Justification price difference of Sigma lens and its Leica version

[Einst_Stein]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

The difference is quantum jump. What is the secrete in between? 

[Advertisement]

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

[jdlaing]

1 hour ago, Einst_Stein said:

The difference is quantum jump. What is the secrete in between? 

The brand name. 

[BernardC]

Lots of discussion on this topic in the main SL forum.

Summary: the Leica 24-70 has a different optical design, different software, and, of course, a different build. All of that brings the price up. Sigma's 24-70 is the cheapest 24-70/2.8 lens, by several hundred dollars.

It's a very familiar choice. Are you willing to pay more for a small but noticeable differences? Many people here have indicated that they absolutely would not, while others are comfortable with the idea.

The lens is a very good value when bundled with a camera (Leica is currently offering a special price for this). It's still more expensive than the Sigma lens, but less expensive than the Panasonic 24-70, or equivalent non-L-Mount lenses. On its own it's a bit pricey, but mostly because you can get a used Leica 24-90 for not much more...

[Einst_Stein]

On 7/11/2021 at 4:53 AM, BernardC said:

Lots of discussion on this topic in the main SL forum.

Summary: the Leica 24-70 has a different optical design, different software, and, of course, a different build. All of that brings the price up. Sigma's 24-70 is the cheapest 24-70/2.8 lens, by several hundred dollars.

It's a very familiar choice. Are you willing to pay more for a small but noticeable differences? Many people here have indicated that they absolutely would not, while others are comfortable with the idea.

The lens is a very good value when bundled with a camera (Leica is currently offering a special price for this). It's still more expensive than the Sigma lens, but less expensive than the Panasonic 24-70, or equivalent non-L-Mount lenses. On its own it's a bit pricey, but mostly because you can get a used Leica 24-90 for not much more...

where did you get the idea they have different design? Different Sw is known, different build is probably the cosmetic.  

[BernardC]

49 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

where did you get the idea they have different design?

Sigma's version has "six sheets of F low dispersion (FLD) glass and two sheets of special low dispersion (SLD) glass". Leica's has "nine elements made from glasses with anomalous partial dispersion". Eight is different from nine. Sigma would tell us if they used 9 such elements.

Nobody other than Sigma and Leica really knows the significance of this change, but Leica's version tests better in the corners. One possible explanation is that the Leica version was originally designed by Sigma, but they passed on it for cost reasons. It makes sense that they would shop it to Leica, and this would explain why the lens wasn't on Leica's roadmap prior to being announced.

 

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

Sigma's version has "six sheets of F low dispersion (FLD) glass and two sheets of special low dispersion (SLD) glass". Leica's has "nine elements made from glasses with anomalous partial dispersion". Eight is different from nine. Sigma would tell us if they used 9 such elements.

Nobody other than Sigma and Leica really knows the significance of this change, but Leica's version tests better in the corners. One possible explanation is that the Leica version was originally designed by Sigma, but they passed on it for cost reasons. It makes sense that they would shop it to Leica, and this would explain why the lens wasn't on Leica's roadmap prior to being announced.

 

Thx, good to know it. I wasn’t paying much attention to this, thought it’s just another rebadging. 

Edited July 12, 2021 by Einst_Stein

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

We are still waiting for an independent and thorough comparison.

The online comparison was done by an official Leica reseller (doh...) and using only one sample of each lens, which is prone to sample variation.

[Einst_Stein]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

We are still waiting for an independent and thorough comparison.

The online comparison was done by an official Leica reseller (doh...) and using only one sample of each lens, which is prone to sample variation.

What is that? Serious?

[BernardC]

23 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

We are still waiting for an independent and thorough comparison.

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll ever see one. There's only one company that tests multiple copies, and that has proper equipment, but they haven't published any tests in months (they also never tested L-Mount lenses).

All we've got to go on, for now, are Leica and Sigma's published specifications, which are different.

[Simone_DF]

22 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

What is that? Serious?

Yup. The comparison was done by the Leica Miami guys. What did you expect? They even complained about the Sigma lens hood. The LENS HOOD ffs!

[Simone_DF]

51 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Unfortunately, it's unlikely that we'll ever see one. There's only one company that tests multiple copies, and that has proper equipment, but they haven't published any tests in months (they also never tested L-Mount lenses).

Yup. Too bad Lens Rentals doesn't do that anymore, but it's understandable.

But I'll wait for the Sean Reid review, he has shown great technical reviews so far, non biased and more important without a vested interest like the Miami guys.

[jankap]

On 7/10/2021 at 5:58 PM, Einst_Stein said:

The difference is quantum jump. What is the secrete in between? 

Don't worry, take the difference.

[Einst_Stein]

Talking about sample variations, I don’t know how Sigma controls the quality, I would expect at least within 3 sigma or better. That is 3% outlier at most.  China’s brand name QA is typically 4 or 4.5 sigma,  So if what shows Sigma inferior is due to the QA/sample-variation, this a lone is enough to abandon Sigma.

Nite, I assume you know what I meant “sigma” and “Sigma” are totally different thing.  

Sample variation shgoud never be an excuse on lens or camera evaluation. Forget that rubbish. 

[beewee]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

That is 3% outlier at most.

I think you mean 0.3%.

[beewee]

8 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

Talking about sample variations, I don’t know how Sigma controls the quality

As far as QC goes, Sigma is actually one of the best in the industry. https://www.lenstip.com/142.6-article-A_trip_to_Sigma_lens_factory_in_Aizu_Assembly_and_quality_control.html

If you’re buying a newly released model, you can be guaranteed that 100% of the units are MTF tested.

“We used to measure lens performance using conventional sensors. However, we’ve now developed our own A1 proprietary MTF (modulation transfer function) measuring system using 46-megapixel Foveon direct image sensors. Even previously undetectable high-frequency details are now within the scope of our quality control inspections. The lenses in our new lines will all be checked using this new system before they are shipped.”

Edited July 15, 2021 by beewee

[Einst_Stein]

10 minutes ago, beewee said:

I think you mean 0.3%.

Thx for correction.

 

[Einst_Stein]

8 minutes ago, beewee said:

As far as QC goes, Sigma is actually one of the best in the industry. https://www.lenstip.com/142.6-article-A_trip_to_Sigma_lens_factory_in_Aizu_Assembly_and_quality_control.html

If you’re buying a newly released model, you can be guaranteed that 100% of the units are MTF tested.

“We used to measure lens performance using conventional sensors. However, we’ve now developed our own A1 proprietary MTF (modulation transfer function) measuring system using 46-megapixel Foveon direct image sensors. Even previously undetectable high-frequency details are now within the scope of our quality control inspections. The lenses in our new lines will all be checked using this new system before they are shipped.”

That’s what I would assume, 

[beewee]

As far as consistency in product quality goes, manufacturers normally work with a different metric, AQL.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Einst_Stein]

18 hours ago, beewee said:

As far as consistency in product quality goes, manufacturers normally work with a different metric, AQL.

When mentioning sigma, it is in the view of prediction or the target of quality, such as in the design process. And, it is implicitly assumes Gaussian function in the defect distribution. In the post production quality control process, the AQL I think it is the same principle. I have heard something like 3-9, 4-9: 6-9, etc to describe the AQL, I think 2-9 means 0.99 is good (essentially 3sigma), 5-9 means 0.99999 is good ( 6 sigma?).  

I think AQl makes more general sense, since the term sigma implicitly assumes normal distribution while AQL is not tied to any particular distribution assumption.

I can understand for small quantity QA, the sigma metrics is not practical, and the defect should further classified it indicate how bad in stead of only good or bad.