90-280 vs Leica 100-400

[kobra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 minute ago, LeicaR10 said:

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

Thanks for sharing your experience here, Mark! 

I appreciate you highlighting that the tool should help render the scenes as you see them. I spent a lot of years developing my vision, and somehow Leica helps capture that far better than prior systems which often left me a bit disappointed; or perhaps even worse, satisfied but not excited. 

My experiment with the 90-280 was unexpected; I used the lens in many different situations and got results that surprised me. Maybe it's a bit of a phase - I was enamoured with UWA for awhile, searching for compositions that were strong enough to support it. Last year, I learned to really enjoy 28mm for the first time using my Q2. With the 90-280, telephoto became much more interesting. 

In my prior system, standard focal lengths were most used, with the SL system they've become least used. I really am not trying to talk myself into this lens... really... really? 

Brad

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

On 3/26/2023 at 7:39 PM, 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.

Not really. The most common use of long lenses is at wide aperture. The performance at smaller apertures is less relevant. 

[Planetwide]

The 90-280mm is masterpiece, and I really wish that Leica had stepped up and made an in house designed 100-400mm F4-5.6 that was as good as the 90-280mm. It would have been expensive but stellar...

90-280mm SL

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!

[dpitt]

On 3/28/2023 at 12:27 PM, jaapv said:

Not really. The most common use of long lenses is at wide aperture. The performance at smaller apertures is less relevant. 

You have a point. But then I think doing the test full open for both lenses is more fair. You can not expect one lens stopped down 2 stops to compete with an other wide open and then complain it does not perform as expected.

[JeffWright]

My 100-400 arrived this morning. Don't have time to do a head-to-head with the 90-280 for a week or so, but I'll step out on a limb with a few hot takes after a couple of hours on the SL2: (1) AF speed slower than the 90-280 with a lot of hunting at the long end, (2) AF is whisper quiet (I have all the SL lenses except the 28, this might be the quietest), (3) build quality seems excellent (grossly on a par with the 90-280), (4) image quality wide open seems overall excellent, seems to maybe lose some contrast from around 300-400, (5) there is no gravity dependent zoom creep on my lens. 

The Sigma 1.4x TC works fine on this lens, no problems noted.

Mixed emotions about the tripod collar; I have Arca Swiss style plates on all my gear, but this one seems to get in the way no matter where I put it for handheld shooting. Since I'm historically a film based landscape photographer, and my style reflects that, I don't think it will impact me significantly.

Would it have been that hard to change the zoom ring direction so that it matches the other Leica SL lenses?

Interesting choice of a metal hood. The 90-280 hood fits perfectly on the 100-400, fyi.

Edited March 29, 2023 by JeffWright

[Eclectic Man]

17 hours ago, JeffWright said:

My 100-400 arrived this morning. Don't have time to do a head-to-head with the 90-280 for a week or so, but I'll step out on a limb with a few hot takes after a couple of hours on the SL2: (1) AF speed slower than the 90-280 with a lot of hunting at the long end, (2) AF is whisper quiet (I have all the SL lenses except the 28, this might be the quietest), (3) build quality seems excellent (grossly on a par with the 90-280), (4) image quality wide open seems overall excellent, seems to maybe lose some contrast from around 300-400, (5) there is no gravity dependent zoom creep on my lens. 

The Sigma 1.4x TC works fine on this lens, no problems noted.

Mixed emotions about the tripod collar; I have Arca Swiss style plates on all my gear, but this one seems to get in the way no matter where I put it for handheld shooting. Since I'm historically a film based landscape photographer, and my style reflects that, I don't think it will impact me significantly.

Would it have been that hard to change the zoom ring direction so that it matches the other Leica SL lenses?

Interesting choice of a metal hood. The 90-280 hood fits perfectly on the 100-400, fyi.

Looking forward to your review.  Please also let us know whether the Arca Swiss compatible foot of the 100-400 attaches to the 90-280.

[JeffWright]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

19 hours ago, Eclectic Man said:

Looking forward to your review.  Please also let us know whether the Arca Swiss compatible foot of the 100-400 attaches to the 90-280.

The tripod feet for the two lenses are not interchangeable.

[davidmknoble]

I put a few quick test shots up with the 100-400 lens with ‘pixel peeping’ enlargements.  The 100-400 is plenty sharp enough for a long end zoom.  I did not find the long end hunting on the SL2-S inside, it snapped to focus well.  I found the hunting more of a problem with the 1.4x at the long end, but in very low light, which is what one would expect of any high f/stop lens. There really is no comparison between the 100-400 and the 90-280.  The 90-280 is an APO lens and will inherently have better contrast.  It will deliver narrower depth of field at similar focal lengths because it has a more open f/stop.  It is just physics.

