aksclix Posted February 21, 2022 Share #41 Posted February 21, 2022 Advertisement (gone after registration) 16 minutes ago, Life By Stills said: was wondering, since you have both used both of the lenses, what is the image quality gains I am getting with the Leica? Since I didn’t have them both at the same time, I couldn’t compare the images.. IQ wise, the sigma is sharp enough for me to not even wonder if the Leica was sharper. I have no complaints about the sigma’s sharpness. The CL is not my primary camera and I didn’t care if the leica was sharper. I don’t see any CA that’s noticeable from the images I’ve shot using the Sigma. maybe the Leica 18-56 had better contrast? I don’t know! Nothing too noticeable anyway because my sigma hasn’t disappointed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted February 21, 2022 Posted February 21, 2022 Hi aksclix, Take a look here Leica 18-56mm or Sigma 18-50mm?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Le Chef Posted February 21, 2022 Share #42 Posted February 21, 2022 When you label something with the pejorative "glorified kit lens" then I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to explain and define what you mean by that. You then go on to describe the 18-56 as "average" for which you would need data from multiple points to declare it average. You have only responded in the subjective so we have to assume you have no data to support any of your points. The old "Caveat Emptor" applies. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 21, 2022 Share #43 Posted February 21, 2022 7 minutes ago, Life By Stills said: I take it that you didn't really notice much difference in image quality then? Yes, No IQ difference that stands out IMO.. when you have no complaints about the sigma, why bother wondering if the Leica was better.. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life By Stills Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share #44 Posted February 21, 2022 1 minute ago, aksclix said: Yes, No IQ difference that stands out IMO.. when you have no complaints about the sigma, why bother wondering if the Leica was better.. Ha that is so true. Sometimes we get too obsessed with pixel peeping especially when we play with near gear! If the Leica were also a constant f/2.8, then I think it'd be more difficult. But f/2.8 constant aperture is really a big draw-in for the Sigma! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 21, 2022 Share #45 Posted February 21, 2022 1 minute ago, Life By Stills said: Ha that is so true. Sometimes we get too obsessed with pixel peeping especially when we play with near gear! If the Leica were also a constant f/2.8, then I think it'd be more difficult. But f/2.8 constant aperture is really a big draw-in for the Sigma! If Leica 18-56 was like the 24-90 f/2.8-4 then I probably would’ve kept it. If it were an f/2.8 no question that’s what I’d have 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life By Stills Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share #46 Posted February 21, 2022 (edited) 22 minutes ago, Le Chef said: When you label something with the pejorative "glorified kit lens" then I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to explain and define what you mean by that. You then go on to describe the 18-56 as "average" for which you would need data from multiple points to declare it average. You have only responded in the subjective so we have to assume you have no data to support any of your points. The old "Caveat Emptor" applies. @Le Chef, would you be able to explain why you would prefer the Leica 18-56mm please, because from your posts I still do not know why you think the Leica is better than the Sigma. From what I can see, @aksclix has answered my question and explained the fact that the Leica is f/3.5-5.6 rather than a constant f/2.8, as well as the minimum focus distance not being as close as the Sigma. The fact that it is 18-56mm with the variable aperture is pretty typical specs of a kit lens for APS-C. Why do you say it's not a glorified kit lens considering the specs? People have said it's good glass, but then again they say the same of the Sigma. Would you be able to explain what is it about the Leica 18-56mm that means, in your opinion, I should pick it over the Sigma? Many thanks. Edited February 21, 2022 by Life By Stills Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted February 21, 2022 Share #47 Posted February 21, 2022 Advertisement (gone after registration) 2 minutes ago, Life By Stills said: @Le Chef, would you be able to explain why you would prefer the Leica 18-56mm please, because from your posts I still do not know why you think the Leica is better than the Sigma. From what I can see, @aksclix has answered my question and explained the fact that the Leica is f/3.5-5.6 rather than a constant f/2.8, as well as the minimum focus distance not being as close as the Sigma. The fact that it is 18-56mm with the variable aperture is pretty typical specs of a kit lens for APS-C. Why do you say it's not a glorified kit lens considering the specs? People have said it's good glass, but then again they say the same of the Sigma. Would you be able to explain what is it about the Leica 18-56mm that means, in your opinion, I should pick it over the Sigma? Many thanks. If you have the answer you want from @aksclix then you don't need my subjective pov. