SL 24-90 - still a good option today?

[thelivingyears]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The little Q3 43 has brought the joy of photography back to me. The last time I experienced something like that was with my Pentax camera. With Sony, it was more of a sober "working relationship." And who likes working anyway?  
Well, I'm currently considering getting an SL to see if photography is as much fun with it.
I would need a standard lens for that. The 24-70 2.8 and the 28-70 2.8 are nice in terms of form factor, but the design is Sigma. Unfortunately, the zoom ring also turns the "wrong" direction for me. I know some people say you get used to it, but with the Sigma for my Sony, I always turned it the wrong way at first. If you don't have any other lenses with a different rotation direction, it might get better again sooner.
I like that it's 100% Leica, as far as I understand it. It's even "Made in Germany"! Unfortunately, it's very expensive and relatively heavy. I'm actually in favor of lighter combinations.
But for targeted use, this might be a nice addition to the Q3. At least I can use the batteries interchangeably .
Does anyone use this lens? Do you have any experience with it? Some say it's one of the best zooms ever made. Unfortunately, it's not that fast, so it's probably only of limited use for portraits. But it's probably very, very good for other things. However, most of the reviews I found were several years old. A lot has changed in the meantime. For example, I have the Tamron 35-150 for Sony (f2.0 - 2.8). That's quite a statement. But I expect more from the Leica.  I am really impresse by the lens Leica used for the Q3 43.

Maybe someone has experience and wants to share it. 

[Advertisement]

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

[jrp]

I thought the lens a ridiculous proposition because of its bulk when I first for the SL 601.  When I relented and tried it instead of my M lenses, it was so good as a walk around lens that I started to find photography a bit boring as pictures came out flawless; the only shortcomings were from my own compositional skills.

[lencap]

I too considered the Q3 43 for the smaller size and APO lens, but I wasn't convinced it was a good move.

I decided to keep my SL2-S Summicron SL 50 f/2.0 APSH lens bundle, and instead of buying the Q3 43 I was trying to decide if I should repurchase the 24-90 Zoom (that I thought was too large and bulky years ago) regardless of the size because of how it felt in hand and for the images it delivers.  

To resolve the issue I posed this question to ChatGPT4.o to get an accurate comparison: I've created an image on a Leica SL2-S with the Leica SL 24-90 zoom shooting at 90mm with the aperture at F/4. If I take the same shot on a Leica Q3 43 using the 60MB sensor, and use the 90MM frame lines in the Q3 43, how will it compare to the SL2-S image shot with the 24-90 zoom? Discuss image size in MB, perspective and all other relevant comparisons. 

Here is the reply: 

Great question — you’re comparing a full-frame image taken at 90mm f/4 on the Leica SL2-S (24MP) using the 24-90mm zoom, to a cropped 90mm-equivalent image taken on the Leica Q3 43 (60MP) using its digital zoom frame lines(90mm crop mode). Let's walk through the key comparison factors in depth:

1. Sensor Resolution & Crop Modes

• Leica SL2‑S

  • Sensor: Full-frame, 24 MP (6000 × 4000 px)

  • Native focal length: full resolution at 90 mm

  • RAW file: ~40–45 MB; JPEG: ~6–10 MB

• Leica Q3 43

  • Sensor: Full‑frame, 60 MP effective (9520 × 6336 px) 

  • Has in-camera digital zoom frame lines (43 → 60 → 75 → 90 → 120 → 150 mm)

  • At 90 mm crop, output resolution is ~14 MP

    • 60 MP → 31 MP (60 mm crop) → 20 MP (75 mm) → 14 MP (90 mm crop)

  • RAW file for full-res ~70 MB; at 90 mm crop the file is still the same size but contains fewer effective pixels

  • JPEG: similar compression (~10–15 MB for full-res, less in crop)

👉 Resulting comparison:

• SL2‑S: 24 MP vs Q3 43 crop: ~14 MP → ~60% the resolution

---

2. Perspective & Field of View

• Perspective: True perspective is dictated by camera position, not crop. Stand in the same spot, and both images look geometrically identical.

