Summicron 90mm SL vs. Sigma 85 DG DN

[wizard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Am 9.9.2022 um 12:55 schrieb insomnia:

Even if that advantage were true, I doubt 100 MP will be relevant for consumers.

Well, some years ago some people said 18 MP is enough, 24 MP is the sweet spot, and 50 or 60 MP will never be relevant for consumers. Today, 50 or 60 MP are the norm for new cameras. Go figure 🙂.

[Advertisement]

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

[Kristofferpaulsen]

Just saw this thread, and I know I'm probably too late, but I went all in and bought the 90 a few months back, and I'm constantly stunned at how amazing it is. Absolutely sensational lens.

Here's a few cool pictures Ive shot with it

https://www.dropbox.com/s/u8vr2d6ygnz91m5/DAVE_MANTON_L1010654_CREDIT_KRISTOFFER_PAULSEN.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/57luabjtglfnx4y/Aru_11.08.2237098_CREDIT_KRISTOFFER_PAULSEN.jpg?dl=0

https://www.dropbox.com/s/o5juq0ptqwyztem/STARWARD_VITALIS_39162_HERO_CREDIT_KRISTOFFER_PAULSEN.jpg?dl=0

 

Very, very happy with this one. Something in me hates putting non Leica glass on the SL2.. (Although I think I'm about to buy the Panasonic 16-35.. we'll see..)

[Photos By Cowz]

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!

I have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN and rate it highly and use it for 75% of my portraiture, withthe Sigma 105mm f1.4 DG HSM being second and in tight spaces I use the Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM.  I also love the Chinese TTA/7A manual glass on my SL2.  This image is the 90mm f.1.25 with a NISI close up filter.    Certainly sharp enough for 47Mp

 

Edited September 17, 2022 by Photos By Cowz

[Photoworks]

On 9/9/2022 at 6:54 AM, Almizilero said:

I must say I was surprised how small the 90mm is. After reading a lot about the massive Leica lenses, this one seems very reasonable. It's not that much longer than the Sigma and less bulky. The weight is more or less the same as well. But yes, Sigma builds a 1.4 at this size and the extra stop is highly appreciated! As are the buttons and aperture ring. The Leica is an absolute beauty, but the no frills approach has it's downsides. I got to like the aperture ring quite a lot.

at 90mm the size is ok. but I don't understand the benefit of having every lens the same size, wide lenses can be constructed much smaller.

I can see the only argument is in video when you mount a mattbox and need it to be in place and not move.

But I don't like this lenses in M-Focus, you can't probably use focus gear. since it does not have hard stop you can turn the lens past to the calibrated markers. At this point the markers all mover and you have to calibrate again. 
It is not the AF-C is so hot on this camera. So I don't see any reason to have smaller lenses.

[trickness]

What you're getting with the native SL primes is a level of rendering the Sigmas cannot touch - the color and sharpness is in another galaxy. Whether or not that is important to the photographer, or if they're capable of getting everything out of the lens and what it can deliver, is another discussion entirely. If you want what the SL Primes can deliver, the Sigma is not going to get you there. Very capable lenses Sigma, nothing wrong with them, but there's magic in the SL primes.

This was shot on the SL 35 Cron in harsh afternoon sunlight (albeit not direct sunlight). The color, the 3D pop, and the sharpness of this lens blow my mind every time I shoot with it, and I've got a very nice collection of Leica glass (M and SL).

 

 

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!

[Kristofferpaulsen]

On 9/17/2022 at 11:39 PM, trickness said:

What you're getting with the native SL primes is a level of rendering the Sigmas cannot touch - the color and sharpness is in another galaxy. Whether or not that is important to the photographer, or if they're capable of getting everything out of the lens and what it can deliver, is another discussion entirely. If you want what the SL Primes can deliver, the Sigma is not going to get you there. Very capable lenses Sigma, nothing wrong with them, but there's magic in the SL primes.