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life By Stills Posted February 21, 2022 Author Share #48 Posted February 21, 2022 4 minutes ago, Le Chef said: If you have the answer you want from @aksclix then you don't need my subjective pov. But that's why I'm asking you, @Le Chef - because I want to know so I have a good breadth of opinions and so I want to know why you say the Leica 18-56mm is not the "glorified kit lens" and why you would suggest that I should get the Leica over the Sigma. I'm merely saying from what I can see @aksclix has answered why he thinks it's a "glorified kit lens", but I still want to know from you whether you think I should get the Leica or the Sigma, and your reason for the recommendation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 21, 2022 Share #49 Posted February 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Le Chef said: If you have the answer you want from @aksclix then you don't need my subjective pov. He doesn’t have the answer he wants.. he has an answer from me. That is all! He wants to hear different perspectives before making his own decision based on his own workflow.. Which is the right thing to do! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 21, 2022 Share #50 Posted February 21, 2022 (edited) 1 hour ago, Le Chef said: When you label something with the pejorative "glorified kit lens" then I think it's perfectly acceptable for you to explain and define what you mean by that. You then go on to describe the 18-56 as "average" for which you would need data from multiple points to declare it average. You have only responded in the subjective so we have to assume you have no data to support any of your points. The old "Caveat Emptor" applies. No data could imply I have forgettable images taken with the 18-56. No doubt it is capable of taking good images.. so is the canon 18-55 IS DSLR lens. The latter has IS at least and is sharp too. A kit lens that is great value for money! also, do you just ask questions or do you also have some answers from time to time? Based on my observation, you’ve sought data from others when you disagree with their point of view but seldom counter with your own data to support your point of view. Mind practicing what you preach? I am just surprised someone needs data to determine if a 3.5-5.6 aperture lens is anything more than ordinary. It can be optically perfect BUT it cannot do a few things that the sigma can! Does it magically allow you to shoot at f/2.8? Is there a hidden switch? Build quality in a tiny lens doesn’t have to be made of titanium.. what sigma has done is sufficient. It’s solid and very well built. The zoom ring is smooth and the optics are modern and sharp! Edited February 21, 2022 by aksclix Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted February 22, 2022 Share #51 Posted February 22, 2022 I’m not suggesting anyone do anything. I’m objecting to hyperbolic language. You cannot empirically prove that the 18-56 is a “glorified kit lens” as you can’t even define what that means. You describe the 18-56 as having “average” performance but cannot tell me what about it is average, based on what criteria or against what other lenses. If you use the word average then you should define it, surely? You can make all the statements you like. Whether people believe they have credibility is up to them. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 22, 2022 Share #52 Posted February 22, 2022 @Life By Stills one thing you can do to look at some sample images is to search with the lens model on Flickr.. there are plenty of samples there usually, even for niche lenses. make sure the Exif actually says it’s taken by the lens you’re searching for.. some people tend to put their content and tag it everything they want for more publicity or exposure.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 22, 2022 Share #53 Posted February 22, 2022 55 minutes ago, Le Chef said: You cannot empirically prove that the 18-56 is a “glorified kit lens” as you can’t even define what that means. I think I can define but you couldn’t/wouldn’t understand. According to historical data, typical kit lenses are usually 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 the Leica 18-56 is pretty much the same! This fact constitutes the label “kit lens”. Based on the fact that it is widely popular among Leica enthusiasts and they wouldn’t highlight any of its shortcomings, it gets the label “glorified”. 