Leica CL Sigma Lens choices - 24mm F2 vs 16mm f1.4 and 30mm f1.4???

[gryffinwings]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi guys, I'm new here, I am planning on purchasing a Leica CL soon, wanted a Leica ever sense I tried some Leica cameras at the Leica Store in West Hollywood. Anyways I'm looking at 2 options for lenses from Sigma, can't afford the Leica lenses right now. The lenses I'm looking at are the Sigma 24mm f2 DG DN or the Sigma 16mm f1.4 DC DN and Sigma 30mm f1.4 DC DN. Here are my questions.

1. I watched a video on youtube by Matt Osborne of the Sigma 24mm f2 and he shows that the lens gives a very nice glow around lights instead of stars, do all of these lenses have that characteristic?

2. Will the Sigma 24mm f2 give me similar or better image quality on APSC compared to the Sigma 16mm and 30mm?

Any other feedback or comparisons that I have missed would be appreciated.
 

[Advertisement]

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

[AdHox]

I have the Sigma 24mm f/2, which I chose over the Leica TL 23mm f2 Summicron for various reasons.

It does exactly what I ask it to do, so I'm happy with it. It's a stop slower that the the two f/1.4 lenses, but meh.

I wouldn't compare it to the 16mm or 30mm lenses, mainly because they are three quite different focal lengths - if I wanted the look of the 24mm, I wouldn't get it with the other two lenses, just as the 24mm and 30mm would not substitute for the 16mm.

Rather than comparing these lenses head to head, I'd suggest deciding which focal length is best for you, then deciding whether one of these lenses provides that focal length, and then whether the IQ is what you need.

 

[Rusty]

I have the sigma 30mm f1.4 and the 56mm f1.4 and the sigma 90mm f2.8 which is a full frame lens. I also have the elmerit 18 pancake lens.

the IQ on all of them is excellent. I particularly like the finish and feel of the 90mm as it is all metal and has the aperture ring. The 30 and 56 are both bigger but lighter. The 30mm is the largest.

If I was doing it again I would get the 24mm f2 or f3.5 dg dn. Leica have announced the end of apsc so I would get the sigma full frame lenses so I have options in the future.

The 24 will be a nice 36mm on the CL which is a good length if it’s your only lens. I would think about the f3.5 version if lens size is a consideration. 
 

in fact I think the sigma dg dn 24/3.5, 45/2.8 and 90/2.8 make a great trio that works on both apsc and full frame, are small and all have the same 55mm filter thread. You lack a bit in lens speed but it’s a high quality compact set of primes.

[jdlaing]

I use the Sigma 24 and 35 f2 DG DN lenses regularly on the CL and they work great. I wish they were a tad smaller but they are not too big for me.

[AdHox]

59 minutes ago, jdlaing said:

I use the Sigma 24 and 35 f2 DG DN lenses regularly on the CL and they work great. I wish they were a tad smaller but they are not too big for me.

I have these two lenses for my CL (along with the 90). Unfortunately three different filter sizes, bu otherwise a useful trio.

[Coffeecup]

Have you considered the Sigma 35mm f2? That would be the lens I’d choose personally. I’ve dismissed the 30mm because it’s insanely long!

Good luck choosing. Maybe the safest bet as a first lens actually is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (fixed through the zoom range). It is tiny, especially given its a 2.8. 
 

[ruskkyle]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It looks big but the newly released 24/1.4 from sigma might give a nice “35 lux” look on the CL.

[Marac]

A good suggestion from Coffecup regarding the 18-50, it's very nice as a starter/kit lens as this will give you all of your 'choices' in a single lens (18 not 16 though)

It can focus close too. If you are going with primes then the 24 f2 seems like the better option as it is the middle lens of your 3 selections. Bokeh will be similar with all except the 30mm f1.4, this lens has a 'milkier' bokeh than the other 2 but again it's minimal really.

[Rusty]

On 9/2/2022 at 9:15 AM, Coffeecup said:

Have you considered the Sigma 35mm f2? That would be the lens I’d choose personally. I’ve dismissed the 30mm because it’s insanely long!

Good luck choosing. Maybe the safest bet as a first lens actually is the Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (fixed through the zoom range). It is tiny, especially given its a 2.8. 
 

The sigma 35 f2 is 70mm diam and 65mm long.

the sigma 30mm f1.4 is 65mm diam and 71mm long.

6mm is not very much difference in length.

The 45mm equiv of the sigma 30mm is a nice length I like it more than the 52mm equiv of the 35.

and the 30 is a very sharp lens with great Color. I would not write it off so quickly especially given the price advantage.

if you want to use it on full frame at some stage then yes the 35mm is a better bet but for the CL either is worth owning.

[Coffeecup]

How would the Sigma users rate the 24mm f3.5 to Leica's 23mm f2 Summicron? I'm seriously considering slowly moving from TL glass to FF glass, for future resistancy of my camera gear. Right now it would even bring in some extra cash. Is the Summicron worth its price difference, and where would the most obvious differences lay?

 

TIA peepz 

[Einst_Stein]

If you want Sigma lens, get Fujifilm X-T4, X-h2 or Canon R7. 