This was shot on the SL 35 Cron in harsh afternoon sunlight (albeit not direct sunlight). The color, the 3D pop, and the sharpness of this lens blow my mind every time I shoot with it, and I've got a very nice collection of Leica glass (M and SL).

 

 

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!

10000% this

[Kristofferpaulsen]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/17/2022 at 9:41 PM, Photos By Cowz said:

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!

I have the Sigma 85mm f1.4 DG DN and rate it highly and use it for 75% of my portraiture, withthe Sigma 105mm f1.4 DG HSM being second and in tight spaces I use the Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM.  I also love the Chinese TTA/7A manual glass on my SL2.  This image is the 90mm f.1.25 with a NISI close up filter.    Certainly sharp enough for 47Mp

 

imagine how good it would be with the Leica though.. (sorry)

[tom0511]

vor 11 Stunden schrieb Kristofferpaulsen:

imagine how good it would be with the Leica though.. (sorry)

is this comment meant serious? 

[Kristofferpaulsen]

On 9/21/2022 at 7:06 AM, tom0511 said:

is this comment meant serious? 

half and half! I meant, yeah it's a good picture, but with the 90 it would be even better

[Simone_DF]

12 minutes ago, Kristofferpaulsen said:

half and half! I meant, yeah it's a good picture, but with the 90 it would be even better

Define "better"? 

Maybe Leica should automatically embed a red dot watermark in the corner of each image taken with a Leica lens, so we'll immediately know it's a superior image.

[profus]

On 9/17/2022 at 3:39 PM, trickness said:

What you're getting with the native SL primes is a level of rendering the Sigmas cannot touch - the color and sharpness is in another galaxy...

If you want what the SL Primes can deliver, the Sigma is not going to get you there. Very capable lenses Sigma, nothing wrong with them, but there's magic in the SL primes

 

Well, really cannot recognize it - this "another galaxy" thing... No doubt SL primes are great, but are they sooooo much better than Sigma's? If you ask me - definitely no.
Are they better? Perhaps a bit - in some aspects. Still I am sure that majority of viewers would not be able to tell the difference for 95+ % of images
Just my 2c

[trickness]

42 minutes ago, profus said:

Well, really cannot recognize it - this "another galaxy" thing... No doubt SL primes are great, but are they sooooo much better than Sigma's? If you ask me - definitely no.
Are they better? Perhaps a bit - in some aspects. Still I am sure that majority of viewers would not be able to tell the difference for 95+ % of images
Just my 2c

Do you actually own any SL glass? Have you worked with any images shot with these lenses? Because it doesn’t sound like it.

Of course 95% of viewers couldn’t tell the difference -  they also couldn’t tell the difference between image shot on the iPhone and an M11. And who cares? Are you shooting for “viewers“ or for yourself? 

I could direct you to the many interviews where Peter Karbe talks about the special capabilities of the SL primes relative to all the other glass Leica has made in its history. But if you can’t or won’t see the (obvious) difference in quality with these lenses, then I’ll just say enjoy your Sigmas in good health.

 

[tom0511]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Kristofferpaulsen:

half and half! I meant, yeah it's a good picture, but with the 90 it would be even better

I doubt it would be better

 

vor 11 Minuten schrieb trickness:

Do you actually own any SL glass? Have you worked with any images shot with these lenses? Because it doesn’t sound like it.

Of course 95% of viewers couldn’t tell the difference -  they also couldn’t tell the difference between image shot on the iPhone and an M11. And who cares? Are you shooting for “viewers“ or for yourself? 

I could direct you to the many interviews where Peter Karbe talks about the special capabilities of the SL primes relative to all the other glass Leica has made in its history. But if you can’t or won’t see the (obvious) difference in quality with these lenses, then I’ll just say enjoy your Sigmas in good health.

 

do you have one example to show the "obvious" difference?

I like and use some SL primes myself, but I find the difference more subtile and I must say the 135/1.8 Sigma (which I also own for the SL) does an excellent job as well.

I would prefer the SL primes and think there is a difference, but I would never go so far and say "this image would be better if shot with a Leica SL lens".

