90-280 or 100-400

[T25UFO]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Leaving aside the difference in the longer range - 400 nice but 280 is fine for my needs - is the 90-280 really worth 2-3 times the 100-400?  I will be using on the SL3.

A zoom is not essential so any other recommendations for a fixed focal length around 300mm?

[LocalHero1953]

22 minutes ago, T25UFO said:

is the 90-280 really worth 2-3 times the 100-400?

How do you measure 'worth'? I doubt you will get a reliable answer in words here!
I have the 90-280, but have never used the 100-400. I just know I would not give up the 90-280 as long as I'm shooting L-mount. I'm gobsmacked by the colour and contrast every time I look through the EVF.

This is the absolute limit of what I can use the lens for. I was in the organ loft and could barely see the light on her body up at the east end of the chapel.
SL2-S, 90-280 @280mm, ISO 25,000, 1/8sec, f/4, handheld, cropped to ~4500x3000, everything lifted in Lightroom - and there is still truthful colour there. 

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!

Edited June 1 by LocalHero1953

[LD_50]

I’ve owned the 90-280 for a long time and only have done some test shots with 100-400. 

The worth of the lens is completely subjective. 

My thoughts:

90-280 IQ is better.

100-400 is noticeably lighter and is smaller when collapsed.

100-400 obviously provides more range.

100-400 allows for teleconverter use.

With the 5-6.3 max aperture I find the 100-400 less useful than I’d want in this range and the resulting images didn’t look special to me at 400mm.

90-280 doesn’t extend when zoomed, which I prefer. 

100-400 AF is faster on SL2-S and SL3-S. 

90-280 would be my preferred lens for static subjects. 100-400 would be better for moving subjects or when the extra range or lighter weight is needed. 

[Tpau17]

I also have the 90-280 lens and, as Paul wrote, it really is an exceptional lens. The color and the plasticity of this APO zoom (don't forget the APO) as well as the optical image stabilization are hard to beat in my opinion. for my pictures I also find the autofocus system very fast (on SL and SL2, I don't have the SL3 line) - but the new lenses (from Sigma & Leica) should be faster with new drive-systems inside. 

I don't know of a 300 prime lens in the L mount, but with other mounts it could be a challenge with the autofocus. 

Here you'll find some pictures with the 90-280 from forum-members:

-thomas

Edited June 1 by Tpau17

[Stuart Richardson]

I think the 280mm APO Telyt R is a slightly better performer than the 90-280mm, but you give up so much in flexibility that it is likely not worth the difference. The biggest issue for the 90-280mm in my experience is the shutter shock and having an extremely good tripod support. If you use a well damped tripod and electronic shutter, you will see the best performance from the lens. When I first got it I was not super impressed with its performance (my only other lenses for the SL were APO Summicron primes, which ruin all other lenses), but it gets very close to their level if you use the proper technique. But in order to get that level of microcontrast and sharpness, you really do need to stop down to 5.6 or f8 and use the electronic shutter...or at least I did. It is still more than capable of superb results handheld, but I do think that setting 5.6 or f8 and the e-shutter makes a big difference in getting the sharpest results. I also found that my 90mm APO Summicron M was noticeably better than it is at 90mm. The MTF makes it look like the zoom should be a little more contrasty, but in my experience the prime had sharper results. Perhaps it is sample variation.

I have not used the 100-400mm, but it seems that the consensus is that if you want the absolute best IQ, the 90-280mm is worth the price, but if you just want a good general purpose telephoto lens, the 100-400 is great. The nice thing about Leica's Sigma sourced designs is that Leica still gives you a Leica datasheet for them. That means you can see their 40lpmm performance and compare directly to the Leica lenses. The 90-280 has greater contrast and lower aberrations than the 100-400, but the 100-400 is really good. There are probably few photographs that you could take with the 90-280 that you couldn't take with the 100-400 and vice versa, excluding the differences in range.

https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-92387-EN_Datenblatt_Vario-Elmar-SL_100-400.pdf

https://leica-camera.com/sites/default/files/pm-55506-Datenblatt_APO-Vario-Elmarit-SL_90-280_en.pdf

https://www.overgaard.dk/pdf/Apo-Telyt-R_280_mm_Technical_Data_en.pdf

[goldenbear]

I have the 24-90 and the 100-400. My daughter’s graduating this week, and I’m considering (finally) pulling the trigger on the 90-280. Still expensive, but there are some excellent used options in the $4-4.5k range. Funds are not an issue. Thoughts/guidance appreciated. 

