Jump to content

No more love for the 24-90?


Olaf_ZG

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Really happy with this lens. It’s my first standard zoom I have in my life, always worked with primes but I enjoy the versatility of it and ofcourse the quality of this particular lens.

The horse panicked, and started to act a bit wildly. As I needed to step away, the zoom was really handy, could never change lenses so quickly.

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!

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

As above.

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!

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

This one I call “dances with horse”. All with the 2s.

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!

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

Some more months in with this lens, it’s really the best allrounder I ever owned. I even managed portraits with it (though I bought the sl summilux for this). From a recent walk.

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!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

And a portrait…

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!

  • Like 12
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Amazing lens, versatile, sharp, great colour.....replaces several expensive primes....brilliant value.  Not letting me upload images.

Edited by drjonb
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/3/2024 at 1:37 PM, Olaf_ZG said:

Some more months in with this lens, it’s really the best allrounder I ever owned. I even managed portraits with it (though I bought the sl summilux for this). From a recent walk.

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!

very cool pic! i don't think it can ever be created with another brand lens. Very unique look. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

About a year ago there was rumour of an 18-50 FF SL lens. Pure speculation, but could a hypothetical SL 18-50/2.8-4.0 be smaller than the 24-90/2.8-4.0 and make for a new standard zoom lens to go with the smaller SL3? Is that a totally crazy idea? 🙂

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Filip Baraka said:

Amazing lens. I am in about two months of ownership now and it's the best zoom lens I have ever owned.

At 24mm and thereabout and at f2.8, including in-camera adjustments, the SL24-90 is an outstanding lens for astrophotography. Almost no optical deformation of pinpoint stars. Quite an achivement. Ideally, one would like to go wider and have a larger opening, say 16-18mm f1.x, but SL24-90 does the job. I haven't tested SL21APO for astrophotography yet. But otherwise none if the Leica lenses I know about do as well as SL24-90. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Well, I'd definitely be first in line for a high quality 20-70, like the Sony. The Panasonic 20-60 is OK but not as good. 18-50 might be a bit short for my tastes.

The reviews I've read rate them about equal. Both are strongest at the wide and medium end of their range (20-35mm), slightly softer at the long end. It's amazing what you can get for very little money these days. You need to pay at least twice as much (or 3x in the case of the Lumix) to get something that's noticeably better.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, helged said:

At 24mm and thereabout and at f2.8, including in-camera adjustments, the SL24-90 is an outstanding lens for astrophotography. Almost no optical deformation of pinpoint stars. Quite an achivement. Ideally, one would like to go wider and have a larger opening, say 16-18mm f1.x, but SL24-90 does the job. I haven't tested SL21APO for astrophotography yet. But otherwise none if the Leica lenses I know about do as well as SL24-90. 

That is great to hear, I do astro only occasionally but good to know that I have a right tool available. I have tried landscape, some product and portraits so far and 24-90 just delivered

My plan is to get either 21mm apo or go with 16-35mm in next couple of months to fill that wider angle need. Probably I will end up with both. Tried 14-24 sigma, but no filter thread is becoming a big no for me as I would like to keep my kit as simple as possible.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Filip Baraka said:

That is great to hear, I do astro only occasionally but good to know that I have a right tool available. I have tried landscape, some product and portraits so far and 24-90 just delivered

My plan is to get either 21mm apo or go with 16-35mm in next couple of months to fill that wider angle need. Probably I will end up with both. Tried 14-24 sigma, but no filter thread is becoming a big no for me as I would like to keep my kit as simple as possible.

Whereas Sigma 14-24 is fine for astro, Leica SL16-35 is not. Unfortunately. SL21APO should be fine (but I haven't tested ut for astro, yet). 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

My nephew, an astrophysicist who designs sensors, optics and cameras for various projects for the government , has used my 16-35 for Astro and likes it.

Edited by rsh
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, BernardC said:

The reviews I've read rate them about equal. Both are strongest at the wide and medium end of their range (20-35mm), slightly softer at the long end. It's amazing what you can get for very little money these days. You need to pay at least twice as much (or 3x in the case of the Lumix) to get something that's noticeably better.

I have both. (20-70 and 20-60). The Sony is better, especially at the longer end and especially in the corners. The Sony has really impressed me as a small, light travel lens. The Panasonic is OK but on the high resolution sensors the differences are pretty obvious.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, helged said:

Whereas Sigma 14-24 is fine for astro, Leica SL16-35 is not. Unfortunately. SL21APO should be fine (but I haven't tested ut for astro, yet). 

Again, I have both and I'm not seeing it. The 14-24 is indeed, excellent. But so is my Leica Vario, which is as good as anything I have from Canon (14-35L) and Sony (16-35 GMII) on my shelf. I would choose the Sigma (or Leica version of it) because of the constant aperture and wider range, for Astro. But not optically as there's nothing in it. The 16-35 Vario is better sealed and takes filters.

I don't get why the Vario is so maligned. It's a fantastic wide zoom. The Sigma does deserve it's praise for how good it is.

My 21 APO is sensational but I'd want wider for Astro, personally.

Gordon

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Again, I have both and I'm not seeing it. The 14-24 is indeed, excellent. But so is my Leica Vario, which is as good as anything I have from Canon (14-35L) and Sony (16-35 GMII) on my shelf. I would choose the Sigma (or Leica version of it) because of the constant aperture and wider range, for Astro. But not optically as there's nothing in it. The 16-35 Vario is better sealed and takes filters.

I don't get why the Vario is so maligned. It's a fantastic wide zoom. The Sigma does deserve it's praise for how good it is.

My 21 APO is sensational but I'd want wider for Astro, personally.

Gordon

In that case my SL16-35 had likely/possibly some misalignment issues. It was essentially useless for astrophotography.

Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have both. (20-70 and 20-60). The Sony is better, especially at the longer end and especially in the corners. The Sony has really impressed me as a small, light travel lens. The Panasonic is OK but on the high resolution sensors the differences are pretty obvious.

Interesting, it's always good to have first-hand experience. One of the reviews I read mentioned that the 20-70 wasn't as good as Sigma's 24-70, for the same price. Have you found that as well?

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Interesting, it's always good to have first-hand experience. One of the reviews I read mentioned that the 20-70 wasn't as good as Sigma's 24-70, for the same price. Have you found that as well?

I don't have the Sigma 24-70 (or the Leica variant). I do have the Sony and Canon 24-105 f4's. It's basically those but wider. I'd rather use this than either because I find the range REALLY useful. It's kind of my goldilocks city walk around lens.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...