90-280/2.8-4

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Ffordes have advised me that Leica have confirmed there are production problems with this lens, which is causing a delay in deliveries to dealers. I now wish I had taken my 80-200/f4 R lens to France with me but space was at a premium. However, I would much rather Leica took their time rather than sending yet another duff lens to me, that needs to go straight back to the factory for re-assembly. 

 

Wilson

 

.... confirms what one dealer I ordered from said ..... all 3 of their scheduled lenses had been withdrawn ..... presumably as some problem had cropped up and on re-checking they were found to be out of spec .... or needed re-checking more carefully. 

 

my lens seems fine ...... not sure how to check accurately if it is parfocal though .... going from 280 down to 90 it appears fine ...... but obviously going from 90 (where dof is greater and judging the precise focus point is difficult) to 280 is a different story .... even with full magnif. and manual focussing.

[wlaidlaw]

.... confirms what one dealer I ordered from said ..... all 3 of their scheduled lenses had been withdrawn ..... presumably as some problem had cropped up and on re-checking they were found to be out of spec .... or needed re-checking more carefully. 

 

my lens seems fine ...... not sure how to check accurately if it is parfocal though .... going from 280 down to 90 it appears fine ...... but obviously going from 90 (where dof is greater and judging the precise focus point is difficult) to 280 is a different story .... even with full magnif. and manual focussing.

 

Do the following all on a tripod. Turn on manual focus, lens wide open, VF zoomed to maximum, peaking turned on and focus on something at about 4 meters at 90mm. Then gradually change the zoom and see if the focus changes. If it doesn't, lens is parafocal. My Zeiss Contax Vario Sonnar 35-70 went out of parafocal. I sent it to the "official" Zeiss lens agents in the UK, Johnsons Photopia. Not only did it come back worse but with a nice big scratch across the front element.

 

Cue phone call to my contact at Contax UK, where I was a beta tester. The response was: "We would send you a new one if we had one but we don't. Would a 35-70 for your Contax G2 do instead". Yes please was the answer and the damaged Vario Sonnar 35-70 went off to Malcolm Taylor to have the scratch polished out and the front element recoated plus a rejig to make it parafocal again. 

 

Wilson

[thighslapper]

from my limited testing I would say this lens is not parfocal ...... or rather my lens is not parfocal.

 

is there anything in the literature from Leica to suggest it should be ? 

 

looking at the lens diagram and assuming the internals are similar to the 24-90 it is already fiendishly complicated ...... possibly parfocal throughout this wide range for an AF OIS lens was a bridge too far ..... even for Leica 

 

if it is meant to be parfocal then mine needs adjusting/replacing ...... but as it works fine for everything I ask of it I would be reluctant to part with it.

Edited April 25, 2016 by thighslapper

[ramarren]

Someone who has one is saying his is not parafocal. I wonder if this could be the problem. It certainly should be parafocal, as this is of considerable importance to movie makers if less so using AF on stills. 

 

Wilson

 

 

What problem are you referring to?

[wlaidlaw]

On another thread, someone reported his 90-280 was not parafocal. Now I have no idea of his ability to test this accurately or his even methodology but it is not difficult to determine, as I posted above. Should his report be correct (and that is a big if), it could explain the production difficulties. Leica have exhibited a serious inability in the recent past to assemble their lenses consistently to the required tolerances, with the Noctilux and 35 FLE seeming to garner a fair number of complaints on this forum. On a high count multi element lens such as the 90-280, super accurate assembly of the elements and their positioning in the various sliding concentric sleeves is vital for the lens performance in general and parafocalicity (apologies for the horrible constructed word) in particular. 

 

Wilson

[349A]

On another thread, someone reported his 90-280 was not parafocal. Now I have no idea of his ability to test this accurately or his even methodology but it is not difficult to determine, as I posted above. Should his report be correct (and that is a big if), it could explain the production difficulties. Leica have exhibited a serious inability in the recent past to assemble their lenses consistently to the required tolerances, with the Noctilux and 35 FLE seeming to garner a fair number of complaints on this forum. On a high count multi element lens such as the 90-280, super accurate assembly of the elements and their positioning in the various sliding concentric sleeves is vital for the lens performance in general and parafocalicity (apologies for the horrible constructed word) in particular. 

