(Very) long lenses on the CL and TL. -Please add your experiences.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Nice grab of a Pied Oystercatcher!

 

From what I've read of this lens I had no idea it could render even that much detail.  Is the contrast straight out of camera or did you amp it in post processing?

I processed the image and applied high-pass sharpening like I always do. But - even the most sophisticated postprocessing cannot reveal detail that is not there.

The point about this lens is, that although it may not have the high resolution numbers of pure lens systems, and thus relatively low MTF curves, a catadioptric system is largely aberration-free, giving a very clean rendering.

I suspect it is fully apochromatic.

[dkCambridgeshire]

Catadioptric camera lenses have an undeserved (and contagious)  'poorer image quality' reputation amongst photographers - but some photographers do not use the lenses optimally. Because mirror lenses are relatively lightweight, photographers underestimate the need to use a firm support and some will try and hand-hold the camera/lens combination - and thus fail to counter 'shake' and obtain poor results. Mirror lenses really do require a firm tripod or good monopod fitted with a decent tripod head - unless using e.g. a Sony A7 II series camera with IBIS.     Astronomers are well used to using mirror lenses of various designs and use same for astro photography with exceptionally good results. However, astro photographers will never commence photography immediately after setting up a reflector telescope and camera … they WAIT until the lens has acclimated to the ambient air temperature before taking any photographs.  All mirror lenses' 'primary mirrors' act like radiators and absorb heat. When transported from a warm environment to cooler environment, the primary mirror will 'radiate' its heat as it cools to the ambient air temperature … and in doing so, creates internal heat thermals which can distort the image. Most of us have witnessed similar thermals e.g. when observing distorted views through heat haze. Astronomers always allow at least 30 minutes for an astro reflector telescope (mirror lens) to acclimate before commencing photography i.e. for the primary mirror to cease radiating thermals … but some designs, e.g. Maksutov reflectors with thicker mirrors, can take over 1 hour to acclimate and reach thermal equilibrium. The same applies to catadioptric camera lenses i.e. the primary mirror needs to acclimate and reach thermal equilibrium in order to optimise photographic image quality. But how often have mirror lens tests / reviews … especially comparative reviews when one reviewer has tested several mirror lenses … mentioned thermal equilibrium?  Reviewers never do because they are unaware of its importance. Thus take mirror lens reviews with a pinch of salt … and ask yourself, "Did the reviewer set up the lens optimally to try and obtain the best possible result?"  Mirror lenses can produce excellent results and as noted by Jaap, images can be aberration free compared to refractor lens designs. 'Donuts' are always a probability but they do not always show up … and maybe they are not quite as intrusive and image-spoiling as many claim. After reading this please do not go out and buy a 'cheap' mirror lens and assume that if you let it acclimate and secure it to a substantial tripod, it will enable superb images … chances are a real cheapo catadioptric lens will not. Because of the folded light path i.e. image rays going back and forth from the primary mirror to secondary mirror and back again through the centre of the primary mirror, it's essential that the internal 'baffling' is as efficient as possible to minimise internal reflections. Cheapo mirror lenses' internal baffling may not be optimised or black enough to counter all internal reflections … you get what you pay for … so best to examine carefully rather than buy e.g. a cheap new Ebay mirrors lens with doubtful pedigree. 

 

dunk 

Edited July 15, 2018 by dkCambridgeshire

[Advertisement]

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

[wlaidlaw]

Twelfth century Cathar Church on the hill at the other side of the village to my house. 300mm/f4 Zeiss Tele Tessar. It is very different to most catholic churches inside. Plain white walls, no paintings, no gilding and a very plain altar (later than the church). It is more like a puritan or calvinist church inside. 

 

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!

