90-280 tele versus f4/280 and 70-180 on the SL

[Helmut99]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

I'm new to this forum but enjoy and it helps quite a bit to learn the SL beyond manuals. I'm also fairly new to photography, never had a DSLR but have been using the M240 for about 2 years and Have been enjoying my new hobby a lot. Just recently got the SL with 24-90 after putting a lot of thought into why spending more money into more gear. As for R tele lenses, I own the f2.8 Vario 70-180 and the f4 280.

My question: has anyone parted from one of those two R lenses (or both) to fund the 90-280? And if yes, why and are you still happy with the decision?

I'm planning an Alaska trip in summer and not sure what to do.

Any idea or comment would be appreciated.

[Leicaiste]

I did a road trip from Denver to Phoenix recently with the SL and a kit of R lenses including the 70-180 and 280/2,8. I have those lenses since many years and wanted to use them again properly. 

 

It was really fun thanks to the car and the tripod. For hikes I had to leave the 280 ++ in the car or hotel. And several times I only took the 28-90. If I had to do it again, I would leave the 280 at home and rely on the Apo-Exender 2x. 

 

I also made a trip to Alaska last summer with 5D MIII, 24-105 and 100-400 + Extender 1,4.  

 

Based on these experiences, in your position, I would switch to the 90-280 for that trip.

 

The 70-180 is a great lens, but not easy to focus or stabilize handheld.

 

In Alaska I had a lot of use of the IS and could only really use my tripod twice. 

 

Obviously it would be even better to have an hypothetical L Apo-Extender X1,4.  

 

 

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[Helmut99]

Thanks for the input Leicaiste,

I might be putting off the decision until after making the Alaska experience with the 70-180 and both APO extenders. Not sure if I'll take the 280 f4 as well.

If it doesn't work out then I may have to go back to Alaska with a used 90-280 in my bag...they already show on ebay ;-)

[helged]

A comparison between the legendary APO280f4 and the new tele-zoom (at 280mm) would be very interesting! Anyone with both lenses...?

[jaapv]

Thanks for the input Leicaiste,

I might be putting off the decision until after making the Alaska experience with the 70-180 and both APO extenders. Not sure if I'll take the 280 f4 as well.

If it doesn't work out then I may have to go back to Alaska with a used 90-280 in my bag...they already show on ebay ;-)

The wonderful transparency of the 280/4.0 APO would make it my first choice for an area like Alaska with its clear Northern light.

[Leicaiste]

For tripod landscape photography or pictures of Bears from a platform at Brooks Falls during the salmon run mid July, I would also recommend the R lenses.

 

For wildlife during a hike or from a boat, I am not so sure.

 

I did it in the past with the R8, but I had many more keepers with the Canon and IS Tele.

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The wonderful transparency of the 280/4.0 APO would make it my first choice for an area like Alaska with its clear Northern light.

 

Unless you sit in a car or plane all the time, I would prefer light equipment in a country like Alaska.

The air is the same for all lenses.      

Edited April 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[steppenw0lf]

My question: has anyone parted from one of those two R lenses (or both) to fund the 90-280? And if yes, why and are you still happy with the decision?

 

Sorry to be so frank: Don't you think it is stupid to sell important equipment to buy something new, but untested ?

Would you do it that way ? I definitely wouldn't - at least one or two seasons with both lenses is mandatory. And there is the possibility to rent.

So why are you looking for such id...  ?

Edited April 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jmahto]

I have a question.

 

Can 90-280 zoom be used as a manual focus lens on any camera other than SL?

 

I am guessing that answer is "no" due to mount distance. The reason I am asking this question because it means (if true), other R zooms and primes in this FL can be used on more than one body but SL zoom has to be used for only one body. This makes R lenses more versatile and future proof (minus AF, of course).

 

edited above.

Edited April 28, 2016 by jmahto

[steppenw0lf]

Can 90-280 zoom be used as a manual focus lens on any camera other than SL?

 

NO

The distance between bayonet and sensor is extremely short - so it won't fit another camera (or not reach infinity, which is pointless).

Additionally I think manual use is fly by wire (can anybody confirm ?). So you would need electricity for moving the focus ring.

Edited April 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jmahto]

Can 90-280 zoom be used as a manual focus lens on any camera other than SL?

 

NO

Then it means other R zooms and primes in this FL are more versatile and future proof (minus AF, of course).

Edited April 28, 2016 by jmahto

[ramarren]

Sorry to be so frank: Don't you think it is stupid to sell important equipment to buy something new, but untested ?

Would you do it that way ? I definitely wouldn't - at least one or two seasons with both lenses is mandatory. And there is the possibility to rent.

So why are you looking for such id...  ?

