Review: Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-70 mm f/2.8 ASPH for L-Mount

Introduction

Here it is. Leica has just announced the new Vario-Elmarit SL 24-70 f/2.8 ASPH for L-Mount cameras. It’s smaller and 300g lighter than the 24-90, has a constant f/2.8 aperture and is only a little bit more than half the price of its bigger sibling. It’s even cheaper if you buy it as a kit with the SL2 or SL2S.

Conventional wisdom would have made such a lens both bigger and more expensive than the 24-90, so what’s the story? A careful examination of the lens body gives a clue: “Made in Japan” (all the other SL lenses are “Made in Germany”).

Leica has had successful collaborations for many of its products over the years, more recently with the D-Lux and V-Lux cameras. Lens collaborations with Konica, Minolta, Kyocera, Zeiss, Schneider and Sigma have all resulted in fine lenses, sometimes at more ‘sensible’ prices than Leica originals.

In this article, I’m going to look at the new lens with relation to the existing 24-90 zoom in the hope that it will help photographers make a reasoned decision about which they should buy or whether they might need both.

Design

The new lens has an all-metal construction and looks exactly like the other member of the Leica SL zoom range. It has an 82 mm front element (as do all the other zooms). It is weather-sealed and has a beautiful metal petal-shaped lens hood (slightly ironic that the other Leica zooms have plastic lens hoods!). The lens hood actually works well on the 24-90 without causing vignetting. The lens is manufactured in accordance with Leica tolerances and QA requirements.

It also focuses extremely close and, as is often the case, it focuses closer at wide-angle. More unusually, the reproduction ratio is greater at the wide-angle end: 1:2.9 at 24 mm and 1:4.5 at 70mm. In contrast, the 24-90 is 1:7.2 at 24 mm and 1:3.8 at 90 mm.

The Leica Vario-Elmarit does not have buttons for AF/MF focus lock and zoom lock. However, the manual focus override works really well on the SL cameras and, in my view, makes the buttons redundant; by touching the manual focus ring, you can invoke manual focus or focus lock at any time. I guess it might be more of an omission if the lens is used on another brand of L-Mount camera.

The lens does not have Image Stabilisation — which might be a disappointment using it on the SL, but as the newer models have IBIS, it doesn’t feel like a problem. It would inevitably have been larger and heavier if it did have stabilisation. Another slight irritation is that the zoom ring works the other way round compared to the rest of the Leica zoom lenses.

Constant aperture vs variable aperture

A constant-aperture zoom lens is one (like this Leica 24-70 f/2.8) where the aperture does not change as you increase the focal length. A variable-aperture zoom is one where it does change (like the Leica 24-90 f/2.8-f/4).

Traditionally, variable-aperture zoom lenses were cheaper and smaller than constant-aperture lenses. However, Peter Karbe once explained to me that in designing a zoom lens, you either have a variable aperture, or you are forced to ‘throw away’ the opportunity of a larger aperture at the wider end. He felt this was a waste, and I’m inclined to agree. Certainly, there is nothing ‘cheap’ (or small) about the design of the 24-90. Leica made the best lens they possibly could but decided not to make it a constant f/4 which, of course, it could have been.

There are various reasons why constant aperture lenses are considered to be advantageous; some reasons are better than others!

There is definitely a snobbery among photographers, probably fuelled by the fact that the most expensive zoom lens from any manufacturer is usually of constant aperture.

For video, you certainly don’t want the exposure to change when you zoom in or out. So this lens will be a welcome addition for video photographers who would have had to limit themselves to an aperture of f/4 or smaller when shooting with the 24-90.

Stills photographers, many of whom shoot with manual settings, would also say that they need a constant aperture. Yet it seems to me that this is a problem from the days of film, where the ISO value was fixed (and the low light performance pretty poor).

These days, if you want to shoot with manual exposure in low light — for example, at a concert when you want to set the slowest sensible shutter speed and a suitable aperture, then you can use the Auto ISO feature to ensure the correct exposure. And, unlike with video, it doesn’t matter if this changes when you zoom in and out (and, of course, it will be advantageous to have the widest aperture possible available).