[jaapv]

Catadioptric camera lenses have an undeserved (and contagious)  'poorer image quality' reputation amongst photographers - but some photographers do not use the lenses optimally. Because mirror lenses are relatively lightweight, photographers underestimate the need to use a firm support and some will try and hand-hold the camera/lens combination - and thus fail to counter 'shake' and obtain poor results. Mirror lenses really do require a firm tripod or good monopod fitted with a decent tripod head - unless using e.g. a Sony A7 II series camera with IBIS.     Astronomers are well used to using mirror lenses of various designs and use same for astro photography with exceptionally good results. However, astro photographers will never commence photography immediately after setting up a reflector telescope and camera … they WAIT until the lens has acclimated to the ambient air temperature before taking any photographs.  All mirror lenses' 'primary mirrors' act like radiators and absorb heat. When transported from a warm environment to cooler environment, the primary mirror will 'radiate' its heat as it cools to the ambient air temperature … and in doing so, creates internal heat thermals which can distort the image. Most of us have witnessed similar thermals e.g. when observing distorted views through heat haze. Astronomers always allow at least 30 minutes for an astro reflector telescope (mirror lens) to acclimate before commencing photography i.e. for the primary mirror to cease radiating thermals … but some designs, e.g. Maksutov reflectors with thicker mirrors, can take over 1 hour to acclimate and reach thermal equilibrium. The same applies to catadioptric camera lenses i.e. the primary mirror needs to acclimate and reach thermal equilibrium in order to optimise photographic image quality. But how often have mirror lens tests / reviews … especially comparative reviews when one reviewer has tested several mirror lenses … mentioned thermal equilibrium?  Reviewers never do because they are unaware of its importance. Thus take mirror lens reviews with a pinch of salt … and ask yourself, "Did the reviewer set up the lens optimally to try and obtain the best possible result?"  Mirror lenses can produce excellent results and as noted by Jaap, images can be aberration free compared to refractor lens designs. 'Donuts' are always a probability but they do not always show up … and maybe they are not quite as intrusive and image-spoiling as many claim. After reading this please do not go out and buy a 'cheap' mirror lens and assume that if you let it acclimate and secure it to a substantial tripod, it will enable superb images … chances are a real cheapo catadioptric lens will not. Because of the folded light path i.e. image rays going back and forth from the primary mirror to secondary mirror and back again through the centre of the primary mirror, it's essential that the internal 'baffling' is as efficient as possible to minimise internal reflections. Cheapo mirror lenses' internal baffling may not be optimised or black enough to counter all internal reflections … you get what you pay for … so best to examine carefully rather than buy e.g. a cheap new Ebay mirrors lens with doubtful pedigree. 

 

dunk 

Errr...My shots were hand-held

[dkCambridgeshire]

Errr...My shots were hand-held

 

 

You likely have an exceptionally steady, long lens hand-holding technique compared to most photographers … and, no BS intended, more experience the most in how to optimise same to prevent shake … especially as on the CL the lens is the FF equivalent of 750mm. 

 

dunk 

[tritentrue]

Errr...My shots were hand-held

 

Seems to me that would be one of the big pluses of a mirror lens . . . ease of making hand-held shots.

 

Judicious use of ISO to maximize shutter speed where light so necessitates, as well as a bit of experimenting with the inertia of a lens to find out one's limits can eliminate the need for a tripod.

 

All of the telephoto shots I've ever posted on this site, with the exception of a test of stacked teleconverters for which I used a monopod, were taken hand-held.

[Petercoll]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

CL with 180mm f/2.8 APO-Elmarit-R and stacked teleconverters, yielding a roughly ~750mm AOV.  Setup including handgrip and tripod foot weighs just under 2.1kg.  With both TCs or each separately, the lens benefits from being closed one stop. All combinations are sharp wide open, but prone to veiling flare.

 

Over the years the 180 and 2X have been my most frequently used birding combination, easily handheld in most daylight conditions, and yielding excellent detail at f/8 (f/4 setting on the lens).

 

cltele.jpg

 

May I ask, with the Leica CL, do you program into the camera's software the focal length of the 180mm ? I have read somewhere about this, and plan to upgrade to CL or TL2 at some stage, and buy the R to TL adapter so as to use my late father's 1970's 180mm 2.8 with 2X extender . I just wanted to know if there is a performance advantage using the CL for longer Leica lenses over the TL2 ?

[tritentrue]

May I ask, with the Leica CL, do you program into the camera's software the focal length of the 180mm ? I have read somewhere about this, and plan to upgrade to CL or TL2 at some stage, and buy the R to TL adapter so as to use my late father's 1970's 180mm 2.8 with 2X extender . I just wanted to know if there is a performance advantage using the CL for longer Leica lenses over the TL2 ?

