Which mid-range zoom would you recommend ?

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Weight vs sharpness are playing out for me. The lens will be used with a SL3.

I want a zoom for minority use when I need to have a zoom in good light. Most of the time I use primes.

I prefer a constant f as these tend to be better quality, but could be convinced otherwise. I would like f2.8.

I acknowledge the trade off in zooms.

Basically it seems to be:

1. Leica 24-90mm. Very sharp. A bit on the heavy and large size for what I am looking for.

2. Sigma 24-70mm ii - Very sharp but on the larger and heavier size

3. Panasonic 24-60mm f2.8. Reasonably sharp from f4. Seems like the weight and size are a good compromise

4. Sigma 28-70mm f2.8. Not as sharp as the panasonic but pretty good. Size and weight are the best

I am tending towards the panasonic, but tell me if I have missed a trick (which I always do)

[Advertisement]

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

[Ivar B]

Good question. I own the 24-90. A superb lens, but large and heavy.

I needed a compact supplement and ended up with the Sigma 2.8/24-70. Very compact and light weight, in particular if the 24-90 is the point of reference.

I have not used it much but I did some test shots, and it appears to very sharp at all focal lengths from f/5.6 and not bad wide open. 

[la1402]

Sigma 24-70 II.. Not too big and not heavy at all. The 28-70 may be ok but I would miss 24mm and and 70mm with the pana.

Edited 11 hours ago by la1402

[jaapv]

Completely content with the Sigma 28-70. Maybe not APO, but far better than anything on the market 10-15 years ago. And we were happy back then. These are travel and reportage lenses - there is no call for that ultimate 1% There are primes for that. 

[Ivar B]

53 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Completely content with the Sigma 28-70. Maybe not APO, but far better than anything on the market 10-15 years ago. And we were happy back then. These are travel and reportage lenses - there is no call for that ultimate 1% There are primes for that. 

Interesting point. I have also had the impression that lens optical quality certainly has improved over time. I guess that past designs did not need the ultimate performance as the recording medium (film) would not be able to make full use of it any way, but this is different now of course. The APO lenses for the SL system are I believe designed to handle 100 MP. 

[LocalHero1953]

@jonoslack has just published his review of the Leica version of the Sigma 28-70.

He's impressed (and he bought it himself - he wasn't a beta tester).

[colonel]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Ivar B said:

Interesting point. I have also had the impression that lens optical quality certainly has improved over time. I guess that past designs did not need the ultimate performance as the recording medium (film) would not be able to make full use of it any way, but this is different now of course. The APO lenses for the SL system are I believe designed to handle 100 MP. 

Zooms today from the major manufacturers are far better then they have ever been. However compared to the latest prime lenses they still have much more distortion (even though corrected in editing tools) and are less sharp. Perhaps there is not as much difference in micro contrast any more due to coatings and aspherical and ED elements.

The question is how much sharp do you need. If you are pixel peeping for critical sharpness then there are only a few zoom lenses, at certain f stops and focals lengths that can compete at 24mp, slightly less at 60mp. But how much does that matter for web or A0 blow ups. Probably nothing. However this is all about weight and size. My favourite zoom lens for the L series at the moment is undoubtedly the Sigma 28-45 f1.8. It is critically sharp and covers the FL range I use the most. However it is just too weighty. So at the moment I need to compromise to use a zoom, or just not use one at all

Edited 9 hours ago by colonel

[Ivar B]

42 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

@jonoslack has just published his review of the Leica version of the Sigma 28-70.

He's impressed (and he bought it himself - he wasn't a beta tester).

I read the review - interesting. Finally one who dares to say that Sigma is involved and identical optical layout. 

[LocalHero1953]

1 hour ago, Ivar B said:

I read the review - interesting. Finally one who dares to say that Sigma is involved and identical optical layout. 

dare? I thought both were well known.

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, Ivar B said:

I read the review - interesting. Finally one who dares to say that Sigma is involved and identical optical layout. 

The 24-70 has a different optical layout, but the 28-70 does not. There isn't anything daring about stating this, you can see it in the brochures that are freely downloadable on Sigma's site and on Leica's site. 

[Jeff S]

The 24-90 is my workhorse; don’t miss equivalent prime focal lengths.  But I did recently buy the Leica 28-70 f/2.8 for a compact alternative. I prefer the Leica design minimalism, and better weather sealing than Sigma equivalent.

 

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, Ivar B said:

I read the review - interesting. Finally one who dares to say that Sigma is involved and identical optical layout. 

They even share a thread on this forum.

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

The 24-90 is my workhorse; don’t miss equivalent prime focal lengths.  But I did recently buy the Leica 28-70 f/2.8 for a compact alternative. I prefer the Leica design minimalism, and better weather sealing than Sigma equivalent.

 

Weather sealing is indeed a valid argument. However, in practice even limited weather sealing like the Sigma suffices with a bit of care and no weather sealing is perfect anyway. Leica invalidates the guarantee for moisture damage like any brand.

[Jeff S]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Weather sealing is indeed a valid argument. However, in practice even limited weather sealing like the Sigma suffices with a bit of care and no weather sealing is perfect anyway. Leica invalidates the guarantee for moisture damage too. 

I anticipated your comment…again.  Choices are good…may we both be happy.  

Btw, my insurance covers all loss at full replacement value, so that’s not a concern.  I’d be more interested in having a fully functioning camera, rather than suffering the 2 Sigma failures the guy suffered in NY rain, unlike the Leica counterpart. 

[colonel]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

The 24-70 has a different optical layout, but the 28-70 does not. There isn't anything daring about stating this, you can see it in the brochures that are freely downloadable on Sigma's site and on Leica's site. 

Do you have any links on this ? I thought the Leica 24-70 f2.8 was the same as the sigma 24-70 f2.8 v1

[jaapv]

 

28 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

I anticipated your comment…again.  Choices are good…may we both be happy.  

Btw, my insurance covers all loss at full replacement value, so that’s not a concern.  I’d be more interested in having a fully functioning camera, rather than suffering the 2 Sigma failures the guy suffered in NY rain, unlike the Leica counterpart. 

Disclosure - in torrential rain I replace my Sigma 28-70 by my  SL Summicron 50, purchased specifically for the purpose 😘

[Chosemerveilleux]

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

Completely content with the Sigma 28-70. Maybe not APO, but far better than anything on the market 10-15 years ago. And we were happy back then. These are travel and reportage lenses - there is no call for that ultimate 1% There are primes for that. 

This seems to be what Johnathan Slack concludes with his recent review of the Leica 28-70 f2.8 ASPH. (https://www.slack.co.uk/articles/the-leica-28-70-vario-elmarit-asph.html)

I've greatly enjoy the image quality I get with this lens, and its at a level that doesn't have me thinking "I wish I brought a bag of primes with me instead".  More importantly, my clients and people who are looking at (and sometimes purchasing) my recent printed work aren't saying " I see that you used a zoom-this would look more "X" with a prime."