Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all,

Happy Friday! I'm a long-time lurker but decided to drop in as wanted to see what you guys though. I thought I'd ask this question now that Sigma has been out longer and whether you have any updated opinions. I am lucky enough to pick up an ex-demo TL2 with the full 2-year Leica warranty for £600 (I think someone labelled the price wrong...), but I am umming and ahhing over lenses for it. I have my M-lenses, but I want to know what you would choose for an L-mount auto focus lens: Sigma 18-50mm or Leica 18-56mm?

As a photojournalist, the f/2.8 of the Sigma really draws me in, although I wonder if I'm sacrificing a lot in the IQ department when compared to the Leica. I have a Q2 and a Sony A7R IV with the Sony 24mm GM and Tamron 28-200mm, so this is going to be a smaller for fun set up / secondary backup.

Would be really appreciative of your thoughts!

Thanks a lot.

Edited by Life By Stills
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

x

I have no idea about the quality of the Sigma lens, although in general there is nothing wrong with their products, but the quality of the 18-56 is beyond doubt.You need to get an SL lens to see a (minimal) improvement.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Life By Stills said:

Hi all,

Happy Friday! I'm a long-time lurker but decided to drop in as wanted to see what you guys though. I thought I'd ask this question now that Sigma has been out longer and whether you have any updated opinions. I am lucky enough to pick up an ex-demo TL2 with the full 2-year Leica warranty for £600 (I think someone labelled the price wrong...), but I am umming and ahhing over lenses for it. I have my M-lenses, but I want to know what you would choose for an L-mount auto focus lens: Sigma 18-50mm or Leica 18-56mm?

As a photojournalist, the f/2.8 of the Sigma really draws me in, although I wonder if I'm sacrificing a lot in the IQ department when compared to the Leica. I have a Q2 and a Sony A7R IV with the Sony 24mm GM and Tamron 28-200mm, so this is going to be a smaller for fun set up / secondary backup.

Would be really appreciative of your thoughts!

Thanks a lot.

Welcome to the Forum. 

I recently purchased the Sigma 18-50mm, I love the constant f2.8 aperture, IQ is excellent & its compact size are all major plus points. Even though it's an APS-C lens I've also been using it on my SL2, albeit at a reduced 20MP file size, still very usable.

IMO for 25% of the price of the Leica zoom you're getting a faster lens with no discernible difference in IQ. As Jaap says there's a minimal improvement with the Leica lenses. In many instances not justified by the price difference. It's an open secret that some of Leica's L mount zoom lenses are made by Sigma.

I have a small arsenal of Sigma lenses ranging from the 14-24mm,  24mm f3.5,  60mm f2,  85mm f1.4, 105mm f2.8,  135mm f1.8  & the 150-600mm. All are outstanding, so much so that I sold my Leica L mount lenses with the exception of the VE24-90mm & VE90-280mm & filled in with Sigma lenses in focal lengths that Leica doesn't offer. The proceeds from my Leica L lenses funded the Sigma lenses & there was enough change to purchase an SL2-S as well. 

Edited by michali
  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

The first image I took with the Sigma 18-50mm on the SL2-S  @ 50mm  f2.8  -straight out of camera, no PP converted from DNG to Jpeg 

(please click on image for better res.)

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!

  • Like 13
Link to post
Share on other sites

The main plus point for the Leica lens is slightly longer reach at the long focal length. Otherwise, the faster and constant f/2.8 aperture is an important consideration.  Either will serve you well. In value for money terms, the Sigma zoom wins easily.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I moved to the Sigma zoom  from the TL. Just no arguing with that extra two stops of light at the long end.  

When I look through my images, outdoors in good light the TL lens just wins IQ wise.

Might be worth a quick look through this thread for samples and others opinions, congratulations on your purchase by the way - nice one!

 

Edited by Boojay
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How about AF reliability ? 
My experience with Sigma L-mount is quite poor. 
their AF is not reliable in case of challenging lighting : low light, sunset, sunrise, close range or back lit. 
AF-C is almost useless. 
That’s why I almost never use Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC DN. My last remaining Sigma  

I rather use my trusty TL 18-56mm at 56mm with or without flash. Than bother to switch lens then fight the poor AF. 
 

