90-280 vs Leica 100-400

[tedwill]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just received my new Leica 100–400 lens. The 1.4 Extender  is not available yet.   I'm sure I'll get it soon.  I also own the 90-280.  I have used the latter lens extensively on landscaping trips. Other than its weight, it's a phenomenal lens. My thinking in the 100–400 lens especially with the 1.4 extender is that I could reach 560 mm for that special use case like a bird on the edge of a cliff or some other long distance shots.  I decided to compare the two lenses where they overlapped. I wasn't surprised how much better the 90-280 was at the same focal length as the 100-400.  I took images at the same focal length at a sign surrounded by trees. I shot both at 100 mm, 120 mm, 160 mm, 200 mm, and 280 mm. I compared the unedited raw files in Lightroom Classic, side by side (like Mathphotographer does in his very educational videos).  It was a blustery rainy day.  Perfect conditions.  Each time the 90 to 280 had a slightly better image with more in focus and it was easier to read the words on the sign.  I shot all at the same manual settings - f5.6, 100 ISO, and 1/125 of a second.

I will be going on another trip in mid April and have to consider carefully which lenses I bring since I will be hiking for hours each day. I shoot with an SL2.  I also have the 24-90 and the Sigma 14-24, so I'm covered for wide all the way through 90 with those two lenses.  For telephoto, I'm going to have to choose between the 90-280 and the 100-400.  The good news is that the SL2 allows me to have such good image quality I can crop at 50% and not have any substantial pixel loss.  So if push comes to shove, and I have to choose one of these lenses, I think I'll stick with the 90-280.  It's too bad Leica doesn't sell a 1.4 or even a 2.0 extender for the 90-280.

When I ordered the 100–400 lens I believed that it would be close enough in quality to the 90–280 that I would sell that lens and keep the 100–400.  But I'm rethinking that.  I was also considering the Sigma 150-600, but when Leica announced the 100-400 with the 1.4 extender, I get the longer focal length, close to 600mm at a much smaller size.  I realized you loose stops with an extender.  

Has anyone else had similar experiences with these two lenses?  Other than a terminal case of gear acquisition syndrome do you really need both?

Thanks,

-Ted

[T25UFO]

No experience comparing the two, but not at all surprised by your results.  The 90-280 has always had stellar reviews, its only downsides being size and weight.  Also worth remembering it’s about 2.5 times the cost of the 100-400 and, unlike the newer lens, the length doesn’t change when you zoom.

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

Tedwill,  I find it interesting the results that you found between the two lenses.  I did a similar exercise on receipt with the 100-400 a couple weeks ago.  I came to the similar conclusion with the SL 90-280 performing a bit better at its designed focal lengths.  I kept the 90-280 and returned the SL 100-400.  The good news, L mount photographers have 2 excellent choices.  I am glad that I got the 90-280 years ago and my wallet gave a sigh of relief with my keeping what works best for my genre of photography.  Thanks for sharing your experience. r/ Mark

[Robert E]

For the price you pay for the 90-280 and the weight you carry with it, it had better give stellar performance over the SL 100-400. Isn't this kinda like comparing apples to oranges?

I plan on picking up one of the SL 100-400mm lenses when they hit the secondary market at 40-50% off. Currently I use the Sigma 150-600 and love the results it brings in.

The 100-400 even with the extender should prove to be a lighter more compact way to go. 

 

[tedwill]

17 minutes ago, Robert E said:

For the price you pay for the 90-280 and the weight you carry with it, it had better give stellar performance over the SL 100-400. Isn't this kinda like comparing apples to oranges?

I plan on picking up one of the SL 100-400mm lenses when they hit the secondary market at 40-50% off. Currently I use the Sigma 150-600 and love the results it brings in.

The 100-400 even with the extender should prove to be a lighter more compact way to go. 

 

I agree with that.  I might get the 150-600.  Probably going to sell the 100-400.

[Virob]

If the 90-280 is better at all equivalent focal lengths, how does an image taken with the 90-280 at 280, and cropped to the equivalent of 400mm compare with the 100-400 at 400?

 

[Osirix]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve tried both 90-280 and 100-400 on a Leica Store in London. I had the same feeling. Despite shorter focal length, the sharpness and DOF of 90-280 are far better to 100-400. I’m surfing the web searching for an used 90-280, hopefully I’ll be in luck

[Virob]

2 hours ago, Osirix said:

I’ve tried both 90-280 and 100-400 on a Leica Store in London. I had the same feeling. Despite shorter focal length, the sharpness and DOF of 90-280 are far better to 100-400. I’m surfing the web searching for an used 90-280, hopefully I’ll be in luck

There is one for sale on the Fred Miranda forum.

