Jump to content

LEICA VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 24–70mm f/2.8 ASPH


Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 10 Minuten schrieb BernardC:

Not an additional element. An existing element that uses anomalous dispersion glass instead of a less exotic/expensive glass. 

Yep, that‘s feasible. But wouldn‘t you have to change more to keep the design functional?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 283
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Sigma is second largest sellers of optics. After Canon and before Nikon.  Sigma is also producing everything in house : toolings, glasses, magnesium, DC motors.  So they cut down every middle men possible and have a huge economy of scale by supporting most lens mounts.  And everything is made in Japan at 90%.  They are also producing ODM lenses for everybody. Some are clones for a specific brand : Leica with the 24-70mm and Olympus with the 100-400mm.  Some are exclusive design : Lu

Agree! I'm done with spending the fortunes that I've spent on Leica lenses in the past. Lens design & technology has evolved dramatically over the past few years, manufacturers like Sigma & Voigtlander are producing outstanding lenses.   Over the past 18 months I've amassed a small arsenal of Sigma L mount lenses which I use on the SL2, so far not one has disappointed me. IQ & build quality are excellent. I'm also always banging on about the fact that many of these lenses have a

The collective effort to imagine/will a difference into existence here is commendable.:) A much easier route would be to wait for test comparisons.

Posted Images

31 minutes ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

Yep, that‘s feasible. But wouldn‘t you have to change more to keep the design functional?

Probably the group around that element, but it's possible that other groups are unchanged. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

Yep, that‘s feasible. But wouldn‘t you have to change more to keep the design functional?

From what I understand, the use of anomalous dispersion glass is usually paired with more ‘normal’ glass elements. This is most commonly paired as a doublet where two elements are cemented together into a single piece but is not always the case. The reason for using anomalous dispersion glass is normally to correct for color aberrations.

If I had to guess the differences between the Leica and Sigma 24-70, then I would say:

1) The element most likely to be different with an anomalous dispersion element swapped in would be one of the rear elements since the Sigma version have 5 successive elements at the rear of the lens that do not make use of FLD or SLD glass. The Leica 24-70 may have small improvements in color aberration and contrast due to this difference.

2) When comparing the 10 lp/mm at 24mm between the Leica MTF and Sigma diffraction MTF (both diffraction and geometrical), it appears the Leica MTFs show better contrast near the edges/corners so this may indicate different better performance lens coatings that contribute to the contrast improvement. Alternatively, this may also be related to improvements from he additional anomalous dispersion element on the Leica version.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, setuporg said:

The collective effort to imagine/will a difference into existence here is commendable.:)

A much easier route would be to wait for test comparisons.

But, these geeky discussions make up the essence of forums.. don’t they? 😌

Link to post
Share on other sites

It could also be all this speculations of better MTF, apparent better corners are just QC differences between the lenses made (tested). It is always human nature to want to justify when we pay more for something? 
If i was Leica, I would not want to have trade-secret coatings or lens design to be manufactured in a third party producer factory that is also a direct competitor. Think the next Sigma 24-70 f2.8 v2 may likely be, although today’s Sigma has the capabilities and know-how to produce better AF lenses than Leica. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Advertisement (gone after registration)

26 minutes ago, northernlights said:

It could also be all this speculations of better MTF, apparent better corners are just QC differences between the lenses made (tested).

Leica’s MTFs are calculated theoretical values. As are the Sigma diffraction MTFs. They are unrelated to manufacturing tolerances in that they don’t account for manufacturing tolerances. The Sigma’s geometric MTFs are based on measured values from actual lenses.

I don’t think it would be impossible for Sigma to coat the lenses different to Leica’s spec or even use Leica’s Aqua Dura coating without having Leica to divulge its secret sauce. It’s possible that Leica can provide Sigma with the needed final material and the procedure to coat the lenses without letting Sigma know exactly what the material they’re using is. I’m not saying I know anything and this is all speculation but I think it’s not impossible.

Also I’m not sure if Leica have actually designed any of their SL zoom lenses or have the expertise to do so from scratch without any outside help. The 16-35 design was licensed from Minolta. The 90-280 design was licensed from Panasonic. Both are based on published patents owned by Minolta and Panasonic, respectively. The only remaining one that’s a bit up in the air is the 24-90 but if you look carefully at the front group of 7 elements on the 24-90, they are nearly identical to the 24-70 from Sigma and Panasonic. Furthermore, Sigma has dozens of patents of similar zoom lenses all sharing the same design using the 7 element in the front group dating back to 2012 and even earlier. So this leads me to think that Sigma had provided expertise in the design of the 24-90 as well as the Panasonic 24-70.

