Battle of the Bulges: Sigma 24-70 versus Vario Elmarit 24-90

[SiggiGun]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 3 Stunden schrieb LD_50:

I don’t think Leica will provide an answer for a low cost plastic zoom. 

I agree, it will be NOT plastic

[Advertisement]

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

[beewee]

Personally, I’m not opposed to the use of advanced composites for lens barrels. If it can make the package lighter and is just as stable, durable (if not more so) than a traditional metal lens barrel, and does not compromise the optical performance, etc. then I’ll be happy to take that over a metal lens barrel design.

Most people think of cheap thermal plastics when they hear/see the word ‘plastic’ but it’s completely the opposite of this for many advanced composites which may include such materials such as microscopic glass beads for abrasion resistance and rigidity, and other components to make the material more stable when exposed to harsh environments. The difference between cheap thermal plastic and advanced composite materials can be like comparing an unreinforced concrete block that will crumble easily when loaded and a rebar reinforced concrete structure that can support a sky scraper.

Edited February 26, 2021 by beewee

[LD_50]

26 minutes ago, beewee said:

Personally, I’m not opposed to the use of advanced composites for lens barrels. If it can make the package lighter and is just as stable, durable (if not more so) than a traditional metal lens barrel, and does not compromise the optical performance, etc. then I’ll be happy to take that over a metal lens barrel design.

Most people think of cheap thermal plastics when they hear/see the word ‘plastic’ but it’s completely the opposite of this for many advanced composites which may include such materials such as microscopic glass beads for abrasion resistance and rigidity, and other components to make the material more stable when exposed to harsh environments. The difference between cheap thermal plastic and advanced composite materials can be like comparing an unreinforced concrete block that will crumble easily when loaded and a rebar reinforced concrete structure that can support a sky scraper.

This 28-70 Sigma is a lightweight, cheap, plastic lens. All indications are it’s meant to be prioritize size and weight, not to be a great optical performer.

I also don’t mind composite materials in a lot of applications. 

[DrM]

The performance of the sigma 28-70 is not really great I would say (Youtube review).

Best,

Marc

[SJH]

Worth just checking this out, he seems to think the 28-70 is actually rather good: 

 

[augustwest100]

On 2/26/2021 at 2:15 AM, SiggiGun said:

Will see, Leica's answer will look like ? 😉

 

I think we all probably know deep down what Leica's answer will be: hand crafted, metal, optically class-leading, beautiful to look at and hold, solid, durable, less vignetting at the wide end, less barrel distortion throughout, less chromatic aberration, and (for the not-so-good-stuff) at least 3x as expensive as the alternatives and substantially heavier. Despite all the reasons to the contrary, you will dream about the Leica in your sleep until you buy it.

For a standard zoom, I would be willing to pay a more and get a little more weight.  For the beautiful Leica L mount primes, I don't know what to do. They are expensive for sure.

But since this thread is the Battle of the Bulges, I think it comes down to this: for size and portability, the 28-70 seems like a really fine option. For optics, the 24-90 seems amazing but heavy. For the middle ground of size, weight, and cost, there is the sigma 24-70.

I think the 28-70 comes out in March. At that point, we need someone with more energy than me to do Battle of the Bulges: Video Edition!

 

[DrM]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, SJH said:

Worth just checking this out, he seems to think the 28-70 is actually rather good: 

 

Nevertheless it is soft at 28 in the corners. 
 

[yggdra.omega]

On 2/25/2021 at 7:34 PM, Jk1002 said:

I picked Panasonic 20-60 over the Sigma because of the lack of weather sealing.

I am hunting for a feal on Leica 24-90 or will pick up the rumored leica 28-70 if it materializes. I do feel a lens like this could make a lot of sens, maybe even for CL user

 

Cheers

Jk 

I was under the impression that the Sigma 28-70 2.8 ART lens *was* weather sealed, am I wrong?

[aksclix]

32 minutes ago, yggdra.omega said:

I was under the impression that the Sigma 28-70 2.8 ART lens *was* weather sealed, am I wrong?

I think only the mount is weather sealed.. the barrel is not 

[LD_50]

Deleted

Edited February 28, 2021 by LD_50

[BernardC]

On 2/26/2021 at 3:31 PM, LD_50 said:

This 28-70 Sigma is a lightweight, cheap, plastic lens.

Here is Sigma's take on it:

Quote

"While conventional wisdom states that it is more difficult to ensure processing accuracy for plastic parts than metal parts, there has been no compromise whatsoever on build quality for the 28-70mm F2.8 DG DN | Contemporary. One reason for this is that it uses a type of polycarbonate called TSC (Thermally Stable Composite), which has a comparable level of thermal shrinkage to aluminum. This helps reduce differences between the thermal shrinkage of the metal and non-metal parts, ensuring stable levels of performance even in an environment with extreme temperature changes. The use of polycarbonates in the construction of zoom and focus rings can make their operation feel less premium, but with careful treatment to the precision of these parts and adjusting the movement with the lubricant appropriately, the rings offer a precise action with an exceptionally high-quality feel."

So no, it's not just "cheap plastic." Besides, the actual lens elements are in a metal barrel, it's the outer rings that are thermoplastics.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that their preference for a rubber-covered metal barrel is wrong, just pointing-out that lumping all "plastic" in the same bin is over-simplifying.

Also, I don't know if this is something you meant to imply, but the lens elements aren't polycarbonate (like most eyeglass lenses are these days).

