Jump to content

No more love for the 24-90?


Olaf_ZG

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, helged said:

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

Possibly. I've seen a few lousy reports on the Vario. They just didn't line up with what I was getting. Mine's always been great. Then I dropped it and it had a holiday at Leica. It came back exactly the same as it was new. Maybe I've been lucky.

I've had it out this last week for testing. Ready for the SL3. Side by side It's hard to choose which I'd prefer (Vario or 14-24). Probably the 14-24 for general travel and astro and the Vario for landscapes (ND filters). Both are well centered and mostly good to the edges wide open. Both improve a stop or so down but not buy a massive amount.

I'm lucky that I can directly test against my other systems (Canon and Sony mostly with a small Nikon kit. Of my super wides they're all reasonably close. No real lemons except the flare on my old Sony 12-24G is terrible. It's plenty sharp though. Another surprise is the compact Nikon 14-30 f4. It's much better than it should be.

Right now, I have one L mount lens I'm not happy with. My 150-600. I think I have a bad one as others like it. My 100-400 with TC is better. But I have ordered the apparently stellar, Sigma 500 f5.6 which I'll match with my sublime 90-280 for long lens work and keep the 100-400 (I now have a really good one) for my travel kit.

Depending on the need I think I have my SL3 kits sorted out now.

Gordon

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Possibly. I've seen a few lousy reports on the Vario. They just didn't line up with what I was getting. Mine's always been great. Then I dropped it and it had a holiday at Leica. It came back exactly the same as it was new. Maybe I've been lucky.

I've had it out this last week for testing. Ready for the SL3. Side by side It's hard to choose which I'd prefer (Vario or 14-24). Probably the 14-24 for general travel and astro and the Vario for landscapes (ND filters). Both are well centered and mostly good to the edges wide open. Both improve a stop or so down but not buy a massive amount.

I'm lucky that I can directly test against my other systems (Canon and Sony mostly with a small Nikon kit. Of my super wides they're all reasonably close. No real lemons except the flare on my old Sony 12-24G is terrible. It's plenty sharp though. Another surprise is the compact Nikon 14-30 f4. It's much better than it should be.

Right now, I have one L mount lens I'm not happy with. My 150-600. I think I have a bad one as others like it. My 100-400 with TC is better. But I have ordered the apparently stellar, Sigma 500 f5.6 which I'll match with my sublime 90-280 for long lens work and keep the 100-400 (I now have a really good one) for my travel kit.

Depending on the need I think I have my SL3 kits sorted out now.

Gordon

 

+1. I am also waiting for the Sigma 500mm f5,6.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Posted (edited)

It's odd how something so good can be so disregarded.  I've come to the conclusion that the 24-90 is THE reason for buying into the SL system.  It's extra reach is SO useful compared with the standard 24-70 from CanNikon, and I've never felt the need to complain about performance.  I've just spent the weekend photographing sound checks for the UNESCO Clun Valley Jazz Festival and it was the lens I used for pretty well all the shots (I'd dragged the 90-280 + 35/75 APO lenses along, but they weren't really needed).  

A couple of examples below.  If you're interested more can be seen at https://www.ctribble.co.uk/galleries/PERFORMANCE/Clun_Valley_Jazz_2024/ 

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!

Edited by chris_tribble
  • Like 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Coral Palm said:

The drummer shot is very nice Chris.

It's extra reach is SO useful compared with the standard 24-70 from CanNikon—completely agree.

I just don't understand that comment - why just ignore whats out there? There is a very good, fairly compact and light 24-120 from Nikon for its Z series. Granted, that is F4, but the Leica 24-90 isn't 2.8 for most of its focal lenghts either.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, la1402 said:

I just don't understand that comment - why just ignore whats out there? There is a very good, fairly compact and light 24-120 from Nikon for its Z series. Granted, that is F4, but the Leica 24-90 isn't 2.8 for most of its focal lenghts either.

Agreed. All the main manufacturers make a very good 24-105 or 120. I will say none are as good as the Leica 24-90 throughout the range, which, to me, is a cross between the 24-70's and 24-105's available. They're all smaller and lighter though (except the Canon 24-105 2.8) by some margin. There are two standard zooms that rival the 24-90 (maybe three with the new Canon). The Hasselblad 35-75 and Canon 28-70 f2.0. All are as large or larger than the SL zoom.

Owning most of the standard zooms from the major players, IMHO, the 24-90 is the best overall standard zoom lens available today.

Gordon

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

@la1402– when I bought into the SL world there was no Z system and a plethora of choices. Having had over many years Nikon/Canon lenses I always found with the longer zooms such as 28-300 or 24-105 for example there was always a sweet spot in the middle where everything looked really good and it wasn’t as sharp at either end.

