349A Posted April 26, 2016 Share #261 Posted April 26, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not to put words in John's mouth but that post, I believe, was a follow up to a post he made that has now vanished/deleted. Unless I was seeing things. Quite possible. If some can't afford a cinema lens, thats just a shame. What does it have to do with this (photography) lens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted April 26, 2016 Posted April 26, 2016 Hi 349A, Take a look here 90-280/2.8-4. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Sandokan Posted April 26, 2016 Share #262 Posted April 26, 2016 Sorry to go back to basics. Diffraction of a wave is related to wavelength and the size of the gap it is going through. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 26, 2016 Share #263 Posted April 26, 2016 Sorry, I'm confused. I don't have this lens. I was just commenting on the spelling. I have had long zooms in the past and hated their size. So, I'm resisting, despite the comments here. Anyway, I have it on good authority that Leica can never make this lens as good as the 280/4 (there's a word for that lens's perfection which is less interesting to me than the marginally useful "parfocal", and which I have already forgotten). Back in the days when I did use zooms, being parfocal was important to me as Wilson observes - you'd zoom in to focus, then frame by zooming out. If a zoom couldn't hold focus, it was a dud. I appreciate that AF solves this problem slightly, providing you're not using MF. I know this has echoes of digital correction (which doesn't really bother me at all), but it does go to the quality of the production of this zoom. Maybe that's why it has slowed in it's release? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted April 26, 2016 Share #264 Posted April 26, 2016 Lensrentals had a blog entry recently regarding parfocal lenses. They tested multiple copies of several lenses. If I remember correctly the cine lenses were said to be substantially better than the normal lenses in holding focus. I don't think a zoom being parfocal has much to do with quality if it wasn't a design objective to begin with. I would rather it not become a marketing gimmick like APO designation if the tested performance doesn't hold up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wildlightphoto Posted April 26, 2016 Share #265 Posted April 26, 2016 Back in the days when I did use zooms, being parfocal was important to me as Wilson observes - you'd zoom in to focus, then frame by zooming out. If a zoom couldn't hold focus, it was a dud. I appreciate that AF solves this problem slightly, providing you're not using MF. Instead of zooming in to focus we can now touch a button and use the magnified focus feature of the EVF. Parfocal problems averted, at least for still photography. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
IkarusJohn Posted April 26, 2016 Share #266 Posted April 26, 2016 Of course, Doug. I was just explaining the historical preference - in practice, I'm sure being parfocal on the SL is of little concern, unless the focus shifts to a horrendous degree ... It isn't important to me on the 24-90, and as I say I have no particular interest in the 90-280 at this stage (opening the box would be a nightmare moment for me - head in hands, looking at the size of it and thinking "I've paid $10,000 for a lens I'll never use"). I already have 180mm and 360mm covered with my APO-Elmarit-R and extender. The justification for this lens for me is non-existent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted April 26, 2016 Share #267 Posted April 26, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) The concept of a zoom lens being parafocal is of considerable importance to serious video makers, who will want to focus manually on a subject and then zoom in on or out from it. They don't want to be having to alter focus when they do that. When I was allowed to watch a couple of professional cine lenses being serviced on location by Zeiss and Cooke, parafocal accuracy was something they checked very carefully on the reassembled lenses (after cleaning and adjusting). Cooke just checked it at a couple of distances but Zeiss had a more sophisticated set up in their trailer truck than Cooke had in their caravan, and could check parafocal accuracy at multiple distances on a computerised optical bench. Wilson The Vario-Elmarit-SL 24-90 and 90-280 mm lenses are, IMO, not primarily intended as video production lenses. They lack stepless manual aperture control and require servo motors to operate the focus setting. These are still photography lenses primarily. Leica already makes professional grade video production lenses with both these attributes that can be used on the SL. I believe they also sell the adapter required to use them. Professional video lenses are almost never auto-focus ... That's not how a videographer works focusing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonoslack Posted April 27, 2016 Share #268 Posted April 27, 2016 Excellent Godfrey - I'm sure you're right - Leica would suggest you use their cine lenses! