Which 2 lenses to get? Opinions wanted...

[sillbeers15]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, thighslapper said:

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. 

Maybe it is just me, I would want a full frame for most photography application except for capturing fast moving subjects which I will trade off some level of IQ for better AF tracking, reach and weight of equipment in exchange for mobility. I do not see the CL having a better AF tracking capability than SL, so just more reach from the 90-280 doesn’t meet my wish list. On the other hand if sensor size &  pixel count is what I chase after, Phase One medium format would be my choice for landscape photography application. But I’m sticking to Leica FF as I am not fully convinced that I want another camera system. Just me I guess.

[caissa]

SL 90-280 and SL 16-35. And later SL75 . That’s a complete solution for almost anything.

[Advertisement]

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

[thighslapper]

1 hour ago, sillbeers15 said:

 But I’m sticking to Leica FF as I am not fully convinced that I want another camera system. Just me I guess.

Same here ...... I'd rather stick to one coherent system even if it is a few years adrift in technology and options.

Maximising the capabilities of what you have through familiarity is far more important in taking good photographs than the eternal search for better equipment ....

[Brian C in Az]

45 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

1 hour ago, sillbeers15 said:

Maybe it is just me, I would want a full frame for most photography application except for capturing fast moving subjects which I will trade off some level of IQ for better AF tracking, reach and weight of equipment in exchange for mobility. I do not see the CL having a better AF tracking capability than SL, so just more reach from the 90-280 doesn’t meet my wish list. On the other hand if sensor size &  pixel count is what I chase after, Phase One medium format would be my choice for landscape photography application. But I’m sticking to Leica FF as I am not fully convinced that I want another camera system. Just me I guess.

You are not alone, that is why I invested in the SL and not an APS-C format. I believe that Leica can do what we want, it's just a question of whether or not they see the potential market as being large enough to develop the lenses I want to make the SL a complete system. I would rather buy a 300-600 (or 800), pay once and be happy with a complete system rather than try to make the APS-C format work. The CL tracking is not as good, that is documented in reviews and by members of this forum. The TL2 tracking is better than the CL tracking, so I have been considering the TL2 as a temporary solution to long range wildlife shooting. I will lose AF either way as soon as I mount an R lens, so the AF tracking is not a deal breaker for me. I want Leica to offer native lenses over 300mm or a 2x. A 2x with a 90-280 will satisfy all my needs and then the SL becomes the best system in my opinion.

50 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

Same here ...... I'd rather stick to one coherent system even if it is a few years adrift in technology and options.

Maximising the capabilities of what you have through familiarity is far more important in taking good photographs than the eternal search for better equipment ....

 

I also want to stick to one brand if possible. It would be easy to buy the Fuji, Panasonic, and Leica, each for a specific use, but I don't want to invest the money nor the time required to learn each system's UI and post processing. There is a certain comfort level in having one set of lenses that you know well and possibly having a couple variants of bodies if they suit a purpose or fill a need.

I'm not convince the APS-C is the answer. The FOV is smaller, but the magnification is the same. So 280 is still a 280, but with a more narrow FOV. The advantage is only that the pixel density is higher, so when you enlarge the image, such as A3, you get more pixels in the APS-C image than the same enlargement of a FF sensor image.

[sillbeers15]

2 hours ago, caissa said:

SL 90-280 and SL 16-35. And later SL75 . That’s a complete solution for almost anything.

yeap,...agree. I have above combo and am looking of adding a SL35 cron once it is released 1H 2019.

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, thighslapper said:

Same here ...... I'd rather stick to one coherent system even if it is a few years adrift in technology and options.

Maximising the capabilities of what you have through familiarity is far more important in taking good photographs than the eternal search for better equipment ....

Agree, it would make more sense to know the SL system well and its limitations to get the most out of it making photographs than moving onto mutiple systems without getting much.

[Brian C in Az]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

After shooting a couple days with my  R 70-180 f2.8 with 2x, I am certain that I need more than the SL 90-280 for most of my shooting. I think that adding an R 105-280 and incorporating it with the 1.4 and 2x, I will have everything covered for half the cost of the SL 90-280. I may add the 280 f2.8 later if I find I need more speed, but I think with ISO 1600 producing the image quality that I'm getting now, I doubt I will. I only missed one shot due to no AF today, but I also doubt that I wouldn't have had time to even raise the camera and compose fast enough. Camera shake is a non issue, I'm keeping the ISO at 1600 and shutter at 1/2000s to 1/3000s. 

I went on the short end, 70mm (times 2) for some hummingbirds. turned the ISO to 3200 and shutter to 1/4000 trying to capture them in flight, but they kept flying into the sun. MF was not an issue.

If Leica decides to offer us a 2x for the SL, I can get the SL 90-280 later. 

