Lens Review: Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 f/2.8-4 ASPH.
Learn about the Leica Vario Elmarit-SL 24-90 in 2025, also known as “The Beast.” This review examines the Leica 24-90mm Vario Elmarit SL lens and provides a comparison to other L-mount zoom lenses available.
Welcome to my review of the Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 f/2.8-4 ASPH. I should save this for the end of the review, but you’ll likely realize this is more of a love letter to the Leica 24-90mm lens. This lens is fantastic, yet it’s not perfect, and there are sacrifices you'll need to make if you choose to purchase it. In this review, I will provide a real-world perspective on how I’ve used this lens, what has worked for me, and what hasn’t, in hopes of giving you insights that will help inform your decision on whether this lens is right for you.
I initially rented this lens in 2024 for use during the Memorial Day weekend on my Leica SL2-S. I had primarily only used M lenses and I wanted to try one of Leica’s autofocus SL lenses for a model shoots a local venue was hosting to promote their business. In October of that same year, I found an incredible deal on this lens and have used it since on my Leica SL3 for model shoots, street photography, and nature photography.
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 90mm f/9, 1/500 sec, ISO 12500
About this lens (Specs)
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 90mm f/5.6, 1/1000 sec, ISO 640
If you haven’t read any of my previous posts, I don’t enjoy deep dives into technical specifications and prefer to let those who do discuss them. I like to share my thoughts about the lens and how it feels to use it. However, I will provide an overview of the specs. Those who have used this lens often refer to it as “the beast.” Why? Because it’s big and heavy—there’s no sugarcoating it. Think of a college textbook, a bottle of wine, or a large bottle of water. It weighs approximately 1,140 g, which is about the same weight as the Sigma 100-400mm telephoto lens. The diameter of the lens is 88mm until you reach the mount, and the lens hood adds to this. For perspective, the average lens diameter is about 67mm.
The body is weather-sealed and primarily constructed from metal, which significantly adds to its weight. It features a variable aperture that ranges from f/2.8 at 28mm to f/4 at 90mm. The lens does extend as you zoom to 90mm; however, I haven’t encountered any issues with dust getting inside so far. It includes Optical Image Stabilization (O.I.S.) and has a minimum focusing distance of .3 meters, allowing you to get quite close to your subject.
This lens is known for its sharpness from corner to corner throughout its entire focal range. While researching, I’ve encountered numerous reviewers and users claiming that this lens offers prime lens quality in a zoom. From a sharpness perspective, I wouldn’t disagree. While you may not achieve the subject separation that a wide-aperture prime provides, the sharpness is excellent. I find the bokeh pleasing; objects out of focus blend smoothly and rarely, if ever, look nervous to me.
What role did I want this lens to play in my kit?
To provide context for my thought process, I primarily prefer using manual prime lenses, even with an SL camera. However, there are occasions when I opt for autofocus or wish to avoid changing lenses. At times, I felt I wasn’t fully leveraging the SL's capabilities without a lens specifically designed for it. My collection of manual lenses consists of primes with focal lengths of 21mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 100mm. I was looking for a lens that could cover most of these focal lengths, allowing me to use it for landscape photography and portraits. Essentially, it had to be a jack-of-all-trades.
Yeah, but the weight!
Yes, the weight is the price you pay for this flexibility, but first, let’s put things into perspective. A single Sigma Prime Art lens or one of Leica’s primes* weighs about half the weight, so if you plan to carry two or more of either brand’s lenses, you will be holding more weight than the 24-90mm and must switch lenses.
*(Leica ASPH 402g / APO 720g)
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 90mm f/5.6, 1/500 sec, ISO 125
There are ways to mitigate the weight
Camera Straps:
I have used this lens with a wrist strap during studio sessions, but I do not recommend it for extended periods. Instead, I suggest using a wide body strap; you don’t want one that is too thin, as it may dig into your shoulder or neck, causing discomfort. This will also allow your wrists to rest while you walk around and are not actively taking pictures. I’ve gone on some nature hikes, walking anywhere from 2 to 6 miles at a time, and this setup seems to work best for me. I would recommend something like the Peak Design Slide Lite Camera Strap.
