90-280/2.8-4

[Suteetat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for your advise. The trip at the end of the year is Easter Island and Antarctica cruise on expedition trip. The main limiting factor will be 20kg plus one carry on on  a chartered flight from Punta Arenas to King George's Island. Let say, if I bring D500, 300/4PF + teleconverter, that would be a touch under 2kg. SL and 90-280 will be another 2.5 kg. I probably would bring A7r ii with WATE, 35mm (fle or Zeiss zm), 50/2 apo and may be Batis 25/2 (or 24/2.8 elmarit), that would be 2 kg. Redundancy wise, SL and A7r ii can take almost all the lenses wiht adapters except 1-2 here and there. 24-90 I would leave at home as I think WATE, 35/1.4 and 50/2 apo would be better. I might throw in Loxia 21/2.8 or 21/1.4 lux as I like 21mm more than 24mm (yes, WATE will cover that to so I am not sure what to do yet). In reality, the trip is not that hard on camera otherwise even though A7r ii may have a bit of problem here and there with temperature but a friend went earlier this year with it and did not have any serious malfunction. The reason for 3 bodies is because I heard that while on land, it is not always easy to change lenses so better to carry 2 or may be 3 bodies instead.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Suteetat

[CiraCrowell]

Greetings Leica friends, I was very skeptical about the 90-280 size but received mine yesterday and can say it balances suprisingly well.  I am petite and it is heavy but very usable even to 1/60th handheld.  The image quality compared to my trusty R 80-200 is a substantial improvement, especially in shadow detail and lack of chromatic aberration.  The 90-280 is super clean and bokeh is much more smooth and modern than the R, but of course not magical like the noctis.  The tripod mount is removable.  Jury is still out on the AF.  Unmounted, it fits vertically in a messenger bag.  Sorry I don't have test pics to post right now.  Will try to share later.  If you want to see side by side comparisons with other lenses (R and Nikkor 70-200) check out: https://www.instagram.com/leicacrush.

Edited April 7, 2016 by CiraCrowell

[jaapv]

That is a lot of gear, Jaap. Much more than I like to carry. 

 

I have little reservations about the reliability of the SL and its lenses; I'd carry just the one body, R15, SL24-90, R180 plus 2x teleconverter. Three batteries, enough cards for 4000 exposures. Charger, iPad + charger for that, SD card reader for the iPad for those moments when I want a raw file to work with. That's about it. The R15 and SL24-90 aren't light, but the whole kit together remains compact and manageable, fits in my Lowepro sling bag if I want (and certainly that Peak Design bag).  

 

The SL90-280 seems a wonderful lens, but that's a bit more bulk than I really enjoy carrying all that much. I carry lenses like that only when I have specific targets in mind. 

It is. But my trips usually are two/three weeks in rural Africa/coast relaxation and a couple of weeks into national parks. The long side of the gear stays in my room in the first part and the second part will see little use for my short lenses. Basically I should take a couple of 5Ds and a Sigme 18-250 I guess, but I like to stick with Leica .

 

Anyway, let me repeat my advice not to forget to take a second charger.

 

As for the  Antarctic trip, member Michali should be able to give advice on the gear to take for that situation.

[steppenw0lf]

I am in trouble. At the end of the year, I will have one of those dream trip for 3 weeks in which I was told that everything from 16mm to 500-600mm will be useful.

Long end, I decided to dish Nikon 200-500/5.6 for 300/4 PF +/- teleconverter already as weight will be a factor during travel as well as I will need to be able to carry all camera gears

for several hours at a time hiking. Wide end was easy, WATE, Zeiss 35/1.4 and 50/2 apo will be small and light (at least relative to other lenses). I have been contemplating

the 70-200 zoom range. I was thinking more of Nikon 70-200/4 rather than 70-200/2.8 for weight reduction but I was also waiting to see what the Sony 70-200/2.8 that is coming soon

will be like plus there is a rumor of Nikon possibly updating 70-200/2.8 with PF during 4th quarter of this year. 90-280 is definitely on the back of my mind but at almost 2 kgs if I am not mistaken,

I was not all that serious about it but seeing some pictures here, I start to have second thought

 

Hello Suteetat.