Image quality

The image quality with the 24-70 Vario-Elmarit is quite excellent. The lens is sharp at all apertures and focal lengths. Like all zooms, there is a little fall-off towards the corners, but it’s never serious. With the lens so good wide open, there isn’t a great deal of benefit to be had by stopping down. Like many mid-range zooms, sharpness drops a little at the telephoto end.

I’ve made detailed comparisons between the new 24-70 and the older 24-90.  I shot a series of images at 24, 35, 50, 70 mm and f/2.8 (or the largest aperture available in the case of the 24-90), f5.6 and f8. One setup was a brick wall at about 3 metres, and the other a poplar tree at about 40 metres.

• 

• 

1. Chromatic Aberration

Both lenses are admirable in this context — even tree branches against a grey background seem to be okay. I think it’s a draw.

2. Colour

Shooting daylight white balance (in the daylight) I think that the 24-70 has a very slight yellowness compared to the excellent colour on the 24-90. Nothing in it again.

3. Flare

I spend a lot of time shooting into the sun, and both of these lenses perform admirably in very difficult lighting.

4. Bokeh

It’s very difficult to make any real judgements here, but my instinct is that the bokeh on the 24-90 is a little more ‘nervous’ than on the 24-70.

5. Resolution / Sharpness

I was really expecting the 24-90 to be sharper right down the line, but it was very nuanced and the difference quite small (as you might expect by looking at their respective MTF charts). Both lenses performed extremely well at all focal lengths.

I’ve concluded that the 24-90 is slightly better, especially at longer focal lengths, but it’s a very close call: At 24 mm, the 24-70 is sharper at the corners and the 24-90 sharper at the centre. By 35 mm, the 24-90 is slightly sharper at the corners, and it’s a dead heat at centre. By 50 mm, the 24-90 is a little better, and by 70 mm, it is noticeably better if you really look. The 24-90 is still excellent at 90 mm at all apertures.

It should be emphasised that both lenses are extremely good at all focal lengths and apertures, and I think it’s vanishingly unlikely that these small differences would make the difference between a good shot and a failure.

Which should I buy?

The big question! In terms of image quality, the difference is small enough not to matter. But I suppose that shooting landscape, I would probably prefer to use the 24-90, partly because of the longer range and partly because of the sharper corners.

If you are contemplating buying into the Leica SL system, then I really think that the new kits with either the SL2 or SL2-S are a no-brainer. If you plan to shoot a lot of video, especially in low light, then the 24-70 with its constant aperture is definitely attractive.

For event shooting, weddings and concerts, I think I’d still use the 24-90 for its longer range, but there is a real argument for using the new, lighter lens if you are going to have to carry it about all day!.

Conclusion

The new lens certainly feels and operates just like any of the other SL lenses, the only real distinction being the “Made in Japan” engraving on the body. Most SL users would prefer to have a Leica lens, and if Leica can achieve it this way, I hope that they do more collaborations in the future. The L-Mount is really gathering momentum, but there are many users who would like Leica telephotos and extreme wide-angle, and this is a great way to achieve it.

This is a fine lens and a welcome addition to the stable of SL zoom lenses. The image quality is really good; it has lovely bokeh and is great for close up. The build quality is just what one expects from Leica, and the lens handles very nicely on any of the SL cameras. The lens is compact and relatively lightweight, and very well priced. It is also a welcome constant aperture lens for videographers. What’s not to like?

Read more reviews and features by Jonathan Slack

Visit Jonathan’s website

More images here

Acknowledgements

First of all to Emma, my partner in crime on the trips in the van to Cornwall, Lyme Regis and Shingle Street where most of these pictures were taken.

Special thanks to Stefan Daniel at Leica, always a delight to talk to, and also Steffen Rau who has been very patient with my many questions.

Thanks also to Roderick Field for many fun messenger conversations and his spiky good sense (and wonderful photographs and articles).

Finally thanks to Bill Rosauer, editor of the LHSA magazine and Kirsten Vignes of Leica Store Miami who between them do such a grand job with the excellent Viewfinder Magazine.

• 

• 

---

---

Want to contribute an article to Macfilos? It’s easy. Just click the “Write for Us” button. We’ll help with the writing and guide you through the process.

---