Congratulations! This is the only L-mount lens I have to so far and I am enjoying mine: the colors are very nice.
L-MOUNT Forum
Register a free account now!
If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.
Well it seems (at last) that I have a tele zoom I'm happy with !
- Thread starter pdk42
- Start date
pdk42
Moderator
I agree that the images from it have nice colour & contrast.
But the bigger question is - how can you cope without anything wider than 70mm ?
I got a cheap and cheerful m to l adapter and am using a Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 for now, but I would really like a 28. Waiting to see if Sigma comes out with a dg dn version of their 28mm f1.4 (or I win the lottery and buy the SL-SummicronI agree that the images from it have nice colour & contrast.
But the bigger question is - how can you cope without anything wider than 70mm ?
).
pdk42
Moderator
I wish I could get on with MF since I have some nice OM glass I could use. It's odd because I'm old enough to have grown up with cameras like the Pentax Spotmatic and MF was the only option available.I got a cheap and cheerful m to l adapter and am using a Voigtlander 35mm 1.7 for now, but I would really like a 28. Waiting to see if Sigma comes out with a dg dn version of their 28mm f1.4 (or I win the lottery and buy the SL-Summicron
There are a lot of very nice and very cheap Taiwanese MF lenses now available in "native" L-mount. They are mostly copies of MF-era Japanese lenses and most of them are very good.
pdk42
Moderator
While doing some research on the 70-200 f4, I stumbled across the article below. The guys at Lensrentals stripped down a 70-200 to fix a problem with the AF. It's just incredible how complex these modern lenses are. No wonder they are so expensive.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
There were many years where I couldn't get on with MF at all; I still think looking at MF lenses as a cheap replacement for native lenses is a bad idea.
What turned me around on MF... first, from when I first started playing around with cameras around age 7, I've always loved them as marvelous pieces of precision mechanical equipment (the 50s era Polaroid Land Cameras, for example). After running into a Zeiss Jena 50/3.5 at an estate sale, I wanted to get that beautiful piece of glass working on my current camera, and it just built from there...
Second, about that time I started really understanding how a lens has a 'look' that contributes to the photo, above and beyond the focal length and aperture. (The Lumix 20/1.7 M4/3 was what really brought it home.) And vintage manual lenses can give a wide variety of looks, at a price that's affordable to experiment with.
So, where I'm at with manual lenses - I don't view them as a cheap substitute for native autofocus lenses. I use them because I enjoy the shooting experience of using a high-quality mechanical lens and because I like the different looks I can get from them. (This ties in to my view that shooting experience as as important, or more, than IQ. On a technical/imaging pipeline level, almost all modern cameras can take decent photos; so a camera that you enjoy using, that makes you want to take photos, is better than one you're fighting against.)
So what OM glass do you have? I've at least liked most of what I've tried, and some I absolutely love.
pdk42
Moderator
All that makes sense. But getting decent shots from MF lenses hinges on the ability to do fast and accurate adjustment of the focus ring. Back in the days of SLRs and split-image screens that was a fairly easy task. With an EVF, even with focus peaking and magnification, it's a less precise operation that I find too often leads to slight mis-focus. But I guess with practice I'd get better.
I have the following:
- 24/2.8
- 50/1.8
- 100/2.8
- 135/3.5
- Tokina 70-210
The primes all perform reasonably well, esp the 50mm and 100mm which get close in sharpness to native L-mount lenses. The zoom is way better than it deserves to be, but it has decentring issues.
Travis Butler
Well-Known Member
Focus peaking is a big thing; it also helps that 90% of my shooting is stationary subjects. (And for moving subjects, I do prefer modern autofocus lenses.)
The 24/2.8 and 100/2.8 are ones I love. The 50/1.8 is nice, but I generally prefer the 50/1.4. I like the 135/3.5, and it's a top choice when I want to use a 135, but I just don't use 135's that often. Same thing holds true for the 200/5, which is otherwise a nice lens and very compact for a 200mm. The main Tokina 70-210 I'm familiar with is the one they did for the Vivitar Series 1 line; I think I prefer the Komine in the Series 1 line, but I prefer the Kiron-labeled 80-200 to both of them.
