Zoom opinions/experience with having all three: 24-90, 150-600 and 70-200

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I just sold my 100-400 due to buying the 150-600 which I have really enjoyed.  It is an awesome lens.  I just got back from Yellowstone and am headed back in January.  I was thinking of getting a 70-200 to fill the gap but I can't think if a single time on the last trip that I wished I had a 70-200.  That I not to say that I couldn't have used it.  I think the big plus would be the 2.8 aperture and bumping it to only 3.4 with the 1.4x that is where I think it might be a valuable addition to the other two lenses.

[Ning Ning]

I also have the 150-600 and the SL 24-90. I also had the 70-200 for a short time, but I gave it back because I hardly used it either. To fill the gap, I bought the 1.8 135 from Sigma. Cheaper, lighter and smaller, a good f-stop faster and it's incredibly sharp.

[jaapv]

Just back from Safari using the 150-600, 70-200 and 28-70. The 150-600 on the S5ii, the 70-200 on the SL 601  Plus the 1,4x converter  

The set fitted into my Vanguard roller backpack and weighed in at 12 kg including batteries etc. when I took the Panasonic and short zoom out and on my shoulder for airplane travel  

It was an ideal set, allowing me to grab the perfect focal length each time and more convenient to grab the short combo for closer situations than wrestling with an unwieldy 60-600 for the short work. The 70-200 was used regularly. 
For walking I replaced the 70-200 by the 28-70 as there is rarely a decent shot to be had in the middle distance. 
The 70-200 was a fantastic lens for night drives. 
I did not use my TC1411 converter much, basically only on the river for shots of birds and some wildlife on the banks  

I cannot recommend such a combo enough.
I can imagine that changing the lenses all the time is not very convenient in the field. One must use them on two bodies for the combination to work. Otherwise the 60-600 will be more practical but it will be less handy at medium distance and one loses the wider aperture. The two camera solution is more flexible in use. 

[LeicaRFan]

I have them all, i use the 24-90 for lenscape, portrait and also...

I use the 150-600 for wildlife, bird and more. This April i buy the 70-200, it is a very good lens also for near wildlife an birds. It is very sharp and has a fast AF.

I use it with the TC1,4 and with the TC2,0.

It opens up even more possibilities, particulary with 2,8 aperture.

I hope in the future a 2,8/400 or similar for the l-mount is coming.

[LeicaRFan]

Here are two examples with SIgma 70-200 + TC2,0 on the SL2

1.

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!

[LeicaRFan]

2.

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!

[ALScott]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks all.  I will order one.  Looks like I will order the 2x also as there doesn't appear to be much IQ loss using it in those pics.

[jaapv]

18 hours ago, LeicaRFan said:

I have them all, i use the 24-90 for lenscape, portrait and also...

I use the 150-600 for wildlife, bird and more. This April i buy the 70-200, it is a very good lens also for near wildlife an birds. It is very sharp and has a fast AF.

I use it with the TC1,4 and with the TC2,0.

It opens up even more possibilities, particulary with 2,8 aperture.

I hope in the future a 2,8/400 or similar for the l-mount is coming.

TC 1.4 is not very useful for the 70-200. It only gains 80 mm at the long end. 

[Ning Ning]

On the other hand, I find the reduction in quality with the 2x converter striking. I still have it, but I wish I had never bought it. It's actually just lying around.

[ALScott]

4 hours ago, Ning Ning said:

On the other hand, I find the reduction in quality with the 2x converter striking. I still have it, but I wish I had never bought it. It's actually just lying around.

The two examples from LeicaRFan above look good to me.  I assume yours is not that good with 2x?  Is it the Leica or Sigma version of the 2x?  I thought I had firmly decided on the Sigma version of the 70-200 but am now waffling.

[LeicaRFan]

My both tc’s are from Sigma, the 2x is with the 150-600 not good, but with the 70-200 is ok.  Ist not a Leica APO Extender R but the IQ is ok for me.

@jaapv : I am with you the 1,4 with the 70-200 is not usefull for only 80mm more. 

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, Ning Ning said:

On the other hand, I find the reduction in quality with the 2x converter striking. I still have it, but I wish I had never bought it. It's actually just lying around.

The 1.4 is actually quite good 

[Ning Ning]

Yes, that would certainly have been the better choice.  

[geoffreyg]

Historically (like Rollei Schneiders), use of 1.4 TX had no visible degradation, while 2 TX always did. Seems like little has changed. 

[jaapv]

The only exception is the Leica Apo Extender-R 2x. 

[davidmknoble]

I like the 2 camera approach also. I used the 24-90 on the SL2-S and the 90-280 on the SL2 (now the SL3) in Antarctica. That was all I took. If I went again I’d take the Sigma 500 f/6.3  for extreme penguin shooting. But I never changed lenses outside and switched bodies as needed. 1/3 24-90 and 2/3 with 90-280. 

[davidmknoble]

On 11/20/2024 at 3:31 PM, jaapv said:

The 1.4 is actually quite good 

Agreed!  The 1.4x works well with the Sigma 500 f/6.3 as a well. A little loss of contrast and finest details, but that can be worked out in post editing.

[davidmknoble]

On 12/1/2024 at 6:26 PM, jaapv said:

The only exception is the Leica Apo Extender-R 2x. 

@jaapv, I agree again.  I used the R APO 2.0x extender with the R APO 90mm lens in Antarctica on an R9 with film and it was stellar.  It gave me a 180 f/4 and a 90 f/2 lens that was essentially equal to the 24-90 and 90-280 SL lenses in quality.

[ALScott]

Well I got the Sigma 70-200 and am very happy with it.  I like the size of it and am glad to have a 2.8 option at 200.  On the SL3 it feels much lighter than the 100-400.  The IQ looks to be on par with the 100-400 and focusing is really fast and AFc is good too.  Now I see what everyone was talking about with that hood, ugghhh, only fault though.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear