New 45mm S vs 30-90 zoom? Any thoughts?

[peterv]

Hi Robert,

could you please elaborate a bit on the 24? It's the lens (focal length) I'd love to buy next, but strangely, the examples I've seen thus far floating around on the net, I've not been too impressed with. Maybe it's the web, maybe it's the relatively short DOF of the S system, but I haven't seen any really crisp 24 mm images yet ...

 

[RVB]

Hi Robert,

could you please elaborate a bit on the 24? It's the lens (focal length) I'd love to buy next, but strangely, the examples I've seen thus far floating around on the net, I've not been too impressed with. Maybe it's the web, maybe it's the relatively short DOF of the S system, but I haven't seen any really crisp 24 mm images yet ...

Peter,I sent you a link to a file via personal message..

Rob

 

[peterv]

Thanks! That's a spatious living room
I've looked at the DNG in LR5 and detail and corner sharpness is amazing. I could easily remove the moire in the couch, the total image looks great. This is what I was hoping to see from the 24 mm.

I looked at these images at LUF and wasn't so sure, but I downloaded some from flickr and they look fine to me as far as the lens is concerned.

Leica Super Elmar - S 24mm f3.5 - Leica User Forum

Stuart, the 45 mm seems to be quite good, looking at the MTF, but I'd rather go for the zoom. I think the FOV of the 24 mm would be a good addition to a 30-90. If one is going to stop down a bit, I have a feeling the IQ of the zoom is - almost - inextinguishable from the primes in that range.

 

[RVB]

Thanks! That's a spatious living room
I've looked at the DNG in LR5 and detail and corner sharpness is amazing. I could easily remove the moire in the couch, the total image looks great. This is what I was hoping to see from the 24 mm.

I looked at these images at LUF and wasn't so sure, but I downloaded some from flickr and they look fine to me as far as the lens is concerned.

Leica Super Elmar - S 24mm f3.5 - Leica User Forum

Stuart, the 45 mm seems to be quite good, looking at the MTF, but I'd rather go for the zoom. I think the FOV of the 24 mm would be a good addition to a 30-90. If one is going to stop down a bit, I have a feeling the IQ of the zoom is - almost - inextinguishable from the primes in that range.

I looked at those images on LUF,I like the images themselves but it's difficult to tell if they're correctly focused,My own experience with he S24 is that you must be very careful to get critically sharp focus,when you do it's razor sharp... as you can see it easily oversampled the S sensor..

 

[GMB]

I think the 30-90 is fantastic. It gives me all the image quality I need, and it is super versatile. For me, the difference between 30 and 35 was also important because I found the 35 sometimes not wide enough.

I already posted is somewhere: A few months ago at the Leica shop in Brussels, I met the S2 product specialist for Belgium and France. He showed me prints made by a German professional who shot the zoom against the 30, 35, 70, and 120 in a studio set up (tripod and the whole shebang). At least for the center, it was impossible to detect a difference (if anything, the zoom had more micro contrast). These were full shot prints of a rear side of a Porsche 911 and 30x40 cm prints of half the number plate. Now, the primes may have the edge in the corner wide open. BUT: how much difference does that make in practice? When is you corner in the plane of focus when you shoot these lenses wide open? Not so often, I would guess. In any event, for me its a dawn good lens and I never regretted having put the money on the table.

Since buying it in spring, I have not used the 35 once. In fact, this year almost 75% of my shots with the S2 were made with the zoom (in 2012, about 25% of shots were made with the 35). I still sometimes use the 70 because it is so small and fast (and soooooo good). So I do not see any need for the 45 for me.

Now, if I only could get the 24 !

Great weekend to you all.

 

[RVB]

I think the 30-90 is fantastic. It gives me all the image quality I need, and it is super versatile. For me, the difference between 30 and 35 was also important because I found the 35 sometimes not wide enough.

I already posted is somewhere: A few months ago at the Leica shop in Brussels, I met the S2 product specialist for Belgium and France. He showed me prints made by a German professional who shot the zoom against the 30, 35, 70, and 120 in a studio set up (tripod and the whole shebang). At least for the center, it was impossible to detect a difference (if anything, the zoom had more micro contrast). These were full shot prints of a rear side of a Porsche 911 and 30x40 cm prints of half the number plate. Now, the primes may have the edge in the corner wide open. BUT: how much difference does that make in practice? When is you corner in the plane of focus when you shoot these lenses wide open? Not so often, I would guess. In any event, for me its a dawn good lens and I never regretted having put the money on the table.

Since buying it in spring, I have not used the 35 once. In fact, this year almost 75% of my shots with the S2 were made with the zoom (in 2012, about 25% of shots were made with the 35). I still sometimes use the 70 because it is so small and fast (and soooooo good). So I do not see any need for the 45 for me.

Now, if I only could get the 24 !

Great weekend to you all.

I am contemplating a 30-90mm,I just ordered the 45 though,for me the primes are my first choice because of speed and leaf shutters but the Zoom is fantastic,and if your on the move or in dusty environments then it's hard to beat..

