Which 2 lenses to get? Opinions wanted...

[Brian C in Az]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have had the SL with the 24-90 for a few days and have been using it daily to become familiar with it. The lens was a demo lens with a 30 day money back return policy. I have found that it is definitely not long enough for what I consider the majority of my uses. I had the 70-180 f2.8 and 35-70 f3.5 (wish I had gotten the F2.8 when I had the opportunity) with my R8 (plus a selection of primes from 60 to 280) for a little background on my previous preferences. 

I originally thought the 24-90 would be wide enough and long enough to start, then add the 90-280. But now I don't feel the middle of the 24-90 is going to be used much if at all. In fact, I'm feeling like I should have started with the longer lens because I find myself wanting/ needing more optical magnification. As a result, I'm considering the 90-280 and the 16-35 instead of the 28-90. I have noticed a trend developing on the used market, there seems to be more than just a few 24-90 lenses getting traded in and prices are dropping accordingly (as low as $3400 now for 85/90% and $4100 for new). I don't shoot much between 40 and 90. I could probably use an R adapter for the 35-70 and my primes.

I went out today to the same wildlife reserve I visited yesterday with  the R8 with the  70-180 and a 2x and the 250 f4 for some visual perspective. I tried zooming in on flying Egrets with the 70-180 w/2x and definitely felt the 90-280 with AF would be a worthwhile investment. I really liked the 250 w/2x for the less mobile birds. So I'll get the adapter to use that combo (or upgrade to the 280 f2.8 w/2x) on the SL.

I'm interested in your opinions. If you were to be given any two of the three, what would you choose? Why? What do you mainly shoot? What focal length do you feel you almost never use? 

If you frequently use focal lengths between 40 and 90, what do you shoot?

I realize this is similar to "asking what kind of car should I get?", but if I get enough feedback with explanations of what and why, it will help me resolve this dilemma.

[hteasley]

Sounds like you want the 16-35  and 90-280. Me personally, I plan on the 16-35 whenever I can afford it, following the 50 that I have right now.

[Advertisement]

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

[rpittal]

Quote

you may want to rent the 90-280 to test for your purposes. I find I seldom use mine and use the 24-90 more frequently, but I shoot mainly landscapes. The 90-280 is large and heavy (but not a whole lot different from DSLR large zooms). I recently received my 16-35 and the 90 so I will be trying that combo for awhile. It sounds like the 90-280 does fit your needs though. They are also readily available on the used market now also.

 

[Bill W]

I guess I do not shoot what you normally do. Th 24-90 is my normal lens on the SL. It was what I took to Scotland last year for two weeks. I have the 90-280 just because I might have the need and it replace my Nikon 80-300 a while back. I am getting the 16-35 tomorrow. It really boils down to what you use the camera for and what works for you. 

[sillbeers15]

Despite all the comments on the 90-280 lens as heavy and seldom used from others. I find the focal length useful from taking landscape, portrait & moving objects. The sharpness, colour rendering and bokeh are great. I find the AF tracking with medium drive speed from the SL acceptable from BIF to fighter jets. From my experience, high drive speed reduces AF tracking reliability a lot and clought up buffer in no time ending the short lived trigger happiness anyway. Moreover, the lens might be considered big and heavy, but nevertheless I only used it handheld.

[darylgo]

The 90-280 is big and heavy, the images it produces are exquisite.   The 280mm IQ is slightly less than the 280/4 R but with the added OIS handheld images exceed it.  The weight is not difficult to work with, it balances nicely,  tripod use is also well balanced.  

For longer focal lengths consider the Nikon 200-500mm with the SL/NIK adapter, this will provide AF.   The 500mm end of the zoom is weaker but very acceptable, the AF will not work as quickly as it does on a Nikon body.     

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I can't advise on what you should get because my photographic habits are clearly very different from yours. If I was shooting birds, which I don't, I suspect I would be looking for a DSLR with a wider choice of long lenses, longer than the 90-280 - both of which would be cheaper than the SL combination, and could come with better AF for BIF.

The 24-90 is what I use mostly on the SL, and occasionally the 90-280 or the 90 Thambar. They are all used for portraits, events and theatre/concert performance. No landscape, no wildlife, no street, no travel - if I do those, it is with other cameras. I've always felt the SL is best suited to people/events, landscape and buildings/architecture; for other uses I think there are better tools out there.