• Field of view: Q3 43 crop frame lines simulate the SL2‑S at 90 mm exactly—framing-wise, they match.

---

3. Optics & Image Quality

• SL2‑S with 24‑90 mm zoom at 90 mm f/4

  • True telephoto zoom, designed for sharpness at that focal length

• Q3 43 with 43 mm APO‑Summicron f/2, digitally cropped to 90 mm

  • High-quality 43 mm prime lens, but no optical zoom

  • Digital crop discards surrounding resolution—optically excellent, but unable to match the detail and sharpness of a true 90 mm optic

---

4. Depth of Field & Bokeh

• SL2‑S @ 90 mm f/4: Provides longer focal compression and shallower depth of field, yielding more pronounced background blur.

• Q3 43 @ 43 mm, cropped: Retains depth of field characteristics of 43 mm at f/2 (actually equivalent DOF of ~35 mm f/1.6) — still shallow, but not the same telephoto isolation. Cropping doesn't change DOF.

---

5. File Size & Post‑Processing Flexibility

Camera Setup	Effective MP @ 90 mm	RAW Size	JPEG Size
SL2‑S + 24‑90 @ 90 mm	24 MP	~45 MB	~7 MB
Q3 43 full → crop to 90 mm	~14 MP	full-file (~70 MB) but only ~14 MP data	~5–8 MB (cropped)

 

 

The ChatGPT analysis confirmed that yes indeed my SL2-S kit is larger and heavier, but the SL2-S with the 24-90 lens provides image quality potential that, for me, is worth it.  I essentially have 6 primes in one zoom with all the flexibility that suggests.  For me, it's the "right" decision.  For you, ask ChatGPT to compare how you expect to shoot and see what it suggests.

I posted on this topic more extensively including YouTube videos about the 24-90 made by MathPhotographer.  You can find those posts, if you’re interested.

Edited June 20 by lencap

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, thelivingyears said:

The little Q3 43 has brought the joy of photography back to me. The last time I experienced something like that was with my Pentax camera. With Sony, it was more of a sober "working relationship." And who likes working anyway?  
Well, I'm currently considering getting an SL to see if photography is as much fun with it.
I would need a standard lens for that. The 24-70 2.8 and the 28-70 2.8 are nice in terms of form factor, but the design is Sigma. Unfortunately, the zoom ring also turns the "wrong" direction for me. I know some people say you get used to it, but with the Sigma for my Sony, I always turned it the wrong way at first. If you don't have any other lenses with a different rotation direction, it might get better again sooner.
I like that it's 100% Leica, as far as I understand it. It's even "Made in Germany"! Unfortunately, it's very expensive and relatively heavy. I'm actually in favor of lighter combinations.
But for targeted use, this might be a nice addition to the Q3. At least I can use the batteries interchangeably .
Does anyone use this lens? Do you have any experience with it? Some say it's one of the best zooms ever made. Unfortunately, it's not that fast, so it's probably only of limited use for portraits. But it's probably very, very good for other things. However, most of the reviews I found were several years old. A lot has changed in the meantime. For example, I have the Tamron 35-150 for Sony (f2.0 - 2.8). That's quite a statement. But I expect more from the Leica.  I am really impresse by the lens Leica used for the Q3 43.

Maybe someone has experience and wants to share it. 

For a human perspective, I would say this is probably not likely to please you. Personally, as much as I love them, I don't think the SL cameras are really "fun" cameras. It is a working camera. Same goes for the 24-90. There is little that is fun about a 1.14kg lens with an 82mm filter ring. It is heavy to lug around with the already heavy SL bodies. But it has very good image quality and a very useful focal length range. I think if you are looking for a fun digital camera with the budget for a Leica, you might get more out of the Hasselblad 907x or the X2D. I use the SL2 for work...when I think of "fun cameras", they are all film cameras. Maybe the M10M, but even that has a serious business feel about it, fun as it can be at times. Fun is the Hexar AF...or even something like the original Leica CL and 40mm lens. Of course, it depends on what you want to do, and what you consider fun.