[caissa]

I am sure that sooner or later there will be a teleconverter for the SL, hopefully 1.7x .

In the meantime a mirror lens of 500mm is not bad, and also not too big for safari - e.g. the R 500 mm lens or the Zeiss Mirotar. Both can easily be used with the SL.

I have the SL 90-280 and now do not want to go without IS, so I will not switch back to the old R zoom, but rather use the mirror lens when the 280mm is too short. By the way 500 or 560 is not far apart.

Edited November 19, 2018 by caissa

[Brian C in Az]

On 11/19/2018 at 5:54 AM, caissa said:

I am sure that sooner or later there will be a teleconverter for the SL, hopefully 1.7x .

In the meantime a mirror lens of 500mm is not bad, and also not too big for safari - e.g. the R 500 mm lens or the Zeiss Mirotar. Both can easily be used with the SL.

I have the SL 90-280 and now do not want to go without IS, so I will not switch back to the old R zoom, but rather use the mirror lens when the 280mm is too short. By the way 500 or 560 is not far apart.

The pictures with the 500mm mirror lens are not close to the same level of IQ as the 280 f2.8 with either the 1.4x or the 2x. Thighslapper posted a shot taken with the 280 and both the 1.4 and 2x combined for a total of 800mm which had higher IQ than images I've seen from the 500 mirror lens.

I'm going with the SL16-35, the R70-180 f2.8, R105-280 f4.2,  R280 f2.8, and R400 f6.8 (works great for astrophotography) as my primary lenses for now.

[sillbeers15]

1 hour ago, Brian C in Az said:

The pictures with the 500mm mirror lens are not close to the same level of IQ as the 280 f2.8 with either the 1.4x or the 2x. Thighslapper posted a shot taken with the 280 and both the 1.4 and 2x combined for a total of 800mm which had higher IQ than images I've seen from the 500 mirror lens.

I'm going with the SL16-35, the R70-180 f2.8, R105-280 f4.2,  R280 f2.8, and R400 f6.8 (works great for astrophotography) as my primary lenses for now.

I remember going after a mint copy of APO R70-180 earlier before Leica released the SL. The seller backed out last minute so I ended with an alternative APO R 180 2.8 which I used on my M240 with EVF. I enjoyed using the lens as the IQ was great.  

Now with SL & 90-280, I’ve never once attach the R180 on my SL. It has been a dead weight since....

Looking back, I’m glad I was not successful in securing the APO R 70-180 2.8 as it was almost the same money as the SL90-280 new. It would be another piece of dead weight if I had gotten it successfully then.

[Brian C in Az]

I bought the 70-180 new when they first came out. I think it was around $5000 -$6000 back then.

If I didn't have it, then you would probably be right, go with the SL 90-280; which I did order a couple weeks ago but the seller had just sold out, so I reconsidered my options. Since I have been shooting with the 70-180 and a 2x on it, I am not missing AF nor is lack of IS an issue.

Leica is not giving me any options to go longer, the 105-280 is a good choice for me, I can add the 1.4x or 2x and get triple duty.

I did buy the 16-35 because I don't see any lens that compares to it; it seems to be a popular choice amongst landscape photographers. If there was an MF version if it, I would have chosen it instead.

One thing that bothered me a lot with the 24-90 was I could feel movement in the lens with each step while hiking. There was a definite noiseless, minute thud that concerned me. Not sure if all long AF/IS lenses do that, but it was disconcerting. I never felt anything like that with my manual lenses. Another was the AF frequently was tricked by branches and foliage between me and the subject. Third, I question the longevity of the SL's AF. Other brands use cheaper and lighter glass and plastic elements for focus. The glass in the SL lenses is noticeably heavier and requires two step motors instead of one. What happens 3 or 5 years down the road after many miles of hiking, trekking, and high usage? Do the lenses need to be rebuilt with new motors and driveline? Fourth, I don't like focus by wire (that is the only thing I dislike about the 16-35).

After shooting MF and ME for a little more than a week on the SL, I do not miss either AF or AE; but then I never had them before on my R bodies. Interestingly, I have trouble remembering that ISO is now user selectable. I keep forgetting that I can even change it frame by frame if desired. Old habits die hard, I keep thinking I have to wait until the end of the roll to change ISO. That habit will die soon enough.

So my lenses have me covered from 16mm up to 1120mm with zero gaps and a little duplication in the 105 to 180 range. I can try 1600mm (400mm + 2x +2x) on the moon next week. Then later try it on Mars and Jupiter, I'll have to do some research on photographing them.

Bottom line is I am now enjoying photography more than ever before. I am liking the advantages of digital storage and the IQ is up to a satisfactory level. I never bought into the earlier versions (other than a V-Lux4 as a temporary solution), I waited until the technology matured; I am confident in it and I'm getting comfortable with it. 

