For a tiny, little company that has less than 1% market share Leica sure does a great job attracting maximum attention online. Thought I'd jump in and sing some praise of their 24-90mm cash gobbling SL zoom lens.

Jill at Esthers Follies. Handheld Leica SL with a 24-90mm lens

Wide open. At 90mm. ISO 1600. A camera Jpeg.

I tumbled back into the Leica product world in late 2019. I bought an SL2 camera and the lens I chose to pair with it was the Leica Elmarit 24-90mm f2.8-4.0 zoom. My idea was that the SL2 would be my primary camera for commercial work, advertising work, editorial work and the wide ranging zoom, if it lived up to its reputation for stellar image quality, would be more practical and far less expensive than splashing out for three prime lenses from the same maker. 

At the time the 24-90 was priced around $5500 and there was no discernible discount for pretending that it was a kit lens and should be packaged along with a camera body at a cheaper price. The lens is now a "bargain" as its price has only gone up a "paltry" $300. Be sure not to lose the plastic lens shade though; that will set you back $200. Of course, it is included in the box with the lens purchase. 

The 24-90mm is a huge zoom lens and it also weighs in at two and a half pounds. Not what you might call either discreet or featherweight. But, on the other hand I know of no other zoom lens from any other lens maker that makes a lens with four glass aspherical lens elements and eleven anomalous partial dispersion elements and a special water repellant coating for the front and rear elements. The lens is also dust and moisture resistant, has image stabilization and auto focuses down to 11.8 inches. The lens was designed to provide consistent high performance at all focal lengths and all focusing distances. And it does. 

During the time that I've owned and used the 24-90 I've also bought (and sold) the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 Art lens, the Panasonic 24-105mm f4.0 S lens and several Leica R series medium range zooms. While the others were all good lenses I had no hesitation, after comparing them with the 24-90, of letting them go to other owners but I have never even entertained the thought of getting rid of the honkin' big lens. No for a second. 

I am now well into my fourth year using that lens and the SL2 camera body for all manner of jobs. The first two of which paid back my initial investment in the combo. That's one difference in the calculation of whether or not to buy "expensive" gear between amateurs and professionals who use the equipment in the pursuit of making photographs for profit. An expensive piece of gear is easier to justify when you can use it day in and day out to make a living. And having gear you trust makes every facet of doing the business easier. 

There are many "pros" to using the 24-90 for me. The range of focal lengths is perfect for the way I end up shooting. I very, very rarely want or need anything shorter than 24mms and I'm generally quite happy to make tight headshots with a 90mm focal length. Nearly all the work I do is either lit or shot in good light (light that I either find or make) so the fact that the lens is a variable aperture optic that ends up at f4.0 on the long side is not something I ever worry about. Used at f5.6 or f8.0 the lens is sharper and better controlled than just about any other zoom or prime lens I have ever owned. And I've owned a lot of them. The 24-90 works well with an SL2 that sports the latest firmware and I'm looking forward to seeing if it's even better with the new SL3 body which has phase detect AF. (for such a demonized product the SL3 sure has been a long time in backorder....demand?). 

Another plus is the robust construction and gasketing of the lens. I have had the lens and camera out in freezing rain, driving rain, perilous (to humans) heat and it's also been subject to a dust storm or two. It operated flawlessly in all conditions and, in fact, looks brand new. But there are one or two "cons" to this lens --- besides the breathtaking initial purchase price. 

First of all the lens does weigh in at a whopping two and half pounds. When you first pick it up you notice the weight but not the way you'll notice the same weight after an eight hour day of walking and photographing at a grape picking harvest on a day of bald skies and the Texas sun. If you are frail, weak, or lazy you probably won't be snapping up this lens. The handholding and portage of the lens can be daunting; especially when the cameras you'll be using are equally hefty. Put a big flash in the hot shoe and you could easily be at six pounds of "fighting weight" and if you aren't used to it you will have a sore bicep the day after a long shoot. 

