First lenses, thoughts/experience appreciated

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have a 100-400 with 1.4x extender on the way.  Who knows when I will get a SL3, going at this a bit backward.  I have many years of photography under my belt so I have an idea of what I want.  I ordered the 100-400 in preparation for a trip to Yellowstone and shooting grandson's sports plus wildlife in general.  Wildlife will be a new subject that I am looking forward to.  I will also get the 24-90 for everything else.  Now I wonder if I shouldn't send the 100-400 back and just get a used 90-280.  I do want to start shooting some wildlife and think the 280 may be a bit short but I would have a good bit of cropping available on the SL3 wouldn't I?   280 will be plenty for baseball and basketball.  Also, I always carried a lot of gear, Canon 70-200 2.8 never left my side so bulk and weight is not something unfamiliar.  The 90-280 only weighs 0.5 lbs more than the 100-400 but is 3 inches longer and that can be a lot in a bag attached to the body.   I have had a C-lux for a while and it is what it is.  I just got the Q3 which has blown me away in all aspects and sent me down this SL3 road.   Thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[LeicaR10]

AlScott,  I have been to Yellowstone many times.  I highly suggest you keep the 100-400 and perhaps get the 1.4X Leica tele converter for the wildlife in the park.  If you get to the Lamar Valley during late afternoon or twilight hours, you might get some wolf photographs. The bison of course are normally roaming the valley and move from the high elevations to river for further grazing early in the AM...like during sunrise. If thinking about photographing bears in the meadows...the 100-400 is more useful. I use both the 100-400 and 90-280 in the park, but for the longer distance animals that rangers are very keen on keeping tourists away requires the longer zoom.  if you are just going for buffalo, the 90-280 is very good.  Only weight is the factor if out hiking a distance.  The good news you have choices...with the defining choice solely being your decision.   r/ Mark

PS  If hiking the trails in Yellowstone, ask the rangers for the latest info on bear activity and ALWAYS carry the largest can of bear spray for self defense and keep the grand son close to you (if he is going).  I have been charged twice by bears and its not fun and both times, I was successful and lucky with the bear spray.  

Edited April 13, 2024 by LeicaR10

[tom0511]

I dont own the 100-400 but 90280. the 90280 is exceptional, but 280: vs 400 or vs 400+tc 1.4 is quite a difference in reach. So I thinkmits between a little faster and optically brillant lens with less reach, ( I dont see the weight as a problem) and a longer reach lens with good but not exceptional iq.

 

 

[ALScott]

Thanks for the tips.  The Leica 100-400 and 1.4x should be here tomorrow.  I am sure somewhere down the road I will pick up the 90-280 unless the 100-400 IQ is really good.  But I also know that nothing beats focal length when needed and with the 1.4x the 100-400 is double.  I know it's hard tell from pics on the forum but most of the other Leica 100-400 images I have seen look fantastic.  Now to find a 24-90 and cross my fingers the SL3 comes in soon.  I can't believe I am ordering lenses with no body to put them on.  I just didn't want to wait and try and order all at once and then not be able to get the lenses I need either.

Edited April 15, 2024 by ALScott

[lightsourcekauai]

Good morning! You are not alone in ordering lenses before your SL3 arrives! I too have done the same thing. My first lens was the 90-280 and the 21 Super Summicron APO soon followed. I had both in the dry cabinet for about two weeks and just couldn’t stand it anymore so I picked up a used SL2 from Leica Miami and have been happily using it while I wait for my SL3. The 90-280 is exceptional. It really is a special lens.