I mostly used manual focus lenses before this on a Sony A7rii and enjoy them. The A7rii’s autofocus was slow enough that manual lenses was a good option for almost anything slow moving. For L mount, I have been eyeing the Laowa 28, but I have also been playing around with the focus bracketing feature on the S5ii, which I couldn’t take advantage of with the Laowa. Half of the fun is looking
After 12 years on Pentax with crap AF for moving targets due to their cameras or lens AF motors I'm enjoying S5ii AF so ridiculously much that I don't want to use MF lenses ever again. I spent years in that school of slowing down, being more deliberated and consider composition, learning DOF scales, making sure verticals are not converging/diverging (I hate that BTW) etc.
I still carry all of that techical training as a photographer (without the art school photography degree stuff they learn) to modern AF mirrorless and using it doesn't mean I'm going to revert to a snapper. All that stuff is auto pilot.
I used to be a building engineer, having to put buildings exactly where they should go and everything built to the dimensions of the planning, architectural and structural design. On my university placement 1995/1996 (nicely paid too) I had a Leica theodolite which had reversed optics which showing others used to melt their heads.
So all this is part of my DNA and why I hate diverging/converging verticals and off level photographs. Usually when I can't get proper verticals I simply don't press the shutter button, sometimes make exceptions but I don't like the software corrections. This is where a 10mm FF lens and cropping could be useful leading to...
The odd time I'd love a tilt lens but still AF so you can use S5ii detection/tracking for example people in the foreground.
MF is good for learning photography but an unnecessary chore for the experienced, I said elsewhere I'd hate the S5ii to start on and why I tell people to buy a used older £150 DSLR to start with to learn the basics.
Who here still has full darkroom equipment? I still have it, will I use it again?
I still carry all of that techical training as a photographer (without the art school photography degree stuff they learn) to modern AF mirrorless and using it doesn't mean I'm going to revert to a snapper. All that stuff is auto pilot.
I used to be a building engineer, having to put buildings exactly where they should go and everything built to the dimensions of the planning, architectural and structural design. On my university placement 1995/1996 (nicely paid too) I had a Leica theodolite which had reversed optics which showing others used to melt their heads.
So all this is part of my DNA and why I hate diverging/converging verticals and off level photographs. Usually when I can't get proper verticals I simply don't press the shutter button, sometimes make exceptions but I don't like the software corrections. This is where a 10mm FF lens and cropping could be useful leading to...
The odd time I'd love a tilt lens but still AF so you can use S5ii detection/tracking for example people in the foreground.
MF is good for learning photography but an unnecessary chore for the experienced, I said elsewhere I'd hate the S5ii to start on and why I tell people to buy a used older £150 DSLR to start with to learn the basics.
Who here still has full darkroom equipment? I still have it, will I use it again?
pdk42
Moderator
I hate misaligned verticals/horizontals too, but I’m quite happy to correct in PP, so long as it’s not too far out to start with. I really don’t see any big problem with doing so. The risk is stretching and reduced reduction as a result, but I really don’t notice it unless I’m doing some extreme correction.After 12 years on Pentax with crap AF for moving targets due to their cameras or lens AF motors I'm enjoying S5ii AF so ridiculously much that I don't want to use MF lenses ever again. I spent years in that school of slowing down, being more deliberated and consider composition, learning DOF scales, making sure verticals are not converging/diverging (I hate that BTW) etc.
I still carry all of that techical training as a photographer (without the art school photography degree stuff they learn) to modern AF mirrorless and using it doesn't mean I'm going to revert to a snapper. All that stuff is auto pilot.
I used to be a building engineer, having to put buildings exactly where they should go and everything built to the dimensions of the planning, architectural and structural design. On my university placement 1995/1996 (nicely paid too) I had a Leica theodolite which had reversed optics which showing others used to melt their heads.
So all this is part of my DNA and why I hate diverging/converging verticals and off level photographs. Usually when I can't get proper verticals I simply don't press the shutter button, sometimes make exceptions but I don't like the software corrections. This is where a 10mm FF lens and cropping could be useful leading to...
The odd time I'd love a tilt lens but still AF so you can use S5ii detection/tracking for example people in the foreground.