[Benoo]

I did the same went from a Q3 43 to an SL3s with the 35 and 75mm primes, love it, the Q3 now feels a bit small to hold.

the SL is a fun camera to use and you can adapt M lenses easily which is also fun to try with manual focusing.

selling my Q3 soon.

Agree with Stuart the big lens would probably get old really quickly, due to weight.

 

Edited June 20 by Benoo

[Jeff S]

M cameras (mostly M10M) are my small and easy walk around bodies, while the SL2 with 24-90 is my workhorse kit.  I can carry it cross-body for long periods (with Peak Design strap and base plate anchor so lens hugs hip downward), but typically get from A to B by car, then wander. Does all I need for making pics and prints to my taste.

[Doc_P]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

You get what you schlepp is an old teutonic saying… The Q3 43 is a small gem delivering image quality near the L ApoSummicrons… As great as the 24-90 was/is, you will see immediately the differences when mixing images from the Q3 43 with SL.24-90… Not focal wise: micro contrast, resolution, clarity, visual impact. After using the Apo 2/75 i sold the 24-90 … 

Why not rent an SL3 with the 24-90 and the ApoCrons 2/21 and 2/75: renting will be expensive but than you get the experience necessary to decide if you want to spent so much money…

[Schafreuter]

 

The 24-90 ist one of the best lenses I have ever used. As you can see here: no aberrations, high micro contrast. It performs so much better than my old Sigma Art 24-70 on the D850. 

 

 

 

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!

[LocalHero1953]

11 hours ago, thelivingyears said:

Well, I'm currently considering getting an SL to see if photography is as much fun with it.

I'm with @Stuart Richardson - the SL system is not about fun, but about getting the results. The Q system is definitely about fun.

I have had SL, a CL system, digital Ms, Q2 and now a Q3 43 and SL2-S. I've had the 24-90 almost from launch (and the 24-980 ditto).

Early on I took the SL + 24-90 for a holiday in Italy. Frankly one day of carrying that combination was a day too much, even with putting it down on café tables at frequent intervals. And yet I have taken more photos with exactly that same combo than any other in recent years (portraits, arts performance, events), because it delivers quality images every time across a wide range of scenarios, including video, takes a lot of rough treatment and is easily customised for different use cases. The SL is not fun, because I don't think about it in use - it's just a means to an end.

The Q3 43 has taken over from my CL and Q2 for holidays, travel, social and family stuff - discreet, quiet, limited to a certain range of uses, but also producing quality images.

Like Stuart, film is also fun for me, but also my intellectual challenge - since returning to film a couple of years ago with Ms, Barnacks and large format, I struggle to achieve images that satisfy me, mainly because I have not yet mastered the technical aspects of film - matching exposure and composition to subject and lighting when I don't have digital's enormous detail and latitude for correcting mistakes. But I enjoy this technical challenge.

Personal opinions and experience, of course. YMMV.

Edited June 21 by LocalHero1953

[thelivingyears]

Thank you all very much for your valuable feedback. I'll need some time to evaluate all of this for myself. It's also valuable because not everything points in the same direction. However, everyone seems to agree on one thing: The 24-90mm offers very good image quality.

I'll have to try to get my hands on this combination at a Leica dealer to see for myself how it performs and whether its weight is within the range that still makes photography enjoyable.

For me, the question is whether I should abandon Sony completely for the SL system. Or whether I should simply use an SL with one, two, or three lenses. I have a few (very?) good lenses for Sony, including the 50mm GM 1.2. The starting point is that the Sony always delivers when I use it, but the system doesn't bring me joy in photography. I don't know why. I came from Pentax, where the process of taking photos was fun. With the Q3 43, I enjoy taking photos again. It probably starts with the fact that I enjoy holding the camera; it's simply wonderful to the touch. Maybe I'll feel the same way with an SL. It would, of course, be good if the glass, i.e., the lenses, were even better than Sony's. Then it would have paid off.

