90 to 280 afor portrait?

[dancook]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Not very well controlled portraits sorry - Louise wasn't happy as she had to stop the puppy doing what it shouldn't be doing.. so just got it done as quickly as possible, whilst the sun kept popping it's head out.

 

Exported from RAW with no processing, except one i've increased exposure a little.

 

 

SL 90-280mm @ 174mm 3.5

Lens Test - SL 90-280mm @ 174mm 3.5 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

 

SL 90-280 @ 91mm 2.8

Lens Test - SL 90-280 @ 91mm 2.8 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

SL with LM 90 ASPH APO @ f2.8

Lens Test - SL with LM 90 ASPH APO @ f2.8 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

 

SL with LM 90 ASPH APO @ f2.0

Lens Test - SL with LM 90 ASPH APO @ f2 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

SL 50mm 1.4 SL

Lens Test - SL 50mm 1.4 SL by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

 

SL with LM 50mm 1.4 ASPH

Lens Test - SL with LM 50mm 1.4 ASPH by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

 

[Advertisement]

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

[dancook]

SL with LM 28 2.8 ASPH

Lens Test - SL with LM 28 2.8 ASPH by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

Leica Q 28mm @ 2.8

Lens Test - Leica Q 28mm 2.8 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

Leica Q 28mm @ 1.7

Lens Test - Leica Q 28mm 1.7 by dancook1982, on Flickr

 

SL with LM 24mm 1.4 ASPH

Lens Test - SL with LM 24mm 1.4 ASPH by dancook1982, on Flickr

[Lazytiger]

Thanks a lot, Dan! Very interesting, indeed!

 

The differences are subtle as expected. And none in "performance". The APO shot looks nicer to me, of course partly due to her more positive facial expression and partly due to the fact that you were a little closer, thus blurring the background a tad more.

 

I wonder whether this is only my imagination or there is also something else that makes the APO shot more pleasing to my eyes. To me, she feels more part of the image in that shot, while the 90/280 feels more like her standing in front of a background. But this as well can be a consequence of being closer and the reduced DoF leading better from focus into Bokeh (hair and shoulder, plant).

 

Also interesting how little the 50 SL differs from my beloved 50 Lux. Confirms me in sticking with the latter, since in that case size matter to me. Love popping a small, fast prime into my bag, especially if I'll end up buying the long zoom on top of the shorter one.

 

Thanks again for these very interesting shots!

[thighslapper]

Well, allowing for variations in lighting and the fact that the exact plane of focus varies a bit between the images, the only difference I can see is the higher micro-contrast of the in focus portions of the 90-280 and SL 50.

 

Whilst this gives a slightly harsher and sharper image (particularly with the 90-280) which with less glamorous subjects could be unflattering - you can reduce this in processing ...... whereas doing the opposite is more less successful. In general use I doubt I could tell any of these lenses apart... or be dissatisfied with the end results.  

 

If the 16-35 is as good as the rest I personally can see little need to have anything apart from the SL and the 3 zooms ...... primes add little if anything in image quality.

 

Of course, being photographers we will load up with all manner of extra gear with marginal benefits based on woolly logic and driven more by the acquisitive nature of humans and delusional ideas about how much equipment will enhance our meagre skills in taking the actual pictures ......... 

[dancook]

Of course, being photographers we will load up with all manner of extra gear with marginal benefits based on woolly logic and driven more by the acquisitive nature of humans and delusional ideas about how much equipment will enhance our meagre skills in taking the actual pictures ......... 

 

Enjoyment of using it that's what I get out of it.. the cameras do nothing for my photos. it's all me

[Lazytiger]

Well, allowing for variations in lighting and the fact that the exact plane of focus varies a bit between the images, the only difference I can see is the higher micro-contrast of the in focus portions of the 90-280 and SL 50.

