CL + TL 55-135mm or S 70-300mm OIS macro ?

[wda]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

|I would hardly call the 55-135 specialist.

Not to photographers like you, Jaap. But to those wide-angle shooters who rarely go longer than 50mm or possibly 75mm, tele-zooms call for a very different mindset and would be used for special subjects.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, nicci78 said:

https://www.thephoblographer.com/2021/06/03/a-great-telephoto-lens-for-l-mount-panasonic-70-300mm-f4-5-5-6-review/
 

They found it flawless. 
 

And it is totally normal for a telephoto lens to have weaknesses at its longer reach. 
Same as 55-135mm. It is the weakest at 135mm. 

I'm not sure whether this blog is THAT reliable...

[Advertisement]

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

[Boojay]

 So following a day of play with the 70-300,  I'm happy to have this focal range with pretty fast (as good as it gets on the CL) autofocus, both AFS and AFC.    Size and weight requires to my mind at least a grip on the CL I use the Lim's gripped half case and hot shoe mounted thumb grip which help to balance body and larger lenses. 

So far I have found the lens to be sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, when shooting at the long end from my samples best results were with the lens stopped down to f/8.  Having the close focus ability is a real bonus and with OIS I have shot down to 1/25 with sharp results.  

Few examples.. last ten images on flickr are from the 70-300 if you're interested... 

This one chasing dogs round the garden, at 70mm f4.5 was using AFC (think we need a new football).

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!

 

This an example of close focus ability - think was F10 at 300mm

 

This f/9 at 300mm

 

and an indoor lower light shot at around 100mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wda]

Utterly lovely, Jane, as I rather expected. The macro shot is amazing! You have good reason to be pleased. Well done.

Edited June 5, 2021 by wda

[tom0511]

for me 55-135 on cl. For anything else I wanted a larger body. And why carry a larger ff zoom (with its larger weight and size) to just use a crop of it.

I do agree that I sometimes miss IBIS or OIS when using the 55-135. Otherwise its an excellent lens IMO.

I shot some really nice images of my kids with the 55-135.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Boojay said:

 So following a day of play with the 70-300,  I'm happy to have this focal range with pretty fast (as good as it gets on the CL) autofocus, both AFS and AFC.    Size and weight requires to my mind at least a grip on the CL I use the Lim's gripped half case and hot shoe mounted thumb grip which help to balance body and larger lenses. 

So far I have found the lens to be sharp enough from 70 to 200mm, when shooting at the long end from my samples best results were with the lens stopped down to f/8.  Having the close focus ability is a real bonus and with OIS I have shot down to 1/25 with sharp results.  

Few examples.. last ten images on flickr are from the 70-300 if you're interested... 

This one chasing dogs round the garden, at 70mm f4.5 was using AFC (think we need a new football).

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!

 

This an example of close focus ability - think was F10 at 300mm

 

This f/9 at 300mm

 

and an indoor lower light shot at around 100mm

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Do try if Electronic Shutter will improve sharpness It does on the Sigma (and 55-135) 

[Boojay]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Do try if Electronic Shutter will improve sharpness It does on the Sigma (and 55-135) 

Thanks Jaap, I seem to use electronic shutter on the CL all the time these days so no improvement to be had there.   

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

for me 55-135 on cl. For anything else I wanted a larger body. And why carry a larger ff zoom (with its larger weight and size) to just use a crop of it.

I do agree that I sometimes miss IBIS or OIS when using the 55-135. Otherwise its an excellent lens IMO.

I shot some really nice images of my kids with the 55-135.

I would agree to a point and also have some magical (to me) images of my grandkids from the 55-135, but I don't find the 70-300 too big for the CL to handle and I also have the SL2 where it's obviously a better fit... it will see plenty of use and 55-135 will stay too.   You must not forget the benefit of the crop, that 70-300 gives equivalent of 100-450.

1 hour ago, wda said:

Utterly lovely, Jane, as I rather expected. The macro shot is amazing! You have good reason to be pleased. Well done.

Thank you David, more work to do getting to know the lens yet but think it's a nice addition for L mount both crop and FF.

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by Boojay

[nicci78]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

for me 55-135 on cl. For anything else I wanted a larger body. And why carry a larger ff zoom (with its larger weight and size) to just use a crop of it.

I do agree that I sometimes miss IBIS or OIS when using the 55-135. Otherwise its an excellent lens IMO.

I shot some really nice images of my kids with the 55-135.

Because APS-C version of long focal length are almost the same size as full frame version. 
Some kind of a physics law. 
Telephoto will provide very big image circle. 
For exemple : Tele-Elmar-M 4/135mm will cover 645 image circle perfectly. Will you say that Leica was stupid to make such a big lens for cropping it at 24x36 ?? 
Of course not. Because you did not get any gain in size by reducing the image circle. 
What you gain is more reach through APS-C crop. 
 

That’s also why so many > 50mm M lenses will cover Fujifilm 33x44 sensor. 
 

 

Edited June 5, 2021 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Just an exemple. 
Sony E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3 
Lumix S 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6
Fujifilm 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 

The full frame Lumix is slightly bigger and heavier. But offer 1:2 macro which the other two APS-C did not. 
Sony is slightly longer in focal length. But has a slower aperture. 
 

So we did not really gain much by making APS-C only telephoto lenses ? In the field they will be indistinguishable. Telephotos are big and heavy. That’s physics. 
That’s why Canon and Nikon refuse to do such things for decades. Why losing the ability to share the same lens among FF & APS-C to gain few grams and few mm only ? 