Edited by beewee
Link to post
Share on other sites

This would not be the first "Leica" lens to be made by Sigma. The 28-70 Vario-Elmar-R was also made by Sigma. It is not a very good lens and even the improved Mk.2 ROM version I have, still has very significant pincushion distortion at the tele end, although improved performance compared to the Mk.1 at the wide end. Compared with a couple of contemporaneous lenses I have, a Zeiss Contax 28-85 Vario Sonnar and the Zeiss designed 28-105mm Rolleinar made by Kirin, the Sigma built lens is not a great performer. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of Leica's zooms have been co-operations, save for two ultra-expensive R zooms (35-70/2.8, 105-280/4.2).

I don't think that they can't design and build their own zooms. It probably means that the amount of R&D and tooling involved in making high-quality zooms isn't worth the return, especially when their factories are working flat-out to make other lenses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that I have the excellent 21-35 Vario Elmar-R, my 28-70, which I mostly used at the wide end anyway (which is why I preferred it warts and all, to the technically better Kyocera built 35-70/f4), I now only rarely use the 28-70. Another excellent lens but very rare and expensive is the 35-70/f2.8 Vario Elmarit-R, maybe the spiritual predecessor of the 28-70 SL lens. I think this lens fetches even more than the 28-90/f2.8, which made in somewhat larger numbers. 

Wilson

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
vor 3 Stunden schrieb wlaidlaw:

Now that I have the excellent 21-35 Vario Elmar-R, my 28-70, which I mostly used at the wide end anyway (which is why I preferred it warts and all, to the technically better Kyocera built 35-70/f4), I now only rarely use the 28-70. Another excellent lens but very rare and expensive is the 35-70/f2.8 Vario Elmarit-R, maybe the spiritual predecessor of the 28-70 SL lens. I think this lens fetches even more than the 28-90/f2.8, which made in somewhat larger numbers. 

Wilson

 

The prices of the 35-70 f/2.8 are, indeed, sky high. The 28-90 f/2.8-4.5, which is a wonderful lens, is much more affordable!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, msh58 said:

The prices of the 35-70 f/2.8 are, indeed, sky high. The 28-90 f/2.8-4.5, which is a wonderful lens, is much more affordable!

I will wait until the hipster videographers get bored with Leica R lenses and move on to something else, when prices of the 28-90/2.8 hopefully will come down a bit. Meanwhile there is a 35mm APO Summicron-M to pay for later this month, which is absorbing most of this year's photo budget. 

Wilson

PS I am always a bit surprised that the videographers seem to concentrate on the Leica R lenses, when there is an equally good range of MF SLR lenses at a fraction of the price of the Leica lenses in the Zeiss Contax CX/Y range. I bought a new old stock 28-85/f3.3 Vario Sonnar about 6 years ago for €450, which is less than a quarter of what I would have had to pay for a 28-90 Leica. There are excellent CX/Y to PL and CX/Y to C adapters from various makers. 

Wilson

Edited by wlaidlaw
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, wlaidlaw said:

PS I am always a bit surprised that the videographers seem to concentrate on the Leica R lenses, when there is an equally good range of MF SLR lenses at a fraction of the price of the Leica lenses in the Zeiss Contax CX/Y range.

There are two factors that explain this.

  1. R lenses were incredibly under-valued for a while. Cinematographers noticed and bought them up.
  2. Not all Contax/Zeiss lenses can be adapted to EOS mount without interference.

Things are different now. The EOS mount isn't as dominant in semi-pro cinema, and R lenses have gone-up in price. I've seen many projects shot on Zeiss/Contax. They look a lot like 1970s Zeiss cine lenses. The zooms aren't that popular for cine work, but the fast primes certainly are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, BernardC said:

. The zooms aren't that popular for cine work, but the fast primes certainly are.

I suspect one reason for this is that most Zeiss zoom lenses are single control, twist to focus, trombone to zoom. Whereas this is marvellous for still photography, I think videographers like to have separate controls, which are often modified to rack/pinion actuation for use by a focus puller. After about 30 years of using the single touch Contax zoom lenses, I still tend to twist the zoom ring to try and focus my various Leica zooms. 

Wilson

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Farkas and Lerner think that the Leica version is better than the Sigma. But not as good as the SL 24-90. Probably because there is an additional element with extra dispersion glass in the Leica version. (The same number of elements in total, but 9 elements with special glass).  Order of “lens quality”: SL 24-90 ten points, SL 24-70 eight points, Sigma 24-70 Art seven points, or maybe 6.8 points.

Edited by caissa
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...