90-280 vs Leica 100-400

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Kind of an update after a year plus with the 100-400.  I went to Antarctica in January this year (2024) and took the 90-280 over the 100-400.  Mostly, it was because my research showed a 160-180mm focal length would likely be what I wanted to use.

As it turns out, 90% of my images were with the 90-280 (vs. the 24-90) and my average focal length was 185.  However, the images were incredibly sharp and the APO glass kept bright highlights from the sun and reflections on the sun (even using a polarizer) very compact.

My analysis?  It was worth the extra size and weight to take that lens on this trip.  I'd do it again tomorrow.

[Advertisement]

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

[Coral Palm]

David— I did the opposite last December in Antarctica I took the Leica 100-400mm for extra reach whereas previous trips took the 90-280mm. Both good lenses actually the 90-280 is superb. Like others have mentioned they wish Leica made the 100-400mm lens from start to finish so do I but it is what it is so no complaints. 

[HeinzX]

It depends, which focal length is mostly used. I sold my 90 - 280 some years ago because of the high weight and because the maximum focal length. But it was one of the best lenses. The 24-90 I kept and I often. Regarding telephotos I bought a Sigma 100 - 400 long before the Leica 100-400 was available together with the Sigma 2 ply extender. That combo ends up with 800 mm - which is a lot and for my purposes on the SL2 good enough.