[Benoo]

I also have a full Sony kit, the 50mm 1.2 is a very good lens and would be hard to beat by most standards, I agree though using the Sony is not fun but it gets the job done, if I miss a photo with the Sony it’s 100% on me.

i really like the SL I like the fact the viewfinder is in the centre and it’s nice to hold, having played with M lenses I can see why people using a full M setup might find the SL not as rewarding, I have now picked up the 50mm APO M lens and am having a blast with it, so easy to use on the SL.

 

good luck with whatever you decide.

[hansvons]

4 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I'm with @Stuart Richardson - the SL system is not about fun, but about getting the results. The Q system is definitely about fun.

Spot on. I don’t have a Q but two film Ms and working with them is pure joy and highly motivational.

I was in the market for a hybrid mirroless when the SL2-S came out and bought it. I‘ts a specifically good camera at colour (skin tones, foliage, sky, and reds), sensitivity, and juice in the shadows. It‘s also very sturdy, heavy, and ergonomically well-designed for medium to larger hands. And it‘s water resistant, so is the 25-90. Lastly, the UI is best in class. Same can bed said about the EVF (still not a sexy experience).

I sold the 24-90 because a) I didn’t need a zoom anymore, b) it renders in the 35mm - 50mm range faces too dimensionally, and c) I prefer a 35mm lens over any other focal length and bough subsequently the 35mm APO, which is in a very different league.

The APO primes are the big differentiator of the SL system.

5 hours ago, thelivingyears said:

For me, the question is whether I should abandon Sony completely for the SL system. Or whether I should simply use an SL with one, two, or three lenses.

Because I love clean shelves: yes. Or refrain from buying into the SL system. Objectively, there‘s nothing the SL can do better than the Sony. But the Sony is technically more advanced, most notably the AF.

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Objectively, there‘s nothing the SL can do better than the Sony. But the Sony is technically more advanced, most notably the AF.

Depends on the Sony, but I doubt any match the SL’s IP 54 rating for weather sealing, particularly when paired with certain lenses. And, if menus and controls count towards “doing better,” well again, the SL generally does better.

[hansvons]

42 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Depends on the Sony, but I doubt any match the SL’s IP 54 rating for weather sealing, particularly when paired with certain lenses. And, if menus and controls count towards “doing better,” well again, the SL generally does better.

Agreed. But for most users, these are relatively soft “disadvantages“. But AF, price, and many other Sony virtues are appealing to the market. Otherwise, Leica wouldn't be serving such a small niche.
 

I’m in the Leica camp for the colour rendition and the lenses. This is highly subjective. And in the lens camp, Leica lost the IQ leadership decades ago. This is arguably different when looking at what the APO SL primes can do. But they are far more expensive than the competition and, again, by the numbers inferior, eg f/2 instead of f/1.2 etc. I couldn’t care less as I’m only driven by my eyes, but the vast majority in the market has a different opinion.  

[Jeff S]

20 minutes ago, hansvons said:

Agreed. But for most users, these are relatively soft “disadvantages“. But AF, price, and many other Sony virtues are appealing to the market. Otherwise, Leica wouldn't be serving such a small niche.
 

I’m in the Leica camp for the colour rendition and the lenses. This is highly subjective. And in the lens camp, Leica lost the IQ leadership decades ago. This is arguably different when looking at what the APO SL primes can do. But they are far more expensive than the competition and, again, by the numbers inferior, eg f/2 instead of f/1.2 etc. I couldn’t care less as I’m only driven by my eyes, but the vast majority in the market has a different opinion.  

Largely a pricing issue; different market positioning and business models. Complaints about Sony menus and controls are ubiquitous, even among loyal customers.  Leica’s simplicity and minimalism is more than a “soft advantage” for its fans.  

