90-280/2.8-4

[chris_tribble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Wilson, it’s a testament to your good care of your equipment if it is.  It was the only instance on Ffordes’ books this month. I’ve not got it to hand, but I’ll pm the serial (once you've cleared your inbox!!).  

I’m interested that you find the Panasonic to be an easier carry.  My normal use of a big DSLR zoom is to back pack it to where I need it and then whack it onto a monopod. Carrying it around my neck - not my idea of a good day out 😎.

SL2 with Sigma 45 + 135 M Apo-telyt, or M10 with 35 cron asph and an M 90 Elmarit Macro - that’s my walkabout preference - though I have to say I have been using the 24-90 a lot recently, and is proving to be a walk around option

All the best!

Edited September 15, 2020 by chris_tribble

[Eclectic Man]

My 90-280 was delivered today.  It does seem very good, but it would be even better if the tripod foot could have an Area Swiss compatible replacement.

[Advertisement]

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

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, Eclectic Man said:

My 90-280 was delivered today.  It does seem very good, but it would be even better if the tripod foot could have an Area Swiss compatible replacement.

RRS carries plates that attach to the foot for Arca compatibility.

Jeff

[wlaidlaw]

7 hours ago, Jeff S said:

RRS carries plates that attach to the foot for Arca compatibility.

Jeff

RRS do a square plate (BDQS), with a dovetail on each face that is useful for attaching to different types of head. That is what I used to use on my 90-280. The smaller and lighter Panasonic L mount 70-200 I have replaced the 90-280 with, comes with Arca compatible dovetails on the foot of its support ring. 

Wilson

 

[AZach]

Swan lake (ballet)

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!

[AZach]

Loons trio (in sunset)

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!

 

 

[scott kirkpatrick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've been having some difficulties with my 90-280, and it is now off to Wetzlar for a tuneup.  The sign of trouble was that I could get better images of distant (400-500 m) construction work with a Fuji X-T2 and Fuji's 100-400 at 300 to 400.  Of course, that's only 24 MPx, but the in-lens stabilization of that lens is quick and sure.  But to give Leica a chance to recover from this humiliation, I got out an old legend, the R APO 280 Telyt f/4.0 (actually it is 276 mm in focal length).  This lens has no OIS, but for subjects at modest distances, like 50 m, I found I could handhold as slow as 1/30 sec. That's four stops below 1/2F, pretty good for IBIS alone on a very long lens.  For my long range shots, I didn't need such a slow shutter speed, 1/250 is fine  And the results were sharp across the field.

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!

U1040755 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

U1040740 Panorama by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Edited September 26, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[Jeff S]

22 minutes ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

I've been having some difficulties with my 90-280, and it is now off to Wetzlar for a tuneup.  The sign of trouble was that I could get better images of distant (400-500 m) construction work with a Fuji X-T2 and Fuji's 100-400 at 300 to 400.  Of course, that's only 24 MPx, but the in-lens stabilization of that lens is quick and sure.  But to give Leica a chance to recover from this humiliation, I got out an old legend, the R APO 280 Telyt f/4.0 (actually it is 278 mm in focal length).  This lens has no OIS, but for subjects at modest distances, like 50 m, I found I could handhold as slow as 1/30 sec. That's four stops below 1/2F, pretty good for IBIS alone on a very long lens.  For my long range shots, I didn't need such a slow shutter speed, 1/250 is fine  And the results were sharp across the field.

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!

U1040755 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

U1040740 Panorama by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr

Something is broken, as I’ve seen reports where the 90-280 outperforms the classic R APO Telyt.

Jeff

[farnz]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Something is broken, as I’ve seen reports where the 90-280 outperforms the classic R APO Telyt.

Jeff

I know we've touched on this before but it's important to remember that the 90-280 benefits from in-camera software correction that is not available to the 280/4 APO-Telyt-R so it's hardly comparing apples with apples.

Pete.

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, farnz said:

I know we've touched on this before but it's important to remember that the 90-280 benefits from in-camera software correction that is not available to the 280/4 APO-Telyt-R so it's hardly comparing apples with apples.

Pete.

But it’s relevant to Scott, as he’s comparing both using the SL system, and that’s the basis for the referenced reports.  The 90-280 shouldn’t perform worse.

Jeff

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Something is broken, as I’ve seen reports where the 90-280 outperforms the classic R APO Telyt.

Jeff

That would be quite something, as the Apo-Telyt  280/4.0 R is a diffraction-limited lens wide open in the center and the field.

[Jeff S]

40 minutes ago, jaapv said:

That would be quite something, as the Apo-Telyt  280/4.0 R is a diffraction-limited lens wide open in the center and the field.

I’m just referring to other reports here, which mention that results are, if not better, at least equal (whether due to software enhancements or not).  Can’t speak to personal experience (other than being delighted with the zoom).
 

At least Vieri and some others seem to think so.

Jeff 

Edited September 26, 2020 by Jeff S

[tritentrue]

According to Leica the actual focal length is 283mm (not 278mm):

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!

My experience with the 90-280mm is limited to three days of shooting on the SL and TL2.  I'm on my second copy of the R 280mm f/4, which I use extensively on the CL and SL.  Open critically-focused files of each lens in a raw viewer like Gimp and you will see the uncooked differences between the two lenses.