Regarding wildlife photography in Yellowstone: in my opinion the longer reach the better. Of course there will be the few occasions when an animal is on the road or near enough for the 100-400 to be useful but in most cases the more interesting animals are farther away and or heavily monitored by rangers who enforce a mandatory distance of 30 yards from most animals and 300 yards from wolf and bear. As mentioned above, bison will be within reach and the versatility of the zoom will be useful. For most of Lamar valley, however, unless you are hiking in the valley 400 is too short. In the past I have photographed YNP with a Canon 400 f/2.8 and a 300 f/2.8 with 1.4 ext and have some decent shots of elk and deer, but all of my good wolf, fox, bear, moose, big horn, eagle, osprey, badger, pronghorn, and river otter images have come from my Canon 600 f/4. I find that the shorter focal lengths cause one to enter the animals comfort zone too often, spooking the animal or placing it under stress before it has the chance to become comfortable with my presence. Thereby shortening the length of a promising wildlife encounter. An African safari is quite different, however and there the 100-400 would be extremely useful. Just not so much for photographing wildlife in North America, other than the occasional opportunistic roadside sighting. For this reason I would consider the Sigma f/5.6 500. You would not have the versatility of the 100-400, but from what I have read the image quality would be / is outstanding. And you wouldn’t miss a shot looking for or attaching a teleconverter. Lots to consider and it’s all a compromise anyway. Nothing will be the best for all scenarios. The 90-280 would be useful for animal in landscape type shots and absolutely stunning for everything else. I am very pleased with mine so far. 
Good luck in YNP! 

[Dr. G]

3 hours ago, lightsourcekauai said:

Good morning! You are not alone in ordering lenses before your SL3 arrives! I too have done the same thing. My first lens was the 90-280 and the 21 Super Summicron APO soon followed. I had both in the dry cabinet for about two weeks and just couldn’t stand it anymore so I picked up a used SL2 from Leica Miami and have been happily using it while I wait for my SL3. The 90-280 is exceptional. It really is a special lens.

Regarding wildlife photography in Yellowstone: in my opinion the longer reach the better. Of course there will be the few occasions when an animal is on the road or near enough for the 100-400 to be useful but in most cases the more interesting animals are farther away and or heavily monitored by rangers who enforce a mandatory distance of 30 yards from most animals and 300 yards from wolf and bear. As mentioned above, bison will be within reach and the versatility of the zoom will be useful. For most of Lamar valley, however, unless you are hiking in the valley 400 is too short. In the past I have photographed YNP with a Canon 400 f/2.8 and a 300 f/2.8 with 1.4 ext and have some decent shots of elk and deer, but all of my good wolf, fox, bear, moose, big horn, eagle, osprey, badger, pronghorn, and river otter images have come from my Canon 600 f/4. I find that the shorter focal lengths cause one to enter the animals comfort zone too often, spooking the animal or placing it under stress before it has the chance to become comfortable with my presence. Thereby shortening the length of a promising wildlife encounter. An African safari is quite different, however and there the 100-400 would be extremely useful. Just not so much for photographing wildlife in North America, other than the occasional opportunistic roadside sighting. For this reason I would consider the Sigma f/5.6 500. You would not have the versatility of the 100-400, but from what I have read the image quality would be / is outstanding. And you wouldn’t miss a shot looking for or attaching a teleconverter. Lots to consider and it’s all a compromise anyway. Nothing will be the best for all scenarios. The 90-280 would be useful for animal in landscape type shots and absolutely stunning for everything else. I am very pleased with mine so far. 
Good luck in YNP! 

The 21 is exceptional, too.  What's closing the gap between 21 and 90?

[lightsourcekauai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

54 minutes ago, Dr. G said:

The 21 is exceptional, too.  What's closing the gap between 21 and 90?

Well, good question!!! Right now nothing. I do have the Q2 Reporter and used all three the other day, but 28 still leaves a big gap to 90. I primarily shoot landscapes and seascapes and find the 21 very useful for most situations. In others the 90-280 works nicely. The only time I wish I had the 24-90 or something in that range is when I’m in the mountains or photographing from a scenic overlook or vista. I imagine one day I’ll get the 24-90 but right now I’m just going to wait. I need to fill the gap in my bank account first! 🤣

Edited April 18, 2024 by lightsourcekauai
Typo

[tom0511]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Dr. G:

The 21 is exceptional, too.  What's closing the gap between 21 and 90?

easy 24-90 or 35 or 50 APO SL.

[tom0511]

As nice and interesting are 21mm UWA shots and zooming in in the tele range, if you also shoot people, scenes, events, real life, the side range is the most important IMO.

[lightsourcekauai]

3 minutes ago, tom0511 said:

As nice and interesting are 21mm UWA shots and zooming in in the tele range, if you also shoot people, scenes, events, real life, the side range is the most important IMO.

I don’t shoot any of that. Just nature for me.