 

Wilson

 

You seem to be assuming its supposed to be parafocal. The thread you reference is a question and answer rather than a report of a problem. I have no idea if it is supposed to be parafocal or not. Maybe yes, maybe no. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I didn't even know the SL lenses were supposed to be parfocal. It's not in the brochure that I could see. Where did Leica say they were supposed to be true parfocal lenses?

 

Gordon

[Jeff S]

On another thread, someone reported his 90-280 was not parafocal. Now I have no idea of his ability to test this accurately or his even methodology but it is not difficult to determine, as I posted above. Should his report be correct (and that is a big if), it could explain the production difficulties. Leica have exhibited a serious inability in the recent past to assemble their lenses consistently to the required tolerances, with the Noctilux and 35 FLE seeming to garner a fair number of complaints on this forum. On a high count multi element lens such as the 90-280, super accurate assembly of the elements and their positioning in the various sliding concentric sleeves is vital for the lens performance in general and parafocalicity (apologies for the horrible constructed word) in particular. 

 

Wilson

 

For the intended word 'horribly'? 

 

Jeff

[wlaidlaw]

For the intended word 'horribly'? 

 

Jeff

 

No - it was an adjective applied to "word" not an adverb applied to "constructed". 

[wlaidlaw]

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

[Steve Spencer]

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

 

But any serious videographer of that level would rule out the SL lenses right away because they do not have manual aperture and is not designed for manual focus with follow focus, both of which are really needed as least as much (really quite a bit more) for videography than being parafocal. A serious videographer can buy the Leica Cine lenses or you can even get a modified R 70-180 f/2.8 APO that would be a much better choice for videography. This SL long zoom really isn't the right tool for that purpose.  

[IkarusJohn]

Parfocal. 

[wlaidlaw]

But any serious videographer of that level would rule out the SL lenses right away because they do not have manual aperture and is not designed for manual focus with follow focus, both of which are really needed as least as much (really quite a bit more) for videography than being parafocal. A serious videographer can buy the Leica Cine lenses or you can even get a modified R 70-180 f/2.8 APO that would be a much better choice for videography. This SL long zoom really isn't the right tool for that purpose.  

 

I would totally agree that focus indexing would really be needed for a serious video lens but for a lens at the cost of the 90-280, the facility to use it as an MF video lens should be there. Anyway from John's post above, it would seem that Leica has had this in mind and done the right thing. I know that Zeiss was failing at the QC stage, a very high proportion of the Contax N and 645 auto focus zoom lenses made by Kyocera. The most common fail reason was that the lens was not parafocal, so it would seem that good lens designers regard this as an important characteristic for their AF zoom lenses. 

 

Wilson

[steppenw0lf]

I have never seen that Leica announced any lens to be parfocal. I think that many R zooms are parfocal, just the same.

And for manual use this is certainly desirable (and for video etc.)

 

But with AF this is really not mandatory. And it comes usually at a price (one more parameter, that is very restrictive, and possibly prevents or hampers the optimization of the remaining parameters). So I would rather have the optimum in the other parameters (weight, IQ, etc.) than parfocality.

(By the way, I learned the word a few weeks ago, and plan to unlearn it soon again - really unnecessary for good photography).

 

In Canikon there is only a handful of parfocal lenses (if at all).   (I heard Nikon 2.8/24-70, Canon 17-40, but I cannot guarantee, and I do not need to know)

 

Stephan

 

This is a typical discussion for the well-fed and well-euqipped, but photographically uninspired "Leicaman" (that some like to ridicule). 

This is just my personal impression, no need to discuss the Leicaman. If you knew other photographers not using Leica, you would clearly know what I mean. (This is probably why I frequent this forum, because I do not like to be treated as Leicaman in other fora).

Edited April 26, 2016 by steppenw0lf

[Steve Spencer]

I would totally agree that focus indexing would really be needed for a serious video lens but for a lens at the cost of the 90-280, the facility to use it as an MF video lens should be there. Anyway from John's post above, it would seem that Leica has had this in mind and done the right thing. I know that Zeiss was failing at the QC stage, a very high proportion of the Contax N and 645 auto focus zoom lenses made by Kyocera. The most common fail reason was that the lens was not parafocal, so it would seem that good lens designers regard this as an important characteristic for their AF zoom lenses. 

