24-90 or 24-70

[hansvons]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 7/2/2023 at 3:58 PM, DadDadDaddyo said:

if I correctly understand what I've read (and I hope for clarifications if not), on many constant aperture lenses that constancy is achieved simply by reducing the physical aperture of the barrel to mask the optical formula's largest aperture to the point at which the achieved largest aperture no longer changes with focal length. 

Exactly.

In cine and ENG-land "ramping" zooms often were the norm, meaning that the long end couldn't cope with the short ends aperture, and thus the image got darker while zooming, effectively underexposing by one stop or more. Camera crews knew that, of course, and chose the appropriate aperture for the long end before zooming. 

In stills-land that's not necessary because each image gets the correct exposure, assuming automatic exposure. Hence the 2,8 to 4,0 aperture ramp of the 24-90 isn't an issue for most of us.

However, the same physics applies here for constant aperture zooms as well. Thus, the long end of such zooms tend to be on the verge of ramping the exposure of the long end slightly towards underexposure, while the short end’s theoretical maximum exposure gets closed by half a stop or so to meet the constant-aperture mantra. 

But that has advantages because wide-angle lenses tend to smear in the corners at full aperture and closing the aperture a bit helps that a lot. However, the long end doesn't profiteer from the constant f2,8 and is relative soft and mushy compared to the mid-range. 

At some point, marketing departments discovered that this issue was an opportunity to be marketed as an achievement. In that regard, the 24-90 is an honest soul.

[Chris Nebard]

I agree with Mikko (Thursday #13). I’ve taken weddings (and too many other jobs to count) since the 1970s, using high end Nikon/Nikkor, only becoming a Leica user around 10 years ago. When I bought the SL2-S and 24-70 kit in 2021 it was, as Jonathan Slack said, “a no-brainer”.
 

I’ll happily defer to all the 24-90 users and optical techies who highly recommend that lens. Its reputation is obviously well deserved. However, to paraphrase Mr Slack again, any difference in results between the two must, surely, be vanishingly small for a stills photographer like me. The colours, subject separation, out of focus rendering, close focus abilities and the clarity and “feel” of the images from the 24-70 with the SL2-S are all lovely.
 

If they’re not comparable, and results from the 24-90 are demonstrably different/better to the naked eye, then it’s genuinely out of this world because the 24-70 is one of the best - maybe the absolute best - standard zooms I’ve ever used. But, I can’t argue; I’ve not used the 24-90. I don’t need both and I’m still enjoying the look of what I’m getting from the 24-70. 
 

The LFI gallery has examples of extraordinary photography by the users of both lenses. So, if you don’t need the extra reach, if you don’t feel the extra cost is justified, if you prefer working with f2.8 constant aperture, if you don’t care that it’s made in Japan, then the 24-70 is a gorgeous lens. And, once again, to quote Mr Slack, what’s not to like? 
 

If, on the other hand, you’re always going to gnaw at yourself for not getting the extra reach, and if the optical differences will genuinely matter to your results, I suspect you’ll want the 24-90. Jonathan Slack’s review of the 24-70 is done as a comparison to the 24-90 and definitely worth a read.  
 

All the best, whichever you go for. And enjoy it! 

[Geoff C. Bassett]

The 24-90 has never let me down. Even at it's closest distance it sharp and maintains contrast. As other have said you loose sharpness at 90mm, but you never lose contrast. This lens and the 90-280 has kept me in the L mount system. 

 

[Guest]

On 6/29/2023 at 7:49 PM, robb said:

My 24-90 is very sharp across the field even wide open from 24 to about 60mm.  Past that you will need to stop down 1 or two stops to keep it looking nice.  Even then it is not as sharp as the apo summicron 75 and 90.  But if you want to only carry one lens, and realize this need on the long end, you are good to go.  Most of my images in the field with this lens is set to 5.6-8.  Looks great.  I’ve also shot it at 90 wide open but it’s just not as razor sharp as I prefer… maybe that’s a good thing if you are shooting portraits, but I am always wanting the sharpest results possible.  It was focusing in front of my portrait subjects about 6-8” closer than the focusing point so I’ve sent it to Leica to revise.

I’m not as big a fan of the 24-70 because of the change in zoomtwist orientation.  I’d rather all my lenses or the same way, and this being an adapted lens, it doesn’t match the others.  

Robb

I agree that the sweet spot of the 24-90 is somewhere around 32-65ish. OTOH, 25% of my pictures with the lens are at 90mm ...

Here is an example wide open at 90mm. While not as good as the 90-280, or as the SL-APOs, there is negligible pincushion distortion (even without lens profile). Sharpness across the frame will suffice for most of my use cases.

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!

[TeleElmar135mm]

Isn't that whining at a high level for a Vario lens on prime lens quality?

[lanetomlane]

Don't ask why but I have both the 24-90 and the 24-70 lenses. I bought the 24-90 years ago just after it was introduced, but had been thinking of buying the Sigma 24-70, when Leica introduced it and I saw a mint Leica secondhand one. In my opinion the 24-90 is superior and produces wonderful results, but I do use the 24-70 almost as much.

Naturally the 24-70 is more comfortable to carry around all day and I like the constant aperture, which was great when I covered a family wedding a couple of weeks ago.

However, if I'm traveling, or taking pictures which could be later printed I always use the 24-90. That's not to say that the 24-70 isn't capable of producing stellar results, it just doesn't seem quite as 'crisp' as the 24-90.

I also have the 16-35 and 90-280 and being used to those lenses, I find that the reverse rotation on the 24-70 zoom ring a pain.

Both lenses work for me, and although it may seem extravagant I'm pleased to have the choice.

[Gavin G]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

24-90 superb, the IQ closed to prime and nice color rendering, but it's too large and bulky for me.
I like 24-70 size, weight and constant aperture, but I hate the reverse rotation alike Sigma.

If you looking for IQ, size and weight doesn't matter just go for 24-90, won't regret.

/g

[Photoworks]

I think the missing part in IQ close to prime is: in comparison to M lenses.

the Leica zooms are good, but nothing like the SL prime lenses.

I think 24-90 is a great workhorse for me in the studio, the 90mm is convenient, but not as performing as it can be.

The 24-70 is a great lens if you want something light and need 2.8. it is more affordable and has some weaknesses in close up.

reddotforum has a great video on the comparison when the 24-70 come out. look on youtube

[Gavin G]

Btw, anyone try 24-70 from Panasonic? Some body mentioned the lens structure same with 24-90.
Ignore, i found the thread at

/g

Edited July 7, 2023 by Gavin G
Found the question

[JohnathanLovm]

I'm prefer the lightweight and constant f/2.8 of 24-70 for moving around and low light situation.