Leica 18-56mm or Sigma 18-50mm?

[lct]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Great little lens on the CL. I mean the Sigma 18-50/2.8. My only TL lens go figure. The Leica was too slow for me so i never compared it. See:

www.l-camera-forum.com/topic/325527-new-sigma-18-50mm-f28-for-aps-c/page/4/?tab=comments#comment-4316964

[jaapv]

And the Sigma is larger and heavier….

[Advertisement]

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

[lct]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

And the Sigma is larger and heavier….

I have no idea i don't use slower than f/4 lenses if i can avoid them sorry. 

[Daedalus2000]

23 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.

I actually re-bought the CL because of the sigma 18-50. I think it is a great lens, especially for the price and the f2.8 gives a better rendering (or look whatever you want to call it) at the long end. 50mm vs 56mm is not a big deal for me,  as you can crop a bit and get the same field of view, but you cannot get the same depth of field and look of the f2.8.

Also, the price you got for the TL2 is very good, but I personally would not buy a TL2 now, unless you like the design. I had it, sold it and got the CL and I am much happier with its performance and the included EVF. 

Edited February 20, 2022 by Daedalus2000

[RickP]

Jaapv,

 

It may have been metal, but felt like plastic to me.  I will also state that there was nothing wrong with the image quality, it just never seemed Leica quality to me.

Rick

[Life By Stills]

2 hours ago, Daedalus2000 said:

I actually re-bought the CL because of the sigma 18-50. I think it is a great lens, especially for the price and the f2.8 gives a better rendering (or look whatever you want to call it) at the long end. 50mm vs 56mm is not a big deal for me,  as you can crop a bit and get the same field of view, but you cannot get the same depth of field and look of the f2.8.

Also, the price you got for the TL2 is very good, but I personally would not buy a TL2 now, unless you like the design. I had it, sold it and got the CL and I am much happier with its performance and the included EVF. 

Yes, I totally get what you mean about not getting the TL2. I played with both TL2 and CL at my local Leica store and I was umming and ahhing over the EVF issue for ages, but at £600 for the ex-demo TL2, I wasn't going to turn it down, especially since this will be a just for fun camera, and therefore I'll likely be using it like a phone anyway. I have my Q2 or Sony A7R IV for more serious professional work.

What I also like about the TL2 is that built in grip contour!!!

I was also thinking of potentially slapping my Voigtländer 35mm Color-Skopar on it which should make quite a nice compact 50mm equivalent.

[michali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, jaapv said:

And the Sigma is larger and heavier….

The difference is really negligible, the Sigma's about 1cm longer & 35gr heavier. Another plus with the Sigma is the min. focusing distance of 12.1cm compared to 30cm for the Leica.

Edited February 20, 2022 by michali

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, RickP said:

Jaapv,

 

It may have been metal, but felt like plastic to me.  I will also state that there was nothing wrong with the image quality, it just never seemed Leica quality to me.

Rick

Sorry Rick. It feels exactly the same as for instance the 55-135. You clearly didn’t like the lens, though

 

[wda]

3 hours ago, michali said:

The difference is really negligible, the Sigma's about 1cm longer & 35gr heavier. Another plus with the Sigma is the min. focusing distance of 12.1cm compared to 30cm for the Leica.

That latter point should not be overlooked. I rarely go as close as 12.1 cm, but certainly find closer than 30 cm very useful, and avoids finding my macro lens. Also, the faster f/2,8 makes it a more versatile lens in low winter light.

[Louis]

On 2/18/2022 at 8:18 PM, 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.

Yesterday, I posted in the CL gallery  some shots that I took two days ago with 18-56, and later today I am going to post some more. I am not using this lens very often because it is a little too slow, and I have 35mm TL on my camera most of the time.

But this weekend, the lighting condition was very good and as I was shooting a car exhibition and then a boat show, I took the 18-56 and I must admit, I was very nicely surprised by the IQ I could get. It is very small, very good built, and goes great on my CL and T cameras. I hope the posted pictures could be any help.

[Marac]

As someone who has owned and used both 18-56 and 18-50 with my CL, IMO the Leica is the better lens optically with slightly better build quality.

The Sigma has the advantage of being f2.8 all along the zoom & also the ability to focus close

I prefer the latter and as a result sold my 18-56 without regret, from f4 the Sigma sharpens up perfectly, I see no real world difference & I also prefer the warmer colours.

[aksclix]

I have used both and now I only have the sigma 18-50. With the Leica 18-56 selling around a $1000 bucks like new in used market, it is surely a good deal! I haven’t had these two lenses together but when I had the 18-56, I was NEVER happy with it. It just needs a lot of light to get good pictures and I was never a fan of the high ISO images from the CL. I wanted to stay around ISO 800 or 1600 max! That meant a 5.6 aperture on a crop lens is going to be dark as hell for most situations I shoot. It’s sharp, cute and compact and the glass is great BUT the sigma is undoubtedly a clear winner. It comes new at around $500. It has amazing close focusing capabilities (you can extremely close and it is an incredible feature to have), you get pretty darn good portraits with pleasing background blur, it is sharp too.. I do not think the 18-56 is good value for money! The sigma 18-50 most definitely IS. 

the Leica 18-56 is just a glorified “kit” lens! Every beginners kit included a standard 18-55 lens with variable aperture. For a better build quality and sharpness, this is nothing but a glorified kit lens IMO

Edited February 21, 2022 by aksclix

[Le Chef]

45 minutes ago, aksclix said:

the Leica 18-56 is just a glorified “kit” lens! Every beginners kit included a standard 18-55 lens with variable aperture. For a better build quality and sharpness, this is nothing but a glorified kit lens IMO

Ahh! It's always good to have someone spout a well worn cliché! I had been missing that meaningless bit of commentary from this thread! As always no substantiation for "Glorified" - classic!

