Any news on new Leica SL lenses?

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

That's in the official specifications published by Leica and by Sigma on their respective web sites. They are different.

You can contact the companies if you think that their web sites are inaccurate. I am sure that they would correct any mistakes.

Looking at Sigma's and Leica's sites:

- both lenses have three aspherical lens elements

- both have 19 elements in 15 groups.

Sigma specifies 5 FLD, one SLD element, and nine unlabeled elements, while Leica says it has "nine elements made from glasses with anomalous partial dispersion for the correction of chromatic aberrations." I need to find out how to compare those specifications.
Did I miss something?

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Sigma specifies 5 FLD, one SLD element, and nine unlabeled elements, while Leica says it has "nine elements made from glasses with anomalous partial dispersion for the correction of chromatic aberrations." I need to find out how to compare those specifications.
Did I miss something?

No, you didn't miss anything. Sigma has 6 special elements, and Leica has 9. Those elements aren't cheap.

My theory is that Leica's 24-70 design that was rejected by Sigma because it didn't meet their target sales price (roughly $1,000 in the US). Sigma did what any sensible business would do, and now we have access to both designs, at different price points. It's just a theory, of course.

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Thanks, I was thinking more about something like Reid's reviews.

I don't trust the Leica Miami guys since they have a vested interest. Besides, sample variation is a thing, so I prefer to take a look at 2-3 different reviews to account for this.

ps: the folks at Phillip Reeve's always test for flare and distortion

At least the Miami store's biases are clear. All of the "equipment testing" sites want you to buy through them (links in description!), so they aren't all that different.

I miss the old Lens Rentals blog. It's main bias was that they only tested lenses that you could rent from them (links provided). They still have a blog, but it's been dumbed-down quite a bit.

[Planetwide]

When it comes to the 24-70mm lens, I wonder who actually designed the lens. If it was Sigma, does adding better glass to the original optical design yield much of an improvement? If it was Leica, then why isn't it stated? Then we have the very good Pana 24-70mm, which is a design certified by Leica, which means what?

Edited December 30, 2022 by Planetwide

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

When it comes to the 24-70mm lens, I wonder who actually designed the lens. If it was Sigma, does adding better glass to the original optical design yield much of an improvement? If it was Leica, then why isn't it stated? Then we have the very good Pana 24-70mm, which is a design certified by Leica, which means what?

Yes, expensive elements make a significant difference. That's why companies use them, and mention them in advertising.

I believe that the "certified by Leica" branding on certain Panasonic lenses means that the lenses meet or exceed a set of criteria that Leica and Panasonic have agreed to. It's a way for Panasonic to distinguish their premium products.

[Jeff S]

On 12/23/2022 at 2:43 PM, BernardC said:

I miss the old Lens Rentals blog. It's main bias was that they only tested lenses that you could rent from them (links provided). They still have a blog, but it's been dumbed-down quite a bit.

Agreed… not the same since Roger mostly stepped away, now even more so. 

https://m.dpreview.com/opinion/9654455337/introducing-roger-cicala

Jeff

[beewee]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Planetwide said:

When it comes to the 24-70mm lens, I wonder who actually designed the lens. If it was Sigma, does adding better glass to the original optical design yield much of an improvement? If it was Leica, then why isn't it stated? Then we have the very good Pana 24-70mm, which is a design certified by Leica, which means what?

Sigma came up with the optical design and manufactures the lens for Leica to Leica’s specifications which are different than Sigma’s specifications. Also, who’s to say the original optical design was inferior to what is in the Leica version? It’s equally possible that the original Sigma optical design meets and/or exceeds Leica’s specifications and Sigma had to ‘dial down’ the bill of materials to make it palatable to Sigma’s core clientele. Whereas for a low volume, premium branded product with a Leica badge, Sigma can use more expensive glass to achieve a marginally improved optical performance because Leica customers perceives value and are willing to pay more for such a product.

It’s like buying chocolate. Most people will by the cheap stuff at the supermarket but some are willing to buy the fancy ones from some chocolatier. At the end, the recipe is more of less the same but one uses higher quality ingredients and some people perceives the value and are willing to pay.