Should I buy SL lenses?

[ryee3]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I purchased the SL body for the many wonderful R lenses.  I am very please with the body and what it offers for the R lenses.  I am a bit old school in that even with sport photography, i do manual and regional focusing pretty successfully .  Does the SL offer fast enough autofocusing  for sports like basketball to increase my percentages of sharp stop action images?  If not, I would just keep doing what i am currently doing. However, I would consider selling my very precious 280mmR f4 to obtain an SL 90- 280 zoom if it was that much more efficient to capture action images more easily.  Anyone have any experiences or thoughts about this?

Edited July 18, 2017 by ryee3

[LD_50]

Rent the 90-280 and answer for yourself. For most the AF would be more effective than MF. For you it may not.

[Advertisement]

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

[darylgo]

The 280/4 is a lens I wished to own for many years, a perfect lens and sad that it is no longer available from Leica.  In it's place I purchased the 90-280 zoom after looking at the specs, the mtf was fairly close to the 280/4.   For sports, my experience is limited, however where you might gain some improvement is the OIS if the action allows.  "Very precious" is apropos and I would be very reluctant to sell a  good sample.  

[appleman]

YES

[steppenw0lf]

Yes, buy new SL lenses. The 90-280 is the best for me (the best I ever used).

But if the combo is what you expect for sports photography only you can answer, so as suggested, rent a lens and give it a try.

 

Do you often use the 280 with extenders ? Then you need to know that currently there are no extenders for the 90-280.

[ramarren]

I had a full complement of longer R lenses ... 135, 180, 250 ... all of which were excellent performers and worked extremely well on the SL. But I sold them all in trade for the SL90-280mm lens ...

 

First because the reports on the lens is that the difference between it and the legendary R280/4 make it out to be so close as to be practically the same. 

Second because the huge benefit of its excellent image stabilization means that it will likely actually be used a good bit more ... I won't always be locked to a tripod.

And Third because if/when I want to use the AF to advantage, it has excellent AF performance to offer. 

 

I have not regretted my decision one iota. 

[phongph]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi All!

Pls. advice the IQ of R Apo 180 / f2.8 vs SL 90-280/ASPH at 180 on SL 601!

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

[IkarusJohn]

I sold my R APO 180/2.8 for the reasons outlined by Godfrey above.  Couldn't be happier.

[darylgo]

Hi All!

Pls. advice the IQ of R Apo 180 / f2.8 vs SL 90-280/ASPH at 180 on SL 601!

Have a nice day!

Thanks!

At 160mm the 90-280 mtf curves are exceptional for a prime lens, for a zoom they are unparalleled.  The 180mm apo is phenomenal and likely you would be unable to tell them apart based on acuity/contrast.  My copy of the 180mm apo was poor and Leica was unable and unwilling to improve it, my 90-280mm performs much better, but good samples of each would both be excellent.  

[phongph]

I sold my R APO 180/2.8 for the reasons outlined by Godfrey above.  Couldn't be happier.

Hi "IkarusJohn"!

Pls advise the isue of R Apo 180/2.8 outlined by Godfrey?

Pls. advise the other len, replace for R Apo 180/2.8. Is SL 90-280/ASPH worth to get for SL 601?

Many thanks!

[IkarusJohn]

Hi "IkarusJohn"!

Pls advise the isue of R Apo 180/2.8 outlined by Godfrey?

Pls. advise the other len, replace for R Apo 180/2.8. Is SL 90-280/ASPH worth to get for SL 601?

Many thanks!

 

Godfrey's reasons for switching to the 90-280

 

First because the reports on the lens is that the difference between it and the legendary R280/4 make it out to be so close as to be practically the same. 

Second because the huge benefit of its excellent image stabilization means that it will likely actually be used a good bit more ... I won't always be locked to a tripod.

And Third because if/when I want to use the AF to advantage, it has excellent AF performance to offer. 

 

There's no "issue" with the APO 180/2.8.

Edited July 19, 2017 by IkarusJohn

[sillbeers15]

I own both SL zooms, 24-90mm & 90-280mm. I am delighted with both lenses. The pics produced by both are sharp and gives good colour rendering. I have only used the 90-280mm handheld till date and I am so happy with the contrast it produces. AF from both lenses are fast and good enough for my application and I love both their sizes and weight considering other comparable AF lenses. I even look forward to the soon to be released 16-35mm. Can't wait to add that into part of my gear.

However I view the SL primes totally the opposite. In my rationale I do not have the motivation to purchase the SL 50 lens. For a start, I see more general application with a 35mm lens over the 50mm ( just my preference), so my 35lux M is my general lens for my M10. As for my Noctilux, I enjoy it using over my SL than M10 as the evf of SL is way superior over the optical view finder when it comes to focusing wide open on Noctilux. So again I see no position for SL 50 lens which I use my Noctilux for portraits. At wide open, any 50 lux done come close to what a Noctilux cam provide. So what I need is a AF M to SL adapter from Leica than a SL50 lux as It cannot replace the Noctilux in my opinion. The other resistance is the great difference found in the resale value between SL lenses over M lenses. M lenses then to keep very good resale value. I have by far only sold a M35corn to a friend cause Leice arm twist me to do bundle purchase when I bought my M240 four years ago. The recent price drop excercise will resist more buying of the SL range of lenses and cameras in my opinion since I purchase Leice based on 'wants' rather than 'needs' as I do not depend on Photography for my income. So for me, SL lenses are really a love/hate relationship between me and them.

