L-Mount L-mount short telephoto options - 70-300 vs 70-200 f4

[pdk42]

Anyone got any views on these two lenses? The 70-300 seems to get very mixed reviews which leads me to conclude there's a lot of copy variation. The 70-200 looks a better option, but it's more pricey of course and only goes to 200mm without the TC.

 

[pdk42]

Just as a follow up to my own post...

I ordered a new 70-300 but it was decentered so it went back. Where it was sharp it was good, but not consistent across the frame. If my experience is typical, I can understand why the reviews of it are all over the place!

I then ordered a 70-200 f4 used from MPB. It's a really excellent performer. I can't understand why there are a lot of reviewers who say it lacks resolution. In my experience, it's pretty damn sharp right across the frame, even at f4. In fact, telling shots at f4 and f8 apart is easiest by looking at the vignetting rather than the sharpness.

But ... it's a pretty big and heavy lens so I'm not sure I'll keep it.

There are rumours of a new 28-200 or 24-200. If Panasonic deliver something like the Tamron 28-200 then I'll be very happy. No dates yet of course.

So, once again I'm finding that FF is nice and all, but once you get past 100mm, the size and weight of the lenses starts to be an issue. I think I'll stick with the S5, but I'll need to compromise on reach. I do mostly landscapes, so the 24-105 I have now should cope with most things, but I'm sure I'll miss something longer from time to time.

 

[JayOC]

Have you considered the sigma 100-400 or the Leica version? I considered the Sigma for my CL but in the end, I started getting M mount lenses in preparation for getting a M body in the future

 

[pdk42]

In the end I ordered another 70-300. The second copy is pretty good and I’m happy with it. It’s reasonably compact, has great OIS, is sharp enough, and has a decent semi macro capability. The 100-400 lenses are more than I need and are bigger and heavier than I’d like.

 

[pdk42]

I started getting M mount lenses in preparation for getting a M body in the future

I’m a bit of a Leicaphobe I admit, but I really can’t see the point of the digital M cameras. 1930s tech with 1930s limitations.

 

[Brian]

I doubt that Leica goes through an evaluation of the rangefinder mechanism when going through the initial product design phase for a new camera project. I also doubt most people buying a rangefinder camera go through the process as well. I see many buying new Leica equipment and used rangefinder equipment based on brand and product recognition. Many long-time Rangefinder shooters know and effectively use the advantages of a Rangefinder camera. Recent articles to “time to abandon the Rangefinder” could have been written 60 years ago when SLRs were popular. Here we are in the 2020s and the major manufacturers are ending development of new SLRs and Leica is bringing out new Digital and Film cameras using Rangefinders.

Advantages of Optical Viewfinder/Rangefinder:

You can see things outside the frame. This makes it easier to compose the shot. This also makes it easier to follow a moving subject.

The Viewfinder does not black out when the shutter is released. This makes it easier to make a sequence of shots, For moving subjects, makes it easier to pan and focus.

Optical viewfinders are bright. If there is enough light for your eye to see it, your eye will see about the same level of brightness through the viewfinder. The RF patch is at least as bright.

Lower Latency with all-mechanical shutters. The shutter is closed while viewing and focusing. All-Electronic shutters are also low latency, but have problems with some artificial lighting.

No power draw. The viewing and focus mechanism is opto-mechanical and does not require battery power.

No latency when viewing the image. EVF introduces "Digital Delay" between the sensor acquiring the image and the image being displayed. Higher resolution EVF requires a higher data rate and faster processing, which increases power draw.

Disadvantages:

Requires Precise mechanical calibration between the Camera body and the lens. This is expensive to implement. Maintaining precise calibration is difficult.

Not “What you see is what you get”. The photographer’s view is not through the lens.

Precise agreement between the Rangefinder and Lens varies depending on lens aperture and filter used. “Focus shift” due to spherical aberration and chromatic aberration cause disagreement between the rangefinder and lens. Apochromatic and Aspherical lenses that minimize these problems are very expensive. Attempting to correct the issues mechanically would be very complex, and have not been done.