Rob

 

[vintola]

I think the 30-90 is fantastic. It gives me all the image quality I need, and it is super versatile. For me, the difference between 30 and 35 was also important because I found the 35 sometimes not wide enough.

I already posted is somewhere: A few months ago at the Leica shop in Brussels, I met the S2 product specialist for Belgium and France. He showed me prints made by a German professional who shot the zoom against the 30, 35, 70, and 120 in a studio set up (tripod and the whole shebang). At least for the center, it was impossible to detect a difference (if anything, the zoom had more micro contrast). These were full shot prints of a rear side of a Porsche 911 and 30x40 cm prints of half the number plate. Now, the primes may have the edge in the corner wide open. BUT: how much difference does that make in practice? When is you corner in the plane of focus when you shoot these lenses wide open? Not so often, I would guess. In any event, for me its a dawn good lens and I never regretted having put the money on the table.

Since buying it in spring, I have not used the 35 once. In fact, this year almost 75% of my shots with the S2 were made with the zoom (in 2012, about 25% of shots were made with the 35). I still sometimes use the 70 because it is so small and fast (and soooooo good). So I do not see any need for the 45 for me.

Now, if I only could get the 24 !

Great weekend to you all.

Nice to hear the positive experiences. I have ordered the zoom in the end of June and looking forward getting it this month. In the meantime I have photographed with a 70 mm, which I got on loan from the vendor.
- vintola -

 

[Stuart Richardson]

Thanks Georg! I have been trying to find as many samples and comments as I can, and I have yet to find anything other than overwhelmingly positive. My dealer is offering me a pretty good price on it, so I believe I will just go ahead and purchase it. It will fill more gaps for me than the 45mm would alone, and in my past experience with the 28-90 on the DMR, I found that I really enjoyed using the zoom and found the quality left nothing to be desired.

On that camera, I used the 28-90 and 100mm APO more than any other lenses, occasionally using the 50mm f/1.4. So in this context, I think I would use the 30-90 as the primary lens in conjunction with the 120mm, and the 70/2.5 for when I need a compact, faster normal. Given how good the 28-90 was, I am sure the 30-90 will be equally satisfying to me. In fact, looking at the old datasheet and mtf for the 28-90, the new S zoom is very significantly improved in performance -- even wide open the 40lpm graph begins about 70% contrast in the center, while on the 28-90 only manages in the 50% range. It seems to be better to a greater or lesser degree over all ranges and focal lengths. Seeing as this has to cover a much larger image circle, includes AF and weather sealing, it is an impressive achievement that it has been improved so much!

 

[stephan_w]

Hello

I'm jumping to this thread as I'm considering to buy the zoom, especially for traveling and outdoor fashion shootings.

May I ask to post some portraits etc that may allow to judge the bokeh? I know that it is a slow lens but maybe it shows some nice bokeh anyway?

btw. I second the opinion that a Summicron portrait lens would be great. I actually have the 120 but prefer to work with the Hasselblad HC 100 for portraits to avoid the focus hunting

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I have only had the lens a little while, and I have not shot any portraits with it yet, but in my limited experience, it has quite decent bokeh. The 28-90mm zoom for the R had great bokeh, so I am not too surprised. That said, I think the 120 or 180mm would be better for portraits....the 120 in particular (to my mind, anyway). When are you experiencing focus hunting? I would suggest switching to manual focus and setting the AF/AE lock button on the back to focus and using that. Once you get used to operating that way, it tends to work much better, as the lens does not go off hunting for focus when you don't want it too.

 

[fotografz]

Hello

I'm jumping to this thread as I'm considering to buy the zoom, especially for traveling and outdoor fashion shootings.

May I ask to post some portraits etc that may allow to judge the bokeh? I know that it is a slow lens but maybe it shows some nice bokeh anyway?

btw. I second the opinion that a Summicron portrait lens would be great. I actually have the 120 but prefer to work with the Hasselblad HC 100 for portraits to avoid the focus hunting

Hi Stephan.

I think it all depends on whether you do outdoor fashion using lighting. I passed on the Leica Zoom because it is not available as a CS Leaf shutter version. Every lens I have for the S system is a CS version.

Like you, I tend to use the Hasselblad HC100/2.2 for a lot of portrait work … and it can be used in the CS mode for fast sync speeds up to 1/750 outdoors with lighting.

Previously, I had the Hasselblad HCD35-90/4.5 zoom, and at 90mm to get the nice subject separation from the background that is available with the HC100/2.2 or S120/2.5 was not possible unless very close to the subject, and the background was more distant.

The S120 hunts and is slow focusing due to the longer focus throw of a macro for more critical refined close focusing ability … even with camera set to Manual focus and using the rear thumb button for AF, it is still slow and hunts. Fortunately, the S viewfinder is so bright/crisp that manual focusing isn't all bad.