[Boojay]

18 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

If you want Sigma lens, get Fujifilm X-T4, X-h2 or Canon R7. 

Really struggling to ignore this comment...why????  As for the Canon R7 - no RF mount Sigma lenses anytime soon - sadly!!!

Any and all of the Sigma L Mount lenses I have tried so far have been a good fit for the CL and punch well above their price point in comparison to TL lenses.   The 18-50 is a really good option.   I haven't tried the 24mm f/2 but from other users images and comments it looks to be a good option, as is the 24 f/3.5.  I've had a sort of love hate relationship with the 23mm f/2, I have it at the moment but it gets little use given that I find myself sticking with the 18-50 for most things, with the TL 35mm 1.4 and the Sigma 65/2 and 90/2 for longer focal lengths.    

I have had all of the TL lenses, now just the 4 TL primes remain in my bag,  the 35 being the standout lens for me and given the situation with regard to Leica, well L mount in general, would stick with FF lens options from now on.  Just my opinion, no dogma here🙂.

 

[ruskkyle]

3 hours ago, Boojay said:

I've had a sort of love hate relationship with the 23mm f/2

I can certainly identify with this comment! I’ve taken plenty of images with it that I love, but have also never really taken to it. There’s something about the rendering which I find underwhelming.

[Einst_Stein]

3 hours ago, Boojay said:

Really struggling to ignore this comment...why????  As for the Canon R7 - no RF mount Sigma lenses anytime soon - sadly!!!

Any and all of the Sigma L Mount lenses I have tried so far have been a good fit for the CL and punch well above their price point in comparison to TL lenses.   The 18-50 is a really good option.   I haven't tried the 24mm f/2 but from other users images and comments it looks to be a good option, as is the 24 f/3.5.  I've had a sort of love hate relationship with the 23mm f/2, I have it at the moment but it gets little use given that I find myself sticking with the 18-50 for most things, with the TL 35mm 1.4 and the Sigma 65/2 and 90/2 for longer focal lengths.    

I have had all of the TL lenses, now just the 4 TL primes remain in my bag,  the 35 being the standout lens for me and given the situation with regard to Leica, well L mount in general, would stick with FF lens options from now on.  Just my opinion, no dogma here🙂.

 

You can use these lenses on Fujifilm. For who likes Sigma lens, take a look at. Canon too. 
But if what is important is th eLeica’s logo, go ahead ignore this suggestion.

[Boojay]

3 hours ago, ruskkyle said:

I can certainly identify with this comment! I’ve taken plenty of images with it that I love, but have also never really taken to it. There’s something about the rendering which I find underwhelming.

Exactly that!

 

[tommonego@gmail.com]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Boojay:

Exactly that!

 

I find the 23 has 3 excellent f stops f2.8 - f5.6 in that range I really like the redering of the lens, for some reason my 23 seems to drop off at f8, f2 is OK but I haven't used the lens at f2 that often. I also have the 11-23 which I think is a superb lens, it is just f4.5 at 23, so I have kept the 23. I do like carrying the smaller lens.   

[Ba Erv]

Personally, I think the 23mm Summicron is the lens of choice.  If you're not worried about perfectly straight architecture lines being corrected you can strip the optic codes from the dng and the lens takes a major jump in resolution.  There's a little barrel distortion that can be corrected in post without the in-camera interpolation hit.

[Coffeecup]

I've just traded in the 23mm in a transaction with MPB. I haven't used it too long (about a month or so), but think of it as a too high valued lens. Sure, it is tack sharp, has great contrast and a nice color output but the downsides do not belong on a lens with this market value.

The (lack of) close focussing and sliding 2 --> 2.8 aperture are things that you'll eventually work around, but I personally can't live with a lens that gives purple fringing in the corners of the frame.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Ba Erv]

7 hours ago, Coffeecup said:

I've just traded in the 23mm in a transaction with MPB. I haven't used it too long (about a month or so), but think of it as a too high valued lens. Sure, it is tack sharp, has great contrast and a nice color output but the downsides do not belong on a lens with this market value.

The (lack of) close focussing and sliding 2 --> 2.8 aperture are things that you'll eventually work around, but I personally can't live with a lens that gives purple fringing in the corners of the frame.

I never found the CA much of an issue with the 23mm.  Actually, the Sigma 35 f2 is even worse in the corners.  As a primarily B&W shooter that lens anomaly is at the bottom of my agony list anyway; also easy to correct.

[Coffeecup]

7 hours ago, Ba Erv said:

I never found the CA much of an issue with the 23mm.  Actually, the Sigma 35 f2 is even worse in the corners.  As a primarily B&W shooter that lens anomaly is at the bottom of my agony list anyway; also easy to correct.

O it sure is not a bad lens. It’s that for someone who sees the T and CL as their main camera (me) without unlimited funds, I find that it’s value doesn’t hold up against for instance the Sigma 30/1.4 ánd 56mm/1.4 ánd even keep some change in the pocket. I don’t think it’s higher price is justified.
Though I didn’t see purple fringing in a lot of photos, but most definitely more often than I ever saw in previous systems. 
Maybe I’m a more budget orientated buyer coming from M4/3, but to me that’s not a property belonging to a €/$ 1.000 lens.