Most manufacturers are switching to EVF designs that use the Sensor for viewing. This is a direct replacement for SLR viewfinders. EVF viewfinders with 3.7Mdot range and higher and with focus assist are a direct replacement for SLR viewfinders. The main disadvantage is power draw when compared to an SLR. The "age-old" comparisons made between SLR and RF still hold true comparing EVF and RF.

Maximum "practical" focal length is 135mm.

Requires add-on External Viewfinders for focal lengths longer or shorter than supported by the viewfinder built into the camera.

Requires Eyepiece "Magnifiers" to accurately focus longer focal length lenses from the 85mm range through to the 135mm range used wide-open. Not required when stopped down to F5.6 or so. The same magnifiers are useful for 50mm lenses faster than F1.4 used wide-open.

Maximum Practical minimum focus is about 2feet, 0.7m. "Absolute Kludge" devices allow close-up work.

 

[JayOC]

I doubt that Leica goes through an evaluation of the rangefinder mechanism when going through the initial product design phase for a new camera project. I also doubt most people buying a rangefinder camera go through the process as well. I see many buying new Leica equipment and used rangefinder equipment based on brand and product recognition. Many long-time Rangefinder shooters know and effectively use the advantages of a Rangefinder camera. Recent articles to “time to abandon the Rangefinder” could have been written 60 years ago when SLRs were popular. Here we are in the 2020s and the major manufacturers are ending development of new SLRs and Leica is bringing out new Digital and Film cameras using Rangefinders.

Advantages of Optical Viewfinder/Rangefinder:

You can see things outside the frame. This makes it easier to compose the shot. This also makes it easier to follow a moving subject.

The Viewfinder does not black out when the shutter is released. This makes it easier to make a sequence of shots, For moving subjects, makes it easier to pan and focus.

Optical viewfinders are bright. If there is enough light for your eye to see it, your eye will see about the same level of brightness through the viewfinder. The RF patch is at least as bright.

Lower Latency with all-mechanical shutters. The shutter is closed while viewing and focusing. All-Electronic shutters are also low latency, but have problems with some artificial lighting.

No power draw. The viewing and focus mechanism is opto-mechanical and does not require battery power.

No latency when viewing the image. EVF introduces "Digital Delay" between the sensor acquiring the image and the image being displayed. Higher resolution EVF requires a higher data rate and faster processing, which increases power draw.

Disadvantages:

Requires Precise mechanical calibration between the Camera body and the lens. This is expensive to implement. Maintaining precise calibration is difficult.

Not “What you see is what you get”. The photographer’s view is not through the lens.

Precise agreement between the Rangefinder and Lens varies depending on lens aperture and filter used. “Focus shift” due to spherical aberration and chromatic aberration cause disagreement between the rangefinder and lens. Apochromatic and Aspherical lenses that minimize these problems are very expensive. Attempting to correct the issues mechanically would be very complex, and have not been done.

Most manufacturers are switching to EVF designs that use the Sensor for viewing. This is a direct replacement for SLR viewfinders. EVF viewfinders with 3.7Mdot range and higher and with focus assist are a direct replacement for SLR viewfinders. The main disadvantage is power draw when compared to an SLR. The "age-old" comparisons made between SLR and RF still hold true comparing EVF and RF.

Maximum "practical" focal length is 135mm.

Requires add-on External Viewfinders for focal lengths longer or shorter than supported by the viewfinder built into the camera.

Requires Eyepiece "Magnifiers" to accurately focus longer focal length lenses from the 85mm range through to the 135mm range used wide-open. Not required when stopped down to F5.6 or so. The same magnifiers are useful for 50mm lenses faster than F1.4 used wide-open.

Maximum Practical minimum focus is about 2feet, 0.7m. "Absolute Kludge" devices allow close-up work.

I fully agree there are advantages and disadvantages with both systems. My first real camera was my parents' old Kodak Retina IIa. That is when I fell in love with rangefinders and photography really.. Prior to that I had a Kodak Instamatic 100. One thing I like about the M10-R is that it forces me to slow down. The same would be true with a manual focus SLR or DSLR. The main difference from using the Retina is I have a built in light meter and do not have to load / process film.