If there really is a spate of used 24-90 zooms on the market, I suspect it is more because people are replacing them with the more recent SL primes than shifting to longer focal lengths. On my entirely subjective view of forum chatter there seems a lot more interest in the primes than in the long zoom.

[thighslapper]

From posts on this forum in the last 3yrs I don't think the SL plus any of the current lenses that you can stick on it are ideal for wildlife use unless the subject is static. 

If there was a dedicated SL lens longer than 300mm with OIS, or 1.4 or 2x adapters for the existing 90-280 the you would stand a reasonable chance of being satisfied. 

Even the most diehard Leica supporters who shoot wildlife tend to prefer other lens/body combinations and acknowledge this is one area where alternatives are better.

The SL and existing lenses excel at landscape, travel, portraiture and reportage but tend to fall short when it comes to sports and wildlife...... 

The 24-90 is my most used lens by a fair margin ..... with the 16-35 catching up as it replaced using the Tri-Elmar. The 90-280 had it's first outing yesterday after 6 months+ of inactivity .... mainly down to its lack of portability ... 😕

 

 

Edited November 12, 2018 by thighslapper

[sillbeers15]

My 24-90 is actually sitting collecting dust after having 16-35 & 75. 90-289 is still used more often over 24-90mm. It provides the ‘compression’  that cropping from 24-90 cannot deliver.

[Brian C in Az]

On 11/12/2018 at 1:02 AM, LocalHero1953 said:

The 24-90 is what I use mostly on the SL, and occasionally the 90-280 or the 90 Thambar. They are all used for portraits, events and theatre/concert performance. No landscape, no wildlife, no street, no travel - if I do those, it is with other cameras. I've always felt the SL is best suited to people/events, landscape and buildings/architecture; for other uses I think there are better tools out there.

If there really is a spate of used 24-90 zooms on the market, I suspect it is more because people are replacing them with the more recent SL primes than shifting to longer focal lengths. On my entirely subjective view of forum chatter there seems a lot more interest in the primes than in the long zoom.

Thanks for your input

When I shot portraits with my R, I used my 135 the most if my memory is correct. After buying the 70-180, I used it the most for everyday type shooting. I reacquainted myself with the 70-180 on Sunday and didn't feel severely disadvantaged by using MF. There is no doubt that manual zoom plus MF is slow and will cause missed shots in certain scenarios. I don't think that they will apply to me often enough to be an issue. I found the AF on the 24-90 fooled frequently by small branches and leaves, so I had to MF those anyway. The 70-180 is bright enough and fast enough that I can use the 2x and that gives me 140-360 f5.6.  Coupled with  ISO 1600 (which is faster than any film I ever shot) gives me the shutter speeds I need. 

[Brian C in Az]

On 11/12/2018 at 3:39 AM, thighslapper said:

The SL and existing lenses excel at landscape, travel, portraiture and reportage but tend to fall short when it comes to sports and wildlife...... 

The 24-90 is my most used lens by a fair margin ..... with the 16-35 catching up as it replaced using the Tri-Elmar. The 90-280 had it's first outing yesterday after 6 months+ of inactivity .... mainly down to its lack of portability ... 😕

 

 

I appreciate your input.

I've looked at a lot of your photos and noticed that most are shot under 35 and a few are shot at 90. 

I've ordered the 16-35. After looking at the R options and other brands, I think it is worth the investment. It does what is does better than pretty much everything else out there in that range. I also order the R-L adapter. Between the 16-35 and my 70-180, I can not foresee not being able to cover the rest of the anticipated needs in regards to landscape. I don't need the AF for landscapes, the rocks in Az move pretty slow....

[Brian C in Az]

On 11/12/2018 at 7:31 AM, sillbeers15 said:

My 24-90 is actually sitting collecting dust after having 16-35 & 75. 90-289 is still used more often over 24-90mm. It provides the ‘compression’  that cropping from 24-90 cannot deliver.

That was my thought as well after looking at my images shot at 90; need more optical magnification and less FOV. 

Quote

Despite all the comments on the 90-280 lens as heavy and seldom used from others. I find the focal length useful from taking landscape, portrait & moving objects. The sharpness, colour rendering and bokeh are great. I find the AF tracking with medium drive speed from the SL acceptable from BIF to fighter jets.