Second --- the lens is not small. With the hood attached it looks and feels more like a 70-200mm lens. You will not be in any way discreet or camouflaged walking down the sidewalk with this lens hanging off the front of your camera ( I recommend you carry the package by the lens instead of letting the lens and camera hang from a strap. So much weight on the strap lugs. So much weight hanging on the lens mount....). I also like to put the camera and lens in a small camera bag but you can only put it, when assembled, into a medium sized bag. My Domke 802 bag which can hold a rangefinder camera and three small rangefinder lenses is a tight squeeze for the SL2 and the 24-90 and only fits in if I take off the lens hood and put it into a pocket. 

Oh, and there's the filter size. It's an 82mm --- which isn't that ridiculous these days. Front elements everywhere seem to be getting bigger and bigger. Makes one pine for the 36mm filter size of some of the M series rangefinder prime lenses....

So, why did I spend the money and why do I bother to drag it around? I had reached a point at which I no longer felt the need to do every kind of job the invitation for which arrived in my email. I didn't need a fast "sports" camera nor did I routinely need long, fast lenses. I was more interested in honing things like really fine color discrimination, very pleasing color design choices and camera menus that were much less complicated; easier to learn and remember. More intuitive. 

At the time the camera and lens together were around $11,000 but looking back over my buying history I found that my search for a comfortable and very high quality camera system had led me to buy and sell through a number of systems, the tally of which was many multiples of the cost of the Leica. Of course I was taking a chance that I'd become disgruntled by either the handing, the inability to get perfect skin tones, the poor handling, the psychotic menus and the shitty build quality that had driven me away from many previous camera systems. It was a gamble to buy into yet another camera system when my own profile/camera buying history indicated that I'd tire of the new stuff in two years or less and then take a bath selling it all into the used camera market. Or worse, getting a tiny trade-in value from a retailer while embroiled on my next quest for camera system I could finally love. But that, so far, hasn't happened. And we're nearly five years in... It's no longer being said that I change camera systems as often as most people change their underwear...

While the SL2 camera, and the SL cameras I bought afterwards, tick every box I wanted it was really the 24-90mm lens that cinched the deal. Most of my profitable work is in doing jobs for ad agencies and P.R. companies' clients. The process in this kind of work isn't fast moving or unpredictable. If anything it's planned out at every stage and there's a feedback loop with clients to manage. We set stuff up. Portraits, product shots, product demonstrations and even lifestyle stuff. Most of it gets lit even if the lighting is just in supplemental service to the prevailing ambient light. At least half of the work is done with the camera on a tripod. There's time to meter. Time to fine focus. Time to try variations and iterations. So little of most professional work is done in a hurry and surrounded by chaos. We don't do war photojournalism and you'll never find me shooting a football or soccer game. Or golf, for that matter. 

While PD-AF focusing systems can be faster and are demonstrably better at tracking moving subjects they are no better (and probably worse) at hitting fine focus on stationary objects/subjects. And the frame to frame accuracy with a contrast detect system can be much more consistent as well. With a 47 megapixel sensor one gets all the resolution I'll need for 99% of jobs. The secret to really nice images is matching the qualities of the sensor with the right lens. While a Leica 50mm SL APO Summicron might give me just a tad more performance the zoom is at least as good as the Sony, Nikon and Canon primes I have used and it's nice to have a wide range of focal lengths on a demanding shoot; not because I'll need to "trombone" from the widest to the tightest focal lengths and back again but because I can fine tune the exact cropping and composition in camera with small changes in focal length. Say from 74mm to 78mm just to get the absolute right crop. To be able to do this and know that your zoom will hang competitively with very, very high quality primes takes a good measure of the stress out of a job. One less thing to consider. One less thing to worry about. 

While I have a lot of other good L mount lenses I find myself leaning on the zoom for nearly every project that has a client attached. 

One has to have a regard for their tools; a certainty that a particular lens will delivery every time. That the color out of the camera sensor is robust enough to be completely corrected. That the camera's bit depth will yield the colors and tones you need. 

There are countless mindless idiots out on the web who declare that the Leica brand of cameras and lenses constitutes some sort of cynical ploy to separate vain people from their money. That "Leica" is such prestige brand that the only reason to use it is to show off or make a statement. As if the person working an assembly line for a computer maker has time to stop and carefully examine which brand of camera you've brought along for the company's photography. 

