Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The 90-

280 year is a superb lens but a heavyweight. the 70-200 with TC will not be able to reach the same image quality. But there is a price difference 

however there are a number of excellent other offerings, like the Sigma/Leica 100-400 or Panasonic. 
The Sigma 70-200 2.8. has an image quality on par with the 90-280 and takes extenders. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, jaapv said:

The 90-

280 year is a superb lens but a heavyweight. the 70-200 with TC will not be able to reach the same image quality. But there is a price difference 

however there are a number of excellent other offerings, like the Sigma/Leica 100-400 or Panasonic. 
The Sigma 70-200 2.8. has an image quality on par with the 90-280 and takes extenders. 

So which means...

If I get Sigma 70-200 2.8 + TC, it might probably get the same quality as Leica 90-280?

What about the Distortion and Chromatic Aberation then? Any clue?

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, 臣rwin said:

So which means...

If I get Sigma 70-200 2.8 + TC, it might probably get the same quality as Leica 90-280?

What about the Distortion and Chromatic Aberation then? Any clue?


Photographically irrelevant as distortion is controlled digitally and CA just a slider in postprocessing. 
The wisdom of using an extender on a 200 mm lens is questionable too. A simple crop will get you a better result, the framing difference between the two focal lengths brings very little.

If you own  an S9, I assume you are mainly into Video for social media. Why don’t you get the LUMIX 28-200?  It matches the purpose and was designed for this type of camera.it pairs well with the 18-40 which was designed for this camera as well

What do you intend to use the long focal length for? No EVF to frame, or even find your subject. It is pretty hard to use the LCD, unless you are on a tripod. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jaapv said:


Photographically irrelevant as distortion is controlled digitally and CA just a slider in postprocessing. 
The wisdom of using an extender on a 200 mm lens is questionable too. A simple crop will get you a better result, the framing difference between the two focal lengths brings very little.

If you own  an S9, I assume you are mainly into Video for social media. Why don’t you get the LUMIX 28-200?  It matches the purpose and was designed for this type of camera. 

What do you intend to use the long focal length for? No EVF to frame, or even find your subject. It is pretty hard to use the LCD, unless you are on a tripod. 

Thanks for the reply..

The reason i choose S9 is because of the RealTime Lut, also not because Video, i use it for taking pictures most of the time.. currently i have only 18-40mm default lens kit that came with it.. the rest of the Prime Lenses i bought separately...

So now i was thinking I might probably want to go for telephoto lens, only 2 options that I am going to... 70-200mm f2.8 or 90-280..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, your decision. But both lenses will be heavy lumps on such a small EVF-less camera and difficult to handle. Your main problem will be handling, not image quality. The 90-280 most so. Both the lenses offer first rate image quality. An S5iiX could have been a better choice but I understand your choice for the LUT swapping.
I still think that the LUMIX offering fits best as it is designed to work with the camera. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

 

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, your decision. But both lenses will be heavy lumps on such a small EVF-less camera and difficult to handle. Your main problem will be handling, not image quality. The 90-280 most so. Both the lenses offer first rate image quality. An S5iiX could have been a better choice but I understand your choice for the LUT swapping.
I still think that the LUMIX offering fits best as it is designed to work with the camera. 

Oh anyway..1 more thing that makes me consider of getting 90-280 its because its an APO lens..

Do you think Leica 70-200 will have less CA even it doesn't have APO like 90-280?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What do you mean by CA? Remember that Purple Fringing is not CA and being APO or not has nothing to do with it.  As such  APO is just an  optical technical term hijacked by marketing and not a quality guarantee. The only thing that APO means is that the light rays at infinity coincide on the plane of focus at three points of the spectrum Red Green and Blue. Anything outside those points and the plane of focus remains undefined and may be good -or bad. However, Leica marketing uses this as a quality label ( and price indicator) 

I have been using the 70-200 by Sigma for about a year now (same lens as Leica) and have seen no signs of CA, nor of untoward distortion. This has not been reported by other users inn this forum either AFAIK. It is simply an excellent lens...
 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, jaapv said:

What do you mean by CA? Remember that Purple Fringing is not CA and being APO or not has nothing to do with it.  As such  APO is just an  optical technical term hijacked by marketing and not a quality guarantee. The only thing that APO means is that the light rays at infinity coincide on the plane of focus at three points of the spectrum Red Green and Blue. Anything outside those points and the plane of focus remains undefined and may be good -or bad. However, Leica marketing uses this as a quality label ( and price indicator) 

I have been using the 70-200 by Sigma for about a year now (same lens as Leica) and have seen no signs of CA, nor of untoward distortion. This has not been reported by other users inn this forum either AFAIK. It is simply an excellent lens...
 