 

Since the CL's lens menu doesn't show any options for 180mm with teleconverters I just use the setting for the 11357 version of the 180mm APO.  I used this lens with both teleconverters on the TL2 as well and I don't recall any difference whatsoever in image quality. 

 

However, having lens info in EXIF data is helpful to  me.

Edited July 15, 2018 by tritentrue

[dkCambridgeshire]

This 'statement' is a quote from a Leica Mayfair technician's demo last October.  

 

"Lens profiles for medium and longer focal length lenses were added by Leica Camera AG following the request by M camera customers … but they do little if anything to improve 50mm and longer focal length image quality. 'In-camera' lens profiles for wider angle Leica lenses can improve image quality; for lenses over 50mm they are not necessary … but customers wanted them so Leica obliged … even though they achieve nothing. "  

 

dunk 

[ramarren]

The lens profiles achieve the embedding of the lens information into the EXIF data, which is useful for some purposes, if nothing else...

 

Regards mirror lenses ... I'd never use a 500mm lens hand-held seriously anyway if I was looking for best resolution. For me, the benefit of the mirror lens' light weight and short length is that it's much less to carry about in the field. However, the limitations are substantial ... no lens opening adjustment, the "world of donuts" out of focus specular highlights, etc ... so a refracting objective is usually preferable. 

 

I don't use long lenses beyond 180mm or so very frequently. My other 'long' solution is an Elmar-R 180mm f/4 with 2x Extender-R fitted. 540mm f/8 ... should be long enough, and will likely outperform the ancient Sigma cat by a good bit. Time to pull out the bag again...

[wlaidlaw]

I find a monopod is a good compromise between hand held and a tripod. I have two Manfrotto ones. A lightweight 4 section carbon fibre travel monopod, that doubles as a walking pole, although I rarely use it as such (I find it alters my natural gait too much and seems to make my back worse rather than better) but it is useful to help climbing up and down from somewhere to get a different view. My other one is Manfrotto's very clever if rather heavy Neotech monopod, where you squeeze a trigger, with a safety lock, at the top and pull/push it up and down to the length you need. Releasing the trigger then locks it very securely at your selected height. I would not want to carry this all day, so it lives in my car. I used the Neotech to take the church picture above. 

 

I often see even professionals using monopods vertically. It was explained to me by my moving target shooting instructor at Bisley (John Kynoch, an Olympic Gold medallist) that you should always use a monopod (or rifle steady stick) at around 15º to the vertical and push against it, as that reduces the wobble by around 50% compared with using it vertically. 

 

Wilson

[ramarren]

The CL fitted with Elmar-R 180mm f/4 and 2x Extender-R is a compact and handy package. Easy to carry and only a medium weight tripod required.

 

 

It shows a bit of chromatic aberration and fringing in certain lighting situations, which is reduced when stopped down. Both are easily controlled with Lightroom. Other advantages of being able to be stopped down are easily apparent ... although a bit shorter overall than the Sigma 600mm, the imaging qualities are much finer.

 

f/4 (wide open): 

 

f/11 (3 stops down):

 

f/4:

 

f/11:

 

f/4:

 

f/11:

 

This lens setup has the added benefit of being pretty inexpensive. I think I recall paying about $400 for the lens and $60 for the doubler. A bargain!

 

In truth, this setup is probably longer than I'll need most of the time ... I'll be using the 180mm without the doubler most of the time. But it's nice to have that little bit more now and then... 

 

 

Thus:

 

 

enjoy!

Edited July 15, 2018 by ramarren

[ramarren]

I find a monopod is a good compromise between hand held and a tripod. I have two Manfrotto ones. A lightweight 4 section carbon fibre travel monopod, that doubles as a walking pole, although I rarely use it as such (I find it alters my natural gait too much and seems to make my back worse rather than better) but it is useful to help climbing up and down from somewhere to get a different view. My other one is Manfrotto's very clever if rather heavy Neotech monopod, where you squeeze a trigger, with a safety lock, at the top and pull/push it up and down to the length you need. Releasing the trigger then locks it very securely at your selected height. I would not want to carry this all day, so it lives in my car. I used the Neotech to take the church picture above. 