L-Bracket:
I have found that adding an L-bracket to the SL3 makes the 24-90mm more comfortable for walking around. I currently use a Really Right Stuff L-bracket and attach a Peak Design anchor to one end. This way, I can attach one end of the camera strap to the camera and the other end to the L-bracket, allowing the camera and lens to hang down more comfortably. The bracket comes off very easily and takes up little space in the camera bag. For me, this bracket provides a little more space to grip the camera, which is a bonus; those with bigger hands may also appreciate this feature.
Really Right Stuff L-bracket and Peak Design Slide Lite strap are recommended accessories to help with the weight.
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 50mm f/3.6, 1/160 sec, ISO 800
Leica 24-90mm vs other L-mount zoom lenses
So, how does the 24-90mm stack up against other lenses with a similar focal length? I’m not going to discuss MFT charts; frankly, I don’t understand them well enough, and I’m not sure I want to. I know they contain valuable information, but the purpose of this review is to focus on real-world usage and my thought process on how I chose this lens over others.
The closest matches to this lens that comes to mind in the L-mount alliance are the 24-70mm f/2.8 lenses by Leica, Panasonic, and Sigma. Then there is the Sigma 28-105mm f/2.8, the Panasonic LUMIX S 24-105mm f/4, and we could even throw in the LUMIX 28-200mm. Arguments can be made for any of these lenses. If weight alone is a deciding factor, any of these options are viable, or if you feel you need a constant aperture, you could also argue that any of those lenses are better.
However, I would argue that the Leica 24-90mm is the best choice. Every time I've used a 24-70mm lens, I've felt that I wanted a bit more reach than 70mm; 90mm seems to be that sweet spot for me. Yes, I could zoom with my feet to cover that missing 20mm, but you still can’t compensate for that additional compression, and sometimes you can’t move in closer. Now, I have read some feedback on forums and seen a few reviews that claim the Leica 24-70mm can be sharper at specific focal lengths. If it’s true, I am still willing to trade that sharpness for the extra 20mm reach; sharpness isn’t everything.
The next thing most people may have a problem with is the variable aperture. I have found that it hasn’t been a significant issue; in low light, the SL3 handles noise very well, and Lightroom provides additional support if the noise becomes too much. For me, the difference in the background blur between f/2.8 and f/4 isn’t a big deal. Not enough for me to give up that extra 20mm reach. Maybe if it were f/1.4 or even f/2, then I might be tempted...
Among the lenses mentioned earlier, the only other lenses with image stabilization are the LUMIX 24-105mm and the LUMIX 28-200mm. Both are lighter and provide a longer reach, but have drawbacks. In my experience with the LUMIX 24-105mm lens, I found it to be a solid lens that offered the reach I wanted, was pretty sharp, and had some macro capabilities. However, the build quality was lacking, and it didn’t match the sharpness or color detail of the Leica 24-90mm.
The LUMIX 28-200mm was the closest competition to the 24-90mm for me. I owned both lenses for a while until I finally gave up on the LUMIX and sold it. I have a post about this lens, but to summarize its key strengths, it's incredibly compact with great reach. Where it came up short for me was that its variable aperture was f/4-f/7.1; not a deal breaker, but 24mm is more useful on a zoom than 28mm to me. When you zoom into the 200mm range, the barrel has two segments, which creates an extra point of dust entry. Finally, I found that the weight of the lens had some negative aspects for me; it felt somewhat cheap, and while filming video, it was more challenging to keep the camera steady. In contrast, with the 24-90mm, the extra weight helped me maintain stability.
Captured on a Leica SL3 at 85mm f/4, 1/80 sec, ISO 5000
Is it worth the price?