Do you need the newest zooms ? If not then the R 4/80-200 could be the perfect lens. It can even be used for macro. But you probably want OIS ...

Stephan

Edited April 7, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[cpclee]

Amazing

 

Just posted my review of the 90-280 SL for those interested:

 

Leica APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4 Lens Review: Telephoto Titan for the SL (Typ 601)

[thighslapper]

Thanks for the excellent review Dave ......... confirms my initial impressions that this is going to a lens that will take some beating both in terms of ergonomics and image quality.

[steppenw0lf]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just posted my review of the 90-280 SL for those interested:

 

Leica APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL 90-280mm f/2.8-4 Lens Review: Telephoto Titan for the SL (Typ 601)

 

 

Hi,

 

the photos of the butterflies are really great, especially the pictures of the heliconidae. And the red hues are so brilliant !!

But I cannot stop myself from asking: Is this the output with the default settings, or did you increase the color saturation in LR ? 

I also took many photos of them (birdwings, heliconidae and others) with older gear (D800, 5Ds), but never reached this level of intensity in the colors. But I am too lazy to work in depth with LR. So I have to know how you did it.  

 

Thanks.    Stephan

[dfarkas]

Hi,

 

the photos of the butterflies are really great, especially the pictures of the heliconidae. And the red hues are so brilliant !!

But I cannot stop myself from asking: Is this the output with the default settings, or did you increase the color saturation in LR ? 

I also took many photos of them (birdwings, heliconidae and others) with older gear (D800, 5Ds), but never reached this level of intensity in the colors. But I am too lazy to work in depth with LR. So I have to know how you did it.  

 

Thanks.    Stephan

 

Thanks. I processed the files in LR CC and did apply a moderate bump in vibrance and saturation (about +10-15 each). So, nothing crazy. My secret (shhhh.....) is dropping the blacks, pumping the whites, while simultaneously pulling down highlights and opening up the shadows. This increases the pop without sacrificing detail. 

[FMB]

wildlightphoto people,

 

after having seen David review still think Apo R f: 4, 280 mm is better than that beast?

 

Francisco

[Suteetat]

Thanks. I processed the files in LR CC and did apply a moderate bump in vibrance and saturation (about +10-15 each). So, nothing crazy. My secret (shhhh.....) is dropping the blacks, pumping the whites, while simultaneously pulling down highlights and opening up the shadows. This increases the pop without sacrificing detail. 

Amazing, I managed to obtain some butterfly pictures with similar intensity and contrast with Nikon but with much more boost in PS than what you described but the picture never really pop like this. Zeiss 135/2 apo is the closest in IQ from what I have but still not quite . I am very much sold on 90-280 from you review

Edited April 7, 2016 by Suteetat

[CheshireCat]

Zeiss 135/2 apo is the closest in IQ from what I have but still not quite .

 

 

Still not quite what ?

[Suteetat]

Hello Suteetat.

Do you need the newest zooms ? If not then the R 4/80-200 could be the perfect lens. It can even be used for macro. But you probably want OIS ...

Stephan

Thanks for the suggestion. I was looking at 70-180/2.8 R before but since it weights about the same as the new 90-280 so I was not paying much attention to it. However, 70-200/4 will be lighter and I don't really mind MF with SL so I will have to see if I can find one locally to try first.

[ramarren]

Thanks. I processed the files in LR CC and did apply a moderate bump in vibrance and saturation (about +10-15 each). So, nothing crazy. My secret (shhhh.....) is dropping the blacks, pumping the whites, while simultaneously pulling down highlights and opening up the shadows. This increases the pop without sacrificing detail. 

 

 

That much can be done with in-camera JPEG settings in many cases. 