[aksclix]

3 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Ahh! It's always good to have someone spout a well worn cliché! I had been missing that meaningless bit of commentary from this thread! As always no substantiation for "Glorified" - classic!

May sound cliche but it is so true that a few naturally get offended by its usage. It is “glorified” because how highly it is being talked up despite it being a VERY ordinary lens. I fail to understand how different it is compared to a beginners kit lens! On one hand, some Leica folks talk about how sharpness isn’t everything and how soft rendering is so good and on the other hand, when a lens has barely anything to offer, sharpness argument is back on the table. 

besides, I am not forcing you to agree with me. As two different users, my opinion is valid and your judgment on my opinion isn’t! 

[Le Chef]

33 minutes ago, aksclix said:

May sound cliche but it is so true that a few naturally get offended by its usage. It is “glorified” because how highly it is being talked up despite it being a VERY ordinary lens. I fail to understand how different it is compared to a beginners kit lens! On one hand, some Leica folks talk about how sharpness isn’t everything and how soft rendering is so good and on the other hand, when a lens has barely anything to offer, sharpness argument is back on the table. 

besides, I am not forcing you to agree with me. As two different users, my opinion is valid and your judgment on my opinion isn’t! 

Show the people here how “ordinary” the lens is. Compared to what? Based on what empirical data? If you have it, let’s see it.

[aksclix]

29 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Show the people here how “ordinary” the lens is. Compared to what? Based on what empirical data? If you have it, let’s see it.

So, the specifications is not enough for you? The variable aperture is sufficient to call it “ordinary”. I call the 18-55 kit lens (of any brand) ordinary and this 18-56 is no different, therefore, I call it ordinary. It IS ordinary compared to the versatile sigma 18-50.. it’s MFD, constant aperture makes it a far better lens. Like I said, i didn’t have these lenses together at the same time.. so no comparison shots are available. However, there’s sufficient available online if you need proof. None of my statement means the Leica 18-56 is a “bad” lens. It is just a regular/ordinary kit lens. It’s optically very good, it’s got a useful zoom range. I can’t provide data for such a straight forward and simple to understand use-case.

And, since it’s hard for you to accept words/opinions if they aren’t yours, you should probably get both lenses and compare the “data” yourself .. 

Edited February 21, 2022 by aksclix

[Life By Stills]

27 minutes ago, Le Chef said:

Show the people here how “ordinary” the lens is. Compared to what? Based on what empirical data? If you have it, let’s see it.

Would it be possible for you to elaborate on why you think the "glorified kit lens" label is wrong please?

I am not saying whether the Leica 18-56mm is a glorified kit lens or not. I started this thread because I genuinely want to know why I should get one over the other. Would you be able to explain to me what you love about the lens, and why I should possibly choose the Leica 18-56mm over the Sigma 18-50mm please? I am wanting to choose my first L-mount lens.

Thank you.

[Life By Stills]

3 hours ago, Marac said:

the Leica is the better lens optically

 

3 hours ago, aksclix said:

It’s sharp, cute and compact and the glass is great

Hi @Marac and @aksclix,

I was wondering, since you have both used both of the lenses, what is the image quality gains I am getting with the Leica? @Marac, you mentioned that the Leica is better optically - is it in terms of sharpness? Chromatic aberrations? All, or maybe none of the above? I've seen some sample shots which other users have posted with the Sigma, and they look pretty sharp, and pleasing. So what would be different if I shot with the Leica?

It might be something that you can't answer just by words alone, but I thought I'd ask just in case you might be able to say what is the difference I'm looking at between the Leica and Sigma, apart from the obvious aperture differences lol.

Many thanks, peeps!

[aksclix]

@Life By Stills

While you wait on his response.. 

i hope this helps

choose the sigma 18-50

a) if you want to shoot portraits with pleasing bokeh

b) if you want the ability to AF real close to your subject. Sometimes, there isn’t enough room.. not even a feet and this lens has been so great at solving that problem. It’s super handy to use when I am sitting super close to my infant child. 

c) if you want a true all rounder lens! You won’t miss the 6mm at the farther end. I didn’t! if you do want it, you could even get the sigma 56mm which is a mighty compact portrait lens. At 1.4 aperture!!! Both these sigma lenses together cost less than half of them Leica 18-56! 

choose the Leica 18-56

a) if you want only a Leica lens 

b) if you have no need for portraits with bokeh 

c) if you have a lot of money 😌

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Life By Stills]

4 minutes ago, aksclix said:

@Life By Stills

While you wait on his response.. 

i hope this helps

choose the sigma 18-50

a) if you want to shoot portraits with pleasing bokeh

b) if you want the ability to AF real close to your subject. Sometimes, there isn’t enough room.. not even a feet and this lens has been so great at solving that problem. It’s super handy to use when I am sitting super close to my infant child. 

c) if you want a true all rounder lens! You won’t miss the 6mm at the farther end. I didn’t! if you do want it, you could even get the sigma 56mm which is a mighty compact portrait lens. At 1.4 aperture!!! Both these sigma lenses together cost less than half of them Leica 18-56! 

choose the Leica 18-56

a) if you want only a Leica lens 

b) if you have no need for portraits with bokeh 

c) if you have a lot of money 😌

 

Hey @aksclix, thank you so much for your summary. I take it that you didn't really notice much difference in image quality then? I'm a photojournalist so that 2.8 is much more attractive for me. I shoot a lot with my Q2 professionally now, so certainly 6mm different at the long end is not going to bother me... Worst case scenario I'll just get out the A7R IV with the 28-200mm lol.