Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

41 minutes ago, fotonutzz said:

Well, it does look sharp when viewed on full-res!  I love to use the 90-280 for model shoots as I love the compression it gives. And this 100-400 looks awesome too. The subject isolation from the background and the bokeh is really pleasing. 

This is a tight crop of the 100-400 and the sharpness of the lens is clearly evident.  So, I'm not sure if there's any difference between the Leica version and the Sigma version.

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!

I did have the Leica version . I like to think Leica at least replaced sigma AF motors with their own,  sigma stepper motors aren't very good.  I think my copy struggled with the finer detail that the Canon retained. If I took an image like yours of my two boys, it was hard to tell the difference between the Canon and Leica shots,  but further away you could see the Leica struggled with detail.  Your copy looks fine.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the first I’ve noticed color fringing, the branch above the bird. 

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Sigma used a very good composite (it is not the stuff that is commonly called plastic) My lenses get a bit of a beating in the field and it holds up much better than the anodized metal that Leica uses. No more silverred edges, scratches and dents. The lens is a lot lighter, which improves handheld photography.
The only part that is really plastic is the hood, which it too fragile. I am on my second one.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I think Sigma used a very good composite (it is not the stuff that is commonly called plastic) My lenses get a bit of a beating in the field and it holds up much better than the anodized metal that Leica uses. No more silverred edges, scratches and dents. The lens is a lot lighter, which improves handheld photography.
The only part that is really plastic is the hood, which it too fragile. I am on my second one.

Yes you're correct,  it's not plastic as such,  polycarbonate? Something like that. 

The white Canon's coatings on the L lenses is great.  Leicas metal and coatings seem poor in comparison in my option.  I agree on a heavy lens,  plastic stuff is welcome,  but I don't like it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, Shawn30 said:

This is the first I’ve noticed color fringing, the branch above the bird. 

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!

To be clear, this image is with the new Leica 100-400?

Also, can you share your settings?

Thanks!

Brad

Link to post
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, kobra said:

To be clear, this image is with the new Leica 100-400?

Also, can you share your settings?

Thanks!

Brad

1/800 sec, f6.3 ISO 320 @400 mm

Yes the Leica 100-400, other shots of the same bird in the same tree at the same time had no color fringing. Maybe the bird cast a blue shadow.

Edited by Shawn30
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, macromatic said:

Yes you're correct,  it's not plastic as such,  polycarbonate? Something like that. 

The white Canon's coatings on the L lenses is great.  Leicas metal and coatings seem poor in comparison in my option.  I agree on a heavy lens,  plastic stuff is welcome,  but I don't like it

White is not all that great for wildlife, it stands out too much. Many Canon wildlife shooters stick camouflage fabric on their lenses. Nowadays Canon is being eclipsed by Nikon anyway in the wildlife world. No idea why. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, jaapv said:

White is not all that great for wildlife, it stands out too much. Many Canon wildlife shooters stick camouflage fabric on their lenses. Nowadays Canon is being eclipsed by Nikon anyway in the wildlife world. No idea why. 

The white is for a technical reason though,  not sure why no one else does it though. 

Not sure canon are being eclipsed exactly,  most wildlife photographers i know are still on canon, but I don't think the RF lenses are as amazing as many had hoped. With that said,  Canon's ef L lenses are good enough for most pros

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, macromatic said:

The white is for a technical reason though,  not sure why no one else does it though. 

Not sure canon are being eclipsed exactly,  most wildlife photographers i know are still on canon, but I don't think the RF lenses are as amazing as many had hoped. With that said,  Canon's ef L lenses are good enough for most pros

Yes, Canon developed white lenses to reduce the distortion from heat on the barrel of telephoto lenses. But, even Canon does not use white on all of their new long RF lenses.

BTW, others do use white on their long lenses - the Fuji XF200 f2 lens is a white-ish color, and several Sony telephoto lenses also use white. 

I think using white color is one way to solve the heat issue, but other manufacturers use different materials and/or construction instead. For example, Nikon (and Leica) sell a lot of very excellent long lenses and have avoided white the whole time, AFAIK. 

Brad 

Edited by kobra
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, macromatic said:

The white is for a technical reason though,  not sure why no one else does it though. 

Not sure canon are being eclipsed exactly,  most wildlife photographers i know are still on canon, but I don't think the RF lenses are as amazing as many had hoped. With that said,  Canon's ef L lenses are good enough for most pros

I see more and more Nikons and less and less Canons over the last years. Just an observation. To me it is much of a muchness. No reflection on lens quality. I had a couple of Canon duds, but that is 20 years in the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

I was in Indonesia last month photographing orangutans in the wild and at feeding stations, here are two wild images. Yes the 100-400mm Leica does not seem to be the same quality as the 90-280 as far as the way it feels in the hand, construction, ...but it still worked well for me. I have other orangutan shots from last fall with the 90-280 for comparison but I am still traveling and hard drive is back home.

Shot with the SL2. Baby orangutan 1/500 sec f/6.3 ISO 800 at 400mm. Other pic all the same except ISO 4000.

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!

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

SL2, 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!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

SL2, 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!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...