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

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

No complaints from me:

 

 

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]

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

[jaapv]

.

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!

[jaapv]

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]

Jaap--what distance and focal length were you shooting at?

Everything's in the eye of the beholder, of course. Although those are fine photos, I still don't feel that they have the precision and definition of the best R glass--nor should we expect it. I feel that the greatest virtue of a telephoto lens (other than if it's used for landscape) is to reveal to us things that we don't think we can see with our eyes, even if we were up close. R glass has the power to be subjectively interpretative that way, and, to my eye at least, I don't find that with the Sigma. As Tritentrue noted, improvements might be forthcoming, though, from what I understand, they'll be more in the areas of focusing accuracy. Even when I focus completely accurately and the photo is as sharp as can be (running it through Topaz Sharpen), I'm rarely fully impressed with the lens's IQ. Not overly impressed with my own IQ either, but that's another story....

[bags27]

3 minutes ago, Saussure said:

It would be very interesting to compare the image quality of the CL + Sigma 100-400 with the image quality of the CL + APO-Extender 2x + R 80-200 f 4.0 (11281).

I sold the latter kit to buy the Sigma. I get far, far more "hits" with the Sigma. But my best shots leave me just a bit disappointed, so. I suppose my frame of reference was my experience with the kit you mentioned.

[jaapv]

39 minutes ago, bags27 said:

Jaap--what distance and focal length were you shooting at?

Everything's in the eye of the beholder, of course. Although those are fine photos, I still don't feel that they have the precision and definition of the best R glass--nor should we expect it. I feel that the greatest virtue of a telephoto lens (other than if it's used for landscape) is to reveal to us things that we don't think we can see with our eyes, even if we were up close. R glass has the power to be subjectively interpretative that way, and, to my eye at least, I don't find that with the Sigma. As Tritentrue noted, improvements might be forthcoming, though, from what I understand, they'll be more in the areas of focusing accuracy. Even when I focus completely accurately and the photo is as sharp as can be (running it through Topaz Sharpen), I'm rarely fully impressed with the lens's IQ. Not overly impressed with my own IQ either, but that's another story....

(400) 600 mm and about 10 meters (the group shot a bit wider) Yes, the APO-Telyt system will certainly be better, but I am not willing to carry a 10 kg aluminium case of lenses, nor to pay tens of thousands, even now.
I compare zoom to zoom, and the Sigma is close to the Vario-Elmar R 105-280 with 1.4x converter - if you use the latter on a tripod. Otherwise the handling advantage will result in a clear advantage for the Sigma.
That is the reason that the 90-200 will outperform the Sigma - it offers O.I.S. as well.
The 80-200 + APO 2x was not the best combo I ever owned. I did one Safari using it and got only a small number of shots that I was happy with. 

[Boojay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

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!

Lovely Jaap but I think you really need to clean your sensor😄!

[jaapv]

I can claim those are  OOF flies!   But you are right. 

[Boojay]

Just now, jaapv said:

I can claim those are  OOF flies!   But you are right. 

No denying it Jaap, my sensor looks pretty similar far too often, I need to change lenses less often and take more care probably.

Looks like you are enjoying the Sigma, me too.  We should all maybe remember the relatively low cost, the size and weight which make it oh so useful, and I think there is some speculation that a future tweak to firmware from Sigma may improve it a little, but I'm happy to have it in my bag.

FWIW, I had the R 80-200 and the APO x2 and also don't remember any stunning results, it was ok, that's all, having seen some pretty great images from others I always thought I maybe just got a poor copy.

 

[jaapv]

The 55-135 TL is far better

[Boojay]

I know a lot to be desired in this shot, but fact is, it's a huge crop and there is at least some detail in there. CL -Sig 100-400

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]

31 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The 55-135 TL is far better

+1...far better, but, alas, far shorter.😄

[jaapv]

Err-no It is a 70-200 equivalent approximately. 

[tritentrue]

6 hours ago, bags27 said:

Jaap--what distance and focal length were you shooting at?

Everything's in the eye of the beholder, of course. Although those are fine photos, I still don't feel that they have the precision and definition of the best R glass--nor should we expect it. I feel that the greatest virtue of a telephoto lens (other than if it's used for landscape) is to reveal to us things that we don't think we can see with our eyes, even if we were up close. R glass has the power to be subjectively interpretative that way, and, to my eye at least, I don't find that with the Sigma. As Tritentrue noted, improvements might be forthcoming, though, from what I understand, they'll be more in the areas of focusing accuracy. Even when I focus completely accurately and the photo is as sharp as can be (running it through Topaz Sharpen), I'm rarely fully impressed with the lens's IQ. Not overly impressed with my own IQ either, but that's another story....