[trickness]

2 hours ago, tom0511 said:

I doubt it would be better

 

do you have one example to show the "obvious" difference?

I like and use some SL primes myself, but I find the difference more subtile and I must say the 135/1.8 Sigma (which I also own for the SL) does an excellent job as well.

I would prefer the SL primes and think there is a difference, but I would never go so far and say "this image would be better if shot with a Leica SL lens".

Of course you’re right. There’s absolutely 0% difference between Leica lenses And really anything else on the market. And we are all utter fools for spending our money on this overpriced, same as anything else glass. I’m going to hop off the forum now and sell all my Leica lenses, thank you.

Hans Gruber said it best: SHOOT. THE GLASS!

Edited September 26, 2022 by trickness

[insomnia]

Congrats on repeating the marketing stuff with a hefty note of arrogance I could do without (Edit: I replied to the unedited post of trickness which sounded like something from the Leica website). But thanks for calling us incapable to judge for ourselves. We're talking about a specific lens here and you're dropping a 35 image that adds no value to the discussion. You accused people of not having used native SL lenses. Have you used the 85 DG DN?

Sharpness/Microcontrast? Me and a lot of people chose the 24 MP SL2-S for a reason. However, this 85 Sigma delivers to the point and that is already at f/1.4. I'm sure it can deliver well over 50 MP if operated at f/2 which would be comparable. Surely no galaxy of a difference in ANY way.

Colors? I leave no RAW untouched. But I do like the current Leica glass (more so then the old, way cooler Mandler), the Sigma is extremely close and after editing you won't see it.

Bokeh and transition from focus to OOF? --> yes, definitely important. To me, it's most relevant for 35 to 50 mm. No one in the thread was able to distinguish the superiority of the Leica (then again, that might be us at fault). Same goes for the color.

Vignetting and distortion are completely irrelevant to me.

Image imperfections like CA or LoCa are a bit more relevant, but can also be removed digitally. Don't have too much experience with both to compare but I didn't once need to correct anything obvious with the Sigma.

Handling? Have rented the 90 SL for a weekend. I like the sleek design but I would appreciate an aperture ring more.

The Leica is the heavier, 1 step slower lens for 5x the price. If you're used to Leica glass you might like a certain, veeeery subtle rendering and color cast they deliver. It might even be objectively better in some niche aspects us "stupid people" don't need or appreciate.  It won't be better for everyone. Deal with it and don't fight people for justifying your invest 🙂

Edited September 26, 2022 by insomnia

[tom0511]

vor 32 Minuten schrieb trickness:

Of course you’re right. There’s absolutely 0% difference between Leica lenses And really anything else on the market. And we are all utter fools for spending our money on this overpriced, same as anything else glass. I’m going to hop off the forum now and sell all my Leica lenses, thank you.

Hans Gruber said it best: SHOOT. THE GLASS!

I didnt say there is 0 difference,  (otherwise I would not use a lot of Leica glass myself) - but I would never say about a good image "this image would have been better if taken with Leica glass" its like stepping out of a Porsche and saying nice ride, but would have been nicer with a Ferrari. (I drive VW by the way )

 

[trickness]

7 hours ago, insomnia said:

Congrats on repeating the marketing stuff with a hefty note of arrogance I could do without (Edit: I replied to the unedited post of trickness which sounded like something from the Leica website). But thanks for calling us incapable to judge for ourselves. We're talking about a specific lens here and you're dropping a 35 image that adds no value to the discussion. You accused people of not having used native SL lenses. Have you used the 85 DG DN?

Sharpness/Microcontrast? Me and a lot of people chose the 24 MP SL2-S for a reason. However, this 85 Sigma delivers to the point and that is already at f/1.4. I'm sure it can deliver well over 50 MP if operated at f/2 which would be comparable. Surely no galaxy of a difference in ANY way.

Colors? I leave no RAW untouched. But I do like the current Leica glass (more so then the old, way cooler Mandler), the Sigma is extremely close and after editing you won't see it.