I still use my CL. The ergonomics are great and the Leica native zoom lenses produce great results. I have a trip planned through East Texas where I will take the CL and the M10-R. There are sites where I will need the extra FOV that the 11-23 provides and the length that the 18-56 provides. There are other sites where I will use the M10-R just for the sheer pleasure of using it.

To me the best way to describe the difference between the experience of using the M10-R and the CL is appreciating the difference between a stick shift (manual transmission) and an automatic / paddle shifter. Both systems work but they provide different experiences. Newer technology should not always mean better technology if it lessens the pleasure of an activity. (3 pedals = good, 2 pedals = meh)

 

[JayOC]

In the end I ordered another 70-300. The second copy is pretty good and I’m happy with it. It’s reasonably compact, has great OIS, is sharp enough, and has a decent semi macro capability. The 100-400 lenses are more than I need and are bigger and heavier than I’d like.

Glad you got a good copy. I suggested the Sigma because it is relatively compact. I haven't taken the time to compare it to the Panasonic 70-300. Also Sigma is producing some very good lenses right now. The Art series lenses are now available for the L mount cameras. The downside to the Sigma primes are they are fairly large in diameter. But on a SL it should not be an issue.

I will look at the 100-400 again for the CL. I used to do wildlife photography before cancer. But even though I am in remission, the damage to the lungs affected my ability to carry the large lenses the long distances I used to carry them. But the 100-400 is compact enough where I could possibly do some bird photography over shorter distances.

 

[Brian]

I fully agree there are advantages and disadvantages with both systems. My first real camera was my parents' old Kodak Retina IIa. That is when I fell in love with rangefinders and photography really.. Prior to that I had a Kodak Instamatic 100. One thing I like about the M10-R is that it forces me to slow down. The same would be true with a manual focus SLR or DSLR. The main difference from using the Retina is I have a built in light meter and do not have to load / process film.

I still use my CL. The ergonomics are great and the Leica native zoom lenses produce great results. I have a trip planned through East Texas where I will take the CL and the M10-R. There are sites where I will need the extra FOV that the 11-23 provides and the length that the 18-56 provides. There are other sites where I will use the M10-R just for the sheer pleasure of using it.

To me the best way to describe the difference between the experience of using the M10-R and the CL is appreciating the difference between a stick shift (manual transmission) and an automatic / paddle shifter. Both systems work but they provide different experiences. Newer technology should not always mean better technology if it lessens the pleasure of an activity. (3 pedals = good, 2 pedals = meh)

I started with a Brownie and then went to an Instamatic 150. Picked up a Minolta Hi-Matic 9 in 1969, a Summer of mowing lawns. These days- Shoot with the M9, M Monochrom, NIkon Df, and Nikon Z5. The latter- bought for use with manual focus lenses, using adapters. The Df- mostly manual focus lenses. I have a number of Retina rangefinder and SLRs, use the Lenses from the IIIS on the Nikon Df with an adapter. I have used most every type of still camera, all have advantages and disadvantages.

 

[Brian]

Glad you got a good copy. I suggested the Sigma because it is relatively compact. I haven't taken the time to compare it to the Panasonic 70-300. Also Sigma is producing some very good lenses right now. The Art series lenses are now available for the L mount cameras. The downside to the Sigma primes are they are fairly large in diameter. But on a SL it should not be an issue.

I will look at the 100-400 again for the CL. I used to do wildlife photography before cancer. But even though I am in remission, the damage to the lungs affected my ability to carry the large lenses the long distances I used to carry them. But the 100-400 is compact enough where I could possibly do some bird photography over shorter distances.

