graeme_clarke Posted February 18 Share #1 Posted February 18 Advertisement (gone after registration) Greetings everyone, Some food for thought and putting aside the differences in cost. Is the Leica L 90-280 on the forthcoming SL3 (which is rumoured to have a 60mp or so sensor) and cropping in likely to give better results ( maintaining a sharp focus and detail) than the Sigma 60-600 on an SL2S when taking wildlife photographs from a long way away? Your thoughts please... Graeme Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 18 Posted February 18 Hi graeme_clarke, Take a look here Leica L 90-280 on new SL3 or Sigma 60-600 on SL2S?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
LeicaR10 Posted February 19 Share #2 Posted February 19 (edited) Graeme, Based on alleged rumors about the specfications of the SL3, the new model may have three different AF detection capabilities. The Phase detection should be the most useful of the alleged three for wildlife photography. Contrast detection is somewhat a hit or miss with the SL2. Now relative to the SL 90-280 vs Sigma 60-600 the Phase detection should be very good with both lenses. Of course the 60-600 is most useful for wildlife photography. There are a good number of forum photographers in the SL/SL2 image threads that produce most excellent wildlife photographs. You might check them out, drop them a note and ask them their opinions. Just look under "Members" at the top of the forum. The standout Leica Forum photographers IMO include: Michali, Trittentrue, Jaapv (Moderator), Ken Abrahams, Helged. I am certain, they will offer their sage advice. r/ Mark PS...Look at the image threads for the members in the L mount Sigma 60-600 or 150-600 or 90-280 image thread. Also, the SL 100-400 is an excellent lens too. Edited February 19 by LeicaR10 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImmerDraussen Posted February 19 Share #3 Posted February 19 Last summer, I spent some time to find out which of my combos would give most details at 600mm. Lens involved have been the Sigma 150-600mm (latest version), the Leica 90-280mm, the SL2-s and the Panasonic S1r. I shot small toy pets under artificial light and the camera on a sturdy tripod. As long as I stayed at ISO 100, and used the electronic shutter the Sigma with the S1R was best. The mechanical shutter completely destroyed the performance. With ISO higher than 400 there is a loss of resolution. At ISO 1600 the SL2-s shows more details than the S1r. Also the mechanical shutter on the Leica is much less critical. A cropped picture with the 90-280 to simulate 600mm could not keep up with the 600mm from the Sigma. Comparing the lenses at 280mm the Leica is better in contrast. I finally decided to take the Sl2-s and the Sigma 150-600mm, because my shooting at 600mm in the field involves ISO settings of around 1600. If shooting at the long end is more the exception, the 90-280mm is the better option. Andreas 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_clarke Posted February 29 Author Share #4 Posted February 29 Thank you for your comments and suggestions - and now I have to add the new Sigma 500 into the mix. Decisions, decisons - but only when the SL3 is announced!!!! Graeme Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 1 Share #5 Posted March 1 Sigma 150-600 and 500 are two different use cases. The 500 is more for considered shooting at times that you can control the framing by moving the camera + tripod, the 150-600 is more for dynamic handheld shooting from a fixed position. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 1 Share #6 Posted March 1 On 2/19/2024 at 8:24 PM, ImmerDraussen said: The mechanical shutter completely destroyed the performance. This. It has been emphasized on the forum time and time again. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Printmaker Posted March 2 Share #7 Posted March 2 Advertisement (gone after registration) I debated between the 100-400 and 150-600 but settled on the 100-400 because of the 67 mm filter size and the overall length of the lens fit my bags. I took the 100-400 on a 3 week safari to the Serengeti and Maasai Mari and found it nearly perfect. The big cats were close enough for this lens while in the Serengeti but in the Maasai Mara the extra reach of the 150-600 would have been nice. Still I was perfectly happy shooting with the 100-400. Dust was always a concern as was changing lenses in the field. So the 100-400 never left my camera. In fact I wish I had bought my M10 for the times when I was surrounded by elephants and needed a wider lens. I might pick up a SL3 or a used SL2 for a second body for backup and to cover other focal lengths. And, yes, that new 500 sure looks tempting. It would still fit in my bag… Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted March 4 Share #8 Posted March 4 Glad to hear you had a great trip. Yes, in the Masai Mara and Serengeti the game is extremely well habituated. Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pierre68 Posted March 6 Share #9 Posted March 6 I tested the SL3 today and the AF with all SL lenses was light years ahead of the SL2/SL2-S. I have the Leica 90-280 and Sigma 60-600 and shoot mostly horse races with them, so for me it is a no brainer : I'll get the SL3 I think in your case the SL3 would be the best choice: fast and accurate AF and crop ability with the 90-280. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
graeme_clarke Posted March 10 Author Share #10 Posted March 10 Thanks Pierre for your most helpful first hand advice. Counting the pennies now... Best wishes, Grraeme Quote Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.