SL2 + APO-VARIO-ELMAR-TL 55–135mm

[Fleabag]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

  

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Krusty:

I also think about buying an used SL2 and the APO-Vario-Elmar-TL 1:3,5-4,5/55-135 ASPH as the full frame Leica 70-200 is too big and heavy for me. And then I can also use my 3 M (21, 35, 90) and 5 R (28, 90, 100, 180, 70-210) Lenses on this body as well (maybe I sell my Q2 to get that money) 

do you still use this combination?

 

Why not take a look at the Panasonic 70-200/4? Excellent lens!

Pro: Full frame coverage, stabilized, 300-400 EUR less (used or new)
Con: 80mm longer, 400g heavier

 

Edited July 31 by Fleabag

[Krusty]

Maybe the new Lumix 28-200… it is Not that fast but very small 

Edited August 18 by Krusty

[rcusick]

55-135 works for me.  Sl3. 

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!

[carlosgavina]

The 55-135 on an SL2/SL3 is great for a "not sure I'll need a tele lens but want to take one just in case" kind of trip, when the occasional compressed landscape opportunity comes up. 

Size is close to the APO Summicron lenses, lighter. For a 80-200 equivalent it's great.

[Krusty]

Anyone knows the Lumix 28-200 compared to the 55-135?

Edited August 19 by Krusty

[Stuart Richardson]

2 minutes ago, Krusty said:

Anyone knows the Lumix compared to the 55-135?

Any full frame lens that is not actively terrible will surpass it handily. Using a TL lens means you are immediately reducing your resolution and tonality by more than half and more than doubling your noise and doing that for all pictures. Even if the Lumix is not sharper at 100%, it will have lower noise, smoother tonality, and since the enlargement ratio would be smaller for the same print (it does not need to be magnified as much), it is likely to be perceived as sharper as well. The 55-135 was also made in Japan, so even if it being a "Leica" is a tripping up point, that should not make a huge difference. The biggest potential difference would be in their behavior regarding things like chromatic aberrations and distortion, but most of those are now automatically corrected in body or in the raw processor. 

Another tactic to use would be to just use your 90mm or 100mm R lens and crop. The 100mm APO in particular is very well suited to cropping, and you will get the full resolution of the camera at 100mm, and you can crop it all the way to 150mm before it gets to APS sized like a TL lens would offer. That also gives you the flexibility of adjusting the framing after exposure, rather than being locked in to the focal length you choose at capture. 

[hoolyproductions]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, carlosgavina said:

The 55-135 on an SL2/SL3 is great for a "not sure I'll need a tele lens but want to take one just in case" kind of trip, when the occasional compressed landscape opportunity comes up. 

Size is close to the APO Summicron lenses, lighter. For a 80-200 equivalent it's great.

I see the reasoning here and it is why I am sometimes tempted to get this lens for my SL3 system. But then my reasoning (similar to the previous post above) is that I might as well take a 90mm prime (I have the very lightweight Sigma 90mm 2.8 and the excellent, if a little heavier, 90mm APO-SL). That way I get full frame quality at 90mm, an APS-C crop at 135mm and (at least with the 90mm APO) still about as good (or better) results at 200mm...