[sillbeers15]

43 minutes ago, Brian C in Az said:

I bought the 70-180 new when they first came out. I think it was around $5000 -$6000 back then.

If I didn't have it, then you would probably be right, go with the SL 90-280; which I did order a couple weeks ago but the seller had just sold out, so I reconsidered my options. Since I have been shooting with the 70-180 and a 2x on it, I am not missing AF nor is lack of IS an issue.

Leica is not giving me any options to go longer, the 105-280 is a good choice for me, I can add the 1.4x or 2x and get triple duty.

I did buy the 16-35 because I don't see any lens that compares to it; it seems to be a popular choice amongst landscape photographers. If there was an MF version if it, I would have chosen it instead.

One thing that bothered me a lot with the 24-90 was I could feel movement in the lens with each step while hiking. There was a definite noiseless, minute thud that concerned me. Not sure if all long AF/IS lenses do that, but it was disconcerting. I never felt anything like that with my manual lenses. Another was the AF frequently was tricked by branches and foliage between me and the subject. Third, I question the longevity of the SL's AF. Other brands use cheaper and lighter glass and plastic elements for focus. The glass in the SL lenses is noticeably heavier and requires two step motors instead of one. What happens 3 or 5 years down the road after many miles of hiking, trekking, and high usage? Do the lenses need to be rebuilt with new motors and driveline? Fourth, I don't like focus by wire (that is the only thing I dislike about the 16-35).

After shooting MF and ME for a little more than a week on the SL, I do not miss either AF or AE; but then I never had them before on my R bodies. Interestingly, I have trouble remembering that ISO is now user selectable. I keep forgetting that I can even change it frame by frame if desired. Old habits die hard, I keep thinking I have to wait until the end of the roll to change ISO. That habit will die soon enough.

So my lenses have me covered from 16mm up to 1120mm with zero gaps and a little duplication in the 105 to 180 range. I can try 1600mm (400mm + 2x +2x) on the moon next week. Then later try it on Mars and Jupiter, I'll have to do some research on photographing them.

Bottom line is I am now enjoying photography more than ever before. I am liking the advantages of digital storage and the IQ is up to a satisfactory level. I never bought into the earlier versions (other than a V-Lux4 as a temporary solution), I waited until the technology matured; I am confident in it and I'm getting comfortable with it. 

It is good to hear that you are thoughtful. One man’s poison is another man’s meat. So while it is good to hear and share each other’s experiences and thoughts.

Coming from my experience, I only bought into the Leica experiences from owning the M9. Although I started learning photography in film days when I was a kid. I was away from the hobby for 20 years and only got back into digit and Leica as I just adore the IQ of Leica lenses. 

When the SL was announced, I picked up the system as a workhorse over my soul mate M camera such that I can keep my M system compact and not bothered by unable to expand my photography application. As for me, 16-280mm would fit my wish of ownership and usage as workhorse. I did expressed my thoughts to try the micro four thirds for 200 to 800 mm FF equilivant. Even that eventually Leica makes longer lenses for FF SL system, I would prefer to either rent it when I need it occasionally or just shy away and go for micro four thirds as the Leica-Panasonic 100-400 is just the size of a 70-200 zoom of FF cameras.

Now with the L mount alliance, there is much more future for other options to take place. Looks like the show has just begun for us Leica L mount users.

On the subject of AF, I have spent quite some time learning the AF since I’ve acquired the 90-280mm on SL. My target practice was over BIF flight path from the third floor balcony of my home. I quickly learn that no AF is perfect and many others have criticized the SL’s AF tracking when user capability or rather lack of it were often not blamed but only on gear.

Yes the SL AF is never perfect. But far from useless. I’ve managed to learn the do’s and don’ts on using AF. I can conclude that user experience is as important as AF tracking capability of camera and lens. In some situation, AF can be useless and MF would be much preferred. Other times, there is just no way MF can capture the situation. My own experience tells me that I need AF more often than I do not need it. Plus I have the option to MF on a AF lens and not the other way round.

[thighslapper]

24-90 ...... movement of the AF elements whilst off has been noted from its release and is even more apparent with the 90-280. Leica state it is normal and signifies nothing.

The design was deliberate ...... moving 2 smaller glass elements shorter distances rather than moving one big one a lot further ...... less strain on the motors and much faster. If anything the design should promote longevity ..... in use the movement of the elements is smooth and almost silent. In contrast my Sigma Art 135/1.8 with the Novoflex AF adapter sounds like it's going to rattle itself to pieces as the lens element clatters frantically up and down..... Part of the premium you are paying is for robustness and reliability (as far as optics are concerned, anyway). Most Leica stuff is over engineered and meant to last .....

Glad to hear you have accumulated a set of gear that suits ..... and enjoying using it 😊

 

Edited November 26, 2018 by thighslapper