90-280/2.8-4

[gerhard.hagen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi,

 

in Germany it is actually 5800,- EUR incl. VAT

[cpclee]

Thanks.  The same weight but longer than the 70-180/2.8.

 

I read it is 4650 including VAT.

 

Here are some specs:

[Advertisement]

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

[cpclee]

$6395 before tax in the US.

 

I would love to see what someone like Norbert Rosing can do with this lens.  

[steppenw0lf]

$6395 before tax in the US.

 

I would love to see what someone like Norbert Rosing can do with this lens.  

 

 

Hi,

 

I would also like to see this. But realistically it will be just about as good as what he does now already. A new lens will not make him much better. He knows where to be when, and to look into the right direction. We mortals usually don't. So it is also with Douglas Herr and other gifted (wildlife) photographers.

 

For some it could even be said that they are so good despite their equipment.

 

Stephan

[Joshua Lowe]

The F1 season is upon us and there's at least 1 Leica-backed photographer armed with an SL.  I assume he's already got the 90-280.  He posted some SL shots of one of the Ferraris on track that were way oversaturated and felt detached due to distance.  He didn't specify what lens he was using, though.

 

The saturation is probably due to his workflow, the distance thing depends on the track and the subjects.  Some tracks you can get away with a 70-200 if you're credentialed (I got a lot of use out of a 24-70 on a 1.4 crop body at Laguna Seca) and others require at least a 300.  I never shot an F1 race but from what I've seen there's usually a lot of distance between the cars and the photogs, places like Monaco excepted.

 

On-track motorsports photography will be a real test of the "no compromises" camera and lenses.

Edited March 16, 2016 by Joshua Lowe

[Rick]

Hi Jaapv,

 

don't take it as an insult, but I never liked the 105-280, I always found it ugly and unwieldy. (No offence please).

I was actually always quite glad that I never had the money to buy one. (One of the few times that missing money made me happy).

And it is not even Apo (again no offence).

I always liked the 250 and 350 instead, though especially the 350 is quite poor in image quality compared (contrast !).

 

As this is not the first Apo from Leica, I expect only the best, and cannot see a reason why they should fail. (Size and weight of the 90-280 are probably quite conventional and not out of the ordinary, so not a risky construction at all). For example not as advanced as the Nikon fresnel lense construction (AF-S 300mm PF ED) or the Canon DO (diffractive optics) construction in the EF 4/400.

 

Stephan

 

 

Stephan -  Not sure what you mean by ugly... bokeh or what?  I found the 105-280 an excellent lens and extremely versatile.  Not much difference between photos from it and the 280/4 APO or the big 280/2.8 APO.  Leica didn't make too many of the 105-280 so, they are hard to find and they are still expensive.

 

I suspect the new SL 90-280 will not be any better than these lenses I mentioned.  These R-lenses are for the most part defraction limited, so it would be difficult to do much better than that.  

 

I assume the new new SL zoom is going to be fantastic.  Great times to be a Leica shooter.

 

Rick

[IkarusJohn]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Stephan -  Not sure what you mean by ugly... bokeh or what?  I found the 105-280 an excellent lens and extremely versatile.  Not much difference between photos from it and the 280/4 APO or the big 280/2.8 APO.  Leica didn't make too many of the 105-280 so, they are hard to find and they are still expensive.

 

I suspect the new SL 90-280 will not be any better than these lenses I mentioned.  These R-lenses are for the most part defraction limited, so it would be difficult to do much better than that.  

 

I assume the new new SL zoom is going to be fantastic.  Great times to be a Leica shooter.

 

Rick

 

I seem to recall Jaap making a similar comment in relation to the R 280/4 that as it was diffraction limited it cannot be improved upon (a surprising statement, I thought at the time) - surely, things can always be improved.

 

In my undisputed ignorance of the matter, I had a look at Wikipedia.  Here's what it said in the first paragraph (about as much as my attention span can deal with):

 

 

 

The resolution of an optical imaging system – a microscope, telescope, or camera – can be limited by factors such as imperfections in the lenses or misalignment. However, there is a fundamental maximum to the resolution of any optical system which is due to diffraction. An optical system with the ability to produce images with angular resolution as good as the instrument's theoretical limit is said to be diffraction limited.^[1]

 

Further reading suggests that (1) there is an element of diffraction at all apertures, and (2) the diffraction limit in a digital system depends on the sensor as much as anything.