[wildlightphoto]

wildlightphoto people,

 

after having seen David review still think Apo R f: 4, 280 mm is better than that beast?

 

Francisco

 

 

I'll have to try the lens for myself.  My initial impression is the 280/4 APO is still the one to beat but the proof is in the pictures.

Edited April 7, 2016 by wildlightphoto

[dfarkas]

I'll have to try the lens for myself.  My initial impression is the 280/4 APO is still the one to beat but the proof is in the pictures.

 

I didn't have a 280mm f/4 APO to test against the 90-280 SL, but I did put it up against my 180mm APO-Elmarit-R.....

 

The 90-280 was noticeably sharper @ 180mm, not just in the corners wide open (which wasn't even close), but also in the center. I manually focused both at 100% on a tripod. Frankly, it wasn't the result I was expecting. There was also a distinct green cast to the R lens when both were set to the same WB. 

 

The 180 APO Elmarit is an awesome lens, especially as compact as it is. The 90-280 is just a better performer. 

[FMB]

I'll have to try the lens for myself.  My initial impression is the 280/4 APO is still the one to beat but the proof is in the pictures.

I am expectant about your diagnosis to know how far new generations of Leica technicians have progressed.

 

Francisco.

[dkCambridgeshire]

I'll have to try the lens for myself.  My initial impression is the 280/4 APO is still the one to beat but the proof is in the pictures.

 

 

 

The 280/4 R cannot currently be 'whooped' in its ability to be used with a 1.4x or 2x APO extender - which is why I'll not be PX-ing mine for a 90-280 SL.  I find its 560/8 mode so useful.

 

dunk

[cpclee]

Regardless of whether the 280/4 APO still betters the 90-280, the latter is clearly phenomenal and offers so much versatility in one package. I think we are just at the beginning of really seeing the advantages the SL system offers. 

 

 

I didn't have a 280mm f/4 APO to test against the 90-280 SL, but I did put it up against my 180mm APO-Elmarit-R.....

 

The 90-280 was noticeably sharper @ 180mm, not just in the corners wide open (which wasn't even close), but also in the center. I manually focused both at 100% on a tripod. Frankly, it wasn't the result I was expecting. There was also a distinct green cast to the R lens when both were set to the same WB. 

 

The 180 APO Elmarit is an awesome lens, especially as compact as it is. The 90-280 is just a better performer. 

[Suteetat]

Still not quite what ?

Going back to compare some butterflies pictures that I took with A7r and 135/2 apo last year,  the pictures from Sony/Zeiss looks a bit more flat. May be it was just the difference in focal lenght

that gave better subject isolation. Sharpness, contrast is not a problem and bokeh rendering on Zeiss is very nice but I just don't see as much depth, that's all. Also, with Sony/Zeiss, I was mostly shooting at minimum focusing distance mostly which was not the case in the sample of 90-280 (guessing from the size of the butterflies, as both have similar magnification ratio) which

is more amazing to me I think. Granted it is with different camera and different photographers,locations etc but I am still impressed nevertheless.

Edited April 7, 2016 by Suteetat

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[CheshireCat]

Going back to compare some butterflies pictures that I took with A7r and 135/2 apo last year,  the pictures from Sony/Zeiss looks a bit more flat. May be it was just the difference in focal lenght

that gave better subject isolation. Sharpness, contrast is not a problem and bokeh rendering on Zeiss is very nice but I just don't see as much depth, that's all. Also, with Sony/Zeiss, I was mostly shooting at minimum focusing distance mostly which was not the case in the sample of 90-280 (guessing from the size of the butterflies, as both have similar magnification ratio) which

is more amazing to me I think. Granted it is with different camera and different photographers,locations etc but I am still impressed nevertheless.

 

Thanks for the details, Suteetat. I think David's images are very nice, but assessing sharpness at web resolution is not possible.

Keep in mind that post-processing is as important as the lens, and that the Zeiss 135/2 APO outresolves a 24 MP sensor wide open.