The last factor to consider is the price of the lenses; the Leica 24-90mm is the most expensive, often by a significant margin. Initially, I only rented the lens as a birthday gift for myself. Its price, when new, was out of my range, and I wasn’t sure I would enjoy it enough to spend the money on buying it used. But I got lucky and came across a heavily discounted listing. The listing claimed that the lens had significant barrel play, the rubber grips were loose, and there was some dust in the front element. I took a chance and figured that, worst-case scenario, I could wait and save up some money to send it to Leica for repair. The universe was kind to me. It turns out the company had a duplicate listing for that lens, and it had already been sold. They offered me a mint-condition used version for the same price, essentially, this made the cost equivalent to getting a used Leica 24-70mm.
So, do I love the lens enough to recommend paying full price? It's an incredible lens, but should you go into debt for it? No, my recommendation would be to look for it used. However, if you insist on buying it brand new and have the money for it, you won’t be disappointed.
Conclusion
At this point in the review, it is clear that this is a lens I would recommend. As I mentioned earlier, the other lenses mentioned are also good options. However, what sets the 24-90mm apart from the other lenses is its build quality and fantastic image quality. Don’t let the weight scare you off from trying it. Initially, I thought the LUMIX 28-200mm would be the only zoom lens I would ever want for the SL3, but in the end, the beast won.
Sample Images
Using Manual Lenses with the Leica SL line
Learn about using manual lenses on the Leica SL3.
Recently, I was asked about my experience using manual lenses on a Leica SL3 camera. Shortly after, during a photo walk, I lent a photographer friend my 50mm Summicron to use on a Leica SL2 he was testing. We began discussing the experience of using autofocus lenses compared to manual lenses, and that led me to want to write about it.
This post is part gear review and part experience review (for lack of a better term). I will discuss my experience using manual lenses with the Leica SL line of cameras and explain why you should try it. I will also share many opinions and thoughts based on my experience. I will use “SL” to refer to Leica's various models of SL cameras while also referencing specific models at times.
I want to get this out of the way first:
Do you need a Leica camera to use a manual lens?
No.
Would you enjoy it more if you did?
Maybe…possibly…probably…
Captured on a Leica SL2-S and Canon Serenar 135mm from about 1948
You can adapt most cameras with a manual lens; your experience will vary depending on the camera. I won’t claim you need a Leica to do it right, but I will argue that using a manual lens on a Leica is a great experience.
I always shot on autofocus; the thought of manual focus seemed foreign. Why do that when the camera could do better, right? I sold all my old gear a few years back and got a Leica Q2. This camera got me to try taking photos manually, and then I added the Leica SL Type 601 to my kit. That camera and some vintage lenses solidified the experience for me. Later, when I decided to move on from the SL Type 601, I tried a Lumix S5 II and initially had a terrible time using it with manual lenses. However, when I invested the time to configure it like a Leica, the experience improved, but it still didn't match the Leica's experience…in my opinion.
What makes a Leica SL Ideal?
The SL line of cameras has consistently featured a fantastic EVF in all its iterations, which I would argue is one of the most important requirements for shooting with a manual lens. The SL’s EVF is not only sharp but also very responsive; you can set it to a frame rate of 60Hz to save battery life or increase it to 120Hz. Regardless, it lets you quickly determine when the image is in focus, hardly making you feel like you are looking at a screen. The SL also includes responsive focus peaking that assists you by highlighting the edges that are in focus. As standard, it is set to red dots but can be changed to green, blue, or white.
The next reason the SL is ideal for shooting manual lenses is its ergonomics. Specifically, the SL3 has been refined to allow a photographer to make most, if not all, adjustments with their right hand while the left is free to focus or adjust the aperture on the lens. All buttons have been repositioned to the camera's right side, leaving only the ISO dial and power button on the left. Many users may initially find an SL confusing due to the absence of marked buttons. However, most buttons on the SL can be easily programmed to suit your preferences. Holding a button down for a second allows you to select a function from a list and assign it. You can take this further by investing some time in customizing the list of assignable functions to display only those that are relevant to you.
