# Leica SL 90-280mm - Whats wrong with this picture ?



## Solarflare

Leica APO Vario Elmarit SL 90-280mm F/2.8-4 Lens Officially Announced | Leica Rumors

Now thats a truely impressive lens if I ever saw one. I kind of doubt it can be used handheld.


----------



## Overread

Sigma 120-300mm f2.8 weight 3390g
Canon 70-200mm f2.8 weight 1470g

90-280mm weight 1950g

I'd say its handholdable with practice; although might prove to be heavy enough that a monopod wouldn't go amiss.


----------



## runnah




----------



## tirediron

And at only $6,300 USD, a bargain, by Leica standards!


----------



## Gary A.

Around four pounds ... shouldn't be a problem, besides it has stabilization.


----------



## tirediron

Gary A. said:


> Around four pounds ... shouldn't be a problem, besides it has stabilization.


Definitely; it's a good pound-and-a-half less than my 300 2.8 and I shoot that hand-held (and no IS/VR either!).


----------



## gsgary

I'll tell you on Tuesday if Leica have it at the Photography Show 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## astroNikon

Nice and compact too for those smaller mirrorless bodiees.


----------



## Derrel

astroNikon said:
			
		

> Nice and compact too for those smaller mirrorless bodiees.



On larger lenses, or longer lenses, and heavier lenses, it is not so much the weight that makes hand-holding difficult, but rather *the balance point of the lens/camera combo*, and how that *balance point relates to the hand-holding grip* used with the lens. SOME heavier lenses are very difficult to shoot hand-held because they have crappy balance. A good example is the Nikon 200mm f/2 VR-G....it is very short in overall length, fat-barreled and hard to hold, and extremely front-heavy. With a big, heavy camera like a D2x or D3x, the 200 VR is a royal PITA to shoot hand-held--it almost totally demands a monopod. The Nikkor 400mm f/3.5 ED~IF has a very skinny barrel, with a larger 122mm front filter thread, and it balances very well with the weight of the camera acting as counter-weight to the large front element group. The Nikon 300/2.8 is much,much easier to shoot than the 200/2, which has wayyyy too short of a barrel.

This lens is long enough that I think the camera's weight will counteract the front barrel weight very nicely at the natural hand-holding point underneath the barrel. And if it's NOT right, a Leica user will likely be able to buy an adjustable palm grip, like the ones Tamron used to sell for its 300/2.8 and 400/4 manual focus lenses.

The Leica SL is a LARGE-bodied camera...very,very big in the body, and I assume has fairly high weight. it's again, not the weight, per se, but the weight as it relates to the camera! For example, something that has HUGE front-weight, like the 200 f/2 VR is very awkward on say, a Nikon D5300, but even a moderately heavy lens like the Canon 85mm f/1.2-L is extremely weight-forward on a 40D and very *nose-dive inducing*; on a small-grip, light weight, compact camera, a very weight-forward lens like the 85/1.2-L feels very heavy, and is actually fatiguing to the hand and forearm due to constant torque in the hand, and a 3-hour shoot with a nose-diver (think Nikon 24-70 AF-S or even worse, the old 28-70/2.8 AF-S, AKA *the Coffee Can*", a lens in the 44 to 48 ounce range can feel like an anvil, where something that is longer but which counter-balances better, actually FEELS LIGHTER in the hands. OTOH, the same lens with the weight of a heavy pro camera and a big, tall grip can make the same lens feel "light" in the hands, even with higher weight, simply due to the balance of the camera/lens combo.

This is a Leica lens. My guess? This thing feels almost as light in the hands as a 300/4 or a 100-300 f/4 constant when used on a pro Nikon or Canon. Leica will not build ergonomically crappy gear at this level. Leica will have tested this thing for ergonomics/haptics/balance and performance on the SL, extensively. And agreed--for $6.3K this is a lot of Leica lens for the money.


----------



## runnah

Derrel said:


> it is very short in overall length, fat-barreled and hard to hold, and extremely front-heavy. .



Story of my life...


----------



## sashbar

runnah said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> 
> it is very short in overall length, fat-barreled and hard to hold, and extremely front-heavy. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Story of my life...
Click to expand...


Be thankful your life is not a prime


----------



## Solarflare

Hands On Preview: Leica APO Vario Elmarit SL 90-280mm F/2.8-4 Lens | Leica Rumors

Compared to the already huge 24-90mm f2.8-4.0.


----------



## gsgary

Tried it today easily hand holdable  all day 

Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Derrel

I noticed from the overlayed EXIF data on the camera show sample photos on the video linked to that the lens was at least f/3.5 at 190mm, and f/3.8 at 250mm--I am assuming she shot with the lens wide-open and then did zooms, to sort of allow us to track the aperture loss. My impression was that the smoothness of the background blurring was very, very pleasing. A good example would be the way the OOF British telephone booth's red-painted structure looks calm and peaceful, down at the 90mm end of the range, and on the longer tele lengths, the background blurring looked very nice.

Is the 90-200mm f/2.8~4 a large lens? Yes, fairly but it weighs only about 10 ounces more than the Nikon 70-200/2.8 II.


----------

