Summicron 90mm SL vs. Sigma 85 DG DN

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 hours ago, pgh said:

For my money, if you tend to care about sharpness/resolution and all that - you're better off with a Sony or Nikon kit and any of the fantastic native or zeiss options - you get the added benefit of a better high res sensor here too (compared to the SL2, which is fantastic at base suffers in the ISO/dynamic range categories if that is relevant to your needs)

That may have been arguable five years ago, when the SL came out and was priced higher than any Sony, but not any more. First, whatever Sony model was "top dog" in 2016 is obsolete landfill now (the SL is still worth decent money). Second, you can get into the L mount for the same price as any competing mount. Third, other brands have also started selling "premium mirrorless" cameras, so SL prices don't seem unusually high anymore.

We can, and do, argue lenses all day. Each system has a few outstanding lenses, but the L mount isn't short of these. Certainly Canon is still the leader if you need long teles, but the L mount is the clear leader in the more common range. Not only with Leica, but also Panasonic and Sigma.

As far as file quality is concerned, your conclusions are not the same as those of people who print for a living. I've found Leica files to be easier to print than competing systems, no matter what marketing graphs claim. They just have better colour and pixel-level sharpness, which save days in post-processing. Your mileage may vary.

[pgh]

On 9/30/2022 at 8:27 AM, BernardC said:

That may have been arguable five years ago, when the SL came out and was priced higher than any Sony, but not any more. First, whatever Sony model was "top dog" in 2016 is obsolete landfill now (the SL is still worth decent money)

Disagree. First of all, the A7RII, which came out in 2015 has better file malleability (and at 42 mp, comparable resolution). It is absolutely not obsolete landfill now, it is still a great camera. And even now, if you get the 60 mp A7RIV, it's half the price of the SL2. So yea, still true on both counts. 

I won't argue lenses only to say that I think for most cases the Leica L lenses aren't worth the cost difference. Cost aside, they are certainly great lenses (at least from the short use I've given - I chose to purchase sigma for my AF uses, which are sparing).

On 9/30/2022 at 8:27 AM, BernardC said:

As far as file quality is concerned, your conclusions are not the same as those of people who print for a living.

This is presumptuous. You probably should have at least asked my reference first. Mostly because I do indeed print, and that's part of my job/career. If I didn't, there's zero reason I would even mess with an SL2. I only outsource super large prints and even then my printer works to my specs and I have longstanding relationship with him. Leica files are different, but not better as a whole - better in some regards, worse in others. When it comes to highlight retention, for example, in particular they're the most troublesome maker I've used - the SL2 - while not as bad at this as the M10, say, is still more finicky than that now 7 yr old "landfill" Sony. Better color is a subjective claim and depends on the camera itself - for my purposes as I said earlier this doesn't matter much because C1 or LR you can get to where you want to go with most any camera if you know your way around the software and you know what you want. Leica tends to be warmer/more saturated - this is better for some uses but not others. As for pixel level sharpness, that depends on the lens and technique and all sorts of things. At any rate, you're so far at the margins here that unless your work is about tech and image fidelity itself you're not in the realm of the sorts of differences that are material for most subject matter and most viewers. Most photographers making the most arresting and compelling work are not sweating this stuff - and that's just my point, unless you're deeply, deeply sweating these 1-.1% margins, the SL2 has practical value in more limited circumstances. 

Edited October 1, 2022 by pgh

[Advertisement]

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

[trickness]

6 hours ago, pgh said:

Disagree. First of all, the A7RII, which came out in 2015 has better file malleability (and at 42 mp, comparable resolution). It is absolutely not obsolete landfill now, it is still a great camera. And even now, if you get the 60 mp A7RIV, it's half the price of the SL2. So yea, still true on both counts. 

I won't argue lenses only to say that I think for most cases the Leica L lenses aren't worth the cost difference. Cost aside, they are certainly great lenses (at least from the short use I've given - I chose to purchase sigma for my AF uses, which are sparing).