 

Now, this is nothing more than a genuine question - I understand that diffraction limited is frequently used to support the statement that the size of the smallest feature in an image that is diffraction limited is the size of the Airy disc. And I think I understand that concept.  What I don't really understand is the idea that a lens designed sometime in the early 1990s (or even earlier), and last made in 2009 really is that perfect and genuinely cannot ever be made again or improved upon.

 

I appreciate that we all love our favourite lenses, and this lens is apparently legendary; but can this really be true?

Edited March 17, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[jaapv]

That article is slightly confusing, as it does not address lens diffraction as such (which is not the same as diffraction of a sensor), albeit linked to it,  and attempts to sweep all types of diffraction on one heap.

A definition of Erwin Puts of a diffraction limited lens might clear the confusion up:
 

the optical aberrations are so small that the size and shape of the image point is governed solely by physical laws. The absolute limit can be found at 450 Lp/mm.

Thus a diffraction limited lens cannot be improved on, as it is limited by the immutable laws of physics.

Maybe a strange comparison, but postulating a vehicle that moves at the speed of light, it would be impossible to design a faster vehicle despite any progress of technology.

 

And here you can find an explanation of sensor diffraction and the way it relates to the way the lens projects the image points:

 

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm]

[dgktkr]

The diffraction limit is well established. It is based on solutions to Maxwell's equations, which accurately describe the behavior of light. A small spot in the focal plane of a lens (say, from an image of a star) can be no smaller than the Airy disc. For an otherwise perfect lens, this spot size depends on on the f-number of the lens and the wavelength of the light. If the lens isn't perfect, i.e. there are significant aberrations, the spot size will be bigger.

 

There are ways of doing better than the diffraction limit, but they tend to be complicated and expensive. For instance, check out the STED (STimulated Emission Depletion) work of Stefan Hell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Hell, which relies on nonlinear optics.

 

dgktkr

 

...

Now, this is nothing more than a genuine question - I understand that diffraction limited is frequently used to support the statement that the size of the smallest feature in an image that is diffraction limited is the size of the Airy disc. And I think I understand that concept.  What I don't really understand is the idea that a lens designed sometime in the early 1990s (or even earlier), and last made in 2009 really is that perfect and genuinely cannot ever be made again or improved upon.

 

I appreciate that we all love our favourite lenses, and this lens is apparently legendary; but can this really be true?

Edited March 17, 2016 by dgktkr

[jaapv]

I don't think STED is applicable to photography. At any rate, I am unaware of anybody even trying. Interesting nonetheless.

[IkarusJohn]

Thanks dgktkr, I will look at that article.  Your description matches my understanding.

 

Jaap, I sometimes wonder about Erwin's statements.  I generally like his contributions, but I do take them with a grain of salt.  Bower & Clark are more measured in their description of the lens:

 

 

The careful choice of new glass with special dispersion characteristics results in an exceptionally high performance.  Without doubt the lens delivers the best image quality in the R-system as of moment of writing (sic).

 

In relation to performance, they say:

 

 

Vignetting is 0.8 stop and there is pincushion distortion of less than 1%.  At maximum aperture overall contrast is very high with crisp definition of extremely fine detail over the whole image area,  There is some softening at the edges of small objects in the outer zones of the picture.  At f/5.6 we reach the optimum with superb reproduction the smallest textural structures of the subjects ...

 

I had read the Cambridge Article you linked, Jaap.  The comment at the end of the first paragraph, that there is a point at which stopping down a lens becomes counterproductive due to diffraction and your lens then becomes diffraction limited made perfect sense to me.

 

Rick's comment that "I suspect the new SL 90-280 will not be any better than these lenses I mentioned.  These R-lenses are for the most part defraction limited, so it would be difficult to do much better than that" doesn't really fit with that understanding.  I guess the point is that the 280/4 and other lenses Rick refers to are not​ supposed to be diffraction limited (i.e., no diffraction at any aperture), and that seems a bold statement to me.

 

Also, is whether or not a lens is diffraction limited the be all and end all?  I guess I keep beating this subject because this is repeated as a mantra for perfection, and I find the thought that Leica cannot ever improve on the 280/4 mildly depressing.

Edited March 17, 2016 by IkarusJohn

[cpclee]

Unless the 280/4 APO is already diffraction limited at f4.0, there is always room for improvement :-)  Just that the improvement may not be practically meaningful.