1 hour ago, Le Chef said: You describe the 18-56 as having “average” performance but cannot tell me what about it is average, based on what criteria or against what other lenses. If you use the word average then you should define it, surely? I did not use the word average.. I used “ordinary” and they’re not synonymous! In low light it is not the best lens to use. It is NOT better compared to the sigma 18-50.. Just so you know, you haven’t provided one meaningful/helpful comment on this thread.. OP is still waiting Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lct Posted February 22, 2022 Share #54 Posted February 22, 2022 "Glorified" is just a word but the Leica lens is often presented as first class on this good forum. Not sure if any software corrected lens deserves such a praise but both Leica and Sigma lenses fall in that category anyway. Having no experience with the Leica all i can say is the Sigma is second to none as far as IQ. It looks sturdy and well made but its barrel is made of plastic (Thermally Stable Composite) somewhat expectedly so i don't know if it makes a difference with the Leica. Not the same class as a MATE or a WATE obviously but the price is not the same either. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted February 22, 2022 Share #55 Posted February 22, 2022 2 hours ago, aksclix said: I think I can define but you couldn’t/wouldn’t understand. According to historical data, typical kit lenses are usually 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 the Leica 18-56 is pretty much the same! This fact constitutes the label “kit lens”. Based on the fact that it is widely popular among Leica enthusiasts and they wouldn’t highlight any of its shortcomings, it gets the label “glorified”. I did not use the word average.. I used “ordinary” and they’re not synonymous! In low light it is not the best lens to use. It is NOT better compared to the sigma 18-50.. Just so you know, you haven’t provided one meaningful/helpful comment on this thread.. OP is still waiting So there’s your answer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 22, 2022 Share #56 Posted February 22, 2022 (edited) 7 minutes ago, Le Chef said: So there’s your answer. Lol! It is a waste of my time and energy to be having pointless conversations with you. I am out! Edited February 22, 2022 by aksclix Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Le Chef Posted February 22, 2022 Share #57 Posted February 22, 2022 8 minutes ago, aksclix said: Lol! It is a waste of my time and energy to be having pointless conversations with you. I am out! Terrific - I wasted my time too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
aksclix Posted February 22, 2022 Share #58 Posted February 22, 2022 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Le Chef said: Terrific - I wasted my time too. Not really.. you wasted others’ time Edited February 22, 2022 by aksclix 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Life By Stills Posted February 22, 2022 Author Share #59 Posted February 22, 2022 Well, this discussion may be academic in light of @Louis' recent post... 😓 I wonder now that they're ending APS-C line what is going to happen re: warranty etc of my TL2. I have the option to return it under grace period terms anyway so, maybe a more relevant question might be do I even keep it LOL. Anyway, will move this discussion of that question to @Louis' thread haha. Thank you so much to peeps who have given me an opinion on the Sigma 18-50mm vs Leica 18-56mm though! Much appreciated! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daedalus2000 Posted February 22, 2022 Share #60 Posted February 22, 2022 (edited) 3 hours ago, Life By Stills said: Well, this discussion may be academic in light of @Louis' recent post... 😓 I wonder now that they're ending APS-C line what is going to happen re: warranty etc of my TL2. I have the option to return it under grace period terms anyway so, maybe a more relevant question might be do I even keep it LOL. Anyway, will move this discussion of that question to @Louis' thread haha. Thank you so much to peeps who have given me an opinion on the Sigma 18-50mm vs Leica 18-56mm though! Much appreciated! One last point to make is that when people compare the sigma to the Leica, I am not sure if they compare the Sigma at f2.8 and the Leica at f3.5 for example. I think it will be very difficult to see major differences if you use both at f4 for example, but at f2.8 of course the Sigma will be a bit softer, but then the Leica does not even have f2.8. With respect to the TL2, I think the last firmware update was a long time ago, whereas the CL firmware was updated last year. This is giving you some indication of how much support you should expect for TL2. But, it is a beautiful camera so I hope you enjoy it. Some links that may help https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/leica_vario_elmar_t_18_56mm_f_3_5_5_6_asph_review/sharpness_1 https://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/sigma_18_50mm_f2_8_dc_dn_review/sharpness_1 Edited February 22, 2022 by Daedalus2000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now