Leica 35/2 and 50/2 SL ASPH lenses?

[TAFFY]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 3/20/2023 at 3:45 PM, Chris Nebard said:

In response to Taffy:

Personally, I don’t think you would go wrong with either of your options. I have the Leica 24-70 VE (bought as the kit option with my SL2-s in 2021) and it’s excellent. I’m sure the sigma will provide similarly great results. Both are renowned for sucking dust into the front element - Leica Wetzlar cleaned mine in short order and I’ve had no further trouble - but it’s largely a cosmetic issue anyway.

The 2 new non Apo Summicrons look to be great - particularly as kit options - but I already own the Sigma 35mm f2 i-contemporary which, at £550 (in agreement with Simone_DF), is unbelievable value for what I think is a high performance 35. 

I’ve travelled with the Leica 24-70 VE and the Sigma 35 (for wedding work at home and abroad) and neither has let me down - great performers. 

You have good choices, good luck with whatever you go with 👍

Thanks for your recommendation of the Sigma 35.  I read up on it and it seems like a great lens -- I like that there is an aperture ring and the styling appeals to me.  This focuses close too and watching the Red Dot Forum video, they talk a lot about the close focus capabilities of the SL35 but the VE24-70 seems to be able to get pretty close too!  

[Advertisement]

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

[Chris Nebard]

1 hour ago, TAFFY said:

Thanks for your recommendation of the Sigma 35.  I read up on it and it seems like a great lens -- I like that there is an aperture ring and the styling appeals to me.  This focuses close too and watching the Red Dot Forum video, they talk a lot about the close focus capabilities of the SL35 but the VE24-70 seems to be able to get pretty close too!  

You are very welcome, Taffy. Speaking as an ex-M user whose eyes aren’t what they used to be, the SL2-s is a godsend. Nevertheless, I agree entirely about size and weight and (for me at least) i-Contemporary Sigma primes transform the SL user experience while providing more than acceptable image quality. An aperture ring is a big preference for me - on a prime - and they are beautifully built. Using them side by side with my M lenses is perfect.

I’ve found the Sigma 35/f2 to be a lovely lens. I’ve seen the odd review which has said it can even be too clean and sharp but (looking at your M lens list) I think you have the VM 35/1.4 and so you have bucketloads of character to call on. In any case, to my mind, the Sigma renders in a lovely way. Subject separation and of focus areas are very nice and, as you say, with a useful minimum focus distance.

There’s no getting away from it, the VE 24-70 is quite weighty but it does balance nicely on the SL2-s. And (again, for me personally) at a wedding or event, I need a quality f2.8 standard zoom, so getting this as part of the kit offering made good sense. It’s a cracking lens. 

Whatever you decide on, I’m sure you’ll enjoy your choices👍👍

[Simone_DF]

4 hours ago, TAFFY said:

Coming from an M system even the "smaller" 24-70 of Leica and Sigma feel large & heavy.  Trying to keep the kit as light as possible so I can carry it around without feeling like I should have taken my M instead.

If light is your top priority, I second Chris Nebard above, have a look at the Sigma offerings. They are the lenses that are more similar to your Ms. Small, light, aperture ring, metal body, great performers. The next release from Sigma should be a 50mm f/2.0, I'd wait for that to see how it compares to the Panasonics. 

[EJS73]

5 hours ago, Chris Nebard said:

There’s no getting away from it, the VE 24-70 is quite weighty but it does balance nicely on the SL2-s. And (again, for me personally) at a wedding or event, I need a quality f2.8 standard zoom, so getting this as part of the kit offering made good sense. It’s a cracking lens. 

Agreed, the quality and versatility are why the 24-70 has to date been my only lens for the SL2S. Though I am interested in the new compact primes, I'm not sure either of them would make a sufficient difference to the size and weight to make me bring the SL2S where I would currently find it unwieldy. And that leads to the question, if I go with a native 50, and size / price are not the main criterion, why not the APO 50? I really need to get out more...

Edited March 22, 2023 by EJS73

[Chris Nebard]

27 minutes ago, EJS73 said:

Agreed, the quality and versatility are why the 24-70 has to date been my only lens for the SL2S. Though I am interested in the new compact primes, I'm not sure either of them would make a sufficient difference to the size and weight to make me bring the SL2S where I would currently find it unwieldy. And that leads to the question, if I go with a native 50, and size / price are not the main criterion, why not the APO 50? I really need to get out more...

😂 quite right, I spend far more time on this forum than is healthy. The world has much bigger problems to consider than my camera gear. 

[Planetwide]

 

[gotium]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

 

Interesting that he sees them rendering exactly the same but then goes on to point out the differences in rendering.