For me, the SL 24-90 is as much a differentiator from competition as the prime APOs, both in focal range and build/optical quality.  I sold my other SL lenses.  Nobody cites a deficiency in my print results.

And while not frequently discussed, Leica has tended to be a leader in viewfinder excellence with most every system (possibly excluding Q… I don’t own), as evidenced by the first SL, the beautiful S OVF, and of course the M’s window to the world. How I see the subject is critical for me.  A “hard” advantage for me. But to each his/her own.

[thelivingyears]

Your valuable input has made me reconsider. Actually, I should have gone for an SL3-S. But then it should be fine, as the price is quite high (for me).

The SL2-S is available in Germany at a reasonable price right now. Perhaps it would be worth considering buying that camera and starting with an M lens. So, a very good portrait lens, for example, that can conjure up that analog charm. Not a modern one.

I have to say that I recently bought the Loxia 21, 50, and 85 for my Sony. I'm hoping to shoot more manually, because I believe the slower pace benefits the results. It's fun, but not so much that I'd continue doing it at the moment. Maybe my A7 III just isn't the first choice for it (viewfinder resolution, etc.).
A second alternative would be to buy the SL 75 F2.0 Apo. So, as a portrait lens. Unfortunately, the SL2-S has worse AF, and combined with the SL3-S, it's suddenly too expensive for me. Also: Is the SL75 2.0 really a portrait lens? If you look through the Flickr photo galleries, you often see portraits, but it doesn't seem to be used as a classic portrait lens.
By the way, my favorite portrait lens so far has been the Pentax FA77 1.8 Limited.
Hmm, if I were to go that route, the SL would initially complement the Q3 43, with a fixed focal length, for example (M or SL), and be intended for further enjoyment. Although I have to say, I held the SL2 a while ago, and the grip (and size) didn't exactly appeal to me. That's supposed to be better with the SL3(-S).

[thelivingyears]

After a few rounds, I'm back with the 24-90mm. I'm very impressed with the image quality of my Q3 43mm and hope the SL3 can achieve similar results with the 24-90mm. What do you think?
Yes, the 24-90 isn't an APO lens. So I don't know how much that matters, or how much the 24-90mm drops in quality. Especially since it's obviously not a prime lens.
But I thought it could be a nice (for now) one-lens solution for an SL camera. And the 43mm 2.0 Q3 would probably work well as a combination, meaning they could probably complement each other well. Maybe I would need a portrait lens in addition.

Of course, it will be (very) heavy and large. And I mostly take photos when I travel, otherwise I like to take portraits in private.
But I still have my Sony, and the A7III probably doesn't bring in much money anymore, so selling it isn't worth it. I have some good lenses for that (4 Batis lenses, the GM 50 f/1.2, the Simga 105 f/1.4, the Tamron 35-150 f/2.0-2.8, 3 Loxias, etc.). If the Leica were to hold its own/prove itself, I could sell it specifically.
Well, I'm still hesitating, because unfortunately, trying out Leica for a while isn't cheap.

[thelivingyears]

Ah, one additional question. There's no version 2 on the horizon? 

 

And: Does it perform equally well on a SL3 and SL3-S? Or do they differ in terms of autofocus performance/capabilities?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[LocalHero1953]

I think you're at the stage where you have all the relevant information and only you can decide, since only you know how you use your equipment, for your personal photography.

[thelivingyears]

vor 50 Minuten schrieb LocalHero1953:

I think you're at the stage where you have all the relevant information and only you can decide, since only you know how you use your equipment, for your personal photography.

Thank you for your response. In this case, I'm afraid I have to disagree. I can't answer the questions I have just asked myself. And it would be good to know the answers before buying. Of course, it's possible that no one here can answer them either, if no one knows more or hasn't had any relevant experience. In that case, I'll have to rely on the statements of the salesperson in the store which is what I will do then of course. 

Edited June 27 by thelivingyears