Sigma L teleconverters on Leica 90-280

[graeme_clarke]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Does anyone know if the Sigma 1.4 and 2X tele-convertors can be used with the Leica 90-280 Lens?  If anyone has tried it I'd be grateful to know how well it works!

Stay safe and well,

Graeme

[NicholasT]

25 minutes ago, graeme_clarke said:

Does anyone know if the Sigma 1.4 and 2X tele-convertors can be used with the Leica 90-280 Lens?  If anyone has tried it I'd be grateful to know how well it works!

Stay safe and well,

Graeme

Hi Graeme,

I no longer have the SL 90-280 but prior to selling it I did try to use the Sigma 1.4 teleconverter.

Unfortunately it doesn't fit/work with the Leica lens. 

It's too bad because it may be a long time (if ever) before Leica introduces a teleconverter.

If there ever was a lens that is a good candidate for a teleconverter, its the 90-280 due to its stellar IQ.

Also offering a teleconverter would likely increase sales for the lens. In its current form the lens is ok for most action/sports but not really well suited for wildlife shooting.

By the way had the Sigma teleconverter worked...I probably would have kept the 90-280

Edited January 19, 2021 by NicholasT

[graeme_clarke]

Hi Nicholas,

Thanks - useful to know  that what might have been a useful avenue isn't available!

Look after yourself,

Graeme

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

I think Leica is semi on the record at not wanting to make tele-converters. They have not made one for the S system despite ten years and a proposed long lens that they canceled. So the S system's longest lens is the 180mm (which is closer to a 135mm on 35mm). If I recall, Peter Karbe does not like them because of how they degrade the image quality, and is of that mind that digital cameras have lots of resolution, and therefore you should just crop. This is their philosophy with the Leica Q as well, and with CL lenses on the SL2 etc. To me, it is a half solution. If I am going to lose sharpness, I would rather do it in the lens, because of all the other undesirable effects of cropping (making the high ISO noise greater, not being able to compose in camera versus after the fact, not having the tonality of the full sensor etc). I would love it if they made an SL quality TC, but it seems unlikely to me. My guess is that they would say that they are comfortable enough with a 280mm lens, and if you want longer you should look at Sigma.

Edited January 19, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[aksclix]

14 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think Leica is semi on the record at not wanting to make tele-converters. They have not made one for the S system despite ten years and a proposed long lens that they canceled. So the S system's longest lens is the 180mm (which is closer to a 135mm on 35mm). If I recall, Peter Karbe does not like them because of how they degrade the image quality, and is of that mind that digital cameras have lots of resolution, and therefore you should just crop. This is their philosophy with the Leica Q as well, and with CL lenses on the SL2 etc. To me, it is a half solution. If I am going to lose sharpness, I would rather do it in the lens, because of all the other undesirable effects of cropping (making the high ISO noise greater, not being able to compose in camera versus after the fact, not having the tonality of the full sensor etc). I would love it if they made an SL quality TC, but it seems unlikely to me. My guess is that they would say that they are comfortable enough with a 280mm lens, and if you want longer you should look at Sigma.

I hate TCs too.. I tried the 2x on my Panasonic 70-200 f2.8 but returned it.. the results were average and with SL system I am simply NOT compromising for anything below stellar IQ..  
While cropping to some degree is almost always the case for me, I think the 420mm reach you can get with SL2's APS-C mode at 20MP is good enough.. I think it's even better than cropping post... BTW, I bought a used 90-280 since I had some money from my S system sale.. will be making comparisons with the Panasonic 70-200 and evaluate which one needs to go back.. 

[RoySmith]

5 hours ago, aksclix said:

..... I think it's even better than cropping post....

I don’t understand how cropping in camera could be superior to cropping afterwards. Are you shooting RAW?

Also cropping in post gives one the ability to adjust the frame, level the horizon etc.

[aksclix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, RoySmith said:

I don’t understand how cropping in camera could be superior to cropping afterwards. Are you shooting RAW?

Also cropping in post gives one the ability to adjust the frame, level the horizon etc.

a) the closer you can see the subject the better your focus is going to be on it and it allows for further minor cropping. It’s easily possible to miss focus on the face and get something else instead

b) aren’t in camera corrections preferred over post in most occasions?