lpeeples Posted October 16, 2016 Share #1 Posted October 16, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) This is a great combo... so easy to focus. A friend had the 135APO and 90-280 and I'm thinking about buying one or the other. Both are great lenses. The 90-280 is so big and the 135 is nice and compact. Trying to convince myself I don't need both.... here is the 135 of the USS Detroit docked in Detroit. https://www.flickr.com/photos/louppls/30221719402/in/dateposted-public/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted October 16, 2016 Posted October 16, 2016 Hi lpeeples, Take a look here SL with 135 APO. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Joakim Posted October 16, 2016 Share #2 Posted October 16, 2016 The 135 APO is superb lens, no doubt. Very good photo! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 16, 2016 Share #3 Posted October 16, 2016 Yes I love this lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 16, 2016 Share #4 Posted October 16, 2016 Don McCullin says that he can do anything with a 28mm and 135mm lens (see http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/Don_McCullin.do). Of course he's talking about working with a Canon DSLR and has autofocus, but for a huge range of contexts (landscape, reportage, street etc.) these two focal lengths are incredibly flexible. They're both bread and butter lenses for me on the M and now on the SL. I can't see myself ever buying the 90-280 - even if I could afford it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lpeeples Posted October 16, 2016 Author Share #5 Posted October 16, 2016 Don McCullin says that he can do anything with a 28mm and 135mm lens (see http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/Don_McCullin.do). Of course he's talking about working with a Canon DSLR and has autofocus, but for a huge range of contexts (landscape, reportage, street etc.) these two focal lengths are incredibly flexible. They're both bread and butter lenses for me on the M and now on the SL. I can't see myself ever buying the 90-280 - even if I could afford it! I ordered the 135. I agree with you... I am going to wait on the 90-280. I love the way the SL works with the M primes and I can choose to shoot with the 240 or SL depending what I am doing. Wondering if I need a 90. With the 135 I go from 75 to 135. 90 is so close to 75 though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrp Posted October 16, 2016 Share #6 Posted October 16, 2016 The 90-280 covers a useful range, although I do quite often use it around the 135-160mm mark. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 17, 2016 Share #7 Posted October 17, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) If robust weather sealing with the SL is needed, the only current option in this range is the zoom. Tradeoffs. Only a matter of time it seems before we'll see longer native SL primes. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_tribble Posted October 17, 2016 Share #8 Posted October 17, 2016 If robust weather sealing with the SL is needed, the only current option in this range is the zoom. Tradeoffs. Only a matter of time it seems before we'll see longer native SL primes. Jeff All true - but the weight and bulk of the AF SL lenses will remain an issue. If you can live with manual focus, using R and M lenses on the SL continues to be an attractive option. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramarren Posted October 17, 2016 Share #9 Posted October 17, 2016 I have R lenses from 135mm to 250mm, plus the appropriate 2x doubler, yet the SL90-280 remains an interesting possibility/option for me. Why? Because, aside from its obvious size and weight and its equally obvious image quality, its optical image stabilization would mean that I could use it more flexibly, hand-held, than the manual focus lenses that I adapt to the camera. I have not been using the longer end of my current lenses' focal lengths very much recently, but I expect this would change some if I had the image stabilized 90-280mm lens. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff S Posted October 17, 2016 Share #10 Posted October 17, 2016 All true - but the weight and bulk of the AF SL lenses will remain an issue. If you can live with manual focus, using R and M lenses on the SL continues to be an attractive option. Hence my one word sentence that followed....."Tradeoffs." Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanJW Posted October 17, 2016 Share #11 Posted October 17, 2016 Tradeoffs indeed. I own the 135 and for a little league tournament this July I rented the 90-280 fo a week. Hence, I can make comparisons. In regard to image quality they are both excellent lenses. I did not do a test side by side, however, so this is subjective. The 90-280 has the advantage of autofocus (which for sports is of high value). The 135 obviously has half the reach but with a 24mp sensor, cropping is quite possible. But I will not buy the 90-280 because it is simply too big and heavy to lug around. If I have another particular project that calls for it I will rent it again. For little league where I can get fairly close, I will stick with the 135, or use the T 55-135, which is like a 80-200. The advantage there is autofocus, and the 10mp crop is utterly fine for the end uses of the images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
steppenw0lf Posted October 17, 2016 Share #12 Posted October 17, 2016 The 135mm (I use older ones) are great for a private event, as they are quite unobtrusive. I agree completely, the 28 and the 135 make a wonderful combination, with or without a 50mm lens. But for a serious event or a day long trip the Apo 90-280 is the best lens I ever had. Optically it is perfect (even better than the 70-200 Nikons I used before). And OIS makes it a sure thing (even if you are nervous or in a crowd). Additionally it is noiseless (a litttle bit of OIS noise, but less than the NiCan). Despite its size it is a phantastic portrait lens - also because of its very short close focus distance (0.6 m at 90 mm), in this regard the 135mm lenses are actually quite weak. (Their only big minus). The 90-280 is of constant length, different to many other tele zoom lenses. This makes it easy to hold and handle. I find it easier than the Nikon 70-200 VR or the Canon 100-400L IS II . As much as I dislike the SL 24-90, I am admiring Leica for constructing the SL 90-280. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sm23221 Posted October 18, 2016 Share #13 Posted October 18, 2016 The 135 is a terrific lens on the SL! I never could use mine very successfully with my Leica rangefinders. I'm glad I never sold it! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.