Light weight, long-reach, hand-held- I still use a Mirror Lens. Might be an alternative to consider. This one is a v1 Nikkor 500/8 (1970), on the Df. The Vivitar "Solid Cat" 600/8 is compact, but not light. The V2 Nikkor is smaller, lighter than my V1. Easily adapted to the CL, as are generic 300/5.6 mirror lenses. Image stabilization would make it even easier.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[pdk42]

I doubt that Leica goes through an evaluation of the rangefinder mechanism when going through the initial product design phase for a new camera project. I also doubt most people buying a rangefinder camera go through the process as well. I see many buying new Leica equipment and used rangefinder equipment based on brand and product recognition. Many long-time Rangefinder shooters know and effectively use the advantages of a Rangefinder camera. Recent articles to “time to abandon the Rangefinder” could have been written 60 years ago when SLRs were popular. Here we are in the 2020s and the major manufacturers are ending development of new SLRs and Leica is bringing out new Digital and Film cameras using Rangefinders.

Advantages of Optical Viewfinder/Rangefinder:

You can see things outside the frame. This makes it easier to compose the shot. This also makes it easier to follow a moving subject.

The Viewfinder does not black out when the shutter is released. This makes it easier to make a sequence of shots, For moving subjects, makes it easier to pan and focus.

Optical viewfinders are bright. If there is enough light for your eye to see it, your eye will see about the same level of brightness through the viewfinder. The RF patch is at least as bright.

Lower Latency with all-mechanical shutters. The shutter is closed while viewing and focusing. All-Electronic shutters are also low latency, but have problems with some artificial lighting.

No power draw. The viewing and focus mechanism is opto-mechanical and does not require battery power.

No latency when viewing the image. EVF introduces "Digital Delay" between the sensor acquiring the image and the image being displayed. Higher resolution EVF requires a higher data rate and faster processing, which increases power draw.

Disadvantages:

Requires Precise mechanical calibration between the Camera body and the lens. This is expensive to implement. Maintaining precise calibration is difficult.

Not “What you see is what you get”. The photographer’s view is not through the lens.

Precise agreement between the Rangefinder and Lens varies depending on lens aperture and filter used. “Focus shift” due to spherical aberration and chromatic aberration cause disagreement between the rangefinder and lens. Apochromatic and Aspherical lenses that minimize these problems are very expensive. Attempting to correct the issues mechanically would be very complex, and have not been done.

Most manufacturers are switching to EVF designs that use the Sensor for viewing. This is a direct replacement for SLR viewfinders. EVF viewfinders with 3.7Mdot range and higher and with focus assist are a direct replacement for SLR viewfinders. The main disadvantage is power draw when compared to an SLR. The "age-old" comparisons made between SLR and RF still hold true comparing EVF and RF.

Maximum "practical" focal length is 135mm.

Requires add-on External Viewfinders for focal lengths longer or shorter than supported by the viewfinder built into the camera.

Requires Eyepiece "Magnifiers" to accurately focus longer focal length lenses from the 85mm range through to the 135mm range used wide-open. Not required when stopped down to F5.6 or so. The same magnifiers are useful for 50mm lenses faster than F1.4 used wide-open.

Maximum Practical minimum focus is about 2feet, 0.7m. "Absolute Kludge" devices allow close-up work.

That's a pretty good summary, but those disadvantages are HUGE. These three in particular are sort of guaranteed to mean reliable focus is basically a crap-shoot:

- Requires Precise mechanical calibration between the Camera body and the lens. This is expensive to implement. Maintaining precise calibration is difficult.

- Precise agreement between the Rangefinder and Lens varies depending on lens aperture and filter used.

- “Focus shift” due to spherical aberration and chromatic aberration cause disagreement between the rangefinder and lens. Apochromatic and Aspherical lenses that minimize these problems are very expensive. Attempting to correct the issues mechanically would be very complex, and have not been done.

Given that the whole point of high end cameras and lenses is to get maximum image sharpness, these limitations pretty much render most of the advantages pointless.


And then, these are for most people several compromises too far:

- Requires add-on External Viewfinders for focal lengths longer or shorter than supported by the viewfinder built into the camera.

- Requires Eyepiece "Magnifiers" to accurately focus longer focal length lenses from the 85mm range through to the 135mm range used wide-open. Not required when stopped down to F5.6 or so. The same magnifiers are useful for 50mm lenses faster than F1.4 used wide-open.