 

[LD_50]

3 hours ago, BernardC said:

Here is Sigma's take on it:

So no, it's not just "cheap plastic." Besides, the actual lens elements are in a metal barrel, it's the outer rings that are thermoplastics.

I'm not trying to convince anyone that their preference for a rubber-covered metal barrel is wrong, just pointing-out that lumping all "plastic" in the same bin is over-simplifying.

Also, I don't know if this is something you meant to imply, but the lens elements aren't polycarbonate (like most eyeglass lenses are these days).

 

I wasn’t implying this lens is in the same bin as all other plastic lenses. This one happens to be a lens that prioritized size and weight over optical quality, something Leica is not likely to do. That’s what I replied to, the question of what Leica’s “response” would be. 
 

Again, I have no concern with use of composites. Everything in engineering represents a trade off and their choices with this lens don’t appeal to me. I would prefer their 24-70 if I were choosing a Sigma option. 

[aksclix]

It’s important to note that the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 had a pretty ordinary build quality but it was a great seller and performer 

[LD_50]

2 minutes ago, aksclix said:

It’s important to note that the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 had a pretty ordinary build quality but it was a great seller and performer 

The best selling lenses usually are not the ones prioritizing best image quality. High price and size/weight limit sales. Leica doesn’t ever seem to go for the small and light with limited IQ market. 
 

I bet the Tamron and this new Sigma will sell well because they are cheap and light. 

[aksclix]

7 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

The best selling lenses usually are not the ones prioritizing best image quality. High price and size/weight limit sales. Leica doesn’t ever seem to go for the small and light with limited IQ market. 
 

I bet the Tamron and this new Sigma will sell well because they are cheap and light. 

It wasn’t only the best selling, it also performs well is what I am saying.. nobody buys a dud because it’s inexpensive.. many pros use it. It gets the job done. it’s doing something right obviously.. 700-800 is only relatively cheap.. but not cheap if you look what it’s ROI is

 

i had it and sold it when I bought into the SL system

Edited February 28, 2021 by aksclix

[LD_50]

14 minutes ago, aksclix said:

It wasn’t only the best selling, it also performs well is what I am saying.. nobody buys a dud because it’s inexpensive.. many pros use it. It gets the job done. it’s doing something right obviously.. 700-800 is only relatively cheap.. but not cheap if you look what it’s ROI is

 

i had it and sold it when I bought into the SL system

700-800 is relatively cheap against better lenses (IQ, build quality). I didn’t say the Tamron was bad, nor the new Sigma, but they will sell well because of their price and size/weight. They just have to be good enough at their price and size/weight, something Leica doesn’t shoot for. The goals are simply different than the competition, including Sony’s GM, the Leica 24-90, or even Sigma’s 24-70. 
 

I don’t remember seeing the Tamron was a good performer for IQ. I thought it was soft in the corners compared to the Sony GM and also that it vignettes heavily and produces poorer bokeh. Build quality is poorer as well. 

[aksclix]

11 minutes ago, LD_50 said:

700-800 is relatively cheap against better lenses (IQ, build quality). I didn’t say the Tamron was bad, nor the new Sigma, but they will sell well because of their price and size/weight. They just have to be good enough at their price and size/weight, something Leica doesn’t shoot for. The goals are simply different than the competition, including Sony’s GM, the Leica 24-90, or even Sigma’s 24-70. 
 

I don’t remember seeing the Tamron was a good performer for IQ. I thought it was soft in the corners compared to the Sony GM and also that it vignettes heavily and produces poorer bokeh. Build quality is poorer as well. 

Hmm.. not here to argue.. you may hold on to your opinion.. 

[SonomaBear]

My kit is a SL(601), usually with M lenses - then I bought a Pan S1 with 24-105 f/4 lens. I quickly sold the S1, just didn't like it.

The Pan 24-105 f/4 is a good, not great, lens. It is now for sale!  

I prefer f2.8 so I bought a Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 -- WOW!  There is that something hard to describe when th ages are perfectly exposed (not just "recovered" in post) -- they have depth, almost like 3D.  I can get the subject to "pop" away fro background.  f2.8 does this better than f/4.

Will I buy Leica primes? Probably not.  a second body more likely (probably the SL2-S)

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[augustwest100]

For me, the price of a Leica L-mount prime is too much (for now). I guess the real question is: how likely is a smaller lighter standard L-mount zoom from Leica any time soon? I'm in no rush. I know I will probably go with Little Siggy most of the time (the Sigma 45mm 2.8) due to its size and weight. The question is for that other 20% of the time where a standard zoom becomes very flexible, would it be better to go with the relatively lighter Sigma 24-70, or wait for the Leica equivalent?

 

[LD_50]

49 minutes ago, augustwest100 said:

For me, the price of a Leica L-mount prime is too much (for now). I guess the real question is: how likely is a smaller lighter standard L-mount zoom from Leica any time soon? I'm in no rush. I know I will probably go with Little Siggy most of the time (the Sigma 45mm 2.8) due to its size and weight. The question is for that other 20% of the time where a standard zoom becomes very flexible, would it be better to go with the relatively lighter Sigma 24-70, or wait for the Leica equivalent?

 

A standard zoom from Leica is not likely, and definitely not soon. If you need something soon and you don’t want the 24-90, the Sigma or Panasonic lenses are available. The Sigma 24-70 is fairly large (835 g, 82mm filter, similar dimensions to the Leica- same diameter and 16mm shorter).