Any zoom lens is going to be weaker somewhere in its range but the hallmark of these new varios is that they are virtually faultless across all apertures, all focal lengths, and all distances. It so happens that at 90mm it is wee bit weaker but that's only relative. But most often the primes just stay in the bag.Īny assertion that the 24-90 is "not good" at 90 is inaccurate. I often carry one or two M primes when I go out with the 24-90, usually the 35 FLE and the 75 AA, in case I need their light gather power or the shallow DOF. The 24-90 is so good that at comparable focal lengths and apertures it loses nothing to M primes in fact, it more often beats out the M primes. But when I shoot table top work for products, I use either the SL24-90 or SL90-280 because of their better micro-contrast and higher resolution rendering feel. It's more compact than either of the zooms as well. For portraiture, it is my preferred lens because it is softer and has a more 'glowy' rendering quality wide open, and that rendering is adjustable with the aperture ring.
My Summicron-R 90mm f/2 (1980 vintage) is softer than either of the SL zooms wide open and razor sharp at f/4-5.6, a typical Walter Mandler design.
The SL90-280 is a bit harder edged, yes, and defines tonal variations with more punch, but is that what you need for portraiture? I've done a huge amount of photos with this lens at 90mm setting (over 2000) and it is very sharp with beautiful rendering qualities. I don't understand people saying that the SL24-90 isn't sharp or 'lacks micro-contrast' at 90mm. All three are excellent performers, but of course they render somewhat differently. I have both of the SL zooms and the Summicron-R 90mm f/2.
0 kommentar(er)
