Hello All,

I have started looking for some long glass to replace the 1st version 250mm I have. We are talking some really serious investment here, cubic dollars so to speak.

I would use the lens as for landscapes and some wildlife. Also, I would use it with a 2x extender from time to time.

Any folks out there with some experience with Leica long lenses such as the 105-280 or the 280 focal lengths please share your thoughts.

Also, I have seen listing for a leica 280/2.8 APO but cannot find any information about this lens from the Leica site.

Thanks!

-- Scott G (PFD261@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002

Answers

Scott, I find the 280mm focal length about the short end of useful for wildlife photos. I'm using both the old 280mm f/4.8 on a Televit rapid-focus device and the late-model 250 but if cubic dollars wre available I'd give the (now discontined) 280 f/2.8 APO serious consideration, particularly if I can modify the 1.4x and 2x APO converters to work with my Leicaflex SL.

The 280 f/2.8 APO was discontinued in favor of the modular APO-Telyt system which is also expensive, and bulkier than the older lens, but probably gives better results especially when using the 1.4x or 2x focus module vs. the APO converters on the older lens.

-- Douglas Herr (telyt@earthlink.net), May 15, 2002.

I have not had any personal contact with this lens. The longest R lens I use is 180. Brian Bower in his Leica Lens Book speaks very highly of both the 2.8 and the 4.0 versions of this lens along with using the 2.8 with extenders. If it was me I couldn't help being tempted by the EOS 300 IS lens for a little over $1000. Sharp, image stabilized and a fraction of the price of the Leica glass. But if you can afford it and you want the very best you only live once. Cheers.

-- Don (wgpinc@yahoo.com), May 15, 2002.

The current modular Leica 280 f2.8 and the old discontinued non-modular version are extremely good and well-regarded. Both APO lenses. The older version is cheaper and more compact. The current 280/4 APO is also very good. I have no feedback on the zoom. I suspect it is probably a good zoom, but is not up to the fixed focal length equivalents.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 15, 2002.

Scott,

I have both the Leica 180/f2.8 APO and the 280/f4 APO. Both are great lenses altho the 280 is rather heavy. I use the 180 for landscapes and wildlife. It works great with the 2X APO extender, yielding 360/f5.6, and is light enough to be easily portable. The 280 is better for wildlife and can be used with either the 1.4X APO or the 2X APO for 400/f5.6 or 560/f8 respectively. I sold a Nikon 400 f/3.5 ED lens and downsized to the Leica 280 with extenders for more convenience. I think the results are equal or better than with the Nikon 400 + 1.4X.

Both the 180 and 280 are fantastic lenses. You will want a monopod or tripod for best sharpness with the 280. Also with the 180 when using extender. Unless you need serious long glass (500-800 mm), I think you would be happy with either of these Leica lenses. LB

-- (lberrytx@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

I owned the non-modular 280/2.8APO and the 280/4APO. The 280/2.8APO is an ergonomic disaster for wildlife photography. Only the very late models have a rear filter drawer, and the size (series 5.5) is so obscure that it is virtually useless. I am unaware of any polarizer made to fit. The rotating tripod collar locks only at preset intervals, making it horribly difficult to follow a moving bird with a 2-axis tripod head. Finally, the meter camming makes it do funky things with an R8's finder display. This lens seems to be well suited for sports photography handheld or on a monopod, but wildlife photography is difficult. The 280/4APO is an ergonomic joy to use by comparison. The stupid series 5.5 rear filter holder is still there but the lens also takes standard 77mm front filters. There is a locking knob (albeit ridiculously small and impossible to use wearing gloves)for the tripod collar. The biggest disadvantage of this lens is its speed. For landscapes it is fine; for wildlife with teleconverters it's too slow. After selling both these lenses I purchased a Canon 300/2.8 Image Stabilizer, which is optically better than the 280/2.8 and on a par with the 280/4, plus the IS is such a great advantage in wildlife photography I can't begin to describe it. Suffice it to say that on a tripod I have gotten tack-sharp images with that lens with *two* 2x extenders *and* a 1.4x stacked together...something impossible without IS.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 15, 2002.

Scott: This is slightly off subject but germane however to this thread. The future of long range telephotography will hinge not only on the quality of the underlying glass (where Leica excells) but with the presence or absence of IS (or a clone) technology. I hope that the wizards at Solms realize this and will try to license the prevailing technology. If not, eventually all photographers will opt for those lenses combining both high quality glass and and image stabilization.

-- Albert Knapp MD (albertknappmd@mac.com), May 15, 2002.

Following on Albert's post. Can anyone refer me anywhere that gives a real account of IS capabilities? Many people swear by it, but I have yet to see anything that tells me that IS is better (sharper down to the limits of the film's resolution) than an APO lens on a firm tripod. Not that I do this kind of photography... It is one thing to get a useable shot, but another to get a top quality shot. I would like to see some tests. Anyone help?

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 16, 2002.

Robin, making exhaustive lens tests seems to be heavily concentrated among Leica users...whenever I speak to other brand users about that kind of thing they look at me like I've grown a third eye in the middle of my forehead. I can tell you from personal experience that with very high magnification like a 300mm up close or anything 400mm and longer at any distance, even on the sturdiest tripod and head (I have a Pro Studex Gitzo with a 4 lb. Arca B2 head) if you look through the finder you will see some jumpiness. As soon as you touch the shutter button and the IS kicks in, it's as if you and the camera setup just turned to marble. Now remember that in wildlife photography (unlike landscape photography)you don't normally have the tripod head locked down (so you can follow a moving subject)and the IS has an even greater effect, again clearly visible in the finder. Whether small vibrations affect the image is of course dependent upon the shutter speed. But when using teleconverters (or multiple converters) you end up with speeds well below the reciprocal of the focal length. The early IS lenses were required to be shut off when tripod mounted, but the new ones have a separate setting just for tripod use. Most of the top wildlife shooters have nothing but praise for IS, and anyone who has used an IS lens in the field comes away impressed.

-- Jay (infinitydt@aol.com), May 16, 2002.

Jay

Good answer -- I still would be intrigued to see such a test though - wouldn't you? I never test any of my lenses either, but after a year of use I can tell whether I am happy with it or not, so this is purely of academic interest to me.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), May 16, 2002.