Bokeh and transition from focus to OOF? --> yes, definitely important. To me, it's most relevant for 35 to 50 mm. No one in the thread was able to distinguish the superiority of the Leica (then again, that might be us at fault). Same goes for the color.

Vignetting and distortion are completely irrelevant to me.

Image imperfections like CA or LoCa are a bit more relevant, but can also be removed digitally. Don't have too much experience with both to compare but I didn't once need to correct anything obvious with the Sigma.

Handling? Have rented the 90 SL for a weekend. I like the sleek design but I would appreciate an aperture ring more.

The Leica is the heavier, 1 step slower lens for 5x the price. If you're used to Leica glass you might like a certain, veeeery subtle rendering and color cast they deliver. It might even be objectively better in some niche aspects us "stupid people" don't need or appreciate.  It won't be better for everyone. Deal with it and don't fight people for justifying your invest 🙂

You mad bro? Dude shoot whatever you want - I never said anybody was stupid, I never accused anybody of anything, and I put in a 35 image because the SL Summicrons all render in a similar manner. I can happily post some 75SL Summicron images. 
 
I did a lot of research before I spent the money on SL glass, and I rented the lenses to see what the images would look like. There is something extra and special that these lenses deliver - I am certainly not the only person who has said this. You can dismiss the “Leica marketing stuff” but Peter Karbe himself has said that the 35SL Summicron is the best 35 they have ever made. And given that Leica is considered by many photographers to have the best class in the business, I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the SL lenses out of hand…with all due respect to your opinion.

I justify my investment every time I take the lenses out and do work with them - which is multiple times a week. Yes I have shot with the 85 DG DN and it’s a fine lens and it’s certainly no impediment to taking a good picture. But I’ve also seen images taken with my 75 SL versus the 85 and you’d have to have glaucoma not to be able to see the difference. It wasn’t massive - but it was obvious. And sure, you pay a premium for that difference. But given that you can buy the 90 used for not too much over $3000 I certainly would go that route as opposed to buying the Sigma. Just my choice. In any case, it’s the photographer that makes the difference, not the gear.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by trickness

[Herr Barnack]

Quote

...I did a lot of research before I spent the money on SL glass, and I rented the lenses to see what the images would look like. There is something extra and special that these lenses deliver - I am certainly not the only person who has said this. You can dismiss the “Leica marketing stuff” but Peter Karbe himself has said that the 35SL Summicron is the best 35 they have ever made. And given that Leica is considered by many photographers to have the best glass in the business, I certainly wouldn’t dismiss the SL lenses out of hand...

@trickness  I have heard the same sentiment - "There is something extra and special that these lenses deliver" - from other SL shooters. 

This leaves me wondering if the SL lenses are actually better than the equivalent M lenses?  I am invested in the M and Q2 systems, and to my eye, there is no denying that the lenses I own and use deliver image quality that other manufacturer's lenses simply cannot match. 

I will no doubt have a trainload of poop flung at me by the Leica loathers and the "M lenses are just another lens, no better than SoCaNiFuj glass" contingent, and I just don't care.  Leica's optical computations, glass composition, extremely tight manufacturing tolerances, mechanical design, craftsmanship and performance at wide apertures (not just maximum aperture) are all factors that come together to deliver something special. 

I have to wonder if the redoubtable Mr. Karbe made his statement "the 35SL Summicron is the best 35 they have ever made" before or after the 35mm Summicron M APO was created, and if the 35SL Summicron is better than or equal to the revered 35/2 APO for the M line.

Quote

...I justify my investment every time I take the lenses out and do work with them...

At the end of the day, that is all that matters - be it paid work or unpaid work.  Photography is not about the money - or at least it shouldn't be IMHO.

Edited September 26, 2022 by Herr Barnack

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[trickness]

18 minutes ago, Herr Barnack said:

@trickness  I have heard the same sentiment - "There is something extra and special that these lenses deliver" - from other SL shooters. 

This leaves me wondering if the SL lenses are actually better than the equivalent M lenses?  I am invested in the M and Q2 systems, and to my eye, there is no denying that the lenses I own and use deliver image quality that other manufacturer's lenses simply cannot match. 