Maybe in the 1950s and 1960s Leica was a widely recognized brand. Certainly serious photography was a much more popular hobby! By the turn of the century Leica was almost bankrupt and had to be rescued from dissolution at least twice. They sold fewer than 1/10th of 1 % of digital cameras in the first ten years since 2000.  The idea that they were so visible, so cherished and so sought after in the moment borders on insanity. Even through the second decade of the century Leica as a brand of cameras was little more than an asterisk.

Lately they've made progress. The SL line which started out with a nosebleed price of $7495 (camera only) in 2017 was an interesting camera. It didn't get reviewed well but it sold to a big contingent of actual, professional shooters. But it was the 24-90mm, used in combination with that camera that started to turn the tide for avid photographers who could afford the entry fee. And it was with the arrival of the SL2 and SL2S cameras, generally paired with the 24-90, that Leica's fortunes took off. 

Important to note that most of the "fashion" aspect and Veblen "taint" of the brand comes from their very recognizable M series cameras and their "mini-M", Q series cameras. Those are the models driving the "influencers" nuts. Both pro and con re: Leica. It's rarer by far to see the SL cameras out in the wild. The Ms are the cameras coveted by movie set designers, fashion model accessories, Bugatti owning hedge fund managers, etc. Not the SL line. Chalk it up to Leica's nearly ninety year history of making mostly sought after rangefinder cameras!!!

As with Leica's medium format S series cameras the SL line is aimed precisely at working professionals. There is no advantage to the brand for a professional when it comes to interfacing with clients. Most clients in advertising are not the stereotypical art directors from the golden days of yore who needed to understand differences between things like format sizes and overall image quality.  Current art directors, mostly in their 30s and 40s don't know and don't care about your camera brand. A Leica to them is just a Nikon or Sony that speaks German. 

It's mostly impoverished writers with big chips on their shoulders who still keep the myth of "professionals showing off with their camera brands" alive. Especially as aimed at Leica. It's a rationale in their minds used to mitigate against the need or desire to buy a Leica.  As though a Fuji GFX is any less financially precious or precarious. The chip on the shoulder of their Mens Warehouse sport coats never wavers. Even as other brands catch up on pricing and inculcate their own brand swagger.

I'll be the first to admit that a Nikon 850 or a top of the line Canon camera is fully capable of making files that are as good as Leica files. Differences show up in the chosen color science of each maker but the underlying performance metrics are largely the same. I'll also admit that very carefully, hand-picked lenses from the major lens makers (especially the better Carl Zeiss lenses) can come close or even equal the performance of Leica lenses but it's important to understand that for some it's the handling of the cameras, the logic of the menus, the robustness of manufacture, in addition to the color science, that makes some people prefer the brand. 

Dentists no longer buy Leicas. They seem to buy Sonys. Street photographers gravitate to the Fuji X100Vs. Old schoolers buy Nikons on the off chance that they want to use one of the last of the DSLRs in combination with an old Ais version of the 105mm f2.5. The brands have become, for most people, immaterial. And consumers in general have come to lean on specifications rather than spending time to appreciate the difference in handling, haptics and feel. And since everything camera oriented is bought online it's hard to blame them. 

But I remember handing an older Leica SL camera with lens to a very smart and very prolific hobbyist photographer who considered himself immune to the attraction of branding (and after all he works for one of the biggest consumer electronics companies, extant). We were having lunch. He played with the camera for twenty minutes or so. Something about the handling and the menus sunk a hook into his psyche and at lunch a year or two later he pulled a Leica SL out of his bag and waxed poetic about its design and its feel. He was smitten. 

And he always considered himself too savvy to be swayed. Until he handled it. And all those Sonys and Canons and Fujis he'd collected fell by the wayside. It wasn't about seeing some magnificent print that floored him with some magic qualities rather it was actually handling a "better" camera personally and coming to grips with the idea that life is short and it's absolutely fine to have stuff that's carefully designed to appeal to people who can appreciate the differences. 

And....in the SL system the 24-90mm has been the anchor that holds it all together. The entry lens product to the heart of the system. Just my opinion after using one to make well over 100,000 images. Have you actually tried one?

Are you a Leica hater who has never spent time shooting a Leica? Wanna know why you might want to? The great Michael Johnston wrote a blog post just for you. It might prod you to try one...

Here's the link: https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2009/05/why-it-has-to-be-a-leica.html