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

[michali]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

5 hours ago, david strachan said:

Hi michali

such a cutie.

Always love your wildlife pictures, absolutely amazing, michali.  All the best. 

Thank you David appreciate your comment.

Best,

Mike

[Advertisement]

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

[Einst_Stein]

On 2/23/2022 at 11:26 AM, Life By Stills said:

So I think I've made a decision. It's going to be the Sigma 18-50mm for me. I popped into the Leica store to have a first hand look at the 18-56mm and can confirm the one I was looking at was indeed plastic, confirmed by staff there to be so - everything but glass made in Japan by Panasonic apparently.

Also, when the person that's meant to be selling it to you tells you don't get it... Hahahaha.

Yeah, so it'll be the Sigma for me.

Thanks everyone for your thoughts and opinions though. It's been enlightening to also see what some people focus on (no pin intended) when they go about choosing a lens.

Thanks so much, everyone!

Got TTartisan f1.4 prime set yet? If so, you would love them. 

[Ray Im]

Very Interesting conversation is going on here.

From my experience of both lens, I think both of them are excellent. It is hard to tell which one is better or worse because each one has very different target and purpose as a kit len. I think it is not fair to compare with fixed aperture and variable aperture lens anyways even though these two lenses share similar focal length with different price point (maybe this is why people try to compete these two lenses). Sigma tend to emphasize practicality and sharpness since they changed the lens design from Art series and they started to sacrifice the conservative notion of standard zoom as well. When Sigma released 18-35mm F1.8 Art, it brought totally different notion about APS-C standard zoom and they tried to destroy the border of prime and zoom lenses. I think their effort worked pretty well against to Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Pentax. It eventually influenced the sale of other brands' kit zoom and nifty fifty prime lenses. IMHO, I don't think Sigma matches resolution quality of Leica lens. (of course Sigma has more pleasing bokeh for its F2.8 DOF and close focus ability) That is why Sigma released F2.8 lens for APS-C L mount instead of common F3.5-5.6 range to appeal different pros against Leica.

Then, I'd rather have a question why Sigma released 18-50mm APS-C lens for such a narrow market which is only for four Leica APS-C cameras? As you know, L-mount alliance is basically sharing full-frame lenses and I don't think Sigma is not that dedicated to L-mount APS-C system in current shrinked digital camera market. Sigma's main market is rather full-frame e-mount and APS-C x-mount. I think it is more of Sigma's stretage to produce decent kit zoom against already excellent lineup of Sony and Fuji kits as they compare with Leica zoom before they release same lens to other mount or maybe they have a contract with Leica to produce certain amount of lens lineup. What do you think?

Anyways, my conclusion is...

Sigma 18-50mm as versatile and efficient lens with reasonable cost.

Leica 18-56mm as quality and resolution driven lens in its super compact size.

Two lenses share similar focal length but targeting totally different situation. I guess it all depends what photographer put his or her priority of its functionality.

[Life By Stills]

On 5/2/2022 at 12:36 PM, Einst_Stein said:

Got TTartisan f1.4 prime set yet? If so, you would love them. 

I actually got my hands on one to play with... hated it though! I don't know if it's because I just had a dodgy copy, but it didn't focus to infinity at all. When I had that lens on the infinity hard stop, it was in focus to around maybe 30-50 metres, but anything beyond that was clearly out of focus, even when stopped down further to maybe f/8. So I returned it instead.

[Einst_Stein]

5 hours ago, Life By Stills said:

I actually got my hands on one to play with... hated it though! I don't know if it's because I just had a dodgy copy, but it didn't focus to infinity at all. When I had that lens on the infinity hard stop, it was in focus to around maybe 30-50 metres, but anything beyond that was clearly out of focus, even when stopped down further to maybe f/8. So I returned it instead.

Sigma APS—C f1.4 L mount is surprisingly cheap in the used market. I got 16mm and 56mm from Aforama, essentially open box, unused. Total 300$. No luck on other mounts

[rob_w]

On 5/6/2022 at 6:28 AM, Ray Im said:

Then, I'd rather have a question why Sigma released 18-50mm APS-C lens for such a narrow market which is only for four Leica APS-C cameras?

The Sigma 18-50 is very popular on Sony E mount, esp. their APS-C models, where there is a dearth of quality alternatives available and a large market to service. So that may be the main reason.  Sony's own 16-55 zoom is comparatively expensive (although still cheaper than the TL18-56).  Against the Sony the Sigma alternative reviews well, outperforming it in some areas, plus being 40% lighter and 60% cheaper.

