Apo Vario 90-280 sharpness at the long end

[osroubek]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just recently acquired the 90-180 lens for my SL2, used, but in excellent condition. I was going through some simple testing comparing sharpness to my Sony 100-400 GM on the A7R3. At the long end (280) the images are blurred compared to the Sony at a similar setting and even at 400 mm. I tried electronic front and mechanical shutter with 2 sec timer on a very sturdy tripod. I shot the Leica wide open (f4) and even tried matching the fStop on the Leica to the Sony's wide open value (f 5.6). I noticed that the Leica was just as sharp if I shot with the electronic shutter only.  So I tried raising the ISO to allow for faster shutter speeds, but it was still not as sharp as the Sony which was shooting at less than 1/15 shutter speed. I tried turning off image stabilization and it did not matter. Is the 90-280 just not as sharp at the long end as it is at lower focal lengths when not using e shutter? The sample images are from the Leica set at 280. The one on the left was with electronic shutter and on the right, set to hybrid shutter. Shutter speed was 1/10 for both at f4, iso 100 on a sturdy tripod. Same results with faster shutter speeds up to 1/500 , iso 6400 when set to hybrid. I also tested different focus modes such as field, spot etc, as well as manual focus with focus peaking, but it did not matter. Any comments would be appreciated

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

[jrp]

Have you tried on long distance subjects?  My 90-280 leaves little to be desired beyond the weight. 

[osroubek]

Not yet, but will test it out as well. The distance for this test was about 15 feet

[michali]

36 minutes ago, osroubek said:

I just recently acquired the 90-180 lens for my SL2, used, but in excellent condition. I was going through some simple testing comparing sharpness to my Sony 100-400 GM on the A7R3. At the long end (280) the images are blurred compared to the Sony at a similar setting and even at 400 mm. I tried electronic front and mechanical shutter with 2 sec timer on a very sturdy tripod. I shot the Leica wide open (f4) and even tried matching the fStop on the Leica to the Sony's wide open value (f 5.6). I noticed that the Leica was just as sharp if I shot with the electronic shutter only.  So I tried raising the ISO to allow for faster shutter speeds, but it was still not as sharp as the Sony which was shooting at less than 1/15 shutter speed. I tried turning off image stabilization and it did not matter. Is the 90-280 just not as sharp at the long end as it is at lower focal lengths when not using e shutter? The sample images are from the Leica set at 280. The one on the left was with electronic shutter and on the right, set to hybrid shutter. Shutter speed was 1/10 for both at f4, iso 100 on a sturdy tripod. Same results with faster shutter speeds up to 1/500 , iso 6400 when set to hybrid. I also tested different focus modes such as field, spot etc, as well as manual focus with focus peaking, but it did not matter. Any comments would be appreciated

This is most probably due to shutter slap/shock which is amplified by long lenses. It's an issue quite a few of us have encountered.

With long lenses I only use the electronic shutter outdoors. I had the same issue with the Lumix S1R & SonyA7R.

Have a look here:

 

[osroubek]

Thanks for sharing that information. Disappointing. My Sony 100-400 on the A7R3 with hybrid shutter at 280 and 400 does not demonstrate this. 

[beewee]

Have you tried shooting on a solid tripod with IBIS turned off? I recall some folks had noticed that sometimes IBIS could result in blurred images when shot on a tripod with the SL2.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, beewee said:

Have you tried shooting on a solid tripod with IBIS turned off? I recall some folks had noticed that sometimes IBIS could result in blurred images when shot on a tripod with the SL2.

Post #1.

Jeff

[beewee]

6 minutes ago, Jeff S said:

Post #1.

Jeff

Whoops!

[helged]

Camera induced (shutter) blur depends on the weight and the centre of mass of the body-lens combo. Therefore, lenses of similar focal length may or may not be prone to blur. Personally, I try to avoid shutter speeds between and including 1/30 to 1/125 sec. And I try to use electronic shutter if possible. Just a personal observation. 

[osroubek]

Thanks. It may only get worse when shooting long shutter speeds with ND filters for effect. Will have to give it a try.