This is presumptuous. You probably should have at least asked my reference first. Mostly because I do indeed print, and that's part of my job/career. If I didn't, there's zero reason I would even mess with an SL2. I only outsource super large prints and even then my printer works to my specs and I have longstanding relationship with him. Leica files are different, but not better as a whole - better in some regards, worse in others. When it comes to highlight retention, for example, in particular they're the most troublesome maker I've used - the SL2 - while not as bad at this as the M10, say, is still more finicky than that now 7 yr old "landfill" Sony. Better color is a subjective claim and depends on the camera itself - for my purposes as I said earlier this doesn't matter much because C1 or LR you can get to where you want to go with most any camera if you know your way around the software and you know what you want. Leica tends to be warmer/more saturated - this is better for some uses but not others. As for pixel level sharpness, that depends on the lens and technique and all sorts of things. At any rate, you're so far at the margins here that unless your work is about tech and image fidelity itself you're not in the realm of the sorts of differences that are material for most subject matter and most viewers. Most photographers making the most arresting and compelling work are not sweating this stuff - and that's just my point, unless you're deeply, deeply sweating these 1-.1% margins, the SL2 has practical value in more limited circumstances. 

Photographers making “the most arresting and compelling work” do so with tools that they have an affinity for, and many of them are brand loyal throughout their entire careers. You can make an argument that Leica is overpriced and that there is no advantage using their products in terms of the end result, and yet, many of the greatest photographers in history have used and continue to use their bodies and glass. I for one wouldn’t care if the Sony was two times the better camera as the SL2; every time I pick one of those bodies up, I want to barf. And yet I completely adore my SL2. 
 

At the end of the day, we like what we like, and if we feel comfortable with our gear, hopefully that gets us closer to realizing whatever vision we have for our work. I personally don’t understand the people who feel the need to come on here and make firm cases about why this or that piece of Leica equipment is not good value, is behind the times, etc. Not sure who these folks are trying to convince with these arguments, they’re not going to make really anybody switch, not anyone who is even remotely passionate about their gear. Seems like it would be a more reasonable pursuit to go onto a Sony forum and talk about how much one loves their camera, then come here to tell everybody how inferior their Leica is.

And of course, the camera is probably the least important part of whether or a particular photograph is good or bad. 
 

 

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!

[Almizilero]

Wow, this thread has been going off the rails for a while ... So as the guy who started it all I wanted to let you know how it played out for me.

First off, yes, I see now that it was a bit unfair to make the comparison with scaled down images. I did some more shoots with both lenses and a lot more pixel peeping and as much as I dislike the way some people here put the Leica far and beyond, it actually is a bit better. I can say that the Sigma, just as the version for Sony, is an outstanding lens. But! Even with the Sigma at F/2 as well, the sharpness of the APO is just something else (when the focus hits perfectly). Actually, it's almost to sharp for close ups. And it is very prone to producing moire, which the Sigma doesn't.
It all comes down to personal preference. I also liked the colours better. And then there's the „look“ of the images. Long story short, I kept the APO. BUT! Not for any rational reasons. I wanted to treat myself. I wanted the full Leica experience (or as much as the SL-System allows). And what tipped the balance might have been my girlfriend, who hates being photographed but needed a couple of pictures. Without any background knowledge, most of the pictures she picked I shot with the APO. A lens can't get higher praise in my book

So yeah, I got a great deal on a used one, which was the final straw, and sent the Sigma back. But this was really just a treat for myself. If I had to go by any rational means, the Sigma wins all the way. It's sharp (enough), light, fast (in both ways) and just a lot of bang for the buck.

[BernardC]

On 10/1/2022 at 1:27 PM, pgh said:

First of all, the A7RII, which came out in 2015 has better file malleability (and at 42 mp, comparable resolution). It is absolutely not obsolete landfill now, it is still a great camera. And even now, if you get the 60 mp A7RIV, it's half the price of the SL2.

Don't forget the Sigma fp-l! It's $1,000 less that the r4 and uses the same sensor.

I don't agree about the R2, I found it to have weak colour differentiation. My point was that it isn't worth much these days: $1,000 in great shape, and much less if it's been used. They don't stand-up well to abuse, I remember when I did weddings (pre-pandemic), video shooters would get one season out of A7s. Not the r2 (it wasn't their video version), but they all had similar construction.

On 10/1/2022 at 1:27 PM, pgh said:

When it comes to highlight retention, for example, in particular they're the most troublesome maker I've used

Are you shooting at base or "extended" ISO? You'll get more headroom at higher ISOs.

