CL+Sigma 100-400 O.I.S.

[bags27]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 minutes ago, LeicaS2 said:

Just got a 100-400 from Lensrental. 
The advice I got here was invaluable.

Rules:

1.Make sure your CL is running 3.2 firmware.

2. Set the electronic shutter to “Always On”.

3. Make sure you have set Image Stabilization on the lens itself regardless of what your camera menu screen says is happening.

4. If focusing at infinity, you can start with AF set on the lens, but once in approximate focus switch to MF on the lens. MF is grayed out on the camera menu screen setting so ignore it.

Any other rules?

Jack

+1

AFs and multi-field

Edited August 15, 2020 by bags27

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaS2]

Yesterday, before I visited this thread for advice, I couldn't't get this in focus.  ISO 1600, f 6.3, 1/1000

Thanks forum.

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!

[LeicaS2]

Shot at 105mm. AF, ISO auto at 100, f5.0 1/640. Converted in SilverEfxPro2

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!

[HeinzX]

Yesterday I got the 2ply converter. The 1,4 ply I have  since some days before. And the Sigma 100-400 I have around 2 weeks.  I tried  all this things on my SL2 and on my CL. And I use it in AFs mode only, and for static objects. Alltogether my impression until now is the following for my personal purposes. The bare lens is very, very good on the SL 2 and on the CL too. Not as excellent  as the 90/280  - but better than only good. And it is easy to carry with. The lens plus the 1,4 converter is very good too, as well as on the SL2 as on the CL. The lens plus the 2 ply converter is OK on tne SL2 but I do not like this combination on the CL - there is  a signficant difference against using it on the SL 2.  By the way, all this gear is a big consumer of power, maybe because of the stabilizer and a lot of glass, which must be moved.

All this are only my 5 cents - but may help you to decide on some things.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 20, 2020 by HeinzX

[LocalHero1953]

2 hours ago, HeinzX said:

Yesterday I got the 2ply converter. The 1,4 ply I have  since some days before. And the Sigma 100-400 I have around 2 weeks.  I tried  all this things on my SL2 and on my CL. And I use it in AFs mode only, and for static objects. Alltogether my impression until now is the following for my personal purposes. The bare lens is very, very good on the SL 2 and on the CL too. Not as excellent  as the 90/280  - but better than only good. And it is easy to carry with. The lens plus the 1,4 converter is very good too, as well as on the SL2 as on the CL. The lens plus the 2 ply converter is OK on tne SL2 but I do not like this combination on the CL - there is  a signficant difference against using it on the SL 2.  By the way, all this gear is a big consumer of power, maybe because of the stabilizer and a lot of glass, which must be moved.

All this are only my 5 cents - but may help you to decide on some things.

Can you explain "there is a significant difference against using it on the SL2"? IQ? Usability? AF accuracy/speed?

[jaapv]

13 hours ago, HeinzX said:

Yesterday I got the 2ply converter. The 1,4 ply I have  since some days before. And the Sigma 100-400 I have around 2 weeks.  I tried  all this things on my SL2 and on my CL. And I use it in AFs mode only, and for static objects. Alltogether my impression until now is the following for my personal purposes. The bare lens is very, very good on the SL 2 and on the CL too. Not as excellent  as the 90/280  - but better than only good. And it is easy to carry with. The lens plus the 1,4 converter is very good too, as well as on the SL2 as on the CL. The lens plus the 2 ply converter is OK on tne SL2 but I do not like this combination on the CL - there is  a signficant difference against using it on the SL 2.  By the way, all this gear is a big consumer of power, maybe because of the stabilizer and a lot of glass, which must be moved.

All this are only my 5 cents - but may help you to decide on some things.

 

 

 

 

 

After test shots I can confirm your assessment 100% We must modify our standard advice to the frequent "camera to take on safari" questions. It can only be : "take a CL with Sigma 100-400"...   
Endof for Nikon and Canon.

And yes, the lens loves to gorge on batteries.

[lawrence_lee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

yesterday, first shots of the sigma 100-400mm with my CL. I t works like a charm.

All at 400mm.

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!