 

Whilst this gives a slightly harsher and sharper image (particularly with the 90-280) which with less glamorous subjects could be unflattering - you can reduce this in processing ...... whereas doing the opposite is more less successful. In general use I doubt I could tell any of these lenses apart... or be dissatisfied with the end results.  

 

If the 16-35 is as good as the rest I personally can see little need to have anything apart from the SL and the 3 zooms ...... primes add little if anything in image quality.

 

Of course, being photographers we will load up with all manner of extra gear with marginal benefits based on woolly logic and driven more by the acquisitive nature of humans and delusional ideas about how much equipment will enhance our meagre skills in taking the actual pictures ......... 

 

I agree. Skin has to be digitally treated with female subjects anyway. If not they beat you with a stick But I like to keep the crispness on lips, eyes and hair.

 

No 16-35 for me since a small VC 15 III is all I need for landscapes. Even thinking about selling my 21 Super Elmar. Too little use.

 

Where I completely disagree is the use of shorter, fast primes. I absolutely love the look f1.4 creates on my 35mm or 50mm non-beauty portraits. Different to longer lenses this look is completely gone with f2.8 or smaller. Here is an example of what I mean. No zoom can do this due to maximum aperture:

 

 

SL with Zeiss Distagon ZM 35mm f1.4

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Shorter focal lengths at close distances are risky, especially if you regularly shoot models who take physical retribution when they don't like the result .

You can see that in Dan's shots where, as the FL reduces, the head appears (to me) larger in relation to the shoulders.

 

In the shot above the right hand looks to me to be a bit large. It becomes more noticeable with portraits where the shoulders are cambered towards the camera - the nearer shoulder can get a bit bulky. For such a casual portrait like this it is not critical, but if I had to have just one lens for posed portraits I would pick a 90.

I agree about preferring wider apertures, though, as long as both eyes are in focus. 

[Lazytiger]

Shorter focal lengths at close distances are risky, especially if you regularly shoot models who take physical retribution when they don't like the result .

 

This is why I wrote "non-beauty portraits"

[thighslapper]

I presume you wear armour when you tell your female subjects that ....... 

[geetee1972]

What is a 'beauty portrait'?

[Leicaiste]

While I see the practical advantages of the 24-90 it is just a tad too soft for me between 70 and 90mm, which unfortunately happens to be the weakest range of the lens concerning crispness and micro contrast. It is still sharp enough for acceptable results but doesn't compare to its own quality from 24 to 70.

The R-Vario's 28-90 and 35-70/2,8 were both designed to be at there best at their longest focal lengths.

 

The R-Vario 28-90 is one of the best '90mm' ever designed by Leica, but is a f4,5 90mm. No AF, no IS but much smaller than the SL Vario 24-90.

 

I wonder why they designed the SL-Vario 24-90 the other way around ?

 

A new philosophy in lens design ?

 

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!

[Lazytiger]

What is a 'beauty portrait'?

 

Well, I call it this way to distinguish between portraits that are meant to show the subject most pleasantly (beautifully) and those trying to work out his or her character. On the shot above I didn't touch the skin in postprocessing, but I would do that on almost every "beauty portrait". But I wouldn't have used a 35 to begin with, if I would have aimed for a beauty shot. Here is the same woman, actress Isabella Surel, shot with a 180-R @ f2.8:

 

 

 

 

[Lazytiger]

I wonder why they designed the SL-Vario 24-90 the other way around ?

 

Maybe to make the lower end of the 90-280 more useful? By designing that lens exactly the same way? I hear that between 200 and 280 the 90-280 is still good, but less stellar... Makes sense to me, as long as you have the necessary 10k for both in your wallet...

[panoreserve]

Look at the MTF-Graphs and talk to Mr. Karbe, please. @ 75mm, the SL-Vario is clearly superior to the M-75 Apo. I'd suppose that's pretty good, isn't it?

[Lazytiger]

Look at the MTF-Graphs and talk to Mr. Karbe, please. @ 75mm, the SL-Vario is clearly superior to the M-75 Apo. I'd suppose that's pretty good, isn't it?