"Eye of the beholder" nails it, Ken.  We're all shooting the same lens model on the same camera model, and from appearances, getting relatively similar results.  It's just that some of us are delighted, some of us are merely satisfied, and some of us find the setup lacking in autofocus accuracy.

One thing, repeated a couple of times in this thread, that is also an individual matter rather than a universal truth:  it's not absolutely necessary to use a tripod with the R 105-280mm + 1.4X in order for it to outperform the Sigma lens (by a noticeable margin).  I have some shots with that setup in a few of the picture post threads here and all were shot hand-held.

[jaapv]

As I understand it, the AF performance can be tweaked  to personal preference on this lens. The present -temporary- problem is that the USB adapter is not yet available. I do have mine on order.

[jaapv]

7 hours ago, tritentrue said:

"Eye of the beholder" nails it, Ken.  We're all shooting the same lens model on the same camera model, and from appearances, getting relatively similar results.  It's just that some of us are delighted, some of us are merely satisfied, and some of us find the setup lacking in autofocus accuracy.

One thing, repeated a couple of times in this thread, that is also an individual matter rather than a universal truth:  it's not absolutely necessary to use a tripod with the R 105-280mm + 1.4X in order for it to outperform the Sigma lens (by a noticeable margin).  I have some shots with that setup in a few of the picture post threads here and all were shot hand-held.

I have dozens with the lens combo in the wildlife subforum, all handheld on various cameras (DMR, M240, CL). The file number on my computer runs in the thousands. 

The results out of the Sigma  are clearly better, except on static subjects in perfect light -read mossy chimneys from a tripod- , which allow the  optics of the Leica to prevail. I still maintain that the superior microcontrast of the VE will only show on a tripod or with quite high shutter speeds. Remember that we are talking about a 600 mm equivalent lens. Without O.I.S. it requires handholding skills that only few photographers possess. I pride myself on my ability to use long lenses in the field for wildlife but I will be the last person to call it easy.

As a matter of fact I switched to GX8 + DG Vario-Elmar 100-400 for the very reason, accepting the obvious image quality loss for a higher keeper rate and, more importantly, for the larger number of subjects that I was able to capture, specifically dynamic ones. I think that we can all agree that the CL + Sigma is a considerable image quality improvement over MFT. 

On a side-note - the Vario-Elmar-R was a technical downgrade and photographic upgrade for me in the first place - it replaced the APO-Telyt 280/4.0, which is optically its superior by a fair margin, but caused me to miss too many subjects by its fixed focal length.

[tritentrue]

Glad to hear that your copy of the Sigma outperforms your copy of the VER 105-280mm.  On the CL, my copy of the 105-280mm upsampled from 280mm to 400mm outperforms the Sigma on all shots except those at or closer than about three meters.  

Both lens performance and handholding capability are subject to variables affecting and affected by individual experiences, not bound by authoritative declarations of universal truth. Or, to put it in simpler forum terms that anyone can understand: YMMV.

Ultima verba mea on this subject.

[jaapv]

Agree but discussions like these fail to take into account that the better lens is the one that gets the shot which, tilts the balance decisively towards the Sigma. Plus I suspect that people may tend to rely too much on OIS, neglecting the principles of long lens photography. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[geoffreyg]

It’s important to separate optical quality from issues of focus or shakes. While they all contribute to the overall number of keepers, the latter two are fixable. 
I was quite happy with the quality of the Sugma I rented, and while focus took some care, was able to get it where I wanted, sometimes with a few tries, otherwise with a manual tweak. The OIS was essential to help with handholding, but for me this was mostly a bright light lens or with a tripod. 

[jaapv]

I can shoot it reliably handheld down to 1/125 @ 400 ( just calculate the 4 stop O.I.S. ), which means that @ ISO 1600, it can deal with pretty grotty light. The most important - to me- point being, that in the high-contrast light I usually encounter, it can be used at low ISO for better dynamic range, which wins out over "sharpness" in my book. I don't get optimal results from "fixing" OOF-  and motion blur. The best working plug-in is Focus Magic in my experience, but still...