[rsh]

I am not surprised at the results, but you comparing a lens that is made in Germany, is an APO lens and costs nearly $7,300.00 vs a lens made in Japan (Not China), that is non APO and costs $2,195.00.  Far more people can afford the 100-400 and many will like the reach and versatility.  From the few photos I have seen on the forum, it seems to be a truly good performer and is well built.  I hope this lens and the 35 and 50  Asph SL lenses will help entice more people to buy into the Leica SL System.

[davidmknoble]

The lenses are for different uses.  The 90-280 is an APO lens and starts at 2.8 ending at 4.0, both larger f/stops and different glass to get the APO designation - the 100-400 is 5.0 to 6.3 and non-APO.  In addition, the 90-280 is internally focusing while the 100-400 extends (like the 24-90). 

The results of the 100-400 are very, very good and if you want a weather sealed lens that is 400 to 560 (with the 1.4x), you will use this lens.  If you are good up to 280, the APO lens will work fine.

I will travel more with the 100-400 and use the 90-280 for specific landscape work I can drive to.  

This is no different than the APO primes and the new Summicron ASPH SL lenses - they each have their place, quality of image, and cost.

[Osirix]

11 hours ago, rsh said:

I am not surprised at the results, but you comparing a lens that is made in Germany, is an APO lens and costs nearly $7,300.00 vs a lens made in Japan (Not China), that is non APO and costs $2,195.00.  Far more people can afford the 100-400 and many will like the reach and versatility.  From the few photos I have seen on the forum, it seems to be a truly good performer and is well built.  I hope this lens and the 35 and 50  Asph SL lenses will help entice more people to buy into the Leica SL System.

Agreed, I think this could be the new marketing strategy for Leica, we’ll see…

[Osirix]

11 hours ago, Virob said:

There is one for sale on the Fred Miranda forum.

Thanks, but I would prefer to buy in UK market….too many issues with Tax and Duty after Brexit

 

[rsh]

13 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

The lenses are for different uses.  The 90-280 is an APO lens and starts at 2.8 ending at 4.0, both larger f/stops and different glass to get the APO designation - the 100-400 is 5.0 to 6.3 and non-APO.  In addition, the 90-280 is internally focusing while the 100-400 extends (like the 24-90). 

The results of the 100-400 are very, very good and if you want a weather sealed lens that is 400 to 560 (with the 1.4x), you will use this lens.  If you are good up to 280, the APO lens will work fine.

I will travel more with the 100-400 and use the 90-280 for specific landscape work I can drive to.  

This is no different than the APO primes and the new Summicron ASPH SL lenses - they each have their place, quality of image, and cost.

Agreed.

[dpitt]

20 hours ago, tedwill said:

... I compared the unedited raw files in Lightroom Classic, side by side (like Mathphotographer does in his very educational videos).  It was a blustery rainy day.  Perfect conditions.  Each time the 90 to 280 had a slightly better image with more in focus and it was easier to read the words on the sign.  I shot all at the same manual settings - f5.6, 100 ISO, and 1/125 of a second.

....

The 100-400 is F5 - F6.3 the 90-280 is F2.8- F4. This gives the latter a 1,5 stop advantage. So it is not really fair(possible) to try testing at F5.6. Also, using 1/125 is more like testing the OIS than testing the optical quality differences.

Trying F8 or even F11 for both should give more useful results. Using ISO 800 or higher and a shutter time of 1/500 would be of interest.

[hmarkweidman]

I have owned the 90-280 for several years, shooting on first the SL then the SL2.  The 90-280 is, without exaggeration, one of the finest lenses I have ever owned. I have been shooting professionally for 40+ years.  I bought the 100-400 lens and also the Extender 1.4x.  The 100-400 is a decent lens, but not anything close to the quality of the 90-280.  Keep in mind the 90-280 is an APO lens, the 100-400 is not, and is less than half the price. There are rumors it is a spin-off of the very similar Sigma lens, only with a metal body and maybe some better element coatings. The SL2 is one of the best cameras I have ever owned. It's only weakness is focusing on moving subjects, for which it is practically useless. My Canon lenses/cameras are far far superior on fast focus. That said, I picked up a SL2-S, hoping for better fast focusing.  It has the same focus mechanics as the SL2, but for some reason it is much much better at focusing on moving subjects than the SL2.  Perhaps this is because the sensor size is half of the SL2, and that it is a different sensor design.  The difference is significant. Back to the 100-400.  I was pleasantly surprised at the image/file quality when used with the new 1.4x extender.  Still not up to the 90-280, but considering it is an extender it is pretty darn sharp.

[hmarkweidman]

4 hours ago, dpitt said:

The 100-400 is F5 - F6.3 the 90-280 is F2.8- F4. This gives the latter a 1,5 stop advantage. So it is not really fair(possible) to try testing at F5.6. Also, using 1/125 is more like testing the OIS than testing the optical quality differences.