My question would be if the differences at the edges are just due to sample variation or a deliberate attempt to sharpen up the periphery given the fundamental differences in the Panasonic and Leica platforms - and how one could do that with coatings only, without changing the design of the lens per se?

[SrMi]

4 hours ago, Planetwide said:

 

His conclusion uses a car analogy :(.

[Stuart Richardson]

On 3/16/2023 at 8:33 AM, huwm said:

I’ve the Sigma 35mm f2 contemporary and am waiting for someone with experience of both it and the 35 f2 Leica to chip in.
Any takers?

I missed this earlier. I have the 35mm f2 contemporary and eventually added the 35mm f2 APO Summicron. Are you thinking of that, or the 35 ASPH? I can say that the 35mm APO is in a totally different class optically. The sharpness and lack of vignetting is much higher in the Leica, but the biggest difference is in the total absence of chromatic aberration and longitudinal chromatic aberration. Where the Sigma files have a lot of green and magenta color shifts in the bokeh and fringing around high contrast areas, the Leica has none whatsoever.  After I got the Leica, I have not used the Sigma since. I would like to sell it, but the secondary market is not strong here, so I have not done so yet. I am not sure how the 35mm ASPH version will do, however. In my experience, the 35mm f2 contemporary is not as good a lens as my other two Sigmas, the 24mm 3.5 and the 105mm Macro.

[Stuart Richardson]

7 hours ago, gotium said:

Interesting that he sees them rendering exactly the same but then goes on to point out the differences in rendering.

My question would be if the differences at the edges are just due to sample variation or a deliberate attempt to sharpen up the periphery given the fundamental differences in the Panasonic and Leica platforms - and how one could do that with coatings only, without changing the design of the lens per se?

These differences are likely sample variation in my opinion. At the very least, I have seen much larger variations lens to lens in certain cases, even from high end lens makers like Rodenstock. I think what he has demonstrated is that there is effectively no substantive optical difference between the Leica and Panasonic lenses. In order to demonstrate that there is a consistent better performance from the Leica version vs the Panasonic version, I think one would need to test at least 5 or 10 copies of each. If someone wants to pay the extra 1500 dollars for the Leica version, that is their business, but personally it does not seem like that extra money goes to any better optical quality. I would say if that is your goal, you are probably better off buying 4 or 5 of the Panasonic lens for the same money and then keeping the sharpest version.

[Chris Nebard]

15 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I missed this earlier. I have the 35mm f2 contemporary and eventually added the 35mm f2 APO Summicron. Are you thinking of that, or the 35 ASPH? I can say that the 35mm APO is in a totally different class optically. The sharpness and lack of vignetting is much higher in the Leica, but the biggest difference is in the total absence of chromatic aberration and longitudinal chromatic aberration. Where the Sigma files have a lot of green and magenta color shifts in the bokeh and fringing around high contrast areas, the Leica has none whatsoever.  After I got the Leica, I have not used the Sigma since. I would like to sell it, but the secondary market is not strong here, so I have not done so yet. I am not sure how the 35mm ASPH version will do, however. In my experience, the 35mm f2 contemporary is not as good a lens as my other two Sigmas, the 24mm 3.5 and the 105mm Macro.

I’ll defer to Stuart’s knowledge and experience - particularly in comparing the Sigma 35 f2 to the 35 Apo Summicron, optically. From reading your previous posts, Stuart, your technical expertise leaves me standing. The Apo lenses are, obviously, wonderful things. 

What I would say, however, is that none of this makes the Sigma in any way a poor lens. In real world use for documentary, environmental portraits & events etc. I find it to be a cracking performer on the SlL2-s. The bokeh colour shifts and fringes haven’t been problematic for me, but we all have different needs and expectations. And, in a straight fight, an Apo lens at many times the cost simply has to be optically better. Whether it’s seven times better though, in 95% of usage cases, might be a moot point.

I’ve also read that - on the SL2-s - the Apo Summicrons may cause moiré in certain conditions because they out resolve the 24mp sensor. Now, if that’s genuine, that could be a problem for a wedding photographer and it’s not something the Sigma will normally produce on that sensor.

Back to Huwm’s question - I think he is looking for a comparison between the new (non Apo) 35 asph Summicron and the Sigma?

Also agree that the Sigma 24 f3.5 is a very good lens. I’ll admit to being biased in favour of the Sigma i-contemporaries though - I think they just work on the SL2-s.

