Does 24-90 compare to 75 or 90 APO?

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am looking at doing some high school senior portraits in September for family.  I just assumed I would use my 24-90 SL or even sigma 70-200 but now I question if I will be able to get the awesome background appearance I see on here from the 75 and 90 APO’s. I haven’t seen a direct comparison to the 24-90 only some minor references so forgive me if it is here somewhere.  But nothing for this type of portraits really.  Most will be full body, sitting and standing I think with maybe a few shoulder shots.  I love the 24-90 but I am aware of its limitations which hasn’t really been an issue for me until I was asked to do this.  I do have the 50 lux and plan to use it but still wonder if 75 or 90 wouldn’t be better for handling various backgrounds on full body shots.  I also have a 75/2.4 Summarit M but not sure that would be the look they want.  

Edited April 8 by ALScott

[Advertisement]

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

[Stuart Richardson]

I think you will find the 24-90mm more than sufficient for taking lovely portraits. DOF is still rather shallow at 4.5, and I think the backgrounds will be sufficiently blurred, unless they are particularly busy. Since you are controlling the setup, if that is the case you can move them to a more suitable place. The 75mm and 90mm APO are lovely, but if you already have the 50mm Summilux and 24-90, those two are more than sufficient. The 50mm Lux will probably be the best look. If you want it a bit tighter in, you can probably just crop a bit.

[LD_50]

DOF for the 90 at f2 is significantly more shallow than the 24-90 at 90/f4 at the same distance. 

For full body portraits I think you’ll see a big difference in background blur. That may or may not be important, depending on the background. 

Edited April 9 by LD_50

[algrove]

49 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

DOF for the 90 at f2 is significantly more shallow than the 24-90 at 90/f4 at the same distance. 

For full body portraits I think you’ll see a big difference in background blur. That may or may not be important, depending on the background. 

That was my first thought. What background are you planning on using? Most portrait backgrounds just fall away anyhow and are not important unless you are planning on outdoor portraits.

[Olaf_ZG]

As others said, it depends on the background. The 24-90 has the advantage that if some group shots are needed, you have the possibility to go wider.

I tried the sigma 85, but still preferred the lux. So, in your place I would take both the lux and the zoom. It’s a great combo.

[ALScott]

3 hours ago, algrove said:

That was my first thought. What background are you planning on using? Most portrait backgrounds just fall away anyhow and are not important unless you are planning on outdoor portraits.

 

41 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

As others said, it depends on the background. The 24-90 has the advantage that if some group shots are needed, you have the possibility to go wider.

I tried the sigma 85, but still preferred the lux. So, in your place I would take both the lux and the zoom. It’s a great combo.

These will almost all be outdoor, maybe one set up inside.  Also, only one person, no groups.  I have shot stuff like this before but it has been a very, very long time.  Hoping to get by with a reflector and no light.

[algrove]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

8 hours ago, ALScott said:

 

These will almost all be outdoor, maybe one set up inside.  Also, only one person, no groups.  I have shot stuff like this before but it has been a very, very long time.  Hoping to get by with a reflector and no light.

You might get inconsistent results from person to person being outdoors.

[LocalHero1953]

The Apo-Summicron-SL 75 (and 90, though I've sold mine) is a wonderful portrait lens, in the right circumstances. It works well with perfect skin; this is often not an issue with young people, but at that age there's always a risk of an outbreak of pimples. You can't hide these, except perhaps with a Thambar wide open, but there's no point in showing every little colour gradation around every little eruption. Having a more forgiving lens on hand (the Summilux-SL 50 or Sigma 85/1.4) would be a good idea. I very much like the performance of the Summilux 50, but I find I am tempted to move in too close for upper body portraits, and dislike the distorted perspective this can give (big noses, small ears, bulky leading shoulders). I know the solution is to keep further away and crop, but I prefer to avoid the risk with a longer lens.

The OOF areas of the Apo 75 can get a bit busy with vegetation (small branches, stems etc), so you would have to pick your outdoor location with care.

I find these issues are less of a problem with the 24-90SL, but I like the versatility of a wider aperture.