Either way it comes-down to user preference. If you like Sony's system that's great, I hope you get lots of use out of it. It's about the images, not the gear.

[Photoworks]

7 hours ago, BernardC said:

Don't forget the Sigma fp-l! It's $1,000 less that the r4 and uses the same sensor.

Sigma fp-l! electronic shutter for moving subjects?

 

the SL2 has consistently better details then my a7r3 and a7r4. the sensor design is much better just because it was constructed to use M lenses too. With that every adapted lens is better on SL2.

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Photoworks said:

electronic shutter for moving subjects?

Many photographers use ES for moving subjects because it avoids shutter shake. ES is an issue under certain types of illumination, especially cheap LED lights that lack a $0.01 smoothing capacitor.

The fp-l is a very specialized camera, not an all-rounder. I pointed it out because it's a way to get a 60MP image at a much lower price than what Sony charges. I don't believe that you'll see a material difference between 60, 50, or 47 MP in your images, but many photographers seem to think that a few extra pixels will raise their art to the next level!

[Photoworks]

20 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Many photographers use ES for moving subjects because it avoids shutter shake. ES is an issue under certain types of illumination, especially cheap LED lights that lack a $0.01 smoothing capacitor.

I think you are missing the rolling shutter issue! 

If a remember correctly you can only use on flash from sigma at 1/15s

[BernardC]

41 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

I think you are missing the rolling shutter issue! 

If a remember correctly you can only use on flash from sigma at 1/15s

That's a limitation of any ES camera, or any camera in ES mode. You wouldn't use it with a flash. The ideal setup for flash is a lens shutter, like you get with a Leica S3 or Hasselblad (with a matching CS lens). Focal plane shutters are the next best thing, but they also limit your choice of shutter speeds, which is an issue for daylight fill flash.

Unfortunately, there's no camera that meets each and every end-user's requirements.

[Photoworks]

31 minutes ago, BernardC said:

That's a limitation of any ES camera, or any camera in ES mode. You wouldn't use it with a flash. The ideal setup for flash is a lens shutter, like you get with a Leica S3 or Hasselblad (with a matching CS lens). Focal plane shutters are the next best thing, but they also limit your choice of shutter speeds, which is an issue for daylight fill flash.

Unfortunately, there's no camera that meets each and every end-user's requirements.

not sure where you are going with this. if  camera is just a tool the sigma in not great in flash photography, it is not for moving subjects. I am sure it is less money.

I don't see the value. The SL2 instead can accommodate all the shooting options that most of us need.

[BernardC]

20 minutes ago, Photoworks said:

not sure where you are going with this. if  camera is just a tool the sigma in not great in flash photography, it is not for moving subjects. I am sure it is less money.

I don't see the value. The SL2 instead can accommodate all the shooting options that most of us need.

I originally reacted to a post that claimed that L mount was too expensive, relative to Sony, and that you can get 60 MP for "half the price" with Sony. My answer was "don't forget the fp-l!" It uses the same 60 MP sensor and costs much less than the Sony.

Of course the fp-l is a specialized camera. It was designed that way! The Online Photographer has been running a series of articles about a B&W-converted fp, which is even more specialized! He loves it, but it's not for everybody. Quite the opposite.

[profus]

On 9/26/2022 at 1:14 PM, trickness said:

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.

 

Yes, I have one SL lens. Have rented some others for test. Do you own any Sigma glass? I have 3...

No, I am not interested to in any interviews with Peter Karbe, but I would really like you (or anyone else) to show us some images taken with SL vs. Sigma lens where this "obvious" huge difference is visible. Not saying there's no difference, but nothing that could justify 5x higher price tag, not even close.
( And no, I do not have glaucoma )

[trickness]

38 minutes ago, profus said:

Yes, I have one SL lens. Have rented some others for test. Do you own any Sigma glass? I have 3...

No, I am not interested to in any interviews with Peter Karbe, but I would really like you (or anyone else) to show us some images taken with SL vs. Sigma lens where this "obvious" huge difference is visible. Not saying there's no difference, but nothing that could justify 5x higher price tag, not even close.
( And no, I do not have glaucoma )

Yawn

[Luke_Miller]

What is often overlooked is that there are two approaches to designing lenses. One approach attempts to (within reason) address the challenges of distortion, vignetting, CA, etc. in the optical design.  The other approach writes op codes into the image's raw data that the raw processing programs use to correct the flaws the lens designer elected to not address in the optical design.  Obviously there are cost implications to which approach is selected.  To a stills-only shooter it may not make much difference which approach was taken.  Video is another matter since correcting optical flaws in software is not really practical.  So for an SL shooter who is serious about video the op code free Summicron-SL lenses may be the better choice even at their 5k price point.  Of course the movie industry opts for the (better still) Leica Cine lenses at 15k. 