 

[bags27]

I want to be entirely candid here. It is, for its price and easy handling, a wonderful lens. I find I'm reaching for it far more often than I expected, and that's probably the most accurate gut check. But my initial impressions is that--naturally enough--it simply does not render as well as the great R teles plus APO extenders. But I struggled with the R longs, so no regrets in the swap. Because a very good actual photo is a lot better than a potentially brilliant, but slightly out of focus or blurred photo. But for someone who demands truly superb image quality on a CL, the Sigma does not seem to be the answer. Maybe it comes closer to achieving that standard on the SL and even more on the SL2. And likely it'll perform better on a CL2, if we can imagine a slightly denser sensor and a few stops of IBIS. Again, however, even now I'm really happy with the purchase. It's just that I sort of miss the all too rare times when I nailed a photo with my R kit and thought: that's the very best I can possibly do.

Edited August 21, 2020 by bags27

[HeinzX]

vor 15 Stunden schrieb LocalHero1953:

Can you explain "there is a significant difference against using it on the SL2"? IQ? Usability? AF accuracy/speed?

It concerns the AFs which works much more better on the SL 2 when using the Sigma with the 2 ply converter. And that with the max. aperture available with the 2 ply converter often ISOs are necessary ,  which are no problem for the SL2 but are with the CL.  So better use the Sigma with the 1,4 converter on the CL.

 

Today I have tested the Sigma plus 2 ply extender  with my SL 2 in a botanical garden. And I have found the results very encouraging . Some of the photos were only possible with this combination because of local circumstances. I will show in near furure some in the SL 2 section.  Even photos against the light - which I personally like very much with plants - have resulted in very good quality.

Edited August 21, 2020 by HeinzX

[jaapv]

Would one really want to use the lens with a 2x extender on the CL? 1200 mm appears to be a bit over the top - and explain the AF issues. The plane of focus is exceedingly thin at such a focal length and may present detection problems.

[jaapv]

 

On 8/21/2020 at 2:48 PM, bags27 said:

I want to be entirely candid here. It is, for its price and easy handling, a wonderful lens. I find I'm reaching for it far more often than I expected, and that's probably the most accurate gut check. But my initial impressions is that--naturally enough--it simply does not render as well as the great R teles plus APO extenders. But I struggled with the R longs, so no regrets in the swap. Because a very good actual photo is a lot better than a potentially brilliant, but slightly out of focus or blurred photo. But for someone who demands truly superb image quality on a CL, the Sigma does not seem to be the answer. Maybe it comes closer to achieving that standard on the SL and even more on the SL2. And likely it'll perform better on a CL2, if we can imagine a slightly denser sensor and a few stops of IBIS. Again, however, even now I'm really happy with the purchase. It's just that I sort of miss the all too rare times when I nailed a photo with my R kit and thought: that's the very best I can possibly do.

Having taken shots of my usual test subject - my neighbour's mossy chimney- I would say that the the optical performance on the CL is at nearly equal to the VE 105-280R, certainly better than the 105-280 VE+1.4x APO-extender. Focus is not a problem on either lens. But, I cannot repeat it often enough, long lenses need experience and technique to bring out the best. As for IBIS, the lens offers 4 stop O.I.S. which was the gold standard for IBIS+O.I.S a few years ago. Combine with a shoulder pod and shoot at ISO 400, which renders shutter speeds in the 1/250 to 1/500 range in good light, and you'll get close to the desired brilliance.

I use the Sigma  TS-111 tripod foot and a vintage Rowi shoulder-pod and can only recommend it.

As untouched as possible out of ACR:

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!

 

[tritentrue]

1 hour ago, bags27 said:

. But for someone who demands truly superb image quality on a CL, the Sigma does not seem to be the answer. 

I agree.

Edited August 21, 2020 by tritentrue

[Boojay]

14 minutes ago, tritentrue said:

I agree.

Well I think I'm going to sit on the fence as I don't think I have given it nearly enough time yet to feel comfortable with the lens.  Also I have little experience with R telephoto, although I still have 135/180 R and in the past have had 80-200 and a 2x APO extender (kind of wish I'd kept that).   Definitely no argument about Rob's results though, experienced hands and eyes make a huge difference of course.

Jaapv test, well, it's a different matter when you are aiming your lens at a static object with no feathers to ruffle and no breath. 

Absolutely sure with the little testing I have done to date that the lens does better on the SL2.