 

I often see even professionals using monopods vertically. It was explained to me by my moving target shooting instructor at Bisley (John Kynoch, an Olympic Gold medallist) that you should always use a monopod (or rifle steady stick) at around 15º to the vertical and push against it, as that reduces the wobble by around 50% compared with using it vertically. 

 

Wilson

 

 

Monopods are good stuff when I work with a heavy, long lens at an event where action and mobility is important, but I hardly ever do that sort of thing anymore. They don't quite do the same job for me for still subjects ... and I tend to forget I have them. I think I have three somewhere in this mess ... If I could only find them.

[leonasj]

Beware of potential sticky lens diaphragm … with age the diaphragm blades can become sluggish … 280/4 APO Telyts are all getting old and diaphragms should be thoroughly checked before purchase. This will not affect use on CL (auto diaphragm not required) but could affect resale value.

 

dunk

 

my lens was full checked adjusted at leica 2014 Edited July 15, 2018 by leonasj

[dkCambridgeshire]

my lens was full checked adjusted at leica 2014

 

 

In that case for the price paid you have a bargain lens and extender .

 

dunk  

[leonasj]

In that case for the price paid you have a bargain lens and extender .

 

dunk

 

no need aperture for this lens,it is made shoot wide open,,,i had it in past 6 years ago,time return baby to home Edited July 16, 2018 by leonasj

[tritentrue]

Just about the smallest and lightest -handholdable- combo I can imagine. MR Telyt 500 8.0. Good for birds, albeit not very fast to focus.

 

_DSC6799.jpg

 

 

Agree, but portability and handholdability will offset the OOF character from time to time. I would not take this lens for wildlife because of the double contour bokeh, unless I know that I will have to hike.

 

 

I'm a bit confused . . . good for birds but you wouldn't take it for wildlife?  May I ask where is the delineation?  I'm not at all trying to point out a contradiction of any sort, but--realizing that some telephotos are good with certain subject matter and not with others--genuinely wondering what you would and would not use the lens for.

 

After reading some years back what Mr. Puts wrote about the lens, I had never considered acquiring one.  But the photos you posted the other day led me to look at some other images made with the lens posted elsewhere, and it appears that it would be a good option for capturing skittish birds or distant waterfowl when light is good.

 

Two concerns that would obviate it being an everyday critter lens for me would be its longish minimum focus distance and apparent low contrast, which I suspect would not trigger much focus peaking, on which I rely heavily.  But its reach conjures up the agreeable notion of having two reasonably lightweight telephoto options in my bag when I travel, the other being the 180 APO plus teleconverter.

 

Any further insight you can share will be much appreciated.

[scott kirkpatrick]

birds in the sky don't have background foliage?  Lions in the tall grass certainly do.

[jaapv]

Indeed. Scott has it right. The lens has two problems:

1. The throw of the focus ring makes focusing slow and fiddly. With birds one tends to prefocus and release when sharp. Animals often move less predictively. Although Lions - they are normally stationary and in deep sleep.

2.The bokeh can be very distracting - the less there is, the better.

 

For the rest: it is relatively low-resolution, but for that it is aberration-free. Which means that it is suitable for many subjects that depend on shape and form, excellent even, but tends to be softer on high-frequency subjects.

A great lens, when used within its envelope, problematic as a universal tele.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tritentrue]

Indeed. Scott has it right. The lens has two problems:

1. The throw of the focus ring makes focusing slow and fiddly. With birds one tends to prefocus and release when sharp. Animals often move less predictively. Although Lions - they are normally stationary and in deep sleep.

2.The bokeh can be very distracting - the less there is, the better.

 

For the rest: it is relatively low-resolution, but for that it is aberration-free. Which means that it is suitable for many subjects that depend on shape and form, excellent even, but tends to be softer on high-frequency subjects.

A great lens, when used within its envelope, problematic as a universal tele.

 

The one phrase describes what I noticed in the sample photos I saw that were taken by the lens.  Adapted to my vernacular:  not great with feather detail.  Tempting as the form factor is, it looks as though the two APO lenses will continue to be my best friends in the outdoors.

 

Thank you for your explanation.