[helged]

3 hours ago, osroubek said:

Thanks. It may only get worse when shooting long shutter speeds with ND filters for effect. Will have to give it a try.

As long as the shutter speed is somewhat below 1/30, shutter-induced blur should not be a problem.

Let me also add that the 90-280 is very, very sharp with bitingly clear micro-contrast, at all (according to my experience) distances, focal lengths and apertures. If this isn't the case with your lens, I suspect something is off (misalignment, decentering, etc). But firstly check the lens with electronic shutter activated. Also visually confirm that the focus is correct by means of magnified view in live view. 

The 90-280 is superb! 

[Mdol]

5 hours ago, helged said:

Let me also add that the 90-280 is very, very sharp with bitingly clear micro-contrast, at all (according to my experience) distances, focal lengths and apertures. If this isn't the case with your lens, I suspect something is off (misalignment, decentering, etc). But firstly check the lens with electronic shutter activated. Also visually confirm that the focus is correct by means of magnified view in live view. 

The 90-280 is superb! 

I have the exact same experience with my 90-280. Just superb sharpness also @280. 

[osroubek]

At all shutter speeds? Hybrid, electronic or does matter in your case?

[Photoworks]

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!

comparing photos at 280mm and 230mm zoomed to 200% I would give the edge to 230mm. but I think the difference is not as big.

here you can see the full photos

https://photos.alexkroke.com/LEICA-SL2/280mm/n-FFBfQm/

 

 

 

[osroubek]

Thanks for your input. After further testing it seems that auto focus (zone) is not as reliable vs manual focus at pretty much all the focal lengths.  Even with hybrid shutter at slow shutter speeds, the images are better with manual focus, esp when wide open. Is this how most are using this lens? Auto focus (back  button)  to get started, then manual focus to fine tune the image? OK for static type shots, but not so for something in motion. Now I have not really been able to test with objects at infinity, as of yet. Should this matter?

[Michael Markey]

33 minutes ago, osroubek said:

Thanks for your input. After further testing it seems that auto focus (zone) is not as reliable vs manual focus at pretty much all the focal lengths.  Even with hybrid shutter at slow shutter speeds, the images are better with manual focus, esp when wide open. Is this how most are using this lens? Auto focus (back  button)  to get started, then manual focus to fine tune the image? OK for static type shots, but not so for something in motion. Now I have not really been able to test with objects at infinity, as of yet. Should this matter?

I must admit to holding off purchasing the lens myself based on what I`ve seen .

Surprising really .

The adapted long Canon lenses seem to much sharper .

There has to be something amiss surely .

[Jeff S]

My 90-280 is superb in all ways; no issues whatsoever on my SL2.  It has to be in order for me to even have considered such a monster after being accustomed to diminutive M lenses.  It’s the one lens I can’t foresee selling, despite infrequent use.

Jeff

[Ktsa5239]

9 hours ago, osroubek said:

Thanks for your input. After further testing it seems that auto focus (zone) is not as reliable vs manual focus at pretty much all the focal lengths.  Even with hybrid shutter at slow shutter speeds, the images are better with manual focus, esp when wide open. Is this how most are using this lens? Auto focus (back  button)  to get started, then manual focus to fine tune the image? OK for static type shots, but not so for something in motion. Now I have not really been able to test with objects at infinity, as of yet. Should this matter?

I've only just bought the lens so I cant say I've had extensive experience with it. However, I too think its brilliant across all focal lengths. In terms of the af isn't that more about the camera than the lens? I only use zone if I'm trying to get BIF with bigger birds, so far I found spot focus with afc to be much more accurate. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[helged]

7 hours ago, Ktsa5239 said:

I've only just bought the lens so I cant say I've had extensive experience with it. However, I too think its brilliant across all focal lengths. In terms of the af isn't that more about the camera than the lens? I only use zone if I'm trying to get BIF with bigger birds, so far I found spot focus with afc to be much more accurate. 

Regarding af: AFs is fairly quick and generally reliable; AFc more hunting. SL2-S has improved AF compared to SL2, but a firmware update is expected for the latter. 

[AZach]

1 hour ago, helged said:

Regarding af: AFs is fairly quick and generally reliable; AFc more hunting.

Confirm this