Thank you very much for the explaination, at least I learn something new... now I know I probably will go for 70-200..

Have you ever tested or maybe know the comparison between Panasonic, Sigma and Leica if I have to choose 70-200? Please advice...

Thanks in advanced

Link to post
Share on other sites

Comparison:

The optics are as near to identical as makes no difference.
The Leica has an all-metal weather sealed barrel which some Leicaistes prefer, (but the S9 is not weather sealed anyway), the Sigma has less weather sealing. The Sigma barrel has some high-grade composite parts (the same stuff as used in formula 1 cars) which makes it lighter and less prone to wear. Both are built like the proverbial tank.
The lens hood on the Sigma is unpractical and fragile; I replaced it by a rubber one from Amazon.
The Sigma has some useful  functions, like a physical aperture ring (additional to camera control) which can be declicked for video use and locked, a function switch which can programmed to activate EVF/LCD stabilization (very useful), two O.I.S settings plus off by a physical switch, a physical AF limiter switch and can be programmed and updated through the USB dock. 
The result is that Leica has the sleeker design by omitting physical controls but at the price of losing functions.  
The style of the Leica matches other Leica SL lenses - again an important point for some.
The jury is still out , but IMO the AF on the Sigma is faster.
And then there is the Leica price premium. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Leica = Sigma in a Leicafied barrel. Panasonic I do not know. 

Thank you..

I currently own Sigma 85mm f1.4, do you think buying 70-200 will cause my 85mm becoming useless?

Link to post
Share on other sites

No. There are plenty of situations where you do not need the zooming capability and want to use a more compact/lighter lens, especially at the shorter end. And the 85/1.4 is a lens to be used for subject separation, night work, narrow DOF, etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Using only 24 MP all these lenses are good to go. As the other mentioned, any remaining distortion or CA can be easily corrected in post. For the reach, w/ low weight size and price, I might go for the Panasonic 70-300, it has a great reach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the MP count does not matter. As has been explained many times, sensor resolution nor lens resolution is a limiting factor. This is not a weakest link situation but an additive one. Lens and sensor must be regarded a single image forming unit. Improving either or both will improve the image in all cases. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Without a doubt, the 90-280. Versatile and fast, especially compared to the 70-200 with a 1.4 converter. If you use the 2.0 converter, you not only lose light but also miss the short end. With the 90-280, you can easily crop a little at the long end when needed. On top of that, the image quality you get from the 90-280 is absolutely phenomenal! With this lens, you have everything in one, and with top-tier quality without the need to swap converters. I regularly use it alongside my SL 50mm Lux, a fantastic combination (with the Q3 in the bag for casual shooting).

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Fast? At 280 it is exactly the same as the 70-200 with converter and one stop slower without. Lose out at the short end? The full 8 mm... 90 vs 98 which is more than regained by 20 mm without converter.  In image quality there is little to choose, with the edge going to the Leica. It is certainly a superb lens, but for many users usability, weight, bulk and price will sway the balance to the Sigma/Leica 70-200. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just received my copy of the 90-280 and to me it doesn't feel neither bigger not heavier that all the reflex-era 70-200 F2.8 zooms that I'm used to, especially if a ML adapter is thrown into the mix. We will see how it is after some hours shooting, but since I'm used to a gripped S+the 180 I doubt I'll notice such a big difference 🙂

The only one of such type that I have that is admittedly much lighter and smaller is the Tamron 70-180 F2.8 in E-mount, but it's also 100mm shorter..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
On 7/22/2025 at 12:12 PM, jaapv said:

Fast? At 280 it is exactly the same as the 70-200 with converter and one stop slower without. Lose out at the short end? The full 8 mm... 90 vs 98 which is more than regained by 20 mm without converter.  In image quality there is little to choose, with the edge going to the Leica. It is certainly a superb lens, but for many users usability, weight, bulk and price will sway the balance to the Sigma/Leica 70-200. 

 

As mentioned in my message, I was referring to the 2.0x converter. Meaning 90 vs 180mm, not 90 vs 98.

Edited by daan
Link to post
Share on other sites

The 2.0 converter is  indeed of lesser IQ than the 1.4. But then you are referring to 400 vs 280. So the loss of aperture cannot be compared. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...