anyone..Leica SL+90-280 vs Nikon/Canon?

[tom0511]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

They had one just sitting there on the shelf?

 

I had communicated my interest at my local dealer from the beginning  and they got one in this week, so I decided to take that.

[tom0511]

I took some more images with the 90-280, also side by side with 100 and 180 S lenses on the SL.

I must say I am more than impressed so far with the 90-280.

[Advertisement]

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

[orc999]

as there is the novoflex af adapter out...did anybody have a chance to compare the 70-200 IS II Canon with the 90-280?

This Canon is a very capable lens. Probably Canons best(aside some of the long super highend ones). 

Compared to Zeiss ZE the quality was 70-200, 100macro, 135apo. The apo being the best. Having said that 135apo beats a lot of lenses.

I did try it once on the SL with and adapter in the shop and it's great. Would not be surprised if it's better then the 90-280.

[rriley]

as there is the novoflex af adapter out...did anybody have a chance to compare the 70-200 IS II Canon with the 90-280?

This Canon is a very capable lens. Probably Canons best(aside some of the long super highend ones). 

 

 

Not exactly an answer to your question but I compared the most recent Canon 70-200 to the Leica 70-180 (both on a Canon 5DS) and found the Leica a bit sharper.  If I had compared the lenses before buying the Canon I would not have bought the 70-200.

 

Shortly after buying the 5DS I fell for the SL and the 90-280 is sharper than the Canon at comparable settings.

[orc999]

I had the chance to test both my canon 70-200 II IS, which is amazing and the 90-280.

They gave me the novoflex AF adapter. It was hunting, and there seems to be some problems while it tries to stop down.

No contest on that.

And for image quality: the 90-280 just blew the canon away. Also I was able to shoot at much slower speeds with the Leica.

This experience had financial consequences.

[jrp]

I'm slightly surprised that Leica do not make more of the quality of their SL zooms.  They are very fine lenses and make the system viable even without having a lot of extra lenses.  This project has been well thought through.  Yes, it's expensive, but when it obviates the need for a lot of supplementary lenses that in other systems are needed for performance reasons, the economics are not quite as out of kilter as it first appears.  For example, I was taking some flower shots the other day with the zooms that I would have used a macro lens for, if I was shooting Nikon, and the results would have been no better.

 

I suppose that a lot of this is clear from the MTF charts, but I must say that I did not quite believe them.  More fool me.

[ramarren]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

...

I suppose that a lot of this is clear from the MTF charts, but I must say that I did not quite believe them.  More fool me.

 

 

I tend to believe Leica when it comes to lens quality... their lenses have always been so good, even the "bad" ones, that I have simply come to assume I don't have to think about it too much. Even the ones with many obvious technical flaws, like my favorite Summilux 35mm v2, produce such beautiful photographs I just don't care about the flaws. 

 

I originally wanted the SL primarily for my R lenses, and indeed that is what I use on it most of the time. But I did buy the SL24-90 anyway. And once I accommodated the fact that it is a zoom and that it is somewhat large and heavy (R lenses are not that svelte either...  ), I have to be honest and say that the SL24-90 is a better performer than most of my R or M lenses. They're all at such a high level of quality that the reason to use one or another of them has much more to do with individual lens rendering characteristics, or size/weight considerations, or just the fact that I tend to prefer working with manual focus prime lenses most of the time. 

 

I have no doubt whatever that the SL90-280mm blows away the quality of my R 135, 180, and 250 lenses. I'm tempted, because the OIS makes the lens much easier to use hand-held, but I'm still not convinced that I'd get enough use out of it to be worth the price. I tend to use the 15 to 90 mm range far more of the time. 

[Teddy69]

I had the chance to test both my canon 70-200 II IS, which is amazing and the 90-280.

They gave me the novoflex AF adapter. It was hunting, and there seems to be some problems while it tries to stop down.

No contest on that.

And for image quality: the 90-280 just blew the canon away. Also I was able to shoot at much slower speeds with the Leica.

This experience had financial consequences.

 

Sample ?

