Would you pay $5,600 for a zoom lens? And a variable aperture one at that? It sounds crazy, but with the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH., you get that beloved Leica look with the convenience of a zoom lens. How good is this premium offering? This great video review takes a look at what you can expect.
Coming to you from Benj Haisch, this interesting video review takes a look at the Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90mm f/2.8-4 ASPH. lens. As part of its premium price, the 24-90mm f/2.8-4 comes with a variety of useful features, including:
- Four aspherical elements and 11 anomalous partial dispersion glass elements for reduced chromatic aberrations and increased sharpness
- Multiple-axis optical image stabilization system with up to 3.5 stops of compensation
- Single element movement for faster focusing speeds
- Minimum focusing distance of 11.8 inches at 24mm and 17.7 inches at 90mm
- Stepping motor for fast and quiet autofocus
- Water-repellent AquaDura coating
- Weather-sealed design for working in inclement conditions
- Internal focusing design to prevent front rotation
While the 24-90mm f/2.8-4 is certainly pricey, it turns in some impressively sharp and contrasty results, typical of a Leica lens. Check out the video above for Haisch's full thoughts.
No i would not.... don't plan on buying a Leica either.
Especially a lens that isn't in the triple digits at its longest zoom.
I paid nearly that for one of my zoom lenses, shelling out $5,550 for a used copy of the Sigma 300-800mm back in 2014. New they went for $8,000.
At least a half dozen of my friends have paid over $10,000 for a zoom lens - the Canon 200-400mm f4 with the built-in 1.4 extender. It still retails for well over $10K new.
Hard to understand why the video and article make it seem like $5600 for a zoom lens is so unusual, as many professional wildlife photographers have paid this much or more for their telephoto zooms.
Right.
I was answering the title the way it was asked. If the title had been,
"Would You Pay $5,600 for this Zoom Lens?", then I would have answered accordingly.
Borrowing a phrase from Harley Davidson: '$5600 is for the Leica look, the other functions and features are for free'
No. I'd buy an A1 or Z9 with that money.
Those would project pretty boring images onto the sensor of the Leica camera you could attach the lens on.
(Jokes aside, I'd buy airplane ticket and rent a car for that money, so I could take pictures.)
Yep. That was my first thought. I'd have gotten the A1 with that money.
Overpriced lens, but from the physical look, it looks like if a cheap Shenzhen market lens maker wanted to make a lens look slightly premium but failed.
Anyway, for that price, the lens better not have any CA or LoCA, and have the the corner sharpness matching the center sharpness 100%, as well as having 100% no field curvature, barrel distortion, focus breathing.
If it can achieve that, then it would be worth 2/3rds the price tag.
To be worth the full price tag, they would need a way to solve the issue of diffraction, and allow peak sharpness from the f/2.8 to f/22 (breaking the laws of physics).
Personally I would not. Especially since I can buy an entire collection of much faster and sharper prime lenses for that price. Being that this is about Leica, people already expect to pay money more for less performance.
Wow, My Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 and FE 70- 200 f/2.8 are a bargains
I completely understand the scepticism by those people used to canon/nikon/sony pricing on lenses. It's hard to justify if you look at the numbers on paper (i.e. the Leica 35/2 is significantly more expensive than the sony 35 1.4).
But the lenses are absolutely incredible. I haven't used the 24-90 but I do own it's big brother - the 90-280 and it's really quite jaw dropping. The output from it honestly looks like a big prime. Extremely pricey yes - but extremely, extremely good.
One of the issues with those lenses is that the differences are often subtle compared to lenses in the $1500-$2000 range while costing a lot more. People tend to be used to seeing more improvements. Beyond that, many reviews of those lenses tend to also act as if they are hiding something about the lens.
Beyond that, if sites like dpreview don't have a sample gallery up (they don't do many in-depth lens reviews anymore though), you will often see reviews in other places that go "OMG, it is so sharp with my 47.3 megapixel camera, here is a 1 megapixel sample image that could have been captured with an entry level camera and kit lens and you wouldn't be able to tell the difference in sharpness".
24-100mm 2.8-4 at $1399, we all know who's coming next hehe
5.6k for a variable aperture mid range zoom. Completely taking the pss
I think I might buy one. I'm just a bit worried that the Miss might see it when she drives me back to the asylum institution!
LMFAO....ok Schnopsy, do a comparison between that lens and other 'appropriate' priced lenses and place it in an article. No....wait...the answer is still...HELL NO!!!
It's all about perception (or deception) due to the red dot. Without this, this lens would appear in a different category, something like 'Odd lenses, interesting concepts' or so.
No. I wouldn't. Unless it were possible to have a 24-400 2.8, replacing most of my kit with one lens.