SL2 - how effective is IBIS + OIS

[thighslapper]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, MarkP said:

Is this with the 2.8 or 4.0 70-200 Pana S-Pro?

70/200 f4. I don't need f2.8, the extra weight and size is an issue and I can't fault the f4 optically. I think I'll pass on the f2.8, no matter how tempting it seems ....

The SL2 + Lumix f4 is a much more practical and balanced combination than with the 90-280 .... and being able to switch to MF with the collar on the lens is a great advantage. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by thighslapper

[MarkP]

10 minutes ago, thighslapper said:

70/200 f4. I don't need f2.8, the extra weight and size is an issue and I can't fault the f4 optically. I think I'll pass on the f2.8, no matter how tempting it seems ....

The SL2 + Lumix f4 is a much more practical and balanced combination than with the 90-280 .... and being able to switch to MF with the collar on the lens is a great advantage. 

Very helpful.  Thanks - I agree. 

I recently bought the same lens. I'm off to Antarctica with a Fuji GW690III, SL, SL2, 1.4/35M, 16-35SL, 24-90SL, and the 4.0/70-200 Pana. 

I clearly need a longer lens but as I would NEVER use this focal length at other times couldn't justify the weight or expense of the 2.8 70-200 Panasonic or 90-280 SL.  Every time I've owned an 80-200 it's never been used.

I too am very impressed with the 4.0/70-200.  I can always use it on the SL and crop to 24MP giving me a 140-400.

Regards,
Mark

Edited January 21, 2020 by MarkP

[Advertisement]

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

[scott kirkpatrick]

24 minutes ago, MarkP said:

I too am very impressed with the 4.0/70-200.  I can always use it on the SL and crop to 24MP giving me a 140-400.

 

CL?

[caissa]

3 hours ago, MarkP said:

Very helpful.  Thanks - I agree. 

I recently bought the same lens. I'm off to Antarctica with a Fuji GW690III, SL, SL2, 1.4/35M, 16-35SL, 24-90SL, and the 4.0/70-200 Pana. 

I clearly need a longer lens but as I would NEVER use this focal length at other times couldn't justify the weight or expense of the 2.8 70-200 Panasonic or 90-280 SL.  Every time I've owned an 80-200 it's never been used.

I too am very impressed with the 4.0/70-200.  I can always use it on the SL and crop to 24MP giving me a 140-400.

Regards,
Mark

Unfortunately the factor for APS-C is only 1.5.  So you get 105-300 . But not bad, anyway. (on the SL2 at 20 Mp)
The maximum you could get is using the 2x extender:   With APS-C crop (on SL2)  it is a whopping 140-400 x 1.5 = 210-600 . The question remains, how good is IQ and AF in this case.

A native Sigma 150-600 in L-mount would be better regarding IQ, but also bigger and heavier. (A test is possible with the EF version and the MC-21 adapter, even with IS).

Edited January 21, 2020 by caissa

[caissa]

2 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

CL?

I would prefer using the SL2 in crop mode, because then there is IBIS  (probably more helpful than the additional 4 Mp; 20 Mp on SL2 vs 24 Mp on CL)

On some Canon cameras there is also a 1.3 crop mode (with the (50Mp) 5DsR it produces 30 Mp pics). That is often very useful. Would not mind if Leica could add this into the SL2, no idea how difficult this would be, e.g. if it needed hardware support ?

Edited January 21, 2020 by caissa

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, thighslapper said:

The SL2 + Lumix f4 is a much more practical and balanced combination than with the 90-280 .... and being able to switch to MF with the collar on the lens is a great advantage. 

Reports indicate that the focus clutch mechanism precludes use of back button auto focus, with subsequent MF by turning focus ring., as many seem to prefer.  If so, do you find this problematic or beneficial?

Jeff

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, thighslapper said:

70/200 f4. I don't need f2.8, the extra weight and size is an issue and I can't fault the f4 optically. I think I'll pass on the f2.8, no matter how tempting it seems ....

The SL2 + Lumix f4 is a much more practical and balanced combination than with the 90-280 .... and being able to switch to MF with the collar on the lens is a great advantage. 

Interestingly, the f/4 version is Leica certified, while f/2.8 is not. Have you tried the 1.4x with f/4? I would assume that it works better with f/2.8, but maybe it is not worth using the teleconverter at all if it degrades image quality too much.

Unfortunately, the inability to do back-button-focusing with 70-200 f/4 mounted on SL2 is a dealbreaker for me.

[thighslapper]

2 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Reports indicate that the focus clutch mechanism precludes use of back button auto focus, with subsequent MF by turning focus ring., as many seem to prefer.  If so, do you find this problematic or beneficial?

Jeff

The actual issue is that Leica's implementation of BBF is via 'MF' rather than 'Remove AF from the Shutter Button'.

