Recommendation for a Zoom lens for SL3 for Wildlife / Birds

[daned]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Got the Leica 100-400 but found it very heavy and not worth the price tag, wondered what would be an equivalent lens which is light weight comparatively and almost as good in quality to shoot wildlife & birds. What is everyone using with the SL system which would be a fast lens and light. I know the 90- 280 is a stellar lens but again pricey and heavy.

 

 

[jaapv]

In the 100-400 range there is the new Sigma 70-200  2.8 @1335 grs.  with TC 1411 @ 175 grs. Neither very light nor compact, but affordable and very close to the 90-280 in both build and image quality. However the Panasonic 70-200 4.0 Pro @ 985 grs is the lightest of the bunch. (no extender available)

Wildlife and birding lenses are never small nor light. If that is your aim you need to get into the Olympus or Panasonic MFT system.

I use the Sigma 150-600, Sigma 70-200, Sigma 28-70 and TC1411 Main camera is the S5ii, secondary camera SL601, backup CL+18-56.  For me that is the ultimate wildlife set and about the lightest least heavy and most compact it gets for my use. I am not interested in high MP count as it adds nothing to my photography

[SrMi]

43 minutes ago, jaapv said:

However the Panasonic 70-200 4.0 Pro @ 985 grs is the lightest of the bunch. (no extender available)

Unfortunately, Panasonic 70-200/4 uses an MF clutch, which disables BBF on SL3. If you do not care about BBF, 70-200/4 is likely a good choice.

[ranilla]

Ich habe das Sigma 100-400mm jetzt seit einer Woche und bin sehr zufrieden damit. Bis auf ein paar Änderungen soll es höchstwahrscheinlich identisch mit dem Leica-Objektiv sein und 800 Euro kosten. Außerdem ist sie 400 g leichter als die Leica. Getestet auf dem SL3. Als nächstes werde ich es am S5II befestigen.

Edited April 24, 2024 by ranilla
Fehler

[SrMi]

36 minutes ago, ranilla said:

Ich habe das Sigma 100-400mm jetzt seit einer Woche und bin sehr zufrieden damit. Bis auf ein paar Änderungen soll es höchstwahrscheinlich identisch mit dem Leica-Objektiv sein und 800 Euro kosten. Außerdem ist sie 400 g leichter als die Leica. Getestet auf dem SL3. Als nächstes werde ich es am S5II befestigen.

The difference in weight is less than 400g, as Sigma has an optional tripod socket (which is not included in its weight). Leica has included a detachable Arca-Type tripod base.

Leica is specified as "Weather-Sealed Design, AquaDura Coating," while Sigma is "Dust- and Splash-Resistant ."

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Unfortunately, Panasonic 70-200/4 uses an MF clutch, which disables BBF on SL3. If you do not care about BBF, 70-200/4 is likely a good choice.

It is rather expensive, though and one stop slower than the Sigma, which is a real bargain. Better professional level build, equal if not better optical quality, faster AF, better OIS ( up to 7.5 stops! ) better weather sealing.  

[daned]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Any preference between the Sigma 70-200  2.8 and the Sigma 100-400.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

What’s wrong with you 100-400? Mine is as good as my Sony 100-400GM.

I did have to swap out a faulty copy for a good one. Are you sure your lens is up to spec?

You could try the optically identical SIgma. 400grams is HUGE. Nearly 20% of the system weight with a body.

Really though for birds 400mm is the minimum. Maybe try the 60-600. or skip the zooms and go straight to the 500mm plus TC.

Gordon

[SrMi]

12 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

You could try the optically identical SIgma. 400grams is HUGE. Nearly 20% of the system weight with a body.

400g is the incorrect difference, as one lens is weighted with and the other without a tripod collar. Still, the Leica version is heavier.

[daned]

The 70-200 Sigma 2.8 seems interesting, but with a teleconverter it would be at 5.6, at that point the price for the Leica 100-400 is kind of similar so any advantage to the sigma?

 

[Fred Newberry]

If you are looking for lighter weight lens for shooting birds in flight and other fast moving wildlife, I recommend the OM-1 and the OM 150-400 mm lens. This lens is pricey, but is great quality with a 1.4X converter built in. I believe this is the best combination for BIF on the market.

I also have a Leica SL2, a Leica 90-280mm lens, a Leica 100-400mm, and a Leica 1.4X teleconverter. It’s a great combination but its AF is a little slow for BIF.  For other slower moving wildlife, the SL2 is excellent.

I also have a Sigma 150-600mm L mount lens.  It's a beast and is very large and heavy.  I do not recommend it and I plan to sell mine. 

Hope this helps.

Edited April 25, 2024 by Fred Newberry

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, SrMi said:

400g is the incorrect difference, as one lens is weighted with and the other without a tripod collar. Still, the Leica version is heavier.

You can't remove most of that extra weight on the Leica. Just the foot. About 70 grams. So handheld it's, say, 300 grams heavier. Put the collar on the SIgma (which I also have) and it'll be on a tripod so it doesn't matter.

And I'm not personally complaining about the Leica. I REALLY like it. I almost never carry the Sigma regardless of any weight savings. I think the Leica is worth carrying the extra mass for the improved weather sealing. The SL3 Leica 100-400 combo is almost identical to the Nikon Z8 and S100-400. No one in Nikon land seems to complain about the weight. My SL3 and 100-400 is a potent combination. I'm actually thinking about selling my 90-280 as with my current 100-400 I'm struggling, mostly, to see the difference to the larger, heavier, more expensive, TC incompatible 90-280.

Gordon

[daned]

So a choice between Leica 100-400 or Sigma 90-280 f2.8 with Teleconvertor any advantage to the Sigma?

 

[Fred Newberry]

I would go with the Leica 100-400 mm and Leica’s 1.4X teleconverter.

[BeMoreDog]

It’s obviously not a zoom but I’m very interested in the new Sigma 500mm f5.6

[daned]

Would there be any benefit to use the sigma 70-200 at 2.8 and the of extend the range add the telecomvertor it would be f5.6 or just get the Leica 100-400 and not worry about the teleconvertor trying to figure if the f2.8 aperture is of any value

[huwm]

If you only want 300mm go for the lightweight Panasonic S 70-300 f4.5 - 5.6 if you want more the 100-400 seems a no brainer

[jaapv]

16 hours ago, Fred Newberry said:

 

I also have a Sigma 150-600mm L mount lens.  It's a beast and is very large and heavy.  I do not recommend it and I plan to sell mine. 

Hope this helps.

It is my daily user for wildlife. But then I am used to using heavy gear and long lenses...

[jaapv]

21 hours ago, daned said:

Any preference between the Sigma 70-200  2.8 and the Sigma 100-400.

The 70-200 is optically better, better weathersealed , better build and has superior OIS, and faster AF. Plus an aperture ring with "A" lock and unclicking switch.

The Leica100-400 is optically virtually identical to the Sigma.100-400.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[SrMi]

14 minutes ago, jaapv said:

The 70-200 is optically better, better weathersealed , better build and has superior OIS, and faster AF. Plus an aperture ring with "A" lock and unclicking switch.

The Leica100-400 is optically virtually identical to the Sigma.100-400.

I assume that the Leica 100-400 is mechanically not identical to the Sigma 100-400. This includes weather sealing and build, but may include OIS and AF as well.