Lumix kit lens 24-105mm is rarely mentioned in Leica user forums, is it really that low?

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Is it really soon to be replaced by 24-70mm or 24-90mm?

[Advertisement]

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

[BernardC]

Is that a rumour that you are starting, or did you hear it elsewhere? Lumix already offers a 24-70, but it's in their more expensive "pro" line.

I think the 24-105 is rarely mentioned because it's been around so long, and it's not exceptional (even if it's very good for the price).

[Einst_Stein]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Is that a rumour that you are starting, or did you hear it elsewhere? Lumix already offers a 24-70, but it's in their more expensive "pro" line.

I think the 24-105 is rarely mentioned because it's been around so long, and it's not exceptional (even if it's very good for the price).

I don’t mean replaced by LUMIX, I mean upgrade to 24-70 or 24-90 by the owner.

[Einst_Stein]

In what sense the 24-70mm (LUMIX, Sigma, or Leica) is more exceptional than 24-105?

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

In what sense the 24-70mm (LUMIX, Sigma, or Leica) is more exceptional than 24-105?

It's easy enough to tell for the Lumix lineup: the 24-70 is more expensive, one f-stop faster, "Certified by Leica," and has the "Lumix S Pro" label. You'll need to figure-out if any of those features are important to you. Most situations can be handled equally well with either lens. The 24-105 has OIS, so the darker maximum aperture shouldn't be an issue.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

It's easy enough to tell for the Lumix lineup: the 24-70 is more expensive, one f-stop faster, "Certified by Leica," and has the "Lumix S Pro" label. You'll need to figure-out if any of those features are important to you. Most situations can be handled equally well with either lens. The 24-105 has OIS, so the darker maximum aperture shouldn't be an issue.

I have 24-90mm, so I don't really care their differfences. I am asking for a friend. Anything on the paper seems ignorable, such as this Leica certified or 1 stop faster, except the price. 

I checked some other references, mainly used market price, checking their market price depreciation. I found Lumix 24-105mm is about the same as Sigma 24-70mm, Lumix 24-70mm has the least depreciation. Use this non-science indication, apparently Lumix 24-70mm tends to be held more than Sigma 24-70mm and less than Lumix 24-70mm. 

Anyway, since my friend wants to start with used SL2, I am suggesting to include 24-105mm and 24-70mm in the considerations.

Edited November 27, 2024 by Einst_Stein

[Don Morley]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry but I think too many people just assume such as the Lumix 24-105 is inferior, and most likely do so simply because it is so much cheaper then any vastly over expensive Leica badged akternative. Well I think my Lumix 24 105 is superb in every way, and whats more it has image stabilisation which really works. Anyway do not just take my words for it but instead please reed such as Jon Slacks review where he compared his one very favourably agains the massively expensive, and far heaver and more cumbersome Leica 24-90. Yes he did eventually come in favur of the genuine Leica optic, but not for anything like such as the Pan lens having inferior definition or image qualiity. And assaid I likewise genuinely prefer the Pan 24-105 not least because it is smaller and much lighter AND I am 100% happy with its image quality. 

[Planetwide]

On 11/30/2024 at 11:12 AM, Don Morley said:

Sorry but I think too many people just assume such as the Lumix 24-105 is inferior, and most likely do so simply because it is so much cheaper then any vastly over expensive Leica badged akternative. Well I think my Lumix 24 105 is superb in every way, and whats more it has image stabilisation which really works. Anyway do not just take my words for it but instead please reed such as Jon Slacks review where he compared his one very favourably agains the massively expensive, and far heaver and more cumbersome Leica 24-90. Yes he did eventually come in favur of the genuine Leica optic, but not for anything like such as the Pan lens having inferior definition or image qualiity. And assaid I likewise genuinely prefer the Pan 24-105 not least because it is smaller and much lighter AND I am 100% happy with its image quality. 

100% agree

[Dave V]

Having owned all three of the lenses mentioned here, I can weigh in.  I think the 24-105 is a solid performing lens, optically, though I think it's strength leans towards video, with the built in OIS and extended range.  It's not critically sharp, nor does it render with that Leica pop, which delivers sharp, beautiful, micro- contrast and light/focus fall off that makes the difference in still images immediately apparent.  I ended up selling my copy and getting the 24-70 S Pro.

The 24-90 is by far the very best mid-range zoom lens I have ever shot, regardless of brand.  I have owned Nikon, Sony and Fuji's top offerings and they are all great, but there is something special with the way this lens draws with the sharpness of a prime at every focal length.  Just fantastic and for me, worth the weight and size,  I also have the Lumix 24-70 S Pro lens, which is nearly as good as the 24-90 and as good or better than the other brands I highlighted above.  Again, it is a larger lens, but renders with that Leica sharpness and contrast with really beautiful bokeh.  

There is a lot of value in some of the lens offerings out there, especially in the Sigma Art line, where I think you're getting a bit more performance than the price point would otherwise suggest, but there is usually no free lunch when it comes to high quality glass.  It is almost always heavy and costly if you are unwilling to compromise on image quality.

[jiggyb21]

I owned the 24-105 for a few years.  I liked the handling and weight and size quite a bit.  It always felt like a well built lens and I loved the focal range.  That’s about where the good things I have to say end. It was honestly hard to believe just how soft it was and once I did a test shoot vs all my other lenses, I ended up selling it days after. The tests were all done on a 24 megapixel sensor so it wasn’t an issue of resolving power. When I look back at old pictures in my library, it compares pretty closely to the Canon EF 24-105 V1 from 2005. The close focus was fun to have, but it basically just exaggerated how soft the lens was, so I never used it.  To me, it is a kit lens the way I remember kit lenses being before they all took a leap forward with the advent of mirrorless. 

[Planetwide]

You guys must have received dud lenses, mine is sharp into the corners...

S1r & 24-105mm

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!

[Archiver]

It's a very well performing lens at a decent price with a versatile focal length range, what's not to like? The Canon 24-105L used to be my walkaround lens in my 5D Mark II days, and getting the Panasonic many after years of shooting mainly primes has been quite the eye opener. The only issue is potential internal lens haze in earlier production runs - there are a couple of DPReview threads with dozens of responses devoted to this problem.

[BillCB]

I have the Lumix 24-105 and find it very good value for money - but certainly not a lens in Leica class. It has rather obvious  chromatic aberration at the short end and is a bit soft at the long end - but is very acceptable in the mid-range. I use it as a casual snapshot lens but use my Leica glass for serious work.

[vkdev]

I use this lens for tourism. This lens is small, light and not afraid of bad weather. Rain, snow or sun, it always works.