Compared to the Lumix S5 II, I rarely accidentally press a button when shooting manually. During my time with that camera, I found that I frequently would accidentally click the display button, move the menu wheel, or hit one of the other buttons on the back. While on the SL, the only button I sometimes accidentally move is the thumbwheel, but this is rare, and more often when I am walking around and raising the camera to my eye.
Finally, instead of explaining why an SL is ideal for manual focus lenses, why are manual lenses ideal for an SL? SL cameras tend to be heavier and bulkier; using a manual lens is the easiest way to make them lighter and smaller. Granted, if you choose a lens that is too small, it might look a bit off, but if you want to make the camera more travel-friendly, this is a great approach. If you haven’t had a chance to read my review on the Lumix 28-200mm lens, check it out. In that review, I discuss how I purchased this zoom lens for a trip to Greece; however, I found that most of my shots were taken with either the Leica 35mm Summarit-M or the Leica 50mm Summicron-M lenses.
Captured with a Leica SL2-S and Leitz Elmar 5cm from about 1928
Some suggested customizations for manual shooting:
I suggest customizing the thumbwheel with the ISO setting if you frequently change the ISO. This will allow you to change the ISO with only your right hand instead of using your left hand.
Disable automatic zoom and utilize the joystick to punch in to zoom for focusing. It was great initially, but I found the autozoom can be annoying after a while.
Assign one of the front function buttons to turn focus peaking on and off. You don’t always need it on.
Assign one of the top function buttons on top of the camera, next to the correct setting wheel, as the exposure compensation.
I like using the back FN button to quickly enable and disable the perspective control.
Leica M to L (far left) allows for various thread mount lenses to be adapted.
How do you adapt manual lenses to a Leica SL?
Various adapters are available; depending on the lens, you may use more than one adapter. For example, when mounting a thread-mount lens to the SL, you might use a thread-mount to M adapter and an M to L-mount adapter. Or you could use just one adapter, such as a M39 to L-mount. Before purchasing a lens, research what adapters are required and what brands are recommended; you often get what you pay for here.
My go-to adapters come from Urth. So far, I have used multiple adapters from them and have not had any issues with them. They have all fit correctly and are decently priced. I’ve used my money on these adapters and feel confident recommending them.
If you are adapting M mount lenses, Leica offers an adapter at a high cost. If the lens is coded, the Leica adapter may be worth it. It will pass the code to the SL and make some in-camera corrections; for SL models with IBIS, it will also pass along information for that as well. There are ways to code non-Leica and non-coded Leica lenses. If you're interested, more information is available on Google.
There are other “close-focus” adapters. These adapters have the benefit of allowing you to focus on objects closer than the minimum focus distance of a lens. I haven’t used any yet, but I have read good things about the Light Lens Lab adapters; again, do your research!
Captured on a Leica SL3 with a Helios 44-2 somewhere between 1969-1984
Why shoot a manual lens?
I would argue that learning to shoot a manual lens helps you understand photography better. Manually focusing slows you down and teaches you to be more intentional. You become more involved with capturing or creating the image. Yes, you may sometimes miss shots, but as photographers, we should learn to accept this. A particular anxiety comes with the need to capture everything and miss nothing, which is why sometimes we can’t decide what gear to take with us when we shoot and pack more than we need.
Captured on a Leica SL3 with a Helios 44-2 somewhere between 1969-1984
Learn to gauge distance better
To improve your manual focusing, you need a good sense of distance. You will want to learn to zone focus, which helps you consider the distance to your subject and the depth of field you want in your image. Unlike autofocus lenses, most manual lenses have a distance scale printed on them. In short, this scale indicates at each aperture which distances will keep your subject in focus. For example, at f/4, a subject that is about 5 to 6 feet away will be in focus, while at f/16, a subject about 5 to 10 feet away will be in focus. Knowing this you can start to predetermine where your lens should be set to get focus while walking around taking photos.
When I first started out, an exercise I would do to help me improve was to take a tape measure about 25 feet long, lay it out, and place some of my kids’ toys at different distances: 5 feet, 10 feet, and so on. I would sit or stand at the beginning of the tape and practice focusing on the objects, noting the distances of each to get a better sense of how far each distance was from me.