FWIW my portrait lenses of choice are the Summilux-M 75 (when I have plenty of time for manual focusing on the SL2-S), the Sigma 85/1.4 (for when I have a lot of portraits/headshots to take in a sequence), Summilux-SL 50 (for a bigger view or groups), 24-90SL (maximum versatility) and the Apo 75 (for known perfect skin with a controlled background e.g. cloth).

Edited April 10 by LocalHero1953

[ALScott]

17 hours ago, algrove said:

You might get inconsistent results from person to person being outdoors.

They all want outdoors.  This is for family but understandably she will want shots similar to others.

[jaapv]

On 4/10/2025 at 9:37 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

The Apo-Summicron-SL 75 (and 90, though I've sold mine) is a wonderful portrait lens, in the right circumstances. It works well with perfect skin; this is often not an issue with young people, but at that age there's always a risk of an outbreak of pimples. You can't hide these, except perhaps with a Thambar wide open, but there's no point in showing every little colour gradation around every little eruption. Having a more forgiving lens on hand (the Summilux-SL 50 or Sigma 85/1.4) would be a good idea. I very much like the performance of the Summilux 50, but I find I am tempted to move in too close for upper body portraits, and dislike the distorted perspective this can give (big noses, small ears, bulky leading shoulders). I know the solution is to keep further away and crop, but I prefer to avoid the risk with a longer lens.

The OOF areas of the Apo 75 can get a bit busy with vegetation (small branches, stems etc), so you would have to pick your outdoor location with care.

I find these issues are less of a problem with the 24-90SL, but I like the versatility of a wider aperture.

FWIW my portrait lenses of choice are the Summilux-M 75 (when I have plenty of time for manual focusing on the SL2-S), the Sigma 85/1.4 (for when I have a lot of portraits/headshots to take in a sequence), Summilux-SL 50 (for a bigger view or groups), 24-90SL (maximum versatility) and the Apo 75 (for known perfect skin with a controlled background e.g. cloth).

If you want a lens with a more gentle rendering for this purpose the Sigma 28-70 might be worth considering. The “best” (APO) lens is not always the best. Not that the Sigma is bad, rather the opposite 

[LeicaR10]

AlScott,  You have a number of choices with each rendering the subject differently.   You might care to experiment now with different lenses and see what suits best well before September.  In the meantime, here are some links for the various Leica SL and Sigma lenses.  The site also has many other brand lenses to include Sigma to compare rendering.  r/ Mark

Try:  24-90   https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=343&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Try:  75   https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=1387&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Try:  90  https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=1386&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Try:  50 Lux https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=374&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

Try:  Sigma 24-70 https://onfotolife.com/lens_sample_photos?lens_id=4204&page=1&focal_min=0&focal_max=800&aperture_min=0&aperture_max=32

[Doc_P]

I started with the 24-90 due to availability on the SL. Great allrounder, no doubt, flexible focal length and acceptable quality. I did some portraits with that combo for colleagues many years ago, some of them use these portraits until now! So the 24-90 is fine, unless you compare it to the Apo 2/75 - that lens is in a league of its own - for all of my use cases: people, path photography..... You have to see the differences - e.g. Capture One, 6K Monitor... I simply sold the 24-90 after I got the 2/75, the 2/28 and 2/75 are so significantly better....

 

If you want to spare the expenses/risks: why not rent a 2/75 for your project ? And if skin is an issue: reduce in the clarity / structure slides, that helps... OTOH: both combos will deliver... But if you can afford it, the ApoCrons are simply more fun!

[hellobrandonscott]

I made a direct comparison between the 24-90 and the APO equivalents in second half of this vid: 

 

Edited April 16 by hellobrandonscott

[ALScott]

2 hours ago, hellobrandonscott said:

I made a direct comparison between the 24-90 and the APO equivalents in second half of this vid: 

 

Very, very nice comparison.  Like the straight up difference approach and not saying one is "worse" than the other, just different.

[hellobrandonscott]

On 4/15/2025 at 7:40 PM, ALScott said:

Very, very nice comparison.  Like the straight up difference approach and not saying one is "worse" than the other, just different.

Thanks! Everything in photography is as subjective as it gets, so just making room for that rather than trying to box out any particular preferences.