactures.

[SrMi]

9 hours ago, JIEFACHE said:

There are  better bodies than the SL series,

I disagree. I have many different bodies, and find SL bodies to be the best FF bodies for my kind of photography.

[BernardC]

It's a silly argument to have. Lenses have a different look, and I happen to like the look of recent Leica lenses (since the S system came out). They are flare-proof like Zeiss used to be, but they also have a different feel to their sharpness. On top of that you get Leica colours, which are generally quite good. It's always problematic to argue about colours, because many people can't see the difference (a double-digit percentage of males are partially colour-blind), and many more don't care. Canon also has distinctive colours, which a lot of people like.

I also like the look of non-Leica lenses for certain projects. I have a set of vintage Zeiss (they weren't vintage when I bought them!) that has all the characteristics of late 20th century cinema lenses.

It's just like asking a painter what kind of brush they prefer. They are all different, and they are not the end-goal. The brush/lens/guitar is just a tool to achieve that goal.

[goldenbear]

On 7/17/2024 at 10:31 PM, Photoworks said:

Also, I have most APO primes, I wouldn't I like to use them for portraits. They are brutal on the skin without diffusion.

I sold the wonderful 50 Lux-SL in favor of Mandler’s 90 Cron pre for this very reason. Much less work!