 

Wilson

 

 

Although I agree with everything you say about the lenses, I don't think you can expect a serious video lens at this price point. The Zeiss 70-200 T 2.9 Cine zoom is $20,000 and the Fujinon 85-300 T 3.2 is over $40,000. The Angenieux 28-340 T 3.2 has a wider range but it is over $75,000. Also keep in mind that the summicron Cine lens primes are $15,000 a piece and the summilux Cine lenses are close to $40,000 a piece. So at the price of this lens you really can't expect to get the features of a Cine lens. If Leica were going to build a similar spec'd Cine lens I think it would be over $50,000. If you are looking for an excellent zoom for video I think the smart bet is getting a modified R 70-180 f/2.8 APO, which you can get for about $10,000. Even that is quite a bit more expensive than this lens, however.

[wlaidlaw]

The video aspect of the lens is of little to concern to me. I doubt if I have taken over 2 minutes of video in total over the 6 months I have had the SL. However I know it is a concern to others, who would not be able to afford a professional cine lens (or employ a focus puller and his assistant to focus it for them). 

 

Wilson

[Steve Spencer]

The video aspect of the lens is of little to concern to me. I doubt if I have taken over 2 minutes of video in total over the 6 months I have had the SL. However I know it is a concern to others, who would not be able to afford a professional cine lens (or employ a focus puller and his assistant to focus it for them). 

 

Wilson

 

I guess I would say that those who are concerned about video, they would be a lot better served by getting an R zoom. They are parfocal by and large and almost all are available with a constant aperture. If you can afford $10,000 the 70-180 f/2.8 APO, in my view, would make an excellent video lens. If you can't the 80-200 f/4 or the 105-280 f/4.2 would both work better than the SL zoom for video, IMO. I would actually recommend getting R primes, however, unless one really needs the zoom. The AF and variable aperture already make the SL zoom a challenge to use for video and that it is not parfocal is probably no worse than these other characteristics to making video difficult. I guess I see this as a lens well suited for stills photography, but ill suited for videography. That is pretty much true of all modern AF lenses, however, so it is hard to knock Leica for not making this lens more video friendly.

[wlaidlaw]

I guess I would say that those who are concerned about video, they would be a lot better served by getting an R zoom. They are parfocal by and large and almost all are available with a constant aperture. If you can afford $10,000 the 70-180 f/2.8 APO, in my view, would make an excellent video lens. If you can't the 80-200 f/4 or the 105-280 f/4.2 would both work better than the SL zoom for video, IMO. I would actually recommend getting R primes, however, unless one really needs the zoom. The AF and variable aperture already make the SL zoom a challenge to use for video and that it is not parfocal is probably no worse than these other characteristics to making video difficult. I guess I see this as a lens well suited for stills photography, but ill suited for videography. That is pretty much true of all modern AF lenses, however, so it is hard to knock Leica for not making this lens more video friendly.

 

.....but it appears that at least Icarus John's lens IS parafocal (I believe that is the correct word not "parfocal" with para coming from the Attic Greek "pará" meaning beside, as used in for example parallelogram) - so well done Leica!

 

Wilson

[dkCambridgeshire]

.....but it appears that at least Icarus John's lens IS parafocal (I believe that is the correct word not "parfocal" with para coming from the Attic Greek "pará" meaning beside, as used in for example parallelogram) - so well done Leica!

 

Wilson

 

 

Should be 'parfocal' … as in parfocal microscope lenses on a microscope turret which exhibit 'parfocality' … or a zoom microscope lens with parfocality throughout its zoom range.

 

dunk

Edited April 26, 2016 by dkCambridgeshire

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jeff S]

.....but it appears that at least Icarus John's lens IS parafocal (I believe that is the correct word not "parfocal" with para coming from the Attic Greek "pará" meaning beside, as used in for example parallelogram) - so well done Leica!

 

Wilson

 

Nope....but maybe you're paraphrasing.

 

Jeff