[huwm]

I've just come back from a couple of hours at Paris photo salon where i discovered, that the 24-90 really isn't significantly heavier than my 24-70 but more to the point, that the Sigma 85mm 1.4 is a gorgeous bit of kit.

I can see the 85 1.4 art joining my 35 1.4 art and 50 SL as a prime triumvirate with hopefully a switch up from 24-70 to 24-90 when my ship comes in

The 50 SL is really special and my absolute favourite but I can see the 35 and 85 fulfilling quite specific roles, more so the 85 tbh

Still have the 105 macro of course, again for specific usage

The Art lenses really are excellent

[profus]

20 hours ago, trickness said:

Yawn

Good manners

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, profus said:

Good manners

I don't want this to degenerate further, but the conversation has evolved into something that we've all seen thousands of times on the internet. One person makes a personal evaluation of a product, and another one says "prove to me that..."

"Prove to me that this piano sounds better than that piano"

"Prove to me that this artist is better than that artist"

"Prove to me that oil paint is better than watercolour"

There can't be any satisfactory conclusion, especially when both sides are entrenched. At best, maybe we can come to an agreement that the things being compared are different, but often we can't even do that! It's better to move on.

There are multiple reasons why a photographer could prefer one lens over another, even if you ignore price. Leica has achieved a very consistent and unique look with their SL lenses, but it isn't the best look for all situations.

I've mentioned this story before, but it reminds me of a visit to a gallery with my (then) teen-aged nephew. They had two Richter paintings in adjoining rooms. I explained to him that Gerhard Richter is one of the most influential post-war European artists. The first painting was large and detailed, which he commented on. The second painting was small and deliberately blurred. He was able to work-out that size, sharpness, technique, medium, etc., are descriptive qualities of artwork, but they aren't relevant to what makes a particular work important, or pleasing, or even "Art". They are just tools that an artist uses to tell a story.

The same is true of lenses. The difference between them might not be important to the story that you want to tell, but that doesn't mean that they wouldn't be important in a different context, to a different photographer.

[Kristofferpaulsen]

On 9/26/2022 at 8:08 PM, Simone_DF said:

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.

richer, sharper, more pleasing blur etc etc. I've owned Sigma and i didn't like them very much. They don't come close to the Leica lenses.

[Kristofferpaulsen]

you know, all these comments are making me want to go shoot a bunch of real world comparisons. The Sigma is so cheap comparatively.. I have this aversion to Sigma from when i was a college they were just such utter shite.. So you know. 

 

But, if it was, indeed better than the 90, maybe i'd go that way instead.. Anyone keen?

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Almizilero]

Well, if we learned anything from this holy war ... erm ... thread, then that “better” is relative. I kept the Summicron because that focal length is my favourite and I did something I normally don't do. I pixelpeeped so long until I was sure that the Leica had some distinguishing qualities the Sigma could not bring to the table. Mainly, that 3D pop in every other image that Sigma couldn't match even at F/1.4.

BUT: The Sigma has the 1.4 aperture. Therefore it can blur the background better and the blur is definitely to my eyes more pleasing than that of the Summicron. Even stopped down to F/2. And the Sigma is only 1/5 of the price of the Summicron, so that would make it better for most people. It's fast, it's sharp, has great contrast and flare resistance. At the price, it's brilliant! Yes, the Summicron has even better microcontrast and that Leica pop. That might be worth a lot to people, it was to me for this one lens. My other lenses are Sigma. And even one Panasonic

So, I don't really get what your point is, you say you've owned and disliked Sigma, but maybe only back in the 90s? They've come a looooooong way since then. The 85/1.4 DG DN is absolutley amazing and the 35/1.2 is an unmatched masterpiece. So yeah, go out and do your own real world comparisons! You might be surprised. Unless, of course, you approach it with that Sigma is shite mindset ...