Certainly for landscape use lack of BBF with a narrow filed of view and limited DOF over the image is not quite so limiting ..... and I tend to use MF anyway as the magnified view helps confirm everything is sharp. Hopefully Leica will do something sensible with the firmware that brings their BBF into line with most other cameras. 

I regularly use the x2 converter with the 70-200 and there appears to be no discernible degradation in image quality. 

Edited January 21, 2020 by thighslapper

[MarkP]

10 hours ago, scott kirkpatrick said:

CL?

No, SL-2. I'll have an SL and SL2 whilst there. No plans for CL.  The 70-200 on the SL2 would give me the option of some cropping whilst still having plenty of MP to work with, effectively extending the max FL of the lens. I'd thought I'd rather that that than the hassle and image degredation from an tele-converter as per Cassia's comment above. However, after seeing thighslapper's comment above perhaps I'll get a 1.4 or 2x converter.

Thighslapper, can you use the Pana teleconverter and 70-200 on the SL or SL2?

Edited January 21, 2020 by MarkP

[MarkP]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

Interestingly, the f/4 version is Leica certified, while f/2.8 is not.

Didn't know this

[SrMi]

1 minute ago, MarkP said:

Didn't know this

And I have no idea what Leica Certified means :-).

[Jeff S]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

Interestingly, the f/4 version is Leica certified, while f/2.8 is not. 

These are both designated as ‘Pro’, which means it passes Leica tests (I also don’t know what that involves).

Jeff

[Tailwagger]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

Interestingly, the f/4 version is Leica certified, while f/2.8 is not.

Are you sure about that?  The 2.8 also has the Pro designation which I thought, perhaps mistakenly,  meant it was passed on by Leica. 

[sorry missed the Jeff S post... so yeah, what he said 😉]

Edited January 21, 2020 by Tailwagger

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, Jeff S said:

These are both designated as ‘Pro’, which means it passes Leica tests (I also don’t know what that involves).

Jeff

On Panasonic's website only two lenses are explicitly marked as 'Leica Certified': 50mm F1.4 and 70-200 f/4. Therefore I assume that any lens not marked as such is not Leica certified. Do you have a pointer to the information that every Lumix 'Pro' lens is Leica certified? Thanks.

I kind of believe that the 'Pro' designation is more important than the 'Leica Certified' title.

Edited January 21, 2020 by SrMi

[Jeff S]

23 minutes ago, SrMi said:

On Panasonic's website only two lenses are explicitly marked as 'Leica Certified': 50mm F1.4 and 70-200 f/4. Therefore I assume that any lens not marked as such is not Leica certified. Do you have a pointer to the information that every Lumix 'Pro' lens is Leica certified? Thanks.

I kind of believe that the 'Pro' designation is more important than the 'Leica Certified' title.

Explained here...

https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/11/06/panasonics-pro-level-l-mount-family-grows-new-70-200mm-f-2.8-16-35mm-f-4-co

And this is consistent with every Pro lens I’ve seen advertised on reputable retail sites.

Jeff

[ZHNL]

4 hours ago, SrMi said:

On Panasonic's website only two lenses are explicitly marked as 'Leica Certified': 50mm F1.4 and 70-200 f/4. Therefore I assume that any lens not marked as such is not Leica certified. Do you have a pointer to the information that every Lumix 'Pro' lens is Leica certified? Thanks.

I kind of believe that the 'Pro' designation is more important than the 'Leica Certified' title.

All Panasonic S lens have "certified by Leica" Label. 

I did some test on Panasonic 70-200f4.

I have found the best results was turn of OIS but keep IBIS with E shutter. I can get repeatable sharp images with 1/15 at 200mm. 

Turn on both doesn't really work well. It even slightly worse than Turn on OIS but turn off IBIS. 

Using E shutter is must no matter what to get repeatable sharp images. 

If you have lens OIS turn on and then turn on the body, you can't turn off IBIS actually.(It will be grey out) but once turn off OIS, you have option now either turn on or off IBIS and also turn on or off OIS separately. 

Anyway, there is still lots of software, comparability issues within L mount.  

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, ZHNL said:

All Panasonic S lens have "certified by Leica" Label. 

.  

Show me where the S 24-105 (not listed as Pro) is labeled Leica certified.

Jeff

[ZHNL]

55 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Show me where the S 24-105 (not listed as Pro) is labeled Leica certified.

Jeff

I meant the one has S-pro red label. 
70-200f4,f2.8, 16-35f4, 24-70f2.8 and 50f1.4. 

[Jeff S]

2 minutes ago, ZHNL said:

I meant the one has S-pro red label. 
70-200f4,f2.8, 16-35f4, 24-70f2.8 and 50f1.4. 

Yes, as I noted above... Pro = Leica certified.

Jeff

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[ZHNL]

7 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Yes, as I noted above... Pro = Leica certified.

Jeff

I wanted also mention that it was also labeled on the lenses I mentioned above.
 

so, my point was no need to guess or reference any but just can be directly seen on the lens body.