Sigma 24-70 2.8 L mount or Leica SL 24-90 for SL

[TealWayFilms]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have both and use them on an SL. Optics are very good for the Sigma and I appreciate the difference in weight. The Sigma has a constant aperture which is helpful for video as I also own a Sigma fp. The auto focus seems similar to the Leica 24-90 but I only use back button focus and never tracking. Both have an 82mm front filter. 

On an SL the 24-90 has built in IS and reach to 90mm which are major advantages when I shoot stills. Although the Sigma is built well, the Leica is a tank and I know the weather sealing is fabulous as I have shot in horrible weather without problems. I think the Leica has excellent optics and have 20 x 30 inch photos on the wall shot handheld that have outstanding resolution.

I don't care about the maximum aperture on the 24-90 as I have 7 Leica or Voigtlander primes in M mount that are excellent for low light use.

[Tailwagger]

On 5/26/2020 at 4:36 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

There's a bunch of reasons to consider non Leica glass on an SL/SL2.

3. Weight. Only one L mount lens could be described as light (45mm 2.8) but I have a Panasonic 70-200 f4 I carry when I don't want to lug around the 90-280.

Gordon

Maybe I'm jaded a a result of lugging the 135mm ART around, but I'd class the Lumix 16-35 as light, given it weighs the same as some of the faster wide M glass. The new Lumix 20-60mm, perhaps of more interest to APS-C users, clocks in a 350g as well. But the 45mm, as you mention, is, at least in this context, a tiny jewel of lens, in a sea of brilliant, but rather more weighty and expensive primes. I'd love it regardless if for no other reason than it has an aperture ring. If that lens, with its rather gentler style of rendering is what we can expect from Sigma as they begin to turn their attention toward producing a line of Elmarits, if you will, I certainly will be buying more of them.

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[michali]

7 hours ago, Tailwagger said:

Maybe I'm jaded a a result of lugging the 135mm ART around, but I'd class the Lumix 16-35 as light, given it weighs the same as some of the faster wide M glass. The new Lumix 20-60mm, perhaps of more interest to APS-C users, clocks in a 350g as well. But the 45mm, as you mention, is, at least in this context, a tiny jewel of lens, in a sea of brilliant, but rather more weighty and expensive primes. I'd love it regardless if for no other reason than it has an aperture ring. If that lens, with its rather gentler style of rendering is what we can expect from Sigma as they begin to turn their attention toward producing a line of Elmarits, if you will, I certainly will be buying more of them.

+1 for the Sigma 45mm. I also love it for its rendering, weight & of course the aperture ring - it's something I miss on many L lenses.

[Njom]

On 5/24/2020 at 7:01 PM, XRayGuy said:

Hi there,

I auditioned this lens for for my A7rIV on FE mount thinking that it might save a little weight relative to the Sony GM 24–70mm 2.8.  It was acceptably sharp and autofocus was certainly reasonable but I did not like the colour.  I have a hard time describing colour but I would say that Leica lenses are generally natural but beautifully rich, Sony is vibrant (perhaps unnaturally so), and what I was getting from this Sigma was just quite flat - similar to what I would get from an older point-and-shoot. I am not saying the total image quality was like a point-and-shoot, but just that the colours seemed to lack depth.  The contrast was not the same either.  I am kind of surprised that I did not encounter this criticism in reviews I had read, and perhaps I had a bad lens, but for me it was a noticeable step down from the GM and not worth the move.

I think the Leica is a far better lens than the Sony GM, despite its weight (recognizing that there are also other variables to consider like the camera body), so for me there is no way I would go for the Sigma in L mount after that experience.  That said, it sounds like you already have some M glass so if this is more of a less-critical lens for you to provide zoom and autofocus, I think it would be a fair option but see if you can audition it first.  Certainly you enter a realm of diminishing returns with these lenses and whether or not the extra thousands of dollars is worth it is a personal choice.

+1 l returned mine version L 2 days after, yes photo is flat with this lens without any character and  I am planing to buy Panasonic s pro 

[NicholasT]

On 5/30/2020 at 7:50 AM, michali said:

+1 for the Sigma 45mm. I also love it for its rendering, weight & of course the aperture ring - it's something I miss on many L lenses.

+1 Couldn’t agree more. Sigma 45 2.8 is pretty close to a “must have” lens for SL or SL2.

Hope Sigma follows it up with additional primes that hit this sweet spot: relatively fast lens, good IQ, very portable lens, pleasing bokeh in a very solidly built lens that is very satisfying to use  ( a definite thumbs up for aperture ring).

Slightly softer rendering at 2.8 with tack sharp performance even modestly stopped down is a perfectly logical design decision by Sigma, one that can be actually be perceived as a hidden “benefit” by many photographers.

[chris_tribble]

On 5/24/2020 at 7:05 PM, Photoworks said:

I don't recommend it since the focus is very slow, but the Canon 24-70 2.8 II lens with MC-21 outperforms the 24-90  in details and sharpens on SL2

Hi,

I’d  be grateful if you could post an example. One of my biggest frustrations at present is that my L series mk2 Canon 24-70 f2.8 and 70-200 are in London while I’m up in Kendal. I know that they will work well with the SL2 (the L 70-300 was great - but not a lens I use regularly so it’s gone to Ffordes). I really want to try them out!

Thanks.