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!

Edited June 6, 2021 by nicci78

[nicci78]

Another example with the twin Sony. 
E 70-350mm f/4.5-6.3
FE 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 

They are almost the same lens. Launched around the same time. 
APS-C to be smaller has to give up some aperture and add 50mm to be relevant. 
Sadly reviews are puzzled about it. Saying that FE version (full frame) is faster and better optically for around the same size and weight. Why would you choose the APS-C locking you out of 24x36 cameras ? 

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!

[lct]

What are the equivalent focal lengths of 70-300 in APS-C format? Just curious as i suspect they must be more compact than those barbels. I may be wrong though as i have no experience with zoom lenses that long.

[nicci78]

46-200mm

Edited June 6, 2021 by nicci78

[tom0511]

vor 22 Stunden schrieb nicci78:

Because APS-C version of long focal length are almost the same size as full frame version. 
Some kind of a physics law. 
Telephoto will provide very big image circle. 
For exemple : Tele-Elmar-M 4/135mm will cover 645 image circle perfectly. Will you say that Leica was stupid to make such a big lens for cropping it at 24x36 ?? 
Of course not. Because you did not get any gain in size by reducing the image circle. 
What you gain is more reach through APS-C crop. 
 

That’s also why so many > 50mm M lenses will cover Fujifilm 33x44 sensor. 
 

 

My 50 APO, and also the Nocti 1.0 do not fill the 33x44 sensor. But that's off optic.

The OP tries to decide between both lenses. I think first thing is to decide if 135mm is fine for him or not.

For me its clear 55-135 handles much nicer on a CL (size wise). If you need the reach of 135-300, the 55-135 is not long enough so its out anyways.

If I needed longer reach (and not only occasionally) I just believe a bigger body than the CL would make more sense.

For me the CL strength is the compactness of the system. In its reach, the 55-135 is a fine lens and probably the smallest dx-telezoom available?

[nicci78]

I am the OP, 135mm is quite short. And its IQ is excellent. 
But what makes me sold it in the first place is its 1 meter minimum focusing distance. 
 

S 70-300 seems to correct every defaults of 55-135mm. 
 

Size is not really relevant in the world of telephoto. And 105-450mm into 790g is quite compact. 
I am just wondering about its AF and its IQ with the CL. 
Every reviews of the lens is with S1R or S5 

[huwm]

I’ve had my 70-300 for a week or so and am very pleased, use it’s macro abilities in the garden quite a lot.

I use with the CL in a half case and find it ok to handle.

I take it and the 20-60 in a bag as a cover nearly all bases set up adding my Sigma 30 f1.4 if I may end up indoors or in the dark.

I did have the full set of TL lenses bar the 60mm but have ditched them all with no regrets, except maybe the 23.

For just having a camera with me most of the time it’s the Q2 all the way.

 

[AllanC]

I own the 55-135, and it is a wonderful at any focal length. I used it recently for an entire day at the at the racetrack in Ruidoso, NM. It was great for candid portraits and capturing the ponies as they crossed the finish line. Along with my 18-56, I rarely long for another lens.

[EricK]

On 6/5/2021 at 11:38 PM, Boojay said:

Thanks Jaap, I seem to use electronic shutter on the CL all the time these days so no improvement to be had there.   

I would agree to a point and also have some magical (to me) images of my grandkids from the 55-135, but I don't find the 70-300 too big for the CL to handle and I also have the SL2 where it's obviously a better fit... it will see plenty of use and 55-135 will stay too.   You must not forget the benefit of the crop, that 70-300 gives equivalent of 100-450.

Thank you David, more work to do getting to know the lens yet but think it's a nice addition for L mount both crop and FF.

 

Hello,

Your feedback is of great interest to me. Can you explain to me why in your opinion it is better to use the electronic shutter on the CL in combination with Telezooms?

And on the SL2 do you also use the electronic shutter with these same zooms?

You also used the Sigma 100-400 and CL, do you think the photos taken with the Lumix 70-300 and CL are superior in sharpness?

Thank you very much for your feedback!

[tom0511]

vor 16 Stunden schrieb huwm:

I’ve had my 70-300 for a week or so and am very pleased, use it’s macro abilities in the garden quite a lot.

I use with the CL in a half case and find it ok to handle.

I take it and the 20-60 in a bag as a cover nearly all bases set up adding my Sigma 30 f1.4 if I may end up indoors or in the dark.

I did have the full set of TL lenses bar the 60mm but have ditched them all with no regrets, except maybe the 23.

For just having a camera with me most of the time it’s the Q2 all the way.

 

But if you carry such lenses why not just use a FF L-mount camera body, which should handle better/more balanced  with them, and adds advantages of FF-sensor?

[jaapv]

Because shutter slap causes motion blur of a frequency that O.I.S.cannot compensate for. 
The SL has the same problem to a lesser extent. The advantages are with the APS sensor as it gives more reach. Image quality is very similar. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[nicci78]

1 hour ago, tom0511 said:

But if you carry such lenses why not just use a FF L-mount camera body, which should handle better/more balanced  with them, and adds advantages of FF-sensor?

Is there really an advantage to haul 1985g instead of 1193g ? For the same reach. 
Just remember that there is only 1 stop difference between 24x36 and APS-C.  If you close your aperture by one stop you end up with an APS-C. By two stops with a m4/3 etc…

It’s not my saying, but rather Peter Karbe’s during one of its interview. 

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!