[MJB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I've owned all of the Sigma primes, and while they're nice in many ways, they are not the same quality as the Leica TL lenses.  It's true, they are a fraction of the cost, so the price-to-performance is certainly there. That said, they are not perfect lenses - the only Sigma lens I still own is the 56 mm f/1.4.  So much cheaper than the TL 60 mm, and faster too!  However, I find that of all my lenses, the one most likely to miss focus is the Sigma.  The other day, I had it out in bright sunlight, in the middle of the day, and it still occasionally had a hard time with focus.  I don't own any zooms for my CL, but I've thought about picking one up.  I like the price of the Sigma, and the relatively fast constant aperture of 2.8, but I'm really worried about the focus issues.  I wish the Leica TL zooms were faster and/or image-stabilized, because then the price difference would be easier to swallow...

[Le Chef]

3 minutes ago, MJB said:

I've owned all of the Sigma primes, and while they're nice in many ways, they are not the same quality as the Leica TL lenses.  It's true, they are a fraction of the cost, so the price-to-performance is certainly there. That said, they are not perfect lenses - the only Sigma lens I still own is the 56 mm f/1.4.  So much cheaper than the TL 60 mm, and faster too!  However, I find that of all my lenses, the one most likely to miss focus is the Sigma.  The other day, I had it out in bright sunlight, in the middle of the day, and it still occasionally had a hard time with focus.  I don't own any zooms for my CL, but I've thought about picking one up.  I like the price of the Sigma, and the relatively fast constant aperture of 2.8, but I'm really worried about the focus issues.  I wish the Leica TL zooms were faster and/or image-stabilized, because then the price difference would be easier to swallow...

I have the 30mm and the 56mm and both hunt for focus when they shouldn’t need to in bright light and easy to focus on subjects, and where the TL lenses do not. They also seem to chew up the battery at a faster rate than the TL lenses. At the price they are sold at they’re still worth hanging onto.

[MJB]

On 5/30/2022 at 11:01 PM, Le Chef said:

I have the 30mm and the 56mm and both hunt for focus when they shouldn’t need to in bright light and easy to focus on subjects, and where the TL lenses do not. They also seem to chew up the battery at a faster rate than the TL lenses. At the price they are sold at they’re still worth hanging onto.

For sure, the price differential between the Sigma lenses and the Leica TL lenses is HUGE.  But to me, a lens that hunts for focus in broad daylight isn't worth much.  I've managed to pick up several TL lenses over time, either brand new and significantly marked down, or lightly used copies at good prices (relatively), and I've been happy with all of them.  I actually just traded my Sigma 56mm (and several other lenses) for a TL 18-56mm, like new with box and all for $819.  The comparable Sigma 18-50mm sells new for $549, so to me the Leica at that price is a no-brainer.  Of course, a used Sigma zoom would be a fairer comparison, but I couldn't find one in L-mount and I imagine they're a little harder to find secondhand than the plentiful TL zoom.  I'm envious of the faster constant aperture offered by the Sigma, but I'll take reliable autofocus over the better light-gathering.  It's a shame that Leica didn't offer OIS on the TL zooms, though.

Edited June 1, 2022 by MJB

[wda]

9 hours ago, MJB said:

For sure, the price differential between the Sigma lenses and the Leica TL lenses is HUGE.  But to me, a lens that hunts for focus in broad daylight isn't worth much.  I've managed to pick up several TL lenses over time, either brand new and significantly marked down, or lightly used copies at good prices (relatively), and I've been happy with all of them.  I actually just traded my Sigma 56mm (and several other lenses) for a TL 18-56mm, like new with box and all for $819.  The comparable Sigma 18-50mm sells new for $549, so to me the Leica at that price is a no-brainer.  Of course, a used Sigma zoom would be a fairer comparison, but I couldn't find one in L-mount and I imagine they're a little harder to find secondhand than the plentiful TL zoom.  I'm envious of the faster constant aperture offered by the Sigma, but I'll take reliable autofocus over the better light-gathering.  It's a shame that Leica didn't offer OIS on the TL zooms, though.

I might have been lucky, but my Sigma zoom gives me swift AF. I rretained my TL zoom for bright light use, keeping my faster Sigma as a winter light lens, or for general low-light use. It is a genuine bargain, and an excellent performer, ideal for casual family pictures indoors.

[lct]

9 hours ago, MJB said:

For sure, the price differential between the Sigma lenses and the Leica TL lenses is HUGE.  But to me, a lens that hunts for focus in broad daylight isn't worth much.

