Leica Tl 18-56 Versus Sigma 24-70 versus Panasn

[Jk1002]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So I recently bought preowned SL with the thought in mind that I want to built up lenses first over the next few years and then hop over to a current SL model probably SL3.

I got plenty of M glas and will buy the Leica 24-90 sometime next year when I am back home in Germany. 
 

In the meantime, I am able to get the TL 18-56 at around 1100$ preowned  alternatively Sigma 24-70 is in same range.

I know with the crop in pixels the TL lens on the SL is a bit of a waste but am sensing that the TL lenses on Sl2 kinda megapixels are an epic low weight option.

What to do? I know there are few threads on Sl18-56 but it doesnt seem that it ever really caught much interest.

Sigma users seem happy but if I get a 24–90 anyhow does this make sense?

Since the wide angles are on the map to appear do we think Leica would do a lower weight 24-70 themselves? Or is this to close to the 24-90?

Cheers

JK

[Alistairm]

The SL zooms are so good I cannot see Leica reinventing them. The 18-56 is terrific... but if you want to run that small with a Zoom you’re almost better off getting a CL to go with it. Or just using your M lenses and cropping if required. 

I own (way) too many lenses and, having been experimenting widely recently, put the trusty 24-90 on for a birthday party yesterday. And, as always, I am blown away by how good it is. It is such a brilliant match for the SL or SL2 that I think anyone who owns the platform and has a use case for a Zoom owes it to themselves to at least try it. If it’s on your radar anyway I would hold off for the 24-90 and enjoy your M glass on the camera for now. Also, as wonderful as the SL is, don’t rule out an SL2 instead of buying more glass. It is a very worthy upgrade... IBIS is one of the best upgrades for my M glass that I’ve experienced to date. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Jk1002]

Hi,

it is not just the zoom I am after but also Autofocus.

For size, I put a grip on the SL because I can use a wrist strap like you get for the S. 
For walking and taking pictures having a proper grip and the safety of a strap works out so much better for me then carrying it over the shoulder even with heavier lenses. 
 

My gut feeling is I will regret the Sigma even though it is a bit lighter than the Leica 24-90. My gut feeling is also should Leica decide to to a 24-70 2.8 I will regret the 24-90.

Cheers

JK

[TealWayFilms]

I have all these lenses for my SL.

The 18-56 was purchased for 4K video and works wonderfully on the SL. I never use it for stills as the images are too small..

The Leica 24-90 is like having six primes the image quality is so good. When I am on vacation, where I know I may find images I want to print large, that lens and a couple of fast M lenses are all I take for still photography.

The Sigma 24-70 was similarly purchased for video for my Sigma fp, but makes its way on to the SL sometimes. I wanted constant aperture for video and autofocus when using the fp on a tripod. The lens is surprisingly good for the price, but I do see a visible difference in image quality compared to the Leica 24-90. Remember you are also getting image stabilization and weather sealing with the Leica zoom. Because of those differences, the slightly heavier 24-90 goes out with me much more frequently for still photography using the SL.

I don't plan on buying an SL2 partly because I would have to also spend money to upgrade my legacy M lenses to the latest versions. I bet the differences in image quality between the 24-90 and 24-70 would be even more evident with the sensor of the SL2. I will probably buy a second SL this year.

[MediaFotografie]

just look at the new Panasonic S 20-60mm - FF, light, small, not expansive and far better than 18-56

 

some examples:

https://adobe.ly/327f1YA

[jaapv]

Nice, but in what way "better"? Based on your link I think that the 18-56 has more of that intangible "Leica Look". Probably the quality of the bokeh and OOF falloff.

It must be a good lens for the price, especially for Video, but one reviewer's conclusion is:

Quote

Overall, the 20-60mm lens is not critically sharp like lenses triple the price, but it impresses and lens distortions are controlled well, too. 

 

[MediaFotografie]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 2 Stunden schrieb jaapv:

Nice, but in what way "better"? Based on your link I think that the 18-56 has more of that intangible "Leica Look". Probably the quality of the bokeh and OOF falloff.

here's a comparison in higher resolution:

http://www.vesta.uni-tuebingen.de/l_forum/temp/DS-1001.jpg

on the left the Pana S 20-60, right side Leica's T 18-56; for me the Pana is the clear winner especially in sharpness

[geoffreyg]

Somethings off with this comparison - my 18-56 is quite sharp. May be not quite M lens sharp, but very close. 

Edited August 6, 2020 by geoffreyg

[jaapv]

There certainly is - it has obvious motion blur. It would end up in the bin, had I taken it. An 18-56 image should look something like this: Just look at the colour transitions and differentiation, the detail in the trees upper left, subtle contrast rendering. I see nothing close to that in the Panasonic images, good as they are. The focus was on the street light at the right.  Taken on the CL. 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Boojay]

As a CL and SL2 user, having the 18-56, Pan 24-105, and Sigma 24-70 2.8 Art, as good as I find the 18-56 images (on the CL) I think the FF options are the better choice for the SL, and with no ibis on the SL I would take a look at the stabilised Lumix lens.  I have no doubt the Leica 24-90 is probably top of the pile if you can swallow the weight and the cost and have enough need of the best zoom in that range, but the 24-105 is not bad at all.

 

 

[caissa]

On 8/2/2020 at 6:02 AM, Jk1002 said:

So I recently bought preowned SL with the thought in mind that I want to built up lenses first over the next few years and then hop over to a current SL model probably SL3.

I got plenty of M glas and will buy the Leica 24-90 sometime next year when I am back home in Germany. 
 

In the meantime, I am able to get the TL 18-56 at around 1100$ preowned  alternatively Sigma 24-70 is in same range.

I know with the crop in pixels the TL lens on the SL is a bit of a waste but am sensing that the TL lenses on Sl2 kinda megapixels are an epic low weight option.

What to do? I know there are few threads on Sl18-56 but it doesnt seem that it ever really caught much interest.

Sigma users seem happy but if I get a 24–90 anyhow does this make sense?

Since the wide angles are on the map to appear do we think Leica would do a lower weight 24-70 themselves? Or is this to close to the 24-90?

Cheers

JK

I think the new Lumix 20-60 is more useful than the TL lens. Quite small and light and with a very useful focal range. But still FF. And a lot cheaper.  Optically not perfect but good enough for walking around at the weekend or on holidays.

In the current difficult situation I think Leica will not make plans to replace the current zooms. So the Lumix 20-60 is really a small present in this bad Corona situation. If Panasonic had been clever, then they had brought it already at the beginning with the S1. But better now than never ...

I never liked the SL 24-90 (such a weight and so long at 90mm and such an ugly shade that completely destroys the design), the 24-105 is at least a bit lighter. The lumix 24-70 is far more expensive than the Sigma 24-70 which is optically more or less equal. But the 20-60 is really refreshingly new, and not such a long trombone....  🥳

Edited August 11, 2020 by caissa