Trying F8 or even F11 for both should give more useful results. Using ISO 800 or higher and a shutter time of 1/500 would be of interest.

I wonder if the fellow who did the lens tests was shooting from a tripod with IS turned Off?  If not, I would question the test results due to camera shake, etc.  The 100-400 is lighter & easier to hand hold than the 90-280.

[Osirix]

12 hours ago, hmarkweidman said:

I have owned the 90-280 for several years, shooting on first the SL then the SL2.  The 90-280 is, without exaggeration, one of the finest lenses I have ever owned. I have been shooting professionally for 40+ years.  I bought the 100-400 lens and also the Extender 1.4x.  The 100-400 is a decent lens, but not anything close to the quality of the 90-280.  Keep in mind the 90-280 is an APO lens, the 100-400 is not, and is less than half the price. There are rumors it is a spin-off of the very similar Sigma lens, only with a metal body and maybe some better element coatings. The SL2 is one of the best cameras I have ever owned. It's only weakness is focusing on moving subjects, for which it is practically useless. My Canon lenses/cameras are far far superior on fast focus. That said, I picked up a SL2-S, hoping for better fast focusing.  It has the same focus mechanics as the SL2, but for some reason it is much much better at focusing on moving subjects than the SL2.  Perhaps this is because the sensor size is half of the SL2, and that it is a different sensor design.  The difference is significant. Back to the 100-400.  I was pleasantly surprised at the image/file quality when used with the new 1.4x extender.  Still not up to the 90-280, but considering it is an extender it is pretty darn sharp.

I had the same feeling …

[kobra]

To add to others comments about the differences... while there is a lot of overlap, my experiences lead me to think that their primary design goals are actually very different...

After trying the 90-280 and liking it, I believe the primary design goals are events/weddings along with portraits. So, consider it a competitor the typical 70-200 f2.8 lenses that have been bread and butter for event and wedding photographers. 

In contrast, the 100-400 shares the same design goals as the other 100-400s from Canon/Nikon/Sony/etc - primarily landscapes and wildlife. Again, for decades these types of lenses have been a staple for this use. I think it's fair to say these are the 'general purpose' long telephoto zooms, and some will go even further to more specialized lenses for their uses (ie, 150-600 or super telephoto primes). 

Can you use the 90-280 for landscapes and wildlife? Yes, and I think others have shown that it is wonderful for that. While not a primary design goal, the lens is well suited for this, just as the typical 70-200 has been. Obviously, the unique extra reach of this lens makes it even more suitable for this purpose. And, perhaps it's the extra reach that adds a bit to the confusion as there has been a lot of discussion on whether 280 is adequate for ones needs (which again is not a question that event/wedding photographers would ask, but those doing landscape or wildlife)

Can you use the 100-400 for events and portraits? I suppose, but I think that would be beyond the primary design goals. 

My summary? In some cases, the differences are clear along with why you would choose one vs the other. However, there are significant areas of overlap where the choice is less clear, particularly landscapes - and the choice may come down to questions like, do I go for all out IQ and suffer the extra price and weight? Or is the cheaper/lighter lens all that I need? 

I will admit I am not yet fully decided, but I sure have a hard time getting over the "first date" with the 90-280  

Brad

[kobra]

On 3/25/2023 at 3:50 PM, LeicaR10 said:

Tedwill,  I find it interesting the results that you found between the two lenses.  I did a similar exercise on receipt with the 100-400 a couple weeks ago.  I came to the similar conclusion with the SL 90-280 performing a bit better at its designed focal lengths.  I kept the 90-280 and returned the SL 100-400.  The good news, L mount photographers have 2 excellent choices.  I am glad that I got the 90-280 years ago and my wallet gave a sigh of relief with my keeping what works best for my genre of photography.  Thanks for sharing your experience. r/ Mark

Mark, 

Thanks for weighing in on this!

I know you've shared in the past that the 90-280 was not a highly used lens for you, so to me the fact you kept it shows that it still has a special place for those times when you do use it. 

Brad

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LeicaR10]

Brad,

When it's appropriate for me to do so, I will offer my experience and advice after 40+ years with of a number of camera systems and certainly with Leica.  When I reflect on my past decades of photography, I know every camera and lens works for me as a tool to help me capture what I see and experience.  Some tools are most excellent and others not so much.  In the case of Leica, and for myself, it's been the best camera systems that give the results that suit my genres of photography.  The 90-280 as a tool, renders scenes as I "see" them.  I admit the lens doesn't get as much exercise as my other M and SL lenses, mostly due to what I am shooting at that point in time.  But, it does create superb photographs when I reach for it.  It has never failed me in the field and results speak for themselves.  r/ Mark