[wildlightphoto]

I purchased the SL body for the many wonderful R lenses.  I am very please with the body and what it offers for the R lenses.  I am a bit old school in that even with sport photography, i do manual and regional focusing pretty successfully .  Does the SL offer fast enough autofocusing  for sports like basketball to increase my percentages of sharp stop action images?  If not, I would just keep doing what i am currently doing. However, I would consider selling my very precious 280mmR f4 to obtain an SL 90- 280 zoom if it was that much more efficient to capture action images more easily.  Anyone have any experiences or thoughts about this?

 

 

 

The 90-280 APO is a spectacularly good lens but I had problems using the optical stabilization.  Unless I missed something, the only options are "ON" and "OFF".  I wanted the OS system to ignore camera movements intended to follow a jackrabbit as it moved around a field and instead to control only small vibrations, but the OS system's lag made keeping a focus point on the animal's eye problematic to the point that the time it took for the image to settle and get a focus point back on the hare's eye was enough time for the critter to move again setting up an infinite loop of 'animal moves, move the camera to follow the critter, use joystick to chase eye with focus point while image is settling, animal moves'.  Once the focus point was on the right spot the AF was very quick, essentially silent, and very accurate assuming it didn't get confused by a stem in the foreground.

 

I did manage to make a few exposures where posture, lighting, surroundings, the stabilization's image drift and AF all lined up but I've had better success in similar situations with the 280/4 APO and manual focus relying on sensor stabilization (which the SL regrettably lacks) to control the small vibrations.

 

Edited July 20, 2017 by wildlightphoto

[wildlightphoto]

... I would consider selling my very precious 280mmR f4 to obtain an SL 90- 280 zoom if it was that much more efficient to capture action images more easily. 

 

 

In answer to this question: the 280/4 APO is very precious.  There would have to be a very clear, demonstrable and easily-replicated advantage of the replacement before I'd consider selling the 280/4 APO.  Consider this: after a month testing the SL+90-280 APO I purchased an additional backup 280/4 APO despite Leica's non-support for the lens.

Edited July 20, 2017 by wildlightphoto

[steppenw0lf]

Some are clinging to their 4/280 because it feeds them (gives them the pics to sell). Others have never even used it, but have instead used the 2.8/280 or 2.8/400 with success.

So there is no general rule. 

But I think if you live on the 4/280 you will know that and will never consider selling it (even when considering another lens like the 90-280.)

 

Generally if I have an old (in a way irreplaceable) lens I do not sell it for a new lens. The new can be bought any time (is a consumer item) - the old is usually not to be replaced by an equivalent lens (maybe the same specs, but usually not the exact same treatment/history. And buying these used and very expensive lenses from strange sources is problematic anyway.).

 

So I recommend using the old and new side by side for a while, before making a final decision. Unless the "precious" is only relative and means it is replaceable after all.  (renting has been suggested before).

 

Not important, but anyway: For me the 4/280 or the 105-280 (another once very precious lens) do not mean much. I preferred others,

But I think you will know for yourself -  how important it is for your "work".  A prime lens of 280 or 400 is limited in use - a perfect zoom 90-280 offers many more photographic possibilities. (e.g. portrait and macro)  

And OIS is for me the factor that is improving the general hit rate in the most positive way.

Edited July 20, 2017 by steppenw0lf

[ramarren]

The 90-280 APO is a spectacularly good lens but I had problems using the optical stabilization.  Unless I missed something, the only options are "ON" and "OFF".  I wanted the OS system to ignore camera movements intended to follow a jackrabbit as it moved around a field and instead to control only small vibrations, but the OS system's lag made keeping a focus point on the animal's eye problematic to the point that the time it took for the image to settle and get a focus point back on the hare's eye was enough time for the critter to move again setting up an infinite loop of 'animal moves, move the camera to follow the critter, use joystick to chase eye with focus point while image is settling, animal moves'.  Once the focus point was on the right spot the AF was very quick, essentially silent, and very accurate assuming it didn't get confused by a stem in the foreground.

 

 

With all due respect, Doug, what you do in your shooting workflow is so very very different from anything I do that your issues with the SL90-280 are things that I have not, and likely will not, ever encounter. It just points to the fact that there are a lot of individual factors in any equipment analysis that affect users quite differently ...

 

I appreciate what you write about when it comes to reviewing equipment because I know what sorts of subjects you shoot and how you tend to work your shooting methodology. It's sort of a negative indicator, since we shoot such different things and work so differently I can almost guarantee certain specific things that get in your way will almost help me along! Similarly, when Jono Slack writes his reviews, I look at his photos and can understand his shooting workflow so clearly, and they match my own so well most of the time, that what he likes I tend to also like. 

 

You don't get this kind of information from reading the kinds of reviews that Steve Huff and most other internet reviewers tend to post.

[IkarusJohn]

You mean, like "This is the BEST CAMERA EVER"?

[ramarren]

LOL! Yeah. Some of them have found the 'best camera ever' more times than I've even owned cameras, and I've owned a lot of cameras.... !