I disregard complaints and comments about the weight of equipment, everyone has their own comfort level and levels of fitness vary. My feeling is if your lens feels too heavy, grab a dumbbell and exercise your arms a little. The weight of my 70-180 on my R8 never bothered me at all; though I was 10 years younger.   

Sunday I took out that combo to compare  to the 24-90 SL combo and weight wasn't an issue.

Still undecided on the 90-280. I found an R modular 280 f2.8 which again causes more indecision. I can couple that with the 1.4 and the 2x for 392 f4 and 560 f5.6. 

The R-L adapter will be here in 2 days. It is unfortunate that the only local Leica dealer doesn't stock anything but a couple M lenses and one M body. I will use the 70-180 this weekend and that should help me decide if I need the AF on the 90-280.

I may wait a little to see if Leica addresses the longer lens market via a new offering or via teleconverters. 200-500 or 280-560 would be good additions to the lineup. Hopefully Leica will see the opportunity to sell more lenses via the L alliance. There will be people that buy the other brand bodies and then buy the Leica glass, so Leica may actually sell a lot more glass as a result of their new alliance.

I doubt the Sigma offerings will provide the optical performance the SL deserves. I know the Canon and Nikon lenses can be adapted, but again, that would be like putting a Chevy engine in a Porsche (though I know 2 guys that did actually do that after blowing up their engines)

[sillbeers15]

Either the glass is 'half empty' or 'half full'.

With regards to the 90-280mm lens, I see 'half full', firstly I see it an extended 70-200mm lens which is kind of a general application zoom lens. The sharpness, color saturation & bokeh is above most zooms, many users have commented it to be on-par with prime telephoto lenses. Besides, weather sealing and fast AF motor takes it a step beyond the R280mm F4 (well regarded lens as well). I have the APO R 180mmF2.8, I've never once used it on my SL. It is just a dead weight setting back home collecting dust. granted that the SL's AF tracking capability does not win praises in high hit rate but it never the less does the job way better than relying on manual focus to chase after fast moving objects. I believe the SL2's AF tracking should be much improved as I see many happy remarks from the Panasonic G9 users (the SL's AF is basically a clone from Panasonic GH4 some 3-4 years ago).

Longer reach telephotos & zooms are not for general application and more specifically for sports & wild life & sports application. My choice would be I rather rely on a Micro-four-thirds Panasonic G9 + 100-400mm Panasonic/Leica zoom. Again, I value the compact, lightness and free to handheld at 800mm FF equivalent which would not have been possible from 800mm FF camera & lens if I were to pursue wildlife & sports shooting. Besides I always have international travel in mind and I do not own a donkey to carry my gear.  

[thighslapper]

Another possibility which hasn't been mentioned is the option of pairing the 90-280 with the CL ....... which gives you 420mm at 24mpx and benefits from OIS and tracking AF.

It is a rather ungainly combination but it does work exceptionally well. Dumping any rarely used R/M lenses would pay for a CL body.

These days I pack a CL rather than extra lenses, as it fills the gaps, weighs less, and produces images in most conditions as good as the SL. 

I've sold all my R/M gear apart from a few specialised M lenses like the Noctilux, and rely on the CL/SL combo with L mount optics. 

[tom0511]

I own those lenses and for me the 24-90 ist the most usefull. BUT I shoot different things than you, and shoot a lot in the 35-90mm range.

The 90-280 is excellent but quite a big lens, thats why I only bring it for certain situations, where I know I will need the reach.

If you need Tele a lot and do not use much the 40-90 range (what you write) it sounds 16-35 + 90-280 makes most sense for you.

The 16-35 can also be paired with a 75 or 90 prime for those days when you dont need tele and want a more compact set.

[Brian C in Az]

6 hours ago, thighslapper said:

Another possibility which hasn't been mentioned is the option of pairing the 90-280 with the CL ....... which gives you 420mm at 24mpx and benefits from OIS and tracking AF.

 

That is a very interesting possibility. I never considered that as a viable option because I thought that I would lose resolution due to the smaller sensor used, but you are saying that you haven't observed any loss.

It is a fair statement to say that the advantage of full frame over ASP-C is mainly when using wide angle lenses? When using long focal lengths, that there is very little, if any advantage to full frame over ASP-C?

I always thought that the smaller sensor would be at a disadvantage in all conditions compared to shooting the same shot with Full Frame.