If you want to see the comparisons they are in this post: 

 

[SrMi]

On 3/25/2023 at 2:23 PM, tedwill said:

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

How does the weight difference feel? The spec says that the difference is only 330g.

[Guest]

Just watching Red Dot Forum comparison video on YouTube (still ongoing as I am posting this).

Net/net: The 90-280 is in a completely different league than the 100-400. 100-400 is similar to 20 year old R lenses.

 

 

[hdmesa]

I went with the new/updated 60-600 L-mount and am pleased I did. It's huge, it's heavy (monopod-heavy), but IQ through the focal range is even better than the Canon RF 100-500 I used to own, plus it adds the 60-100 and 500-600 FOV. It is not at all soft at the edges at 600mm as I'd read some say in early reviews. It's sharp to the corners at 600mm at infinity even wide open. The most impressive part of the IQ to me is the lack of heavy vignetting, which is something that plagues the other best choices in this zoom range when shot wide open. This is not software vignetting correction. I can turn off corrections in Capture One, and I see no change in vignetting. Distortion at 600mm is comparable to the RF 100-500 at 500mm.

100-400 is range that can work for large wildlife and landscapes, but for me it's not long enough for medium to small birds unless you're up against the fence at a small zoo enclosure. Even 500mm is not enough, and 600 is just starting to work. There is a reason most small bird photos are nearly 1:1 crops.

If I wanted 100-400 FOV for an SL camera, I would look very hard at adapting the Canon EF 100-400 II with the Sigma adapter. Superb lens.

The Sigma 100-400 and the Leica 100-400 are consumer-grade lenses with output to match, but they are fairly small, light and portable.

As others have said, Leica could have designed and sold a stunning 100-400 f/3.5-5.6, but who would buy it at $10K?

[drjonb]

3 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I went with the new/updated 60-600 L-mount and am pleased I did. It's huge, it's heavy (monopod-heavy), but IQ through the focal range is even better than the Canon RF 100-500 I used to own, plus it adds the 60-100 and 500-600 FOV. It is not at all soft at the edges at 600mm as I'd read some say in early reviews. It's sharp to the corners at 600mm at infinity even wide open. The most impressive part of the IQ to me is the lack of heavy vignetting, which is something that plagues the other best choices in this zoom range when shot wide open. This is not software vignetting correction. I can turn off corrections in Capture One, and I see no change in vignetting. Distortion at 600mm is comparable to the RF 100-500 at 500mm.

100-400 is range that can work for large wildlife and landscapes, but for me it's not long enough for medium to small birds unless you're up against the fence at a small zoo enclosure. Even 500mm is not enough, and 600 is just starting to work. There is a reason most small bird photos are nearly 1:1 crops.

If I wanted 100-400 FOV for an SL camera, I would look very hard at adapting the Canon EF 100-400 II with the Sigma adapter. Superb lens.

The Sigma 100-400 and the Leica 100-400 are consumer-grade lenses with output to match, but they are fairly small, light and portable.

As others have said, Leica could have designed and sold a stunning 100-400 f/3.5-5.6, but who would buy it at $10K?

I agree 100% with your assessment.  I briefly had the Sigma 100-400 which was excellent but does not have the reach I wanted.  So I exchanged it for the new Sigma 600-100 L Mount; I could not be happier, especially when considering the price, it is amazing value for money.  The optical performance is outstanding - sharpness, colour rendition and contrast are great; and the AF focusing speed and tracking are absolutely spot on and very fast.  Yes, the lens is a bit heavy and I was a bit apprehensive but in practice it is definitely manageable, and having that range without messing about changing lenses in the field is certainly worth the extra heft.  In poorer light conditions, of course, having a wider aperture at the long end would be desirable, but, as you said, such a lens would cost 5 x the price of this lens.  The SL2-S’s high ISO performance will help a lot to offset the lack of aperture in my opinion.

I am an amateur but first time out I captured what for me are some very satisfying images with the 60-600 which I posted on here yesterday - two examples below.  Have fun with your lens!

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!

[JeffWright]

On 3/31/2023 at 5:33 AM, JeffWright said:

The tripod feet for the two lenses are not interchangeable.

Whelp, wrong on that. User error.