@Gordon—it probably is the best optical quality standard zoom out there. I have taken such a wide variety of images with this lens and it never fails to amaze me. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, la1402 said:

I just don't understand that comment - why just ignore whats out there? There is a very good, fairly compact and light 24-120 from Nikon for its Z series. Granted, that is F4, but the Leica 24-90 isn't 2.8 for most of its focal lenghts either.

I've not tried the Nikon, so apologies if I was ignorant of something that compares with the 24-90.  I was thinking specifically of the work-horse 24-70 f2.8 L series lenses that I used to use when I shot Canon rather than the "kit" lenses that were often 24-105 (and which I found to be a disappointment).

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Coral Palm said:

@la1402– when I bought into the SL world there was no Z system and a plethora of choices. Having had over many years Nikon/Canon lenses I always found with the longer zooms such as 28-300 or 24-105 for example there was always a sweet spot in the middle where everything looked really good and it wasn’t as sharp at either end.

@Gordon—it probably is the best optical quality standard zoom out there. I have taken such a wide variety of images with this lens and it never fails to amaze me. 

The Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 is better than the Leica, not by much, but it is sharper. Also, the design is 5+ years newer, so it should be, which is a testament to the Leica 24-90mm. Still an amazing zoom lens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 17 Minuten schrieb Planetwide:

The Canon RF 24-105mm F2.8 is better than the Leica, not by much, but it is sharper. Also, the design is 5+ years newer, so it should be, which is a testament to the Leica 24-90mm. Still an amazing zoom lens.

The 24-90 is big...but the 24-105/2.8 is monster big. I wouldnt see it as a carry around lens. What I recently found impressive that the 2490 rendering fits very well together with the Leica primes in regards of color and overall look.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Going back to @Olaf_ZG's original post - it looks like there's still a bit of love out there for the 24-90 😊.  I'm keeping mine for the foreseeable future, as I'm holding on to my pair of SL2s.  If they ain't broke, why rush off and buy a new set of tools!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

I always travel with an SL2 and/or SL2-S, the 24-90, 16-35 and on occasion, the 90-280. 

Edited by rsh
Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The 24-90 VE is probably the best zoom lens I've owned...certainly the heaviest!  When I travel by car for landscape, urban architecture  I love this lens but the combo (SL2-s w/ 24-90) is as heavy as my S (006) with a prime so for just walk around and street photography I usually use the (gasp) Lumix 20-60mm as it is very lightweight and produces decent images with the SL2-S and only 24 megapixels.  I don't know how it would hold up on an SL3 at full res. 

Edited by Sailronin
Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, tom0511 said:

The 24-90 is big...but the 24-105/2.8 is monster big. I wouldnt see it as a carry around lens. What I recently found impressive that the 2490 rendering fits very well together with the Leica primes in regards of color and overall look.

 

 

It's definitely longer, 199mm vs 138mm for the Leica. They both weigh the same surprisingly. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Planetwide:

It's definitely longer, 199mm vs 138mm for the Leica. They both weigh the same surprisingly. 

The 24-90 specs are 1140g, the Canon 24-104/2.8 1430g. Not that 1140 would be light.

Link to post
Share on other sites

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Sailronin:

The 24-90 VE is probably the best zoom lens I've owned...certainly the heaviest!  When I travel by car for landscape, urban architecture  I love this lens but the combo (SL2-s w/ 24-90) is as heavy as my S (006) with a prime so for just walk around and street photography I usually use the (gasp) Lumix 20-60mm as it is very lightweight and produces decent images with the SL2-S and only 24 megapixels.  I don't know how it would hold up on an SL3 at full res. 

Thats what I did for some time - dont make the fault to directly compare the 20-60 to the 16-35 or 24-90.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, tom0511 said:

The 24-90 specs are 1140g, the Canon 24-104/2.8 1430g. Not that 1140 would be light.

Actually, we are both wrong, for all its worth. Both have filters & caps, the polarizer on the Canon might be a few grams heavier than the UV on the Leica.

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!

Edited by Planetwide
Link to post
Share on other sites

Size Comparison. Let's not forget the Canon does hold F2.8 all the way to 105mm, wheres the Leica is F4.0 at 90mm. 

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 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 24-105 could be a great lens for indoor sports, or maybe also for reporters? Other than that I would probably prefer the 24-105/4.0 or the 24-70/2.8 + a 70200/2.8 (which is quite compact for what it is) for general use.

But anyways, the Leica is made for L mount and the Canon for RF mount.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It's a very good general purpose lens, just like the Leica. Both are big, both are very good, both are very useful. 

Anyway, it's a Leica 24-90 thread. 

SL2 & 24-90mm

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!

Edited by Planetwide
  • Like 4
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...