[wildlightphoto]

Also, is whether or not a lens is diffraction limited the be all and end all?  I guess I keep beating this subject because this is repeated as a mantra for perfection, and I find the thought that Leica cannot ever improve on the 280/4 mildly depressing.

 

 

What is often missing in discussions of diffraction-limited lenses is the aperture at which the lens is said to be diffraction-limited.  Diffraction-limited resolution is reached when optical aberrations no longer influence the size of a point image.  A lens that reaches the diffraction limit at a wider aperture has fewer optical abberations than one that reaches the limit at a smaller aperture.

 

I'd be delighted with any lens that approaches the image quality of the 280 APO.

 

 

Unless the 280/4 APO is already diffraction limited at f4.0, there is always room for improvement :-)  Just that the improvement may not be practically meaningful.

 

I find the improvement in image quality stopping the 280 APO down to f/5.6 to be insignificant.  I use the aperture for DOF control, nothing else.

[cpclee]

So for a foreigner who can get refunded the 19% VAT this is 4,874 euros. Or 5,460 dollars.

 

Hi,

 

in Germany it is actually 5800,- EUR incl. VAT

[CheshireCat]

Further reading suggests that (1) there is an element of diffraction at all apertures, and (2) the diffraction limit in a digital system depends on the sensor as much as anything.

 

Now, this is nothing more than a genuine question - I understand that diffraction limited is frequently used to support the statement that the size of the smallest feature in an image that is diffraction limited is the size of the Airy disc. And I think I understand that concept.  What I don't really understand is the idea that a lens designed sometime in the early 1990s (or even earlier), and last made in 2009 really is that perfect and genuinely cannot ever be made again or improved upon.

 

 

The simple answer is that Leica's optical engineers are great, but unfortunately they have not yet succeeded in changing the laws of physics in this universe.

But not all is lost. Keep reading...

 

A diffraction limited lens means that the "errors" introduced by diffraction (i.e. laws of physics) are greater than the "errors" introduced by the lens design aberrations.

The sensor also introduces an "error", i.e. spatial quantization, also known as "pixel size". If the sensor pixel size is greater than the other "errors" mentioned above, then it is said that the lens outresolves the sensor. Good Leica lenses outresolve 24 MP monochrome sensors, let alone color sensors (the issue is a bit more complicated for colors, but you get the idea).

 

So, we can safely say that it does not make much sense to improve these great lenses, before first increasing the sensor resolution.

 

As soon as Leica will come up with - say - a 100+ MP sensor, the bottleneck might be lens aberrations or diffraction again.

We can't change the laws of physics (yet ) but we can certainly understand their effects and take countermeasures.

A computer model of the lens "errors" can be created and used by software to "reverse" the errors (up to a certain point) for a much cleaner image.

[jaapv]

Unless the 280/4 APO is already diffraction limited at f4.0, there is always room for improvement :-)  Just that the improvement may not be practically meaningful.

That is the point. The lens IS diffraction limited @ 4.0. For instance the APO - Elmarit R 180 / 2.8 is not. (but close)

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20081217074256/http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1864.pdf

[CheshireCat]

That is the point. The [280mm] lens IS diffraction limited @ 4.0. For instance the APO

 

https://web.archive.org/web/20081217074256/http://en.leica-camera.com/assets/file/download.php?filename=file_1864.pdf

 

According to Erwin's usable contrast of 300 lp/mm (600 pixels/mm) with this lens, it is easy to see that this lens could resolve a 311 MP monochrome sensor, and would fare really well on a 1 GP color sensor.

 

That should be enough for you guys to stop worrying about the new 90-280 being worse than the old prime.

The only problem here is that our sensors suck.

Edited March 17, 2016 by CheshireCat

[pop]

The only problem here is that our sensors suck.

Yours may do so. Mine does not. It makes most beautiful images.

[CheshireCat]

Yours may do so. Mine does not. It makes most beautiful images.

 

 

Oh,I am sure about that.

But in physics, everything is relative. And physically speaking, your sensor compared to the Apo 280 sucks too

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pop]

 And physically speaking, your sensor compared to the Apo 280 sucks too

I am, of course, typing and not physically speaking right now as you would fail to hear me again. The rendering of my pictures is mostly limited by the sensor and not to any signifcant degree by the imaging optics, and that's as I prefer it to be.