- Maximum Practical minimum focus is about 2feet, 0.7m. "Absolute Kludge" devices allow close-up work.

I mean, recall all the angst about DFD, which had NONE of these disadvantages. No one would buy a camera today with these limitations if it wasn't for the fact it had a red dot on it!

 

[Brian]

That's a pretty good summary, but those disadvantages are HUGE. These three in particular are sort of guaranteed to mean reliable focus is basically a crap-shoot:

Given that the whole point of high end cameras and lenses is to get maximum image sharpness, these limitations pretty much render most of the advantages pointless.


And then, these are for most people several compromises too far:



I mean, recall all the angst about DFD, which had NONE of these disadvantages. No one would buy a camera today with these limitations if it wasn't for the fact it had a red dot on it!

For those of us that know how to use a rangefinder camera, getting exact focus is not a problem. 50mm F1, 75mm F1.25, 90mm F1.5- no problems with my M9 and M Monochrom.
I use DSLRs and Mirrorless. I have an easier time framing and focusing with the rangefinder. I also have an easier time panning with a moving subject during the exposure. I've used SLRs since 1971, and EVF since the EP2 was brand new. I know the strong points, weak point, and how to optimally use all of them. People are buying the Pixii, no red dot. My M3 and M Monochrom- no red dot. Just because you do not like RF cameras, does not mean that everyone else only buys them for a red dot. You do not know how to use one, use what you like. Do not "Just Diss" something because you do not understand how to use them and want to convince everyone else that "yours is the one, true way".

Focus shift due to spherical aberration also affects SLR cameras. For those of us that know what we are doing with an RF camera: means offsetting the alignment of the RF image when shooting at apertures that the lens is not optimized for.

To Quote Bill Pierce, "Never ever confuse sharp with good, or you will end up shaving with an ice cream cone and licking a razor blade."

DFD, TLA, Data Flow DIagram.

75mm F1.25, wide-open: Lots of Red Dots.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

As the viewfinder does not black-out, I am panning with the subjects as they are moving. Works for me.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[JayOC]

That's a pretty good summary, but those disadvantages are HUGE. These three in particular are sort of guaranteed to mean reliable focus is basically a crap-shoot:

Given that the whole point of high end cameras and lenses is to get maximum image sharpness, these limitations pretty much render most of the advantages pointless.


And then, these are for most people several compromises too far:



I mean, recall all the angst about DFD, which had NONE of these disadvantages. No one would buy a camera today with these limitations if it wasn't for the fact it had a red dot on it!

Granted, there are those who buy Leica’s as a status system. There is a Las Angeles based camera store that has a good supply of camera and lenses that were bought and sold gear after figuring out that having expensive gear did not guarantee having good photographs. My son picked up a SL2S and 50 Summicron from them at a good price. He has placed black electrical tape over the LEICA lettering to make it more low key.

If I could have found a M10-D I may have picked one up instead of the R. All the same, I am not concerned another the lettering or the branding on thr camera. People ask about my photos and I tell them what I use. The questions that follow are typically “What’s Leica?” or “What’s a rangefinder?”

 

[Brian]

I shot Nikon Rangefinders long before buying the M3. I have more lens selection with the Leica, spanning 90 years. Shooting film- prefer the Nikon Rangefinders over the SLRs. The digital age- I can use my Nikon lenses on the M9 and M Monochrom. Nikon made all of their lenses in Leica mount, S-Mount, and many in Contax mount. I can use the latter two mounts on the Leica with adapters. I can use use almost all of the lenses on the Z5.

Nikkor 10.5cm F2.5, wide-open on the M Monochrom.

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Canon 100/2, wide-open,

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Nikkor 8.5cm F2,

Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

I've been reading Bill Pierce since 1971. He was using Leica long before the Red Dot was on them.
So was I.

 

[Brian]

This forum has members that use all brands and types of cameras.

This forum is not DPReview, mu-43, or NikonCafe.

The brand-bashing stops now and will be treated as Trolling if it continues.