And of course I’d take a 35mm Apo Summicron if one was chucked at me! 🤣🤣

[SrMi]

56 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I missed this earlier. I have the 35mm f2 contemporary and eventually added the 35mm f2 APO Summicron. Are you thinking of that, or the 35 ASPH? I can say that the 35mm APO is in a totally different class optically. The sharpness and lack of vignetting is much higher in the Leica, but the biggest difference is in the total absence of chromatic aberration and longitudinal chromatic aberration. Where the Sigma files have a lot of green and magenta color shifts in the bokeh and fringing around high contrast areas, the Leica has none whatsoever.  After I got the Leica, I have not used the Sigma since. I would like to sell it, but the secondary market is not strong here, so I have not done so yet. I am not sure how the 35mm ASPH version will do, however. In my experience, the 35mm f2 contemporary is not as good a lens as my other two Sigmas, the 24mm 3.5 and the 105mm Macro.

Thanks for the comparison. I have both lenses but have never bothered to run detailed comparisons. I use SIgma when I need a smaller and lighter setup. How easy or hard is it to eliminate chromatic aberration in the post? I almost always select "Remove Chromatic Aberration" when processing.

[Stuart Richardson]

53 minutes ago, Chris Nebard said:

I’ll defer to Stuart’s knowledge and experience - particularly in comparing the Sigma 35 f2 to the 35 Apo Summicron, optically. From reading your previous posts, Stuart, your technical expertise leaves me standing. The Apo lenses are, obviously, wonderful things. 

What I would say, however, is that none of this makes the Sigma in any way a poor lens. In real world use for documentary, environmental portraits & events etc. I find it to be a cracking performer on the SlL2-s. The bokeh colour shifts and fringes haven’t been problematic for me, but we all have different needs and expectations. And, in a straight fight, an Apo lens at many times the cost simply has to be optically better. Whether it’s seven times better though, in 95% of usage cases, might be a moot point.

 

I agree that the Sigma is a good lens. I think it is absolutely a reasonable choice. Stopped down it is very sharp and I don't think will leave much to be desired for most people. The biggest issues I encountered were close to wide open and when there was visible bokeh. I will post a quick comparison shot that drives the point home for me. The chromatic aberration is correctable at times, but longitudinal chromatic aberration is not correctable. That is when the boken in the foreground and background take on a color cast. The Leica APO lenses do not have this. Neither does Sigma's 105mm Macro. But it is common in fast non-apo lenses, including Leica's own lenses.

For me, the cleanness of the rendering of the 35mm APO is worth it, as it is a commonly used focal length for me, and the compactness is not really an issue for me. But others may not care or be bothered. I cannot comment on how the 35mm 1.8 or the 35mm f2 ASPH behave. As for moiré, that is hard to prevent if you have a lens that is sharper than the sensor. 24mp and lower resolution cameras are prone to moiré since modern lenses are sharp enough to render sharper than the sensor's Nyquist limit. There are ways around it...either shooting stopped down more, slightly changing camera to subject distance, or using a better raw conversion (such as the enhance mode in Lightroom). Fundamentally though, it is not really the lens's fault for being too sharp. I think any good lens might show it at f4 or 5.6 on center etc.

The attached images show the difference in the Leica 35mm APO and Sigma 35mm when it comes to chromatic aberration. I believe it also has a more pleasing and less busy bokeh. Forgive the slightly off topic response, but I guess it is maybe helpful in terms of choosing between the three of the main 35mm lenses available for L mount. Would be interest to see the 35mm ASPH as well, but unfortunately I do not have access to it, and I am more than happy with my 35mm APO.

 

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 March 23, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

In order to demonstrate that there is a consistent better performance from the Leica version vs the Panasonic version, I think one would need to test at least 5 or 10 copies of each. If someone wants to pay the extra 1500 dollars for the Leica version, that is their business, but personally it does not seem like that extra money goes to any better optical quality. I would say if that is your goal, you are probably better off buying 4 or 5 of the Panasonic lens for the same money and then keeping the sharpest version.

Agree and disagree. My experience with Leica lenses and expensive cine lenses is that they match the anticipated performance from copy to copy. Perhaps he got a bad Panasonic copy; maybe the Leica copy is a positive one-off. But disregarding these assumptions and taking his insights as they are, I'd say that the better housing and the sharper corners can be worth the higher expenses - if you plan to shoot landscapes and like to go hiking in inclement weather/rougher conditions.

[huwm]

Indeed I was hoping for comparison with new 35 ASPH.

Am thinking of jumping on the kit deal anyway as I now realise after a year or so of SL2 ownership that the SL2S is likely a better fit for me.

Having the VE 24-70 and APO 50 already then the 35 kit is the obvious choice and I'll have my own answer.

Vacillating currently however.

[Jon Warwick]

21 minutes ago, huwm said:

Am thinking of jumping on the kit deal anyway as I now realise after a year or so of SL2 ownership that the SL2S is likely a better fit for me.

 

In what sense a better fit for you? I used to have an SL2, but thinking about a return to the system and hence toying with choice of SL2 or SL2-S too! 