[kobra]

46 minutes ago, JeffWright said:

Whelp, wrong on that. User error.

Yes, I watched the reddotforum video, and was pleased to see that the tripod foot of the new 100-400 is compatible with the 90-280 AND is an upgrade. 

I have the Sigma 100-400 in for repairs right now, and am seriously considering selling it when it gets back, then buying the Leica 100-400 - even if the images are similar, adding it to a stable of Leica lenses is getting more appealing - all of the SL zooms are 82mm filters, and now the new tripod foot will work also on my 90-280? Me likey! 

Brad

[Ivan Goriup]

This image was taken two weeks ago with the 90-280 mounted on my SL 601 - handheld @ 280mm. What little processing was done, I did in Lightroom Classic....with no cropping.

JZG

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!

[Ivan Goriup]

Same bird, in a tree farther away, taken today with SL & Leica 100-400 with 1.4x Extender - handheld, also with minimal post processing in LR Classic.

Yes, to noone's surprise the APO lens appears to be a tad sharper, with slightly better acutance, perhaps slightly more contrast, and I find, requires slightly less correcting, but considering the limitation of the 280mm maximum focal length and no extender available for it at this time, the extra reach of the native 100-400 V.E., and the additional focal length achievable with the extender, combined with what I would confidently rate as overall very good to excellent image quality, all for a total price for both components that is less than half the price of the APO lens makes the new Leica Vario Elmar one Hell of a package. 

Glad I bought it, and look forward to years of satisfying use.

JZG

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 April 10, 2023 by Ivan Goriup

[tedwill]

On 4/8/2023 at 9:01 PM, mzbe said:

Just watching Red Dot Forum comparison video on YouTube (still ongoing as I am posting this).

Net/net: The 90-280 is in a completely different league than the 100-400. 100-400 is similar to 20 year old R lenses.

 

 

I saw the episode live. It was great. I enjoyed watching the comparisons.   I'm going to Iceland on Saturday and I will bring both the 90-280 and the 100-400.  I don't see the 100-400 replacing the 90-280 in my kit.   There is no comparison.  I wouldn't have bought it if the 1.4 extender worked with the 90-280.   However, there are times when I will like having 560mm (with the 1.4 extender) for a long shot.    Both are used for different purposes.   For me, the Sigma 14-24, the Leica 24-90 and 90-280 were great for covering all focal lengths from 14 to 280mm.   During my last trip to Iceland, I took 798 photos.  Looking Lightroom, here's the breakdown the lenses I used:

• 14-24 - 207
• 90-280  - 218
• 24-90 - 370

Fairly evenly split between, wide, normal and telephoto.   There were a few times when I had to crop even at 280mm to get closer, so I'll be able to get a little closer with he 100-400.   I'll post some shots comparing the two lenses when I get back.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, tedwill said:

I saw the episode live. It was great. I enjoyed watching the comparisons.   I'm going to Iceland on Saturday and I will bring both the 90-280 and the 100-400.  I don't see the 100-400 replacing the 90-280 in my kit.   There is no comparison.  I wouldn't have bought it if the 1.4 extender worked with the 90-280.   However, there are times when I will like having 560mm (with the 1.4 extender) for a long shot.    Both are used for different purposes.   For me, the Sigma 14-24, the Leica 24-90 and 90-280 were great for covering all focal lengths from 14 to 280mm.   During my last trip to Iceland, I took 798 photos.  Looking Lightroom, here's the breakdown the lenses I used:

• 14-24 - 207
• 90-280  - 218
• 24-90 - 370

Fairly evenly split between, wide, normal and telephoto.   There were a few times when I had to crop even at 280mm to get closer, so I'll be able to get a little closer with he 100-400.   I'll post some shots comparing the two lenses when I get back.

 

Similar logic, different outcome - I went all in with the 150-600 Sigma and the 1.4x TC ... In addition to my preferred choice of 90-280 within the focal range covered.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Ivan Goriup]

Had a three day warm spell move in and melt all our snow, as well as causing the first and only flower so far this spring to blossom in our backyard.

!0 minutes ago, with SL / 100-400 Vario Elmar w/ 1.,4x Extender @ 560mm and RRS monopod.

Click image to enlarge  and higher res.

JZG

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!

[Ivan Goriup]

Taken last spring, also in our backyard, SL / 980-28- APO V.E. @ 280mm,  RRS tripod.

I'll not comment, leaving any conclusions to the observer(s).

Please click on image to enlarge and for higher res.

JZG

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!