MF is good for learning photography but an unnecessary chore for the experienced, I said elsewhere I'd hate the S5ii to start on and why I tell people to buy a used older £150 DSLR to start with to learn the basics.
Who here still has full darkroom equipment? I still have it, will I use it again?
pdk42
Moderator
On the MF assist question in digital cameras, I must say that neither focus peeking nor magnification get close to the old fresnel screen or split focus capabilities of old school SLRs.
So I was thinking … given that digital cameras now have on chip phase detect, would it be possible for some fancy firmware to present a simulated split screen focusing aid? That would be a fantastic capability for users of MF lenses. Maybe I should suggest it to Panasonic!
So I was thinking … given that digital cameras now have on chip phase detect, would it be possible for some fancy firmware to present a simulated split screen focusing aid? That would be a fantastic capability for users of MF lenses. Maybe I should suggest it to Panasonic!
OMG not what I found when testing my newly arrived 70-300 against my flagship Pentax F*300 f4.5 prime at 3.3m at corners, mid and centre.
Using MF magnification and peaking with the adapted Pentax was nailing the focus 100% on S5ii, it was close but the 70-300 bested it on contrast, micro contrast and colours and definitely looked better/sharper because of this, it looked liked a higher resolution.
There is no way an optical split screen on DSLR could match this, I said similar to this on Pentax forums and got hate because I showed modern mirrorless was better for manual focussing
I know about split screens, I remember buying an alternative one for my Pentax MX and I did the complete foam pad mirrorbox replacement on it also. I can't remember the details of why I replaced the split screen but enjoyed replacing it and the foam... It is a great small body film camera with a lovely big finder hence I might still use it. Almost like a vintage S9 with a finder but no video
BTW you seem to have these focussing issues, what camera? I never have any.
I am really interested in this thread, not only because I am in the market for a telephoto lens for my S1R, but also because I've been reading about Paul's long-term quest for the 'perfect' telephoto lens so I hope to benefit from his - and everyone's! - wisdom!
My three options are realistically:
- Panasonic 70-300 (I like the range very much, the weight, the IS)
- Panasonic 70-200 F4 (the rendering/contrast/sharpness look great, though it is a tad on the heavy side)
- Sigma 100-400 (the 400mm at the long end is nice, though it is quite slow and heavy)
I'd use it mainly for landscape shots, some portraiture, some sports/action too (cycling/kids).
I should add I've also got a Lumix G9 paired with the wonderful Panasonic 50-200 2.8-4 lens. In fact it is so great that I often myself carrying the S1R and the G9, which is less than ideal. Ideally I'd retire the G9 and the Panaleica 50-200 (with the 1.4x teleconverter) for occasional wildlife/birding.
My priorities (in that order): rendering/sharpness/aperture/weight/range. I would also prefer a 70-XXX option too.
What do you advise?
(and sorry for slightly hijacking this thread)
My three options are realistically:
- Panasonic 70-300 (I like the range very much, the weight, the IS)
- Panasonic 70-200 F4 (the rendering/contrast/sharpness look great, though it is a tad on the heavy side)
- Sigma 100-400 (the 400mm at the long end is nice, though it is quite slow and heavy)
I'd use it mainly for landscape shots, some portraiture, some sports/action too (cycling/kids).
I should add I've also got a Lumix G9 paired with the wonderful Panasonic 50-200 2.8-4 lens. In fact it is so great that I often myself carrying the S1R and the G9, which is less than ideal. Ideally I'd retire the G9 and the Panaleica 50-200 (with the 1.4x teleconverter) for occasional wildlife/birding.
My priorities (in that order): rendering/sharpness/aperture/weight/range. I would also prefer a 70-XXX option too.
What do you advise?
(and sorry for slightly hijacking this thread)
Pete_W
LMF-Patron
Given the order of your priorities, it looks like the 70-200mm f4 might be the logical choice?
I have the 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 and am happy with the sharpness and rendering. The reason I got this lens was because longer focal range and size/weight were the most important to me. I tend to shoot at f8 or smaller aperture with this lens for landscape and rail photography so I don't need a wider or fixed aperture.
But the 70-200 f4 is in the LUMIX Pro range so optically it should be a better lens and that would pair well with the S1R.
