Is there a non-Leica lens that compared to the 280mm f4 APO?

[tntrue]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is indeed sometimes difficult to make fair comparisons of lenses when they’re shot on different bodies, especially over long perids of time.

 

The Nikon AF-S 300mm f/4D IF-ED and its older sibling, the non-D version, looked great on a D700, but the newer iteration showed some notable CA when I shot it on a higher-MP crop sensor body.

 

The Canon 300mm f/4 EF-S, both IS and non-IS, looked great on a 6D, but showed some hard-to-remove reddish-orange on contrasting borders when used on the 100D and 7D Mk II.  I first got the non-IS version because I’d read that it was sharper than its successor. Later I got the IS version to use with a 7D Mk II and found it to be equally sharp and—surprisingly—a tiny bit contrastier with less CA than the older one, in spite of the fact that it has almost double the number of elements.  And that was without the in-camera corrections applied.  Both were superb lenses that could yield great images with a minimal amount of PP.

 

Probably the two worst in my odyssey to find a reasonably lightweight telephoto were the Minolta 200mm 2.8G APO, which I shot on a Sony a77 (v. I); and an SMC Pentax-A* 300mm f/4. The former could turn slightly OOF tree branches into hideous shades of green and purple.   The latter lens was only 132mm in length and weight 850 grams.  Unfortunately it needed to be stopped down to f/5.6 to get the center of the frame sharp, and even then the periphery showed huge purple borders at contrasting edges.  The only way to post-process them out of the image was to crop the frame.

 

Having now had possession of a 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R for two weeks, during which I’ve shot with it every day, I’d say that nothing I’ve ever used even comes close to its IQ.  While the 280mm f/2.8 APO-Telyt-R is sharp on contrasting edges into the corners, the f/4 renders fine detail and contrast to the corners noticeably better.

 

I use the same outdoor locations and targets for testing and comparing lenses.  The f/4 resolved clearly certain details I’d never even seen in shots taken with other lenses.  This is a lens that, no matter how much it is hyped, still astounds with its IQ.

 

Whereas a pixel-peeper can coax a bit of corner CA out of the 280mm f/2.8 when shooting it on a higher MP body, in my case a 24.2MP Canon APS-C with a 1.61 crop factor, the f/4 Telyt shows none.  Even with the APO Extender R 1.4X mounted, and shooting contrasting edges in less than optimal atmospheric conditions, there isn’t any CA.

 

The Canon FD 300mm lens recommended by wildlightphoto sounds interesting, especially its light weight and comparatively short dimension, roughly the same as the 280mm f/4 Leica.  I’ll keep an eye open for a copy.  It was, after all, wildlightphoto’s enthusiasm for the 280mm f/4 on these pages that stoked my initial interest in the lens, and the photos on his website that made it a “holy grail” lens for me.  If there’s a non-Leica lens that can compare to it, I haven’t seen it.

[wildlightphoto]

Aside from the desire to carry less weight my search for an alternative to the 280/4 APO was spurred by a visit to a heron rookery which happened to be in an unsavory part of town and I realized how vulnerable I'd have been if anyone living nearby decided he needed my camera more than I did.  It would be much easier to replace a stolen Sony a7II + Canon FD 300/4 L than an R8/DMR + 280/4 APO.

 

The 280/4 APO is my go-to lens for image quality.  The 300/4 L looks like it will do a good job and in risky situations will allow me to pay more attention to light and subject.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[dkCambridgeshire]

Aside from the desire to carry less weight my search for an alternative to the 280/4 APO was spurred by a visit to a heron rookery which happened to be in an unsavory part of town and I realized how vulnerable I'd have been if anyone living nearby decided he needed my camera more than I did.  It would be much easier to replace a stolen Sony a7II + Canon FD 300/4 L than an R8/DMR + 280/4 APO.

 

The 280/4 APO is my go-to lens for image quality.  The 300/4 L looks like it will do a good job and in risky situations will allow me to pay more attention to light and subject.

 

Doug, have you tried the FD extenders with the 300/4L lens and if so how do they perform? I recall reading many years ago that the Canon FD 1.4x and 2x 'A' extenders were/are 'adequate' … as if they are OK but could be better.

 

dunk

[wildlightphoto]

Doug, have you tried the FD extenders with the 300/4L lens and if so how do they perform? I recall reading many years ago that the Canon FD 1.4x and 2x 'A' extenders were/are 'adequate' … as if they are OK but could be better.

 

dunk

 

I haven't tried extenders yet.  I'm hearing the 1.4x is closer to adequate than the 2x.