It is not the case of my Sigma 18-50/2.8 i must say. It is the only L lens i bought for my digital CL so far but i find it a superb little lens indeed. At what price could Leica compete with an f/2.8 zoom lens like this?

[Boojay]

10 hours ago, MJB said:

For sure, the price differential between the Sigma lenses and the Leica TL lenses is HUGE.  But to me, a lens that hunts for focus in broad daylight isn't worth much.  I've managed to pick up several TL lenses over time, either brand new and significantly marked down, or lightly used copies at good prices (relatively), and I've been happy with all of them.  I actually just traded my Sigma 56mm (and several other lenses) for a TL 18-56mm, like new with box and all for $819.  The comparable Sigma 18-50mm sells new for $549, so to me the Leica at that price is a no-brainer.  Of course, a used Sigma zoom would be a fairer comparison, but I couldn't find one in L-mount and I imagine they're a little harder to find secondhand than the plentiful TL zoom.  I'm envious of the faster constant aperture offered by the Sigma, but I'll take reliable autofocus over the better light-gathering.  It's a shame that Leica didn't offer OIS on the TL zooms, though.

I might be wanting to check another copy of the Sigma zoom if I was you.. no slouch AF wise with my copy, can't say any different experience to any of my TL lenses, other than my 60 which is the slowest of the bunch, to be expected given its macro use.  

[michali]

I'm currently on a trip in Tanzania, quite heavily  loaded up with my Canon 400mm f4 DΟll & Leica VE90-280mm L.  So as not to totally  break my back, I took the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8  instead of the VE 24-90mm L which I left at home.  I've been using the Sigma  extensively on the SL2 & SL2-S  it's been faultless.

Tanzania Wildlife Authority anti-poaching team member, Serengeti.  SL2-S & Sigma DC DN 18-50mm f2.8

(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!

 

Edited June 1, 2022 by michali

[MJB]

I don’t want to piss on anyone’s parade, and if you find no fault with your Sigma lenses, then great. I can only tell you that I’ve been less than impressed with my 56mm, and I’ve heard a few reports of similar spotty AF in other focal lengths. 

I’ve not actually used Sigma’s zoom, but my experience with the 56mm has left me a little wary of the others. 

And the question is not really one of image quality. Of course the lenses are capable of rendering lovely images, but if I can’t rely on the AF performance, who cares?

Again, I’m not telling anyone what to think about their Sigma lenses, or that we should write off the whole brand.  I still think they are an incredible value, but I do feel like I discern a difference in performance between them and the (admittedly very overpriced) native TL lenses.

[lct]

16 minutes ago, MJB said:

Again, I’m not telling anyone what to think about their Sigma lenses, or that we should write off the whole brand.  I still think they are an incredible value, but I do feel like I discern a difference in performance between them and the (admittedly very overpriced) native TL lenses.

Why overpriced? Leica products are priced the way they are intended to be. As far as 18-50 lenses are concerned, if you want the more compact pick the Leica or the faster pick the Sigma. Now if you want the more performant at f/2.8 it can only be the Sigma of course but such is life and you may wish to buy both lenses as well. I seem to recall that one of our good colleagues here did own both at some point.

[lct]

Specs from 2014 (T) and 2017 (TL) look exactly the same so those are the same lens with different names i guess but i would ask Leica to be sure.

T_red .pdfTL_red.pdf

[rob_w]

Just to report, I recently returned from a holiday in Portugal where I used the Sigma 18-50 exclusively on my Canon A7R4.  The result is severeral 100 excellent images, under all conditions and at all focal lengths, consistent with Michali's experience.  Even though I could have used a full-frame zoom the APS-C results were so good I doubt the extra weight and hassle would be worth the bother in IQ terms.  The sacrifice of cropping (to 26Mp in my case) was not relevant at all.

Edited June 15, 2022 by rob_w

[elambo]

Thanks for reporting, Rob! Maybe you can post a couple of your favorites from that trip?

I've been using the 18-50 and have yet to take a sub-par photo that I could blame on anything but myself. Great lens so far.

Are you a manual-focuser? If not, how do you feel about the autofocus speed? It's the only real complaint I can muster.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[rob_w]

The autofocus speed is fine on the Sony A7, but then, AF is much faster and better altogether, so I am not sure how that would transfer to the CL.  Would be happy to post photos but since none of the kit is actually Leica I suspect it would be against forum rules.  I can say they verify Michali's examples!

[wda]

Ùnless shooting a lot of sports, the AF is fast enough for general photography.  When I need extra speed, I shoot short burst sequences. Pros do that often, to catch decisive moments.