[jaapv]

I tend to believe Leica when it comes to lens quality... their lenses have always been so good, even the "bad" ones, that I have simply come to assume I don't have to think about it too much. Even the ones with many obvious technical flaws, like my favorite Summilux 35mm v2, produce such beautiful photographs I just don't care about the flaws. 

 

I originally wanted the SL primarily for my R lenses, and indeed that is what I use on it most of the time. But I did buy the SL24-90 anyway. And once I accommodated the fact that it is a zoom and that it is somewhat large and heavy (R lenses are not that svelte either...  ), I have to be honest and say that the SL24-90 is a better performer than most of my R or M lenses. They're all at such a high level of quality that the reason to use one or another of them has much more to do with individual lens rendering characteristics, or size/weight considerations, or just the fact that I tend to prefer working with manual focus prime lenses most of the time. 

 

I have no doubt whatever that the SL90-280mm blows away the quality of my R 135, 180, and 250 lenses. I'm tempted, because the OIS makes the lens much easier to use hand-held, but I'm still not convinced that I'd get enough use out of it to be worth the price. I tend to use the 15 to 90 mm range far more of the time. 

It would be nice to see a comparison between the 90-280 SL and VarioElmar 105-280 R.

[ramarren]

It would be nice to see a comparison between the 90-280 SL and VarioElmar 105-280 R.

 

 

I agree, it would ... But it wouldn't change anything for me, personally. I never like using adapted zooms very much and the big plus of the native SL lens is the image stabilization. Adapted zooms always seem to be quite clumsy in use for me ... I'm not entirely sure why. 

[jaapv]

Well, I use it on the DMR and the 240, not THAT adapted.

[ramarren]

Well, I use it on the DMR and the 240, not THAT adapted.

 

 

Well, we were talking about the SL.

 

Comparing performance between the two lenses and then equivalencing that across two other, completely different, sensors—particularly when you cannot use the SL lens on those bodies for testing data—would have its share of ambiguity.

 

How does its performance on the DMR compare to its performance on the M240? Have you done any testing in that regard?

Edited September 5, 2016 by ramarren

[scott kirkpatrick]

Comparing performance between the two lenses and then equivalencing that across two other, completely different, sensors—particularly when you cannot use the SL lens on those bodies for testing data—would have its share of ambiguity.

 

How does its performance on the DMR compare to its performance on the M240? Have you done any testing in that regard?

 

The DMR, however lovely the colors, used a 10+ year old 10 MPx CCD sensor.  I can see the value of comparing M240 and SL images, both at 24 MPx, but I think results on the DMR should just be enjoyed for themselves.

 

scott

Edited September 5, 2016 by scott kirkpatrick

[CorpRoadie]

I went form the 5Dm2 with all L glass to the SL with the 24-90/90-280.  Just got back from South Africa where I went on a Safari, Shark Dive, and other things in the area.  I only took the SL and my D-lux (As a back up).  Overall impression of hte SL with the 90-280 on the Safari, it was great, I didn't need the 400mm.  Looking at prints and such of the 4000 photos taken on Safari about 300 are print worthy. 

 

AF - eh, had some issues tracking at times some of the animals thru the bush and such, but over all it tracked i'd say about 75-80% of the time correctly.  Quality of glass over Canon L lesnes - IMPRESSED me!  Straight out of the camera with no correction or anything it just looked "Leica".   

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[jaapv]

Well, we were talking about the SL.

 

Comparing performance between the two lenses and then equivalencing that across two other, completely different, sensors—particularly when you cannot use the SL lens on those bodies for testing data—would have its share of ambiguity.

 

How does its performance on the DMR compare to its performance on the M240? Have you done any testing in that regard?

The 240 is obviously superior in resolution and ISO performance. But I think I have taken my best images using the DMR...

However I was referring to the performance of both lenses on the SL

[kkcsm]

I am not a sports photographer, so I dont need the very fastest AF, but I would want one that is fast enough for tracking my kids and things like that.

 

It really would help to see more images from moving subjects/sports etc. taken with the 90-280.

 

 

Some volleyball pics here:  https://goo.gl/photos/cb9giAbf4bxd1vq58

 

You can search this forum for my writeup on shooting volleyball with this combo..

 

-K