[DG Hawkes]

This is an interesting thread for me as I recently sold both a Leica R 180mm f2.8 and Leica R 180mm f4 lenses used on an R9 (also sold, very sadly - a lovely camera) and then Sony A600 and A7ii cameras.

 

They were great on the Leica, but with 35mm did I really see the full benefit, or any issues? On the Sony they were less good - with the particular adaptors I had - giving bad vignetting and purple colour shifts at the edges, particularly bad and unrecoverable in Lightroom/Ps in the top left on the f4 so I wonder if it was faulty.

 

I'd been using the Sony OSS-G 70-200mm zoom on the 7ii and now a 7Rii which doesn't seem too bad at all, especially when stopped down, and that is given its need to be up to the pitch of the 7Rii sensor. But, needing more reach I dithered over the cost of the 280mm f4, balked and got a good bargain on a newish, mint sh Canon 300mm f4 L IS. Again the adaptor is an issue - it rattles around in the mount(!) and won't let me change aperture at all (I can't find a way) of auto focus, so I just ordered the Metabones IV smart adaptor, hopefully the right choice this time...

 

Hence, it's early days to make a firm judgement, but so far (at full open I'd guess - no info available so judging by depth of food etc. - which I can't yet alter) it looks pretty good to my eyes. Plenty of resolution and detail, possibly a bit less contrast and saturation than I'm used to, but not bad at all for the price.

[wildlightphoto]

I've discovered an unexpected benefit of the Canon FD 300's lateral chromatic aberration: it makes moire much less likely.  Her's an example of the moire I often see with certain bird species (this is the Western Scrub-Jay) when using the 280 APO, even with a camera with an AA filter such as the Sony a7II:

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/_DSC2455_moire.jpg

 

After correcting for the Canon's lateral chromatic aberration I see much less moire since this correction modifies each color channel separately.  The resulting corrected image is quite sharp over much of the image area (don't pixel-peep in the corners ) with very little aliasing evident.  There's still some aliasing visible if you look closely but no color moire at all.

 

This is an example made with the Canon FD 300mm f/4 L on the a7II

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/_DSC2699.jpg

 

and a crop showing the detail in the bird

 

http://www.wildlightphoto.com/temp/_DSC2699_crop.jpg

Edited September 14, 2015 by wildlightphoto

[bocaburger]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find this an interesting thread because I owned several of the lenses mentioned at one time.  The 280/2.8-R (non-modular) I owned at the same time as the original version of the Canon EF 300/2.8L-IS.  I used both on the EOS 1V, as well as the Leica on an R8.  I found no significant difference in optical performance although the Canon was marginally sharper afield than the Leica, but only a bit.  The major drawback to the Leica was the 90-degree click stops on the tripod collar, which made it necessary to level the tripod.  And for some inexplicable reason the R8's viewfinder display showed f/3.4 when the lens was wide open, and the exposure meter thought it was only a 3.4 and overexposed slide film a bit if I didn't compensate. 

 

I also had the 280/4R APO and have nothing bad to say about it.  It was superlative.  However, shooting ISO 100 slide film, f/4 did on occasion present itself as a disadvantage in terms of shutter speed. 

 

I stopped shooting wildlife before I went digital, and the only telephoto I still own is the 400/6.8, which suffices in the rare occasion I have to use it.  I have a 70-300-IS (not to be confused with the original 75-300 nor the 70-300 DO) in Canon EF.  For a prosumer-grade zoom it is quite good, in fact excellent on a crop-sensor body.  

 

In reference to this thread, I also have a NEX 6 and I would imagine that the crop negates a significant portion of what distances some lenses ahead of others.  Certainly corner sharpness is less of an issue if the camera doesn't capture the full image circle.  

[tntrue]

Moire doesn't bother me on the occasions when it occurs, usually on a lighter-colored bird's wing or tail feathers, since I see the same thing with my eyes.  The aliasing, which I don't get, would drive me nuts.  It's helpful to see, too, that the a7ii appears to have a more agreeable noise signature than its predecessors.  I owned and ditched both the a7 and a7r, and although the noise with either was less of a problem than the flimsy two-piece mount, it was tough to get an acceptable image texture while preserving feather detail beyond ISO 800.

 

I'd be curious to see what CA in the Canon lens looks like at the pixel level before it's processed out.  So far no luck in spotting one on any of the usual secondhand dealers' sites.  Anyway, my first inclination is to work towards getting a second copy of the 280mm f/4.

 

As for security issues, the less savory rural and suburban areas where I sometimes shoot would likely present the lowest risk.  The densely-populated urban area in which I live is where the 280mm attracts the most attention, some of it overt and obviously knowing.