Learning to visualize objects to determine distance also helps. In a blog post I had read once, the author recommended that if you can visualize a car parked between you and your subject, where the width and not the length were between you, then you can estimate it to be about 6 feet away, or that a subject across the street of a two-lane road may be about 20 to 30 feet away.
Become less dependent on your camera
As you learn zone focusing, think more about the exposure triangle and consider your settings more carefully. While shooting strictly with autofocus, I understood the exposure triangle, but once I began focusing manually, I started using it more and better understood how they affect each other. This helped me to start deciding my camera settings more and being less reliant on the camera.
My thought process:
If my subject is moving around a lot, I prefer a smaller aperture for less depth of field, which provides a larger area of focus and increases the likelihood of my subject being in focus. However, I also need a fast shutter speed to freeze the action; my image may be underexposed, so I might need to raise the ISO.
But wait, do I want a good amount of separation between my subject and the background? Will trying to focus with a smaller focal area and a larger aperture be worth it for the separation? I’ll still need a faster shutter, but will lowering my ISO be enough to prevent this from being overexposed?
Now it’s a valid argument: why not just set the camera to aperture priority mode and concentrate more on nailing focus? When you begin, it’s probably a good idea to start in aperture priority mode. This approach will help you get a feel for the lens; you can learn about the focus throw, the distance from the minimum focus distance to infinity, and, more importantly, which direction to turn the lens to achieve focus from one end to the other.
Captured on a Leica SL2-S and Canon Serenar 135mm from about 1948
Access to vintage glass
This alone could be a post all in itself, but I will keep it short. Older lenses render differently from modern lenses. To paint with a broad stroke, just about any lens made within the last few years will be amazing. They will be clean and sharp. Clinical is the term often used here, and yes, it’s all subjective. The imperfections that can be found in vintage lenses can give a different feel to your images. It may be the way the highlights glow, or the colors may be muted. Some vintage lenses will not be as sharp, and a subject’s skin will be rendered differently. And finally, some of the bokeh you can get from vintage lenses can be amazing.
Yes, you can buy filters to add to a modern lens, but they are not the same. Maybe I’m romanticizing it, but there is something to getting your hands on an older lens, discovering what images it can produce, and learning to embrace their imperfections.
Is using an autofocus lens manual the same as using a manual lens?
Here, I will argue that the experience is not the same. With a manual lens, you have a clear stop from the minimum focus distance to infinity with markings. Without looking at the lens, you can rotate it and know when you have reached either end. This means that if you are shooting close subjects, you can set your lens to the minimum distance and turn it the opposite way as needed, or if the subject is farther away in the distance, turn it to the opposite side for infinity, then rotate it back.
When walking around doing street photography, I move my focus tab into the middle. This way, I am ready regardless of where the subject is. If I see something close, I can move the tab to the left or the right for further subjects.
Most automatic lenses do not provide this tactile or visual feedback, making manual focus less efficient. It can be fine for minor adjustments, but it’s more of a hassle for anything else.
Another benefit most manual lenses have over automatic lenses is their lifespan. Because they do not contain electronics, there are fewer things to break. The oldest lens in my kit dates back to the 1930s; it still works today. If I don’t drop this lens or damage the glass, it can be dismantled, cleaned, and used for decades.
Several months ago, I discovered dust in my Leica 24-90mm Vario-Elmarit lens. I opened it up and cleaned the front element, but accessing the rear element was beyond my skill set. Wires had to be disconnected, and boards had to be removed; it wasn’t worth the risk of causing bigger problems.
Captured on a Leica SL3 with a Helios 44-2 somewhere between 1969-1984
Conclusion
More can be discussed, but this has covered a reasonable amount so far. At no point did I want this post to sound like a debate between manual and autofocus or imply that you need a Leica to do it right. Photography should be fun, challenging, and satisfying, regardless of whether it’s a hobby or your livelihood. Use the tools and techniques that bring you the most joy.
Additional Sample Images
