telyt wrote:
...OTOH one benefit of the FD 300 L is reduced color moire. It's well matched to the a7II's resolution after correcting for lateral chromatic aberration. The 280 APO cuts right through the Sony's AA filter. I still have the DMR but it's going to be sacrificed to help fund an SL purchase.
If my Africa trip materializes I'll have to decide whether it's worthwhile to get the SL (and the 90-280 lens) just for that trip, to use together with the Telyt 400/6.8 that I have. That's a lot of money for a limited use, unless I knew that I could resell the SL and the 90-280 without much hassle. Of course, starting with the Telyt 400/6.8 that I have, there must be a lot of much cheaper solutions but I've only started thinking about this today. Any thoughts, anyone? Should I drop the idea of the SL altogether?
naturephoto1 wrote:
Like you I have wrist issues since 1993 when I broke both while I was hit by a car while riding my bicycle. So now I do not hand hold nearly as much as I might and I shoot mainly when my camera and lenses are tripod mounted (though that was frequently my method of working prior to that). Add to that I had Quadruple Bypass Heart Surgery 2 years and 5 months ago.
So what you're saying is you don't need your 280/4 anymore and you're going to give it to me?
Lee Saxon wrote:
So what you're saying is you don't need your 280/4 anymore and you're going to give it to me?
Lee,
Not a chance. When I don't want to carry it into the field in a separate case, I just brought this home from PhotoPlus when I want to carry it and much of my kit into the field:
Mitch Alland wrote:
If my Africa trip materializes I'll have to decide whether it's worthwhile to get the SL (and the 90-280 lens) just for that trip, to use together with the Telyt 400/6.8 that I have. That's a lot of money for a limited use, unless I knew that I could resell the SL and the 90-280 without much hassle. Of course, starting with the Telyt 400/6.8 that I have, there must be a lot of much cheaper solutions but I've only started thinking about this today. Any thoughts, anyone? Should I drop the idea of the SL altogether?
adamdewilde wrote:
You're going to want to compare new to new. Go look at the stats of the Nikon 24-70E.
You are right. My apologies, I was not aware of Nikon updating it's standard zoom with VR. Here:
Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR:
88 x 154.5 mm, 1070 g, 82 mm filter thread
20 Elements in 16 groups. What a beast
Leica 24-90:
88 x 138 mm, 1140 g, 82 mm filter thread.
So the Nikon is indeed bit bigger. But harder to compare as one is a constant f/2.8 and one is not. Anyway, I think it's fair to say how much having an image stabilization in lens adds to the size. I still think having IBIS built in the body would be the better way for SL. At least then the lenses could be bit smaller. Having IS in lens may be bit more effective, stabilization wise, but I guess I simply dislike the size penalty.
In one of the SL threads I read that the rental shops were not likely to have the SL and the long zoom lens because demand was likely to be low don't know whether that's true. The other problem is that I would need to rent in the States, but then go from Africa to Asia for some 6 months.
Tmuussoni wrote:
Anyway, I think it's fair to say how much having an image stabilization in lens adds to the size.
Even more than that, it's hard enough to keep optical elements well aligned and centered when they stay where you damn put them, especially as we get to these ultra high 50 megapixel sensor resolutions, it's hard to believe anyone was dumb enough to think designing elements which intentionally don't stay where you put them was in any way a good idea.
Mitch Alland wrote:
If my Africa trip materializes I'll have to decide whether it's worthwhile to get the SL (and the 90-280 lens) just for that trip, to use together with the Telyt 400/6.8 that I have. That's a lot of money for a limited use, unless I knew that I could resell the SL and the 90-280 without much hassle. Of course, starting with the Telyt 400/6.8 that I have, there must be a lot of much cheaper solutions but I've only started thinking about this today. Any thoughts, anyone? Should I drop the idea of the SL altogether?
I'll buy it from you.. Gonna need a second SL and will probably be curious about the zoom anyway.
Just give me a good price
Lee Saxon wrote:
Even more than that, it's hard enough to keep optical elements well aligned and centered when they stay where you damn put them, especially as we get to these ultra high 50 megapixel sensor resolutions, it's hard to believe anyone was dumb enough to think designing elements which intentionally don't stay where you put them was in any way a good idea.
Canon does it well. But I'm not happy about how it's done on the Leica Q. For an adaptable camera. The SL should have had IBIS for sure. But it doesn't. So I'm just gonna have to live without it. My Nikons also don't have it. Nor my M-Ps.
Lee Saxon wrote:
Even more than that, it's hard enough to keep optical elements well aligned and centered when they stay where you damn put them, especially as we get to these ultra high 50 megapixel sensor resolutions, it's hard to believe anyone was dumb enough to think designing elements which intentionally don't stay where you put them was in any way a good idea.
The problem with ibis is that not only one element is moving, the whole sensor is
I'm not saying it's useless. There are situations when 1/15 shutter speed is much better with ibis than without, even though with ISO 500,000 I'm not sure how often would one encounter such situations.
adamdewilde wrote:
I'll buy it from you.. Gonna need a second SL and will probably be curious about the zoom anyway.
Just give me a good price
That should be easy, between Bangkok and Singapore...now I have to see whether me Africa trip materializes, and when. My wife is very eager to go to Africa again.
edwardkaraa wrote:
The problem with ibis is that not only one element is moving, the whole sensor is
I'm not saying it's useless. There are situations when 1/15 shutter speed is much better with ibis than without, even though with ISO 500,000 I'm not sure how often would one encounter such situations.
I'd have preferred IBIS partly because it keeps the optical path cleaner (fewer air/glass surfaces, fewer potential centering issues) and partly because optical stabilization doesn't work with adapted lenses.
telyt wrote:
I'd have preferred IBIS partly because it keeps the optical path cleaner (fewer air/glass surfaces, fewer potential centering issues) and partly because optical stabilization doesn't work with adapted lenses.
I would definitely prefer ibis to in lens stabilization. However I used to keep ibis off all the time when my cameras had it. Luckily my M doesn't have it and I certainly hope it stays that way in future models.
Oct 25, 2015 at 07:58 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
edwardkaraa wrote:
The problem with ibis is that not only one element is moving, the whole sensor is
I'm not saying it's useless. There are situations when 1/15 shutter speed is much better with ibis than without, even though with ISO 500,000 I'm not sure how often would one encounter such situations.
I always try to keep my shutter at 125 or above. Simply because of moving subjects. IBIS is pointless for me when my subjects are moving.
Maybe if they had subject tracking IBIS. Then that would work
BUT to be fair, it is good to have with longer lenses.. Though the 90-280 has OIS. So whatever
Mitch Alland wrote:
That should be easy, between Bangkok and Singapore...now I have to see whether me Africa trip materializes, and when. My wife is very eager to go to Africa again.
There is "subject tracking IBIS" in astrophotography. And in the demo of the Canon 250MP sensor, they show software to remove heat rippling from long telephoto shots (which is what you get when you take a small crop of a 250MP image). So it's coming...
When I don't want to carry it into the field in a separate case, I just brought this home from PhotoPlus when I want to carry it and much of my kit into the field: