Sigma 100-400mm f/5-6.3 DG DN or Panasonic Lumix S PRO 70-200mm f/2.8 O.I.S or F4 lens for Leica SL2-S?

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello;

I'm looking for a longer telephoto for my Leica SL2-S. I have a 24-90 and a couple of primes. The SL 90-280 is a great lens, but (based on how much I will probably use it) isn't a good use of funds.

I realize that the Sigma is a longer focal length, but when comparing the above lenses, (I could use a 100-400 or a 70-200 with the Lumix 1.4x or 2x Extender) which would be a better quality lens for the SL2-S?

What are your thoughts?

Thanks!

-Brad

[jaapv]

I had the 100-400 and  it is a good lens, Excellent OIS and quite good image quality, but it is eclipsed by the 150-600.

[smcmason]

I much preferred the Panasonic 70-200 2.8 with TC to the Sigma 100-400 (I also like the 150-600 over the 100-400, although it is no fun to carry). The AF seemed to work faster, and the build feels much more solid to me. I had the 90-280 as well, but recently sold it. The IQ was outstanding, but it was so expensive that I was hesitant about where I would take it. That made me realize it was just too expensive for me. 

Take that opinion with a grain of salt though, because I am selling one in the classified section right now  

[bherman01545]

9 minutes ago, smcmason said:

I much preferred the Panasonic 70-200 2.8 with TC to the Sigma 100-400 (I also like the 150-600 over the 100-400, although it is no fun to carry). The AF seemed to work faster, and the build feels much more solid to me. I had the 90-280 as well, but recently sold it. The IQ was outstanding, but it was so expensive that I was hesitant about where I would take it. That made me realize it was just too expensive for me. 

Take that opinion with a grain of salt though, because I am selling one in the classified section right now  

So you sold your 90-280 and the 70-200 is up for sale? What are you using now then?

[smcmason]

5 minutes ago, bherman01545 said:

So you sold your 90-280 and the 70-200 is up for sale? What are you using now then?

Right now I have the 24-90 that I can also use as a 36-135 equivalent on my CL. I also have the Sigma 150-600, although I don't often bring it out with me. Just about all of what I shoot can be covered under that 135 focal range. If the 70-200 & TC didn't have so much value, I would keep them. I really want to pick up a Q to try out, though. That's what pushed me that final step toward selling. 

[Shawn30]

I sold the Sigma 100-400, my copy just missed focus too often. The size, weight, focal length of the Sigma was pretty useful for me. To replace it, I picked the Panasonic 100-300 instead of the 70-200. It's my first Panasonic lens, and I haven't used it much yet. 

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 minutes ago, Shawn30 said:

I sold the Sigma 100-400, my copy just missed focus too often. The size, weight, focal length of the Sigma was pretty useful for me. To replace it, I picked the Panasonic 100-300 instead of the 70-200. It's my first Panasonic lens, and I haven't used it much yet. 

You mean the 70-300?

[Virob]

My thinking is get the lens that best matches your focal length needs and consider TCs a bonus for that bit extra. The 70- 200/2.8 is a big, heavy expensive lens that is probably amazing ( I have not used it).  If you think you will be using it 90% of the time without a TC and taking advantage of that 2.8 aperture, it could be the lens for you. If you think you will be using that 200-400 range about the same amount as 70-200, I would go with the 100-400.
Personally, I went with the 70-300, which is lighter, more compact and has great close focusing for landscape/ general photos because I am more likely to take it with me. And, I have the 150-600, which comes out for specific purposes. I’m still on the fence with the 150-600 or whether u4/3 is more practical for long telephoto (for me), but for L mount, the 70-300 + 150-600 makes a nice combo. It speed is more important, swap out the 70-300 for one of the 70-200s, or for a single lens solution go with the 100-400. 

[Shawn30]

20 hours ago, bherman01545 said:

You mean the 70-300?

Yes the 70-300, lol

[Cattoo]

I have the Sigma 150-600.  It's a fantastic lens.  

[Tailwagger]

Assuming you can deal with the weight, the 70-200 F2.8 Lumix with the STC1.4 is a terrific lens. AF is good, very sharp, good bokeh, but again... it is a beast.  And the 2x extender is weak. If you need more reach, the 150-600 Sigma is likely the better choice.  For the price of the Lumix and 1.4, you could get one of those and fill the gap with one of the other Sigma primes 105 or 135. I have the latter as well and while also a bit of a bear, it renders beautifully and the added speed comes in handy.