Aside from being big and heavy, the Sigma lens will show some visible pulsing in the EVF and LCD when autofocus is set to AF-C on your S1R, just something to be aware of for sports/action. I saw this on my S5 with a Sigma prime lens, but it doesn't impact the actual photo.
Markuswelder
Well-Known Member
I also own the G9, PL 50-200 & 1.4x teleconverter. As you say, it's a fabulous setup. I really like mine. I've never tried the Sigma 100-400, but everything I've seen out of it looks pretty damn good. So, I'd personally be more than happy to sell the G9 setup, and tip the money into the 100-400. That's just me.
A 70-200 is a very different kettle of fish, quite a different focal range to 100-400, so I see two options here. Forget it, or, as you seem comfortable with teleconverters, buy a 70-200 of some flavor, throw in the TC of your choice and forget the 100-400. Otherwise, you may as well just continue to use the G9 and PL 50-200.
There's no perfect solution, there's always compromise involved, there's no perfect camera.
Personally, I'm not going to dive into bigger teles for my S5 setup at the moment, or foreseeable future, because if I'm going to shoot telephoto, it's a deliberate, conscious decision, like heading to the racetrack to shoot motorcycles/cars etc, not something I'm going to lug around, just in case. So it's no drama at all, just to grab my G9. I already own it, it does what I want, so feel no need for changing anything there
Your work is as wonderful as everI think I prefer this shot of Hampton St Lucy.
pdk42
Moderator
As you probably have gleaned from my previous posts, I've used all three of these lenses. My summary of them is this:
Panasonic 70-300 - very good optical performance. Great range. Good close focussing capabilities. My only problem was focus inconsistency, especially near infinity. For landscapes, that was a real problem for me. Of course it might have been my technique rather than problems with the lens. But I tried to be as scientific as possible with controlled testing. If you haven't already seen it, there is this post here => https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/going-crazy-with-my-70-300.406/#post-4311 that documents what I did. I think that test pretty conclusively shows that the lens has focus "wander" since I didn't move the camera or focus point so if there is variation it's only due to the focus re-acquisition process. But reviewing some real-world images I've taken with the lens, I do think that I might have dismissed it too quickly
. I could probably have worked around the focus issues by taking multiple shots or even by using the focus bracketing feature. In searching for some real images at 300mm, I found the image below - and it's very sharp.
Caught in the Sunlight by Paul Kaye, on Flickr
Panasonic 70-200 f4 - well, I'm now running this lens so obviously have some bias. I'm yet to get images that I'm unhappy with (so long as I did my bit), which I guess is the ultimate test. My focus wander tests against the trees opposite our house all came out consistently focused. Is the IQ any better than the 70-300? I think that's a hard one to call. I do like the micro-contrast from the 70-200/4 and images from it have a very refreshing clarity to them. But pixel peeking at 100% doesn't really show any real additional detail over the 70-300 (when it focused properly). Assuming you're happy with max 200mm, its only big downside compared to the 70-300 is its size. But it's not a huge lens by standards of 70-200 f2.8 lenses or really big tele zooms. Here's the size/weight comparison with the 70-300:
But for the extra weight, you get a non-extending design, metal barrel, a red "S" logo (!), MF clutch, "Certified by Leica" written on it, and a tripod foot (removable). It also has a very nice "premium" feel to it.
Sigma 100-400 - I was pleasantly surprised with the IQ from this lens. My simple tests photographing the (winter) trees on the opposite side of the field from our house (the same target I used on the 70-300 focus tests linked to above) revealed near 100% consistent hit rate. I didn't do a scientific test as with the 70-300, but I didn't see any problems, even at 400mm, so I didn't think it was necessary. But what I will say is that the contrast/micro-contrast from the lens is not quite as good as the 70-200. It can be compensated for with a bit of PP tweaking, so it's not a huge issue. However, I wasn't wild about the handling - it weighs well over a kilo, is bigger than the 70-200 even when zoomed back and it gets longer quickly as you zoom it, and TBH, it just didn't feel like a premium product. But if you want a longer L-mount tele, it's a good choice I think.
Hope that helps!!
Last edited: