The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
280/2.8 APO Telyt Question
- Thread starter robmac
- Start date
glenerrolrd
Workshop Member
Thought this might be useful. Kurland Photo has 3 different 105-280/4.2 R lenses for sale on eBay. I have had good luck with new/demo products from them as the owner seems willing to commit to buying large quantities if needed to get a price break. I don t know about their fairness in grading used products. But he has 3 different lenses from 8+ to 9+ ..the cheapest below $2000. All ROM. The owners name is Eli and I would only deal with him on anything used.
jaapv
Subscriber Member
Hah! Here it is! SH-Photo were brilliant:angel:, the German mail less so:angry:.
Anyway, demo as new in box, ROM too, as-new 1.4x extender, not ROM, both sitting right beside me. I will test the optics this weekend.
First impressions:
Zoom ring: firm and positive, not extremely smooth.
Focus: Very good and smooth, very long throw, but not the silky focussing of the 280/4.0 (but then, what is?) Focussing ring a bit narrow.
Focusses down to about 1.5 meters, making it nearly macro on the extender.
Well balanced on the DMR/R9. nice handrest, general impression:beautifully made.
From the ergonomic point of view a good choice for my use i.e. hard work in African wild-parks. It will probably stay welded on the camera with the converter, whilst the M8 will take care of shorter lengths up to 135. It is not a light combo, but well, I'm a big bloke
. Definitely Upstrap territory.
I notice I will need a full matte screen.
Does anybody know if the lack of a ROM on the converter makes any difference in practice?
Anyway, demo as new in box, ROM too, as-new 1.4x extender, not ROM, both sitting right beside me. I will test the optics this weekend.
First impressions:
Zoom ring: firm and positive, not extremely smooth.
Focus: Very good and smooth, very long throw, but not the silky focussing of the 280/4.0 (but then, what is?) Focussing ring a bit narrow.
Focusses down to about 1.5 meters, making it nearly macro on the extender.
Well balanced on the DMR/R9. nice handrest, general impression:beautifully made.
From the ergonomic point of view a good choice for my use i.e. hard work in African wild-parks. It will probably stay welded on the camera with the converter, whilst the M8 will take care of shorter lengths up to 135. It is not a light combo, but well, I'm a big bloke
. Definitely Upstrap territory.I notice I will need a full matte screen.
Does anybody know if the lack of a ROM on the converter makes any difference in practice?
Last edited:
robsteve
Subscriber
Leica has never made a 1.4x with rom. It probably doesn't make a difference with the exception of the exif. The DMR will doe vignette correction and other magic with ROM lenses, but the 105-280mm is pretty well behaved and probably doesn't need this correction.
Robert
dhsimmonds
New member
As a matter of interest does the 280/2.8 also need a matte screen to focus? Or is it just when using a converter with either the 280/2.8 or 105-280.4.2?
jaapv
Subscriber Member
In general, Dave I prefer a matte screen for all lenses over 200 mm, although up to f 4.0 or so, the microprism screen is very good to use too. But at 5.6 the microprisms clog up and a matte screen is the only option.
woodyspedden
New member
SH Photo is a very reliable, but expensive source for Leica products. There is rarely, if ever, a bargain. But if it is something you really want you can depend on the grading. This is my experience and I have bought 3 lenses from them over the past few years.Hah! Here it is! SH-Photo were brilliant:angel:, the German mail less so:angry:.
Anyway, demo as new in box, ROM too, as-new 1.4x extender, not ROM, both sitting right beside me. I will test the optics this weekend.
First impressions:
Zoom ring: firm and positive, not extremely smooth.
Focus: Very good and smooth, very long throw, but not the silky focussing of the 280/4.0 (but then, what is?) Focussing ring a bit narrow.
Focusses down to about 1.5 meters, making it nearly macro on the extender.
Well balanced on the DMR/R9. nice handrest, general impression:beautifully made.
From the ergonomic point of view a good choice for my use i.e. hard work in African wild-parks. It will probably stay welded on the camera with the converter, whilst the M8 will take care of shorter lengths up to 135. It is not a light combo, but well, I'm a big bloke
I notice I will need a full matte screen.
Does anybody know if the lack of a ROM on the converter makes any difference in practice?
Woody
I have a 400D, had a 200 1.8, and have a 105-280. The 400D, my AF is quite dodgy with 200 1.8.... Had a lot of luck focusing with normal focus screen and 105-280, this is probably under exposed a bit...
dhsimmonds
New member
Thanks Wayne, a very convincing image with such low light!
Also thanks to JAAP fot another couple of convincing images. Are these also focused with the standard screen?
BTW my 105-280 is on route to me as I write!