 

[Brian C in Az]

12 hours ago, sillbeers15 said:

Either the glass is 'half empty' or 'half full'.

With regards to the 90-280mm lens, I see 'half full', firstly I see it an extended 70-200mm lens which is kind of a general application zoom lens. The sharpness, color saturation & bokeh is above most zooms, many users have commented it to be on-par with prime telephoto lenses. Besides, weather sealing and fast AF motor takes it a step beyond the R280mm F4 (well regarded lens as well). I have the APO R 180mmF2.8, I've never once used it on my SL. It is just a dead weight setting back home collecting dust. granted that the SL's AF tracking capability does not win praises in high hit rate but it never the less does the job way better than relying on manual focus to chase after fast moving objects. I believe the SL2's AF tracking should be much improved as I see many happy remarks from the Panasonic G9 users (the SL's AF is basically a clone from Panasonic GH4 some 3-4 years ago).

Longer reach telephotos & zooms are not for general application and more specifically for sports & wild life & sports application. My choice would be I rather rely on a Micro-four-thirds Panasonic G9 + 100-400mm Panasonic/Leica zoom. Again, I value the compact, lightness and free to handheld at 800mm FF equivalent which would not have been possible from 800mm FF camera & lens if I were to pursue wildlife & sports shooting. Besides I always have international travel in mind and I do not own a donkey to carry my gear.  

Interesting perspective going the Panasonic route. Do you have first hand experience with that combo? I'm curious at to the IQ vs a "full blooded" Leica combo.

200-800 would certainly satisfy all my needs/ wants.

[sillbeers15]

8 hours ago, Brian C in Az said:

Interesting perspective going the Panasonic route. Do you have first hand experience with that combo? I'm curious at to the IQ vs a "full blooded" Leica combo.

200-800 would certainly satisfy all my needs/ wants.

I have been observing the technology development of CDAF by Panasonic over the last 3 years since the arrival of GH4 and SL (the SL’s AF is basically Panasonic GH4 equivalent some 3 years ago with Leica’s unique user interface). Now the latest offerings in the market by Panasonic is G9. Many users use the Micro-four-thirds with the Panasonic-Leica 100-400 on Birds in flight wildlife photography. Many photographers may say that PDAF performs better. Perhaps for now. I am convinced by scientific theory that utilising pixel contrast to compute focal point will be the way to go when the computing power and algorithm design optimises. Having PDAF requires independent light sensors and separate circuitry to function, it has been developed since more than a decade ago.

Coming as a Leica user, I ‘m only keen in Leica optics, I am convinced that the G9+100-400 combo would meet my aspersions on picture IQ, AF capability and handheld manuvability. I have yet take the plunge to own it because my passion for wildlife photography isn’t that great. Perhaps my next holiday trip with wildlife photography potential will trigger my desire to pick up the G9 combo.

[thighslapper]

That is a very interesting possibility. I never considered that as a viable option because I thought that I would lose resolution due to the smaller sensor used, but you are saying that you haven't observed any loss.

It is a fair statement to say that the advantage of full frame over ASP-C is mainly when using wide angle lenses? When using long focal lengths, that there is very little, if any advantage to full frame over ASP-C?

I always thought that the smaller sensor would be at a disadvantage in all conditions compared to shooting the same shot with Full Frame.

The CL produces images close to SL quality ...... there are some subtle differences that you have to look hard to find ..... colour/tonality gradients do not seem as smooth as the SL and you have less leeway in processing with shadow recovery and other manipulations before artefacts appear. On 2 recent landscape trips I used both and to be honest I would have a hard time telling which image came from which camera. 

Jaap, (one of the forum moderators) who has been shooting wildlife on safari for years rates the G9+100-400 very highly. I was very tempted at one stage but have decided to keep to one system and native lenses unless there is an overriding reason to add 'foreign' equipment. I dabble little in wildlife/sports/cars/planes so I've yet to find my current combo lacking or frustrating. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tom0511]

As a user of m43, cl and SL I do find that sensor size makes a difference in regards of room for post processing, 3-dimensionality and also transitions from focus-plane to background, and also in the midtones.

In regards of sharpnes and detail the small sensors seem to be very good, but to me the m43 sometimes habe a little overprocessed and contrasty look while larger sensor looks richer with more midtones to me. dx-sensor of Cl is a very nice compromise in between.