 

 

Um ... I don't shoot with such long lenses very often, and if I were going to be shooting with a tripod, it wouldn't make any difference to me—I'll just keep working with the lens I had. But I know that any hand-held work I do with such a lens will benefit so enormously from the image stabilization that the SL90-280mm provides, if my shooting involved any important portion of hand-held work at all, I'd dump the R lens in an instant.

 

The difference in quality between the 90-280 and the legendary APO 280 is of no benefit if the image is blurred. 

 

SL lenses also work with the Leica T (presuming the firmware has been updated to support them on the T). R lenses are more compatible with other cameras, but simply cannot offer the functionality of the SL lenses on the SL. If that functionality is advantageous to you, R lenses are not as good an option even if they lock you into the SL and T series Leicas.

 

(I don't know about anyone else, but I bought my SL to use for at least the next five to ten years, or when a newer model of the SL with some enormous advantage is offered. I don't plan to be switching systems for the foreseeable future, so buying dedicated SL lenses isn't constrained by the notion of adaptability in the future.)

Edited April 28, 2016 by ramarren

[steppenw0lf]

Um ... I don't shoot with such long lenses very often, and if I were going to be shooting with a tripod, it wouldn't make any difference to me—I'll just keep working with the lens I had. But I know that any hand-held work I do with such a lens will benefit so enormously from the image stabilization that the SL90-280mm provides, if my shooting involved any important portion of hand-held work at all, I'd dump the R lens in an instant.

 

The difference in quality between the 90-280 and the legendary APO 280 is of no benefit if the image is blurred. 

 

 

So this is NOT an important lens for YOU - no contradiction.

Edited April 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jmahto]

 

....The difference in quality between the 90-280 and the legendary APO 280 is of no benefit if the image is blurred.....

This could be addressed by in-body stabilization (future Leica or current Sony). As I reflected in my comment above, R lenses are future proof than SL zooms.

Edited April 28, 2016 by jmahto

[steppenw0lf]

Then it means other R zooms and primes in this FL are more versatile and future proof (minus AF, of course).

I do not know if anything is future proof. But if you think so, I don't mind.

I use mainly manual lenses, so I like them, they are worth buying. But I would not sign your statement.

 

It also depends a bit on your age - if you have 40-50 good years before you, then you are probably right. Unfortunately many of us don't. 

I agree, the R-lenses will be longer "usable" than many of us. (no offence please to anybody).

 

With less functionality it's easier to be "future-proof": A stone lasts typically longer than a flower.

Edited April 28, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[jmahto]

I do not know if anything is future proof. But if you think so, I don't mind.

I use mainly manual lenses, so I like them, they are worth buying. But I would not sign your statement.

 

It also depends a bit on your age - if you have 40-50 good years before you, then you are probably right. Unfortunately many of us don't. 

I agree, the R-lenses will be longer "usable" than many of us. (no offence please to anybody).

Highlight mine...

 

That's alright. A logical conclusion based on established facts do not need further testimony.

[ramarren]

This could be addressed by in-body stabilization (future Leica or current Sony). As I reflected in my comment above, R lenses are future proof than SL zooms.

 

I wouldn't buy another Sony. Period. 

IBIS is a nice add-on.

 

If you're looking for autofocus, full multimode camera operation, etc, than the R lenses are a dead end. 

If you're happy with manual focus, manual aperture lens operation, then the R lenses are as future proof as any other manual focus, manual aperture lenses. 

 

I don't care much about future proof anymore. With the release of the SL, everything I wanted has been supplied. If I'm going to buy any new lenses, they'll be lenses that expand the full capabilities of the SL.

Edited April 28, 2016 by ramarren

[ramarren]

I do not know if anything is future proof. But if you think so, I don't mind.

I use mainly manual lenses, so I like them, they are worth buying. But I would not sign your statement.

 

It also depends a bit on your age - if you have 40-50 good years before you, then you are probably right. Unfortunately many of us don't. 

I agree, the R-lenses will be longer "usable" than many of us. (no offence please to anybody).

 

I'm hoping for 25. I'll be pushing ninety then ... 

[jmahto]

If you're looking for autofocus, full multimode camera operation, etc, than the R lenses are a dead end. 

If you're happy with manual focus, manual aperture lens operation, then the R lenses are as future proof as any other manual focus, manual aperture lenses. 

 

 

I don't care much about future proof anymore. With the release of the SL, everything I wanted has been supplied. If I'm going to buy any new lenses, they'll be lenses that expand the full capabilities of the SL.

Maybe I should have used "versatile" than "future proof" to explain my thought process. If I get SL zoom then I am stuck to SL's capability where there is room for improvement (let's say DR or megapixel need). Specially in sensor technology there will be further innovations across camera makers. R lenses allow me to take advantage of these right away by exploiting sensors (and features such as IBIS) outside SL and not wait for future SL bodies.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jmahto]

I realized I am stating the obvious.. duh... I am getting old, I guess.

Edited April 28, 2016 by jmahto