I will no doubt have a trainload of poop flung at me by the Leica loathers and the "M lenses are just another lens, no better than SoCaNiFuj glass" contingent, and I don't care.  Leica's optical computations, glass composition, extremely tight manufacturing tolerances, mechanical design, craftsmanship and performance at wide apertures (not just maximum aperture) are all factors that come together to deliver something special. 

I have to wonder if the redoubtable Mr. Karbe made his statement "the 35SL Summicron is the best 35 they have ever made" before or after the 35mm Summicron M APO was created, and if the 35SL Summicron is better than or equal to the revered 35/2 APO for the M line.

 

I’m pretty sure he (Karbe) talks about the differences between the 35APO M and the 35 SL Summicron in the intro video on YouTube for the APO, and he compares the MTF charts etc. I think his main point in that video as I recall is that it was a huge technical challenge to get close to the level of the SL 35 in that small a package - I think he did say that the SL 35 is still a little bit ahead, but I haven’t watched the video in a while.

I have several M lenses including the 75 Nocti (which is the most impressive M lens in terms of sharpness & rendering I own - but I have not shot with either the 50 or the 35 M APOs) - the 75 Nocti is unreal, insanely sharp, different rendering than the 75 SL. The 75 SL though is way lighter, way less expensive, and because of the autofocus you can nail the picture every time. It obviously doesn’t blow out the background the same way as the 75 Nocti. But you can take very dreamy vivid pictures with the 75 SL. 

All of which is to say that you just have to kind of choose what master to serve… If you’d like smaller, manual focus only lenses then obviously the M glass works really well on the SL. The SL glass is bigger, heavier, less of a pleasure to use in manual focus, but I think the color and the 3-D pop of the SL Summicrons is really unique (which Karbe has spoken about extensively). I take either M or SL glass out on the SL2 depending on my mood and on the shoot. My 2 favorite lenses of all time are the 50 1.4 Lux M ASPH and the 35 SL Cron. But they are all just (REALLY EXPENSIVE!) paint brushes at the end of the day.

 

Edited September 26, 2022 by trickness

[trickness]

10 hours ago, insomnia said:

Congrats on repeating the marketing stuff with a hefty note of arrogance I could do without (Edit: I replied to the unedited post of trickness which sounded like something from the Leica website). But thanks for calling us incapable to judge for ourselves. We're talking about a specific lens here and you're dropping a 35 image that adds no value to the discussion. You accused people of not having used native SL lenses. Have you used the 85 DG DN?

Sharpness/Microcontrast? Me and a lot of people chose the 24 MP SL2-S for a reason. However, this 85 Sigma delivers to the point and that is already at f/1.4. I'm sure it can deliver well over 50 MP if operated at f/2 which would be comparable. Surely no galaxy of a difference in ANY way.

Colors? I leave no RAW untouched. But I do like the current Leica glass (more so then the old, way cooler Mandler), the Sigma is extremely close and after editing you won't see it.

Bokeh and transition from focus to OOF? --> yes, definitely important. To me, it's most relevant for 35 to 50 mm. No one in the thread was able to distinguish the superiority of the Leica (then again, that might be us at fault). Same goes for the color.

Vignetting and distortion are completely irrelevant to me.

Image imperfections like CA or LoCa are a bit more relevant, but can also be removed digitally. Don't have too much experience with both to compare but I didn't once need to correct anything obvious with the Sigma.

Handling? Have rented the 90 SL for a weekend. I like the sleek design but I would appreciate an aperture ring more.

The Leica is the heavier, 1 step slower lens for 5x the price. If you're used to Leica glass you might like a certain, veeeery subtle rendering and color cast they deliver. It might even be objectively better in some niche aspects us "stupid people" don't need or appreciate.  It won't be better for everyone. Deal with it and don't fight people for justifying your invest 🙂

Just saw that you posted this message below in another thread about sigma vs SL lenses lol

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 September 27, 2022 by trickness