Also thanks to JAAP fot another couple of convincing images. Are these also focused with the standard screen?
BTW my 105-280 is on route to me as I write!
jaapv
Subscriber Member
I'm still waitng for the full matte, Dave, long wait.. A few test shots here.
I'm VERY pleased with this lens.:thumbup::thumbs:
It has all the sharpness, bokeh, detail rendering and plasticity (read microcontrast) one could wish for. The only thing I miss from the 4.0/280 apo is that internal focussing! I think I missed focus slightly on the swan.
All three are with the 1.4x converter.
I'm VERY pleased with this lens.:thumbup::thumbs:
It has all the sharpness, bokeh, detail rendering and plasticity (read microcontrast) one could wish for. The only thing I miss from the 4.0/280 apo is that internal focussing! I think I missed focus slightly on the swan.
All three are with the 1.4x converter.
gogopix
Subscriber
euros, yes?
anyway, I am looking for a 1.4x and I asxszume it works on the 105-280 without interference. Some lenses (180 2.8? do not, something about rear lens too deep.
Images look great with 105-280 I assume yes? at what end (also with 1.4x?
victor
The front element on the 1.4 extends very (some would say unnaturally...) deeply into the receiving lens. If the rear element of the lens doesn't have something like 1" or so of minimum clearance between the glass and the mount, she no work.
One of the biggest PITA with R lenses is the slim number of lenses that will take the 1.4x. The thing just screams for a redesign. On my 180/2 the 1.4 made no notable difference in IQ, but interestingly enough, did come up as F3.2 vs the expected F2.8. That front element of the 1.4x is a VERY skinny light pipe vs the rear element of some of the lenses it bolts to.
The 2x on my 180/2.8 APO and on a test RobSteve did for me using his (now gone) 90 AA, it knocked the snot out of the resolution of both lenses. It got better if you went a further 2 or so stops down, but...
On the 105-280, RobS and I did a side-by-side test of it against my 180/2.8 APO and his 180/3.4 APO but we I don't think we tested any with converters.
One of the biggest PITA with R lenses is the slim number of lenses that will take the 1.4x. The thing just screams for a redesign. On my 180/2 the 1.4 made no notable difference in IQ, but interestingly enough, did come up as F3.2 vs the expected F2.8. That front element of the 1.4x is a VERY skinny light pipe vs the rear element of some of the lenses it bolts to.
The 2x on my 180/2.8 APO and on a test RobSteve did for me using his (now gone) 90 AA, it knocked the snot out of the resolution of both lenses. It got better if you went a further 2 or so stops down, but...
On the 105-280, RobS and I did a side-by-side test of it against my 180/2.8 APO and his 180/3.4 APO but we I don't think we tested any with converters.
jaapv
Subscriber Member
1.4x mounted and lens at 280, makes 400 @ just over 5.6, effective 520. Not bad for length and speed,and the full res images are great. The sheep, which I took in the distance I take most of my wildlife shots, was very convincing. I am itching to replace it with a leopard :ROTFL:
The bird shots I should be able to better; I am still in the learning curve for the handling, I miss the grip to the focus ring from time to time, used as I am to the wide ring on the 280/4.0apo.
Last edited:
jaapv
Subscriber Member
Did you use the 2x apo for that? there is a huge difference between the non- apo and apo. I used the 2xapo often in my film days and it was excellent on the 2804.0apo, no need to stop down. Even stacking the two on the 280 yielded good results wide open (except in the far corners). The resulting 800/11 was a beast to handle, but it was doable with a beanbag. I see I need to pick up a 2x apo converter, reading my own post.I have not shot them side by side yet, but I feel the 105-280 @ 180 does outperform the venerable 3.4/180apo. What are your findings?
Last edited:
dhsimmonds
New member
Cracking shots, did you use a tripod or shoulder harness as they are very sharp for handholding such a heavy lens?
Mine has arrived done a few handheld shots only so far,
Mine has arrived done a few handheld shots only so far,
jaapv
Subscriber Member
No, just handheld, Dave, thanks. I've been using this kind of rig for many years, I guess I have developed "Tele-muscles" by now. I am thinking of adding a pistol grip or light shoulder pod for convenience though. Unfortunately Don Goldberg cannot find the Leica pistol grip he was selling.
Judging by your avatar you must know about the use of long lenses in the bush. A bean bag at best and forget about a heavy tripod....
Judging by your avatar you must know about the use of long lenses in the bush. A bean bag at best and forget about a heavy tripod....
D
diglloyd
Guest
I'd like to find a mint or near-mint 280/4 APO if anyone wants to part with theirs. While I do have the Canon 300/2.8L, it "fills up the backpack" so to speak, making it useless for shooting on the go.