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 27, 2016 Share #269 Posted April 27, 2016 The Leica cine lenses actually seem to be rather good value in comparison to the cost of the Arri-Zeiss, Angénieux and even Cooke equivalents. I suppose as "the new boy on the block", Leica had to be competitive to tempt cinematographers away from the devils they knew. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Spencer Posted April 27, 2016 Share #270 Posted April 27, 2016 The Leica cine lenses actually seem to be rather good value in comparison to the cost of the Arri-Zeiss, Angénieux and even Cooke equivalents. I suppose as "the new boy on the block", Leica had to be competitive to tempt cinematographers away from the devils they knew. Wilson The Summicron Cine lens are very competitive with the Arri-Zeiss Ultra primes and the Cooke T2 primes (about the same price as Arri-Zeiss and maybe 10% less than Cooke), but the Summilux Cine lenses are about 50% more expensive than the Arri-Zeiss Master Primes or the Cooke T1.4 primes. So Leica has the more entry level competitively priced, but the high end still has a premium price. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugues33 Posted April 28, 2016 Share #271 Posted April 28, 2016 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! Rocher de la Vierge at 280mm BIARRITZ (FRANCE) 2 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! Rocher de la Vierge at 280mm BIARRITZ (FRANCE) ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257858-90-28028-4/?do=findComment&comment=3034878'>More sharing options...
Hugues33 Posted April 28, 2016 Share #272 Posted April 28, 2016 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! 3 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257858-90-28028-4/?do=findComment&comment=3034880'>More sharing options...
Hugues33 Posted April 28, 2016 Share #273 Posted April 28, 2016 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! 8 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257858-90-28028-4/?do=findComment&comment=3034881'>More sharing options...
adli Posted April 29, 2016 Share #274 Posted April 29, 2016 On this picture, the skye seems a bit muddy on the edges (far left and far right side). Is this caused by the lens or post processing? biarritz (1 sur 1)-6.jpg Rocher de la Vierge at 280mm BIARRITZ (FRANCE) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted April 29, 2016 Share #275 Posted April 29, 2016 Or the light ? Hard to see how a lens could do such a thing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugues33 Posted April 29, 2016 Share #276 Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) Thank for your interest This is the file without any treatment opening in LR6 : 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! Edited April 29, 2016 by Hugues33 1 Link to post Share on other sites Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members! ' data-webShareUrl='https://www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/257858-90-28028-4/?do=findComment&comment=3035763'>More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 29, 2016 Share #277 Posted April 29, 2016 (edited) It is almost a photo where a hard edge graduated ND filter, set at the sea/sky junction could have helped and then you dodge over the top part of the rock/castle to lighten that up to match the lower part. Wilson Edited April 29, 2016 by wlaidlaw Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted April 29, 2016 Share #278 Posted April 29, 2016 It is almost a photo where a hard edge graduated ND filter, set at the sea/sky junction could have helped and then you dodge over the top part of the rock/castle to lighten that up to match the lower part. Wilson A lot easier in PS: select the sky (there's plenty of contrast to allow that to be done automatically), and adjust. As an alternative in LR, use an adjustment brush with Auto Mask. You may have to do a bit of erasing in non-sky areas, but nothing tricky. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted April 30, 2016 Share #279 Posted April 30, 2016 I A lot easier in PS: select the sky (there's plenty of contrast to allow that to be done automatically), and adjust. As an alternative in LR, use an adjustment brush with Auto Mask. You may have to do a bit of erasing in non-sky areas, but nothing tricky. I agree a lot easier in PS but if you use a graduated filter it avoids the "blocky" effects you sometimes get with PS after a fair bit of manipulation of the image. OTOH by the time you have set up the camera on a tripod with a Lee filter holder and put in the various filters you need and adjusted them to suit, the moment may have passed. It is certainly not something you can do with your better half in attendance. By the time you are a quarter of the way through the rigmarole, she will have become bored and gone off shopping. Wilson 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LocalHero1953 Posted May 2, 2016 Share #280 Posted May 2, 2016 Still waiting for mine......... I haven't seen posts from anyone else getting one recently here or on FB. Looks like a longer than expected hiatus in production/delivery. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now