A new Leica S100/2 would be the only thing to dislodge me from the AF HC-100/2.2 right now for portraits. That, or being stopped by my family bank manager (AKA: Wife) …

- Marc

 

[satybhat]

Bumping this thread: could someone please post some pics with the 30-90 zoom ? or insert links ?
thanks

 

[erlingmm]

I have the zoom, and sold my 30 and 70 for it. You lose a little in aperture, but gain a lot in versatility, it makes the S a walk-around although a bit heavy - I used it for a week in the streets of Havana, perfectly workable in daylight.
I cannot speak for the 45, but the new 100 is small and light, almost as the 70mm, a great portrait lens, but also a good walk-around. I would love to have a small "pancake" 45'ish as a walk-around, f/4 would be ok.

 

[Paratom]

My standard combo when going out with the S is very often 45 (sometimes 35 or 30mm)+100mm these days, sometimes even just the 45mm - one can do a lot with just this lens, specially when you have 36MP of good pixels and can crop a bit when needed.
I have been tempted by the zoom several times, but I use wider f-stops quite often.
If I was shooting mainly landscapes I might favor the Zoom, but I do a lot of images of my kids and sometimes inside so I favor the primes.
The bad thing: I need to sell 1 of my wides and cant make up my mind if I should keep 30mm or 35mm.
I also wish for a smaller 45mm prime, maybe f3.5 and no Shuuter included, but smaal and light.

 

[Rolo]

My standard combo when going out with the S is very often 45 (sometimes 35 or 30mm)+100mm these days, sometimes even just the 45mm -
The bad thing: I need to sell 1 of my wides and cant make up my mind if I should keep 30mm or 35mm.
I also wish for a smaller 45mm prime, maybe f3.5 and no Shuuter included, but smaal and light.

what is stopping you from doing what seems to be the obvious and selling off the 35mm ? 45/30mm combination seems logical to me.

I'm stewing over 100/35/24mm whereas I currently own 70/35mm & 5 Hasselblad lenses. Think I swing between the extremes more. That showed on Lightroom analysis when I had Canon zooms.

Gary

 

[fotografz]

This is an OVF, so faster maximum apertures equals a brighter viewfinder.

- Marc

 

[Paratom]

what is stopping you from doing what seems to be the obvious and selling off the 35mm ? 45/30mm combination seems logical to me.

I'm stewing over 100/35/24mm whereas I currently own 70/35mm & 5 Hasselblad lenses. Think I swing between the extremes more. That showed on Lightroom analysis when I had Canon zooms.

Gary

The thing is that sometimes, when it is a little tighter inside or expect to wish a little more wide than 45 I leave 45 at home and bring 35. 35 is still fine for environmental portraits, while I consider the 30 more difficult here. I would use the 30 more for landscape.
Also the 35 is f2.5 and its the lightest of the bunch (30/35/45).
But you are probably right.
I also own the 24mm. The problem (if it is a problem) is for me that I dont want to carry too many lenses at the same time and therefore the extrem ones (24 and 180) often stay at home.
I first had 35 and 70 and that combo worked quite well too, I do however elove the 45 and 100.

 

[Rolo]

The thing is that sometimes, when it is a little tighter inside or expect to wish a little more wide than 45 I leave 45 at home and bring 35. 35 is still fine for environmental portraits, while I consider the 30 more difficult here. I would use the 30 more for landscape.
Also the 35 is f2.5 and its the lightest of the bunch (30/35/45).
But you are probably right.
I also own the 24mm. The problem (if it is a problem) is for me that I dont want to carry too many lenses at the same time and therefore the extrem ones (24 and 180) often stay at home.
I first had 35 and 70 and that combo worked quite well too, I do however elove the 45 and 100.

It's a Full House then.

Maybe an assistant is what you need ? :talk028:

 

[aDam007]

If I had two S-bodies I'd go for the 45/100 combo as that's how I generally shoot weddings with my M system or other systems.

I think that with one body, I'd limit myself to key FLs to keep things simple.. Something like 35/70/120 as they're evenly spaced out and 35 (28) is as wide as I'd go and 120 (96) is as long as I'd go, the more extreme wides and the longest tele aren't FLs I'd switch to if I already had another lens mounted. However, for the way I shoot, and the subjects I shoot, the FLs I mentioned make sense. But that doesn't apply to everyone.

I'm really still tempted by the idea of two S-bodies and the 45/100 combo. I want to see how the S-007 is before I jump into the S-system full speed.

 

[Paratom]

If I had two S-bodies I'd go for the 45/100 combo as that's how I generally shoot weddings with my M system or other systems.

I think that with one body, I'd limit myself to key FLs to keep things simple.. Something like 35/70/120 as they're evenly spaced out and 35 (28) is as wide as I'd go and 120 (96) is as long as I'd go, the more extreme wides and the longest tele aren't FLs I'd switch to if I already had another lens mounted. However, for the way I shoot, and the subjects I shoot, the FLs I mentioned make sense. But that doesn't apply to everyone.

I'm really still tempted by the idea of two S-bodies and the 45/100 combo. I want to see how the S-007 is before I jump into the S-system full speed.

Why would you choose focal length combo depending on one or two bodies?
I don't think I would like to carry 2 S-bodies. In this case I really would need an assistant