[scott kirkpatrick]

9 hours ago, tritentrue said:

According to Leica the actual focal length is 283mm (not 278mm):

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!

My experience with the 90-280mm is limited to three days of shooting on the SL and TL2.  I'm on my second copy of the R 280mm f/4, which I use extensively on the CL and SL.  Open critically-focused files of each lens in a raw viewer like Gimp and you will see the uncooked differences between the two lenses.

Could you describe the "uncooked differences" in more detail?  Software post processing of a long telephoto is rare, since they don't tend to have distortion.  Or do you see raw file corrections that would be unavailable in an optical-only R lens?

My SL2 is writing a focal length of 276 mm into each of the files I have made.  That could mean that the wrong value has been entered into the SL2 firmware.  Leica puts fixing EXIF information quite low on their priorities -- I have seen cases in which Leica's firmware thinks lenses have a maximum aperture of f/1.0 rather than their real aperture, so there must  be a template they start with in which the starting value for that field is 1.0 and it hasn't gotten filled in before the firmware ships.

edit:  Or maybe through actual experiments, they found out that the SL2 IBIS works best when told that the focal length is 276, rather then 283 mm?

Anyway, the APO Telyt 280 is an awesome lens for its purpose, which is objects many meters away, and I use it, hand-held, for things where it is not possible to get closer than 100 meters.  Image stabilization requirements depend on both focal length and the distance to the object (as well as the photographer's degree of un-stability)..  OIS, by correcting for angle rather than displacement of the camera body, has a big advantage over IBIS at multi hundred meter sniper ranges.  I was surprised that the SL2 did such a good job.  I hope to get my 90-280 working even better. 

Edited September 26, 2020 by scott kirkpatrick

[wlaidlaw]

Although I sold my 90-280 as it was just too heavy and awkward for me personally to use, it is a remarkable lens. This photo was taken at my French house hand held of a Canadair CL415T fire fighting plane with the SL601 and tracking auto-focus. I don't really think you could get a much sharper image than this of an object moving at around 250kph. 

Wilson

 

 

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!

[tritentrue]

1 hour ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

Could you describe the "uncooked differences" in more detail?  Software post processing of a long telephoto is rare, since they don't tend to have distortion.  Or do you see raw file corrections that would be unavailable in an optical-only R lens?

My SL2 is writing a focal length of 276 mm into each of the files I have made.  That could mean that the wrong value has been entered into the SL2 firmware.  Leica puts fixing EXIF information quite low on their priorities -- I have seen cases in which Leica's firmware thinks lenses have a maximum aperture of f/1.0 rather than their real aperture, so there must  be a template they start with in which the starting value for that field is 1.0 and it hasn't gotten filled in before the firmware ships.

Anyway, the APO Telyt 280 is an awesome lens for its purpose, which is objects many meters away, and I use it, hand-held, for things where it is not possible to get closer than 100 meters.  Image stabilization requirements depend on both focal length and the distance to the object (as well as the photographer's degree of un-stability)..  OIS, by correcting for angle rather than displacement of the camera body, has a big advantage over IBIS at multi hundred meter sniper ranges.  I was surprised that the SL2 did such a good job.  I hope to get my 90-280 working even better. 

It's been a while (about three years) since I compared images.  Avoiding subjectively evaluative terms like "better" or "worse," I'll say that the 280mm prime looked the same in Gimp as it did in Lightroom or C1.  The 90-280mm zoom showed a bit less color saturation, a bit less edge acuity (typical of a zoom), and---at 200% magnification---a small amount of reddish-purple CA in peripheral areas of the image.  

As for focal length in EXIF, my SL wrote the Nikon 300mm PF lens (via Novoflex SL/NIK) as 305mm, 429mm with the 1.4X teleconverter.  It writes the 280mm ROM  prime (via R-Adapter-L) as 280mm, as does the CL.  I read somewhere that manufacturers' "marketing" focal length can deviate by as much as 5% from the actual number, so not a real issue for me.

Anyway, either lens (and I'd add the R 105-280mm Vario) is well capable of rendering the kind of images I seek.  Factors other than just optics figured in my choosing one over the other.  I hope your 90-280mm comes back to you soon and in tip-top shape.

[scott kirkpatrick]

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!

S1000470 by scott kirkpatrick, on Flickr SL[601] with APO Telyt 280/4.0 (ROM) on the Leica R to L adapter

I tried the 280 Telyt on my SL and also see a focal length of 276 in the EXIF, so either the lens has been saying this, or the firmware on both models currently has been reset to this value.

[tritentrue]

Gotta correct myself.  Looking at EXIF of my today's pics, the 280mm f/4 APO-Telyt-R on the CL indeed shows up as 276mm focal length.  I think the one that showed 280mm when I looked yesterday was one in which I used a non-ROM extender and entered lens info manually.

Now I wonder why Leica's data sheet for the lens says 283mm . . . 🙃

I also noticed late yesterday that my R 21-35mm is actually a 22-34mm lens--according to EXIF . . . 😬

Edited September 27, 2020 by tritentrue