[Planetwide]

I think that we will see, that this guys video really does show the very small difference between the Panasonic and the Leica versions. The Leica's will be consistently better around the edges due to manufacturing tolerances. I also agree with Stuart, if you find a spot on Panasonic version, which is possible as he outlined, then it will match the leica's performance. 

My own experience with the Panasonic 16-35mm was similar. After testing 4 samples, one was/is a standout and continues to perform very well.

The decision to purchase these lenses can often be driven by other factors, such as weight, AF performance etc...

In the 35mm realm, I have recently been testing the Sigma 35mm F1.4 DG DN, with is also a very good lens. Certainly not as good as my 35mm APO SL, but its a 35mm F1.4...

[BernardC]

10 hours ago, gotium said:

My question would be if the differences at the edges are just due to sample variation or a deliberate attempt to sharpen up the periphery given the fundamental differences in the Panasonic and Leica platforms - and how one could do that with coatings only, without changing the design of the lens per se?

The lenses are assembled in a Leica factory, so we can't assume that all they do is change the barrel and flash the ROM. They are complex lenses with aspheric elements, so there's a lot that Leica could do without changing the basic prescription. Someone mentioned earlier that their dealer told them that Leica was using their own aspheres instead of Panasonic's, which would make a difference. Granted, dealers are not a reliable source of information, but it's an example of what Leica could do to improve performance. Just spending more time in assembly, fine-tuning the spacing and centering, would make a difference.

Differences will be more evident in the corners, because there's more room for improvement there. The center starts-out with >95% contrast, you wouldn't notice if that number increased to 97% (not without sophisticated test equipment), but corner improvements will be evident by eye.

Leica could also improve stray light suppression, which makes a huge difference in some situations. Hasselblad did that with their cameras and lenses in the 1990s. The difference was night and day, even though most lens formulations did not change. All of a sudden you could use higher lighting ratios and brighter backlights without washing-out your subject.

I'm just speculating, as we all are, but my main point is that Leica knows a lot about building lenses. We shouldn't assume that all of that knowledge went missing for these two products.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[huwm]

11 minutes ago, Jon Warwick said:

In what sense a better fit for you? I used to have an SL2, but thinking about a return to the system and hence toying with choice of SL2 or SL2-S too! 

I have discovered that I actually rarely crop due to my obsession with 'getting it right at the time'

I find I do take a lot more low/murky light photos than I thought and limiting myself to 3200 or even 6400 iso has meant that I've not got the shot I wanted

I do print but never more than A4 really, once in a blue moon A3 and mainly view on a 32inch monitor or very rarely a projector/screen sat 5m away

I looked back over a good few years of pictures taken with CL, TL2, Olympus EM1 1 and 2 and my Lumix S5(same sensor but bloody annoying handling and crap EVF) all with good quality lenses and compared them unscientifically with last years shots taken with the SL2 and didn't feel there was any lack of resolution issue, for me 

Crazy big file sizes which don't matter really with my NAS set up and Cloud storage but quite bizarrely seem to 'drag me down' 🙄 and do certainly slow some processes 

Getting rid of that white paint 😅

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, hansvons said:

Agree and disagree. My experience with Leica lenses and expensive cine lenses is that they match the anticipated performance from copy to copy. Perhaps he got a bad Panasonic copy; maybe the Leica copy is a positive one-off. But disregarding these assumptions and taking his insights as they are, I'd say that the better housing and the sharper corners can be worth the higher expenses - if you plan to shoot landscapes and like to go hiking in inclement weather/rougher conditions.

I think that is certainly a reasonable assumption, but I also think it is kind of wishful thinking to think there is enough of a difference in Leica's assembly and Panasonic's assembly for there to be a consistent optical advantage for Leica. These are not huge heavy lenses, super wides, zooms or telephotos with a very large number of elements that need exceptionally careful assembly and housings. They are pretty run of the mill lenses. Perhaps if we see more and more comparisons and they all give Leica the edge, but if I recall correctly there was another comparison where the Panasonic lens was sharper? I think I remember seeing that, but don't remember where. I could be wrong.

Leica does not mention that it is derived from a Panasonic lens at all, so it is hard to say whether they do anything different than Panasonic. I would not be surprised if the entire optical assembly was shipped ready to go to Portugal, where they popped it into a body shell...To me at least, his results were similar enough (especially in bokeh and overall look) to be indicative that the lenses were functionally the same. I have found sample variation to be a very real phenomenon, and have used good and bad versions of the same lens. If you want a better housing and sharper corners, I personally think the money is probably better spent on a used copy of one of the APO Summicrons, or a Sigma art lens. I don't have any negative opinions about the Leica lens per se, but it is kind of hard for me at least to justify an extra 1500 dollars for what is essentially an optical clone. Either that, or get a few copies of the Panasonic and pick the best one.