So how reliable is Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 ?? 
If not 100% as fast as TL lenses. I won’t bother with any Sigma lens in the future 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

Another thing. I don’t like the warm look of Sigma. It did not match with Leica cold with bright red and yellow and deep blue. 
 

Sigma photos stands out among my other photos : Q2 or CL with TL lenses. And that bothers me 

Edited by nicci78
Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, nicci78 said:

Another thing. I don’t like the warm look of Sigma. It did not match with Leica cold with bright red and yellow and deep blue. 
 

Sigma photos stands out among my other photos : Q2 or CL with TL lenses. And that bother me 

I will agree on the warmer "Sigma" look but it can be tweaked if you don't like it (I do).

 I haven't had any issues with AF or AFC with the18-50,  (other than usual for L Mount)  no noticeable difference to my 18-56.

If you are happy with your 18-56 then that's great, my flash has not left the cupboard😊.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I just have to review it myself. 
A friend convinced me once to buy 56mm f/1.4. Assuring me that it has same AF speed. 
 

Then one week after, I showed him every AF flawed existing with it. The problem is not speed, it is reliability. It cannot be trusted at all in challenging situations. 
It is quite strange that TL 18-56mm at 56mm f/5.6 has better AF in low light than Sigma 56mm at f/1.4. How that is possible with 4x the light gathering ? 

Then I tried several of its Sigma L-mount. Former HSM one are the worst. But none has TL lenses reliability. 
I think that it is an algorithm issue. 
 

NB : all lenses have latest FW update. So as the CL. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had two copies of the Leica 18-56.  Both exhibited sloppy fit when racked out to 56.  I eventually picked up the Sigma 18-50.  In my opinion,  a much better build quality, and, with a constant f 2.8,  a much better buy.  Certainly sharp enough, and I have no problems with colors.

 

Rick

 

 

 

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!

  • Like 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, RickP said:

I have had two copies of the Leica 18-56.  Both exhibited sloppy fit when racked out to 56.  I eventually picked up the Sigma 18-50.  In my opinion,  a much better build quality, and, with a constant f 2.8,  a much better buy.  Certainly sharp enough, and I have no problems with colors.

 

Rick

 

 

 

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!

Did you buy your Leica lenses new?

Link to post
Share on other sites

wda.. 

i had the trio 18-56, 11-23 and 55-125 ..all new when the T first came out.  IMO.. all decent lenses,  but I gravitated to manual focus M mount lenses ..I never really needed auto focus. The results of all three were fine,  but I was always doubtful about the 18-56 plastic Zoom...

Rick

Edited by RickP
Link to post
Share on other sites

Rick, I was surprised that you experienced sloppiness. Any hint of that would justify rejection. My copy is impeccable. I do combine both AF and Manual focusing methods in what I call hybrid focusing. It serves me well and improves AF accuracy, by deconflicting conflicting targets. I use mine on the CL and have been pleased with my results.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RickP said:

wda.. 

i had the trio 18-56, 11-23 and 55-125 ..all new when the T first came out.  IMO.. all decent lenses,  but I gravitated to manual focus M mount lenses ..I never really needed auto focus. The results of all three were fine,  but I was always doubtful about the 18-56 plastic Zoom...

Rick

You were scammed - mine is metal and very well built... (as they all are)

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, thank you so much to everyone for your thoughts and opinions! Didn’t expect so many people offering their thoughts so quickly. Reading the comments, I think if I were to get the Leica 18-56mm, it would only be so I can say that the image was shot with a full Leica set up LOL. But practically, it does seem that the Sigma 18-50mm would be more useful. The constant f/2.8 of the Sigma, 2 full stops brighter than the Leica at the long end, is probably going to be the deal breaker for me, especially if the image quality is still quite good and not much worse than the Leica, if at all!

Alternatively… get both lenses… haha. No no, get that thought out of my head please!

Edited by Life By Stills
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...