[bherman01545]

6 minutes ago, Tailwagger said:

Assuming you can deal with the weight, the 70-200 F2.8 Lumix with the STC1.4 is a terrific lens. AF is good, very sharp, good bokeh, but again... it is a beast.  And the 2x extender is weak. If you need more reach, the 150-600 Sigma is likely the better choice.  For the price of the Lumix and 1.4, you could get one of those and fill the gap with one of the other Sigma primes 105 or 135. I have the latter as well and while also a bit of a bear, it renders beautifully and the added speed comes in handy.

I wonder how the 70-200 f4 Lumix lens compares? 

[hossegor]

one flaw is that you can not shoot bursts with the 70-200 if the battery is under 50% of power. 

[Tailwagger]

2 hours ago, bherman01545 said:

I wonder how the 70-200 f4 Lumix lens compares? 

Lighter and more compact, good optically but, per reviews, generally not quite up to the 2.8 in terms of IQ.  And, of course,  a bit slow if you intend to use the extender often. 

[IvanC]

Hello bherman01545, which one of the two option in your question did you end up selecting? Are you satisfied with it?

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 3/10/2022 at 3:07 AM, jaapv said:

I had the 100-400 and  it is a good lens, Excellent OIS and quite good image quality, but it is eclipsed by the 150-600.

Interesting. I have the Sigma and Leica 100 to 400 and the image quality is excellent on both. Really excellent. At least as good as my Sony 100 to 400 gm. I haven't tested it against my Canon 100 to 500 yet but I reckon it'll be basically the same as it. 

Funny that our experiences with both lenses you mention is opposite of each other. 

My 500 is ready for collection when I get home. That'll be a fun test. 

Gordon

[balzani_shots]

On 3/23/2024 at 3:24 AM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Interesting. I have the Sigma and Leica 100 to 400 and the image quality is excellent on both. Really excellent. At least as good as my Sony 100 to 400 gm. I haven't tested it against my Canon 100 to 500 yet but I reckon it'll be basically the same as it. 

Funny that our experiences with both lenses you mention is opposite of each other. 

My 500 is ready for collection when I get home. That'll be a fun test. 

Gordon

Hello, I`m considering the Leica 100-400, would you consider it superior to the Sigma 100-400 ? Also thinking of the Sigma 70-200 DG DN with TC but haven`t found many information on his use with the TC and I`m afraid the impact of the TC will "ruin" the IQ.

Carlos

[jaapv]

Both baseless concerns. Leica remounts the Sigma optics in their own barrel (maybe an insignificant difference in coatings). The 1,4 converter on the 70-200 does not degrade the image, but is rather useless as it only extends the focal length from 200 to 280 mm. The 2x converter does have a small impact on IQ, not significant in real life but will cost you 2 stops of aperture plus one for stopping down for quality.

Having said that, in general the Sigma/Leica 70-200 is one of the best lenses in its class on the market and  the Sigma is quite fast-focusing.. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

11 hours ago, balzani_shots said:

Hello, I`m considering the Leica 100-400, would you consider it superior to the Sigma 100-400 ? Also thinking of the Sigma 70-200 DG DN with TC but haven`t found many information on his use with the TC and I`m afraid the impact of the TC will "ruin" the IQ.

Carlos

The 100-400 is the one *shared* lens where the Leica has real world advantages. The optics are the same but the Leica has vastly superior weather sealing and build. The Sigma is a *contemporary* lens, meaning great optics and minimal weather sealing. It is much ligher than the Leica. SO you either prioritise weight or build/sealing. I almost always use the Leica.If cost is an issue you are getting similar/same optical performance so no worries there getting the cheaper optic.

I prefer the 100-400 over the 70-200/2xTC combo. The optics are better at the long end on the 100-400, slightly and it's way more convenient to use. If you mostly need the speed and occsionally wnt longer than 200 then get the 70-200. But if you want the 300-400 range regularly then get the 100-400. If you are getting the 70-200 get the Sigma. It's a *sports* series meaning it has comprehensive weather sealing and your just spending money on the Leica styling for the Leica. Same with the 14-24 and 24-70. The 100-400 is the only one I think the Leica is worth the extra.

There's also the 90-280. It's expensive, large, heavy and doesn't take tc's. It also focuses slower than any of the others and not a suitable lens for moving subjects. But it's optics are best in class and noticably superior to anything else in L mount. If you're not chasing moving subjects and want prime lens performance in a tele-zoom, then it's worth considering.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[JohnQ]

Does anybody have experience with the Canon 70-200 ef f4 is l ii? It is excellent on Canon cameras and considering its modest weight and image quality, it could be a possibility.

Edited April 7 by jaapv