One other thing I am sure of is that I personally have got nowhere near achieving the same results I used to get with my Canon 5D4 and 100-400 II, but I made my choice to move to mirrorless and Leica land and I am happy to be here.  I also feel given time and maybe some firmware updates (perhaps CL2), a whole lot more effort on my part, there is more to come from the Sigma.

Happy shooting everyone.

 

 

Edited August 21, 2020 by Boojay

[jaapv]

I'm sure the SL2 does better than the CL, but that has little to do with the lens . Static subjects are in general better for testing, but I'll try and ruffle some feathers for you.  Whatever else, to get similar results on the 105-280 + 1.4x, you'll need a tripod...

[jaapv]

25 minutes ago, Boojay said:

One other thing I am sure of is that I personally have got nowhere near achieving the same results I used to get with my Canon 5D4 and 100-400 I

I have no experience of the Canon 100-400 L-II, (I did own the version I and that was an awful lens, it is said to be much improved) but all comparisons I have see suggest that the Sigma is the better lens in the centre, the lenses are equal in the field and the Canon is better in the corners.

[Boojay]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I have no experience of the Canon 100-400 L-II, (I did own the version I and that was an awful lens, it is said to be much improved) but all comparisons I have see suggest that the Sigma is the better lens in the centre, the lenses are equal in the field and the Canon is better in the corners.

Yes Jaapv, I had version I and II - chalk and cheese!  Much, much improved, well to my eye and for my use it was anyway.  Never tried either with an extender but used to have 7DII for extender purposes.  I long ago realised my hopes and dreams of National Geographic fame was a lost cause, Sigma 100-400 will more than suffice for my needs😊.

Edited August 21, 2020 by Boojay

[jaapv]

58 minutes ago, Saussure said:

 

About image quality: Is it better to invest in this Sigma 100-400 (& converter 1.4) for my CL or to invest in the Panaleica Lumix 100-400 for my Lumix G9?

Maybe someone have experience with these 2 lens.

Thanks for advice.

I had the Vario-Elmar DG and now have the Sigma. The Sigma is the better lens and MFT can never get to the level of a larger sensor like APS-C, especially the CL/TL2 which rival full-frame. No contest, good as the GX-x and Panaleica lenses are.

[jaapv]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

I use the Sigma  TS-111 tripod foot and a vintage Rowi shoulder-pod and can only recommend it.

Perfect fit, solidly built, exactly in the balance point. - the combo is horizontal from my shoulder with the CL-  The rubber  ring is somewhere at the back of a drawer...

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[tritentrue]

9 hours ago, Boojay said:

Well I think I'm going to sit on the fence as I don't think I have given it nearly enough time yet to feel comfortable with the lens.  Also I have little experience with R telephoto, although I still have 135/180 R and in the past have had 80-200 and a 2x APO extender (kind of wish I'd kept that).   Definitely no argument about Rob's results though, experienced hands and eyes make a huge difference of course.

Jaapv test, well, it's a different matter when you are aiming your lens at a static object with no feathers to ruffle and no breath. 

Absolutely sure with the little testing I have done to date that the lens does better on the SL2.

One other thing I am sure of is that I personally have got nowhere near achieving the same results I used to get with my Canon 5D4 and 100-400 II, but I made my choice to move to mirrorless and Leica land and I am happy to be here.  I also feel given time and maybe some firmware updates (perhaps CL2), a whole lot more effort on my part, there is more to come from the Sigma.

Happy shooting everyone.

 

 

It's always interesting and educational to read your thoughts, Jayne.  My experience with the Canon 100-400 II was same as yours, as is my current feeling about "Leica land."

A couple of things give me cause for some optimism about the Sigma 100-400mm:  the rumors site report about Sigma's travails with the AF algorithm on an upcoming zoom lens; and that I get decent results with the Sigma on the SL.

Although the Sigma lens is by no means of the same echelon as the better R telephotos, its compactness, portability, and competence in many shooting situations make it a useful tool for me on the SL; and, with some hoped-for adjustments, lt will be on the CL as well.

[jaapv]

On 8/21/2020 at 4:17 PM, Boojay said:

Jaapv test, well, it's a different matter when you are aiming your lens at a static object with no feathers to ruffle and no breath.

Well, my friend, here are your ruffles: Mane in force 7 wind:

 

 

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!