 

Won't speak to Herr Karbe unless you'll be so kind to introduce us But I had a look at those charts and got to admit they really look quite consistent throughout the range with a slight peak at about 50mm.

 

Be them as it may, the 90/280 seems even better at 90mm, almost indistinguishable from the best primes, and has a stop more at 90, so this should answer my initial question.

 

Thanks to everyone for their fantastic support and insight!!! Guess I'll need to make a purchase today....

[panoreserve]

Well, I have both

[panoreserve]

Well, I have both    and can easily confirm your thoughts regarding 24/90 and 90/280 @ 90mm (f4 resp. 2.8). The latter is slightly better @ 90 - under extremely critical inspection! Please let us not forget, we are talking about lens performance at the highest stage. Canikon would be very happy having such stellar lenses in their portfolio; especially Nikon's 24/70 VR is a mediocre performer in terms of IQ...

[steppenw0lf]

Well this is as nebulous as any subjective statement about lenses can be But first of all let me thank you for you answer. Very much appreciated!

 

By "character" I don't necessarily mean flaws (although these can add to it like the "Mandler-glow" the Lux 80-R wide open for example), but a certain lens quality not measurable by MTF charts. Some of it is generally addressed to with the term "micro contrast", but to me an even more interesting quality of a premium lens is the way it renders from sharpness to Bokeh. Some rare lenses do this in a very interesting way, almost sucking you into the picture when shot above f4, like the afore mentioned 90 APO or the Elmarit-M (as long as it is not shot against the light when it loses too much contrast).

 

Concerning the advantages you are mentioning I fully agree, this is why I am strongly considering a purchase. But knowing myself I want to avoid ending up using my old manual lenses instead because I bought a perfectly sharp and clean, stabilized bazooka without character

 

If you mention a bazooka without character, this is simply nonsense in my eyes/ears.

This lens is simply flawless  (like the SL 50 as well), so it is "cold" like an Otus lens. I like that - it gives me a sound foundation. I can make changes in any direction if I feel the need for it. (The lens is unbiased).

I suggest you simply rent it for a few days - then you will be able to experiment and see if it gives you what you need.

 

Optically it gives me all I need from a lens - I regard it as a highlight. Its OIS is a great help.

Regarding size it is certainly better replaced by a SL 90 lens. The question for me is if working without OIS is good enough.

 

 

In the old days "character" was a misnomer for technical handicaps a lens or camera system unavoidably had. Today you pay a lot of money to avoid these shortcomings. (So don't complain that you are missing them).

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Lazytiger]

If you mention a bazooka without character, this is simply nonsense in my eyes/ears.

 

The little yellow circle at the end of a line is called emoji, a common indication that the the aforementioned isn't to be taken all too seriosly As I wrote further down, the helpful contributions of this thread already convinced me to aquire my own little bazooka and I am sure I will get very happy with it!

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, which make perfectly sense to me. The one thing I do not necessarily agree with is your definition of character as flaw. Although I am aware that the term is used in this context it is not what I mean, as I elaborated further up this thread. Lenses always interpret reality - or light - due to the fact that the light itself is broken several times, passing different kinds and layers of exotic glass. This interpretation will turn out differently depending on optical formula, used glass and even - to a hopefully neglectible degree - fabrication tolerance. This difference in interpretation is what I call the character of a lens. It adds up with another, by far bigger impact on the interpretation of said reality, the photographer.

 

Since I'm decided now anyway, I will find out about the character of my 90/280 and either fall in love with it artistically it or only use it when I'll need to professionally.

[geetee1972]

 

In the old days "character" was a misnomer for technical handicaps a lens or camera system unavoidably had.

 

Maybe, but I think that as in many other areas of aesthetics and cultural appreciation, we have found that the more we remove those artefacts, the less 'human' (and thereby the less engaging) they become.