[LeicaR10]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Goldenbear,   I have both lenses.  Both are superb.  I agree with Stuart's post #5 in his assessment.  It will get down to how much you wish to spend.  Below is a very good Red Dot Forum video that compares the two SL lenses and it might help you make the best decision.   r/ Mark

Try:  

 

[goldenbear]

14 hours ago, LeicaR10 said:

Goldenbear,   I have both lenses.  Both are superb.  I agree with Stuart's post #5 in his assessment.  It will get down to how much you wish to spend.  Below is a very good Red Dot Forum video that compares the two SL lenses and it might help you make the best decision.   r/ Mark

Try:  

 

Thanks for your reply. 

[Doc_P]

Essentially Stuart (Post #5) nailed it. I used the 90-280 in the past and sold it to help finance another L Apo Summicron.

My out-of-the box hint: a pre-owned S Apo 180 with the S-to-L adapter is imho worth a consideration, considering the price point including a trip to Leica Service for the AF-motor update, CLA.

• For longer reach: the SL3 files can be nicely enlarged with Gigapano Pro...
• I preferred these results over images taken with the Sigma 150-600@600mm.
• A little slow to AF unfortunately (slower than 90-280).

[T25UFO]

On 6/2/2025 at 1:51 AM, LeicaR10 said:

Goldenbear,   I have both lenses.  Both are superb.  I agree with Stuart's post #5 in his assessment.  It will get down to how much you wish to spend.  Below is a very good Red Dot Forum video that compares the two SL lenses and it might help you make the best decision.   r/ Mark

Try:  

 

Watched the whole video, very helpful, thank you.  David also mentions the 180mm S lens, which looks interesting.  I've seen an ex demo CS version on sale for £3.700 (list price £6,700) and just wonder if you think this is worth considering.  Would have to add the cost of the S - L adaptor, probably another £1,000.  Any advice appreciated.

[LeicaR10]

T25UFO,  I used the S 180 non-CS lens with the SL2 series.  Its superb across the frame, color, and resolution is stunning.  If you can find the non-CS S 180 and they are out there, just make sure the AF motor was updated by Leica.  You should ask for proof via the Leica certificate.  No Leica certificate or invoice as proof, do not buy the lens.  The CS version would be a waste on the SL.  There are several places in the USA that have the S 180 available;  Camera West aka Leica Store San Francisco, KEH, and a few others.  Again, make sure the motor was replaced.  As you know the S 180 on the SL series acts as a 180 FL.  The kicker is finding a used S to L adapter.  I cannot write on third party S to L adapters as I only use the Leica adapters.  Last, the S lens AF will be slow on the SL series, but the fantastic rendering will be worth it.   r/ Mark

[Eoin]

I could be very wrong ... but I thought only non CS S series lenses were compatible with the SL cameras.

[T25UFO]

4 hours ago, Eoin said:

I could be very wrong ... but I thought only non CS S series lenses were compatible with the SL cameras.

Hmm . . . I thought the lens was compatible but you just couldn’t use the leaf shutter.  I’d better check that, otherwise could be an expensive mistake!

[Jeff S]

On 6/6/2025 at 5:40 PM, T25UFO said:

Hmm . . . I thought the lens was compatible but you just couldn’t use the leaf shutter.  I’d better check that, otherwise could be an expensive mistake!

https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2016/08/leica-s-adapter-l-review.html#:~:text=If your lenses are CS%2C no problem:,on the lens (for now%2C at least).&text=As well%2C native Leica SL lenses will,Leica S lenses on the Leica SL.

[T25UFO]

4 hours ago, Jeff S said:

https://www.vieribottazzini.com/2016/08/leica-s-adapter-l-review.html#:~:text=If your lenses are CS%2C no problem:,on the lens (for now%2C at least).&text=As well%2C native Leica SL lenses will,Leica S lenses on the Leica SL.

Thank you . . . that was very helpful.

[Markey]

On 6/1/2025 at 2:21 PM, T25UFO said:

Leaving aside the difference in the longer range - 400 nice but 280 is fine for my needs - is the 90-280 really worth 2-3 times the 100-400?  I will be using on the SL3.

A zoom is not essential so any other recommendations for a fixed focal length around 300mm?

Used price for the 90 to 280 seems to have nose dived recently .

I don`t know how they compare to the 100 to 400.

I have a 90 to 280 .

Its a lovely lens but heavy.

[daan]

I have the 90-280, and it is (alongside my SL 50 Lux) by far the best and most beautiful lens I own. It’s also faster than the 100-400, has internal zoom, and with my SL2/SL3 I can easily crop a bit at the long end when needed.