New Leica SL Telezoom: Leica Vario-Elmar- SL 100-400 f/5-6.3

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many Leica lenses, especially M lenses are made of exotic glasses in a very compact casing.  The design of the lens system, the cost of the glass and the cost of low volume runs = very high price.  Since that is the case, Leica also makes sure the tolerances are so tight that the long term use of the lens, well I still use lenses from the 1950’s and 1960’s.  The same is true of the R glass, and the S glass - specific designs, tight tolerances, and low volume runs.  All cause cost to be higher.

Leica has taken other designs and refined them.  Leica has also partnered with other manufacturers.  We dont’ have any facts that say this is the same lens, same glass, same tolerance as the Sigma lens.  If I had to guess, Lecia looked at the design and added some details to improve the image quality.  The MTF graphs are strong for a zoom, with typical falloff of the 40 lppm which has been the case with many long R zooms.

Yet, if Leica found a way for a higher volume group to make the lens (Japan), then even with better coatings or different glass and tight tolerance, the manufacturing facility could dramatically lower the cost, without lowering quality.

It remains to be seen if this partnership style will continue, but if it allows Leica to work on the other SL Summicrons, while still providing lenses in the long range, it is a win for all SL users.

Just my thoughts….

[AeroMirage]

I think it is a reasonable deal. Given that the Leica 90-280 is $7295.00. This 100-400 being $2195.00 looks pretty tempting.

I thought about this but decided to go with a Lumix 70-200 F2.8.

With a 2x teleconverter I will have 400mm reach at a lower F stop which remains constant.

Plus the Lumix in an internal zoom which stays the same length and better weather sealing, (My opinion!)

Found a used one on B&H for $1967.00.

 

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!

[Advertisement]

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

[JeffWright]

2 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Says 22 / 16 on Sigma’s website

 

 

You're correct, I looked at the prior 100-400

[Kristofferpaulsen]

1 hour ago, AeroMirage said:

I think it is a reasonable deal. Given that the Leica 90-280 is $7295.00. This 100-400 being $2195.00 looks pretty tempting.

I thought about this but decided to go with a Lumix 70-200 F2.8.

With a 2x teleconverter I will have 400mm reach at a lower F stop which remains constant.

Plus the Lumix in an internal zoom which stays the same length and better weather sealing, (My opinion!)

Found a used one on B&H for $1967.00.

 

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!

How is it??

[Daniel C.1975]

vor 10 Stunden schrieb hdmesa:

It is definitely workable to shoot handheld, but I do have to take occasional breaks to rest my left arm. It does help reduce fatigue to hold the lens by the end of the lens barrel near the hood instead of holding it further back toward the camera.

That‘s why I always used monopods with such lenses in the passed.  It‘s a big relief and the ISO can stay at Lowe values, which was extremely important at the time where I still used teles a lot.

[SrMi]

The included tripod collar and foot partly explain the difference in weight to Sigma. The tripod collar is optional with Sigma.

[hdmesa]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

32 minutes ago, Daniel C.1975 said:

That‘s why I always used monopods with such lenses in the passed.  It‘s a big relief and the ISO can stay at Lowe values, which was extremely important at the time where I still used teles a lot.

Yup, the monopod and monopod head arrive tomorrow. 

[NicholasT]

6 hours ago, Ken Abrahams said:

I am not really a telephoto kind of user however I am interested in this lens for a few projects coming up. Can anyone say about how the minimum aperture for this lens and relevant ISO setting might work, especially in lower "non contrasting" light. It would seem that ISO settings would need to be relatively high such as 800-3200?

Best

Ken  

 

I believe at least the partial answer to your question is reasonably well covered in the Leica Australia review with sample images:

 

 

Also some added perspective in this review as well 

 

 

[Ken Abrahams]

6 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

 

I believe at least the partial answer to your question is reasonably well covered in the Leica Australia review with sample images:

 

 

Also some added perspective in this review as well 

 

 

Yes. thanks. The video of Nick Rains promoting the 100-400 came up in a timely fashion. It would seem that high ISO parameters would be needed for this lens.

Ken  

[NicholasT]

20 minutes ago, Ken Abrahams said:

Yes. thanks. The video of Nick Rains promoting the 100-400 came up in a timely fashion. It would seem that high ISO parameters would be needed for this lens.

Ken  

Most recently I’ve been shooting wildlife and compressed landscapes with the Panasonic LUMIX 70-300 F4.5-5.6 and am getting good results on SL2 using ISO 1600 with some regularity.

For added perspective I’ve owned the 90-280 (twice) and have extensive past experience with best Nikon glass ( 400mm F 2.8 ).

I recently switched to LUMIX 70-300mm because I find it strikes a good balance between IQ and weight / portability. The 90-280 is a better lens but the IQ difference is not dramatic and the 90-280 weighs twice as much, is barely hand holdable and price difference is off the charts.

While I’m very pleased with the Panasonic Lumix 70-300 (and will probably keep it), I’m looking forward to owning the Leica 100-400. The added reach will be very welcome, early indications performance with 1.4x seem excellent and in low light situations I’m comfortable bumping up the ISO and/or using a tripod with static subjects.

Edited March 10, 2023 by NicholasT

[dem331]

25 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

 

I believe at least the partial answer to your question is reasonably well covered in the Leica Australia review with sample images:

 

 

Also some added perspective in this review as well 

 

 

Nice video. I especially like the comment comparing it to the Sigma at 2’13 - “ it’s sharper, especially from 100mm up”

[Ken Abrahams]

2 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

Most recently I’ve been shooting wildlife and compressed landscapes with the Panasonic LUMIX 70-300 F4.5-5.6 and am getting good results on SL2 using ISO 1600 with some regularity.

For added perspective I’ve owned the 90-280 (twice) and have extensive past experience with best Nikon glass ( 400mm F 2.8 ).

I recently switched to LUMIX 70-300mm because I find it strikes a good balance between IQ and weight / portability. The 90-280 is a better lens but the IQ difference is not dramatic and the 90-280 weighs twice as much, is barely hand holdable and price difference is off the charts.

While I’m very pleased with the Panasonic Lumix 70-300 (and will probably keep it), I’m looking forward to owning the Leica 100-400. The added reach will be very welcome, early indications performance with 1.4x seem excellent and in low light situations I’m comfortable bumping up the ISO and/or use a tripod with static subjects.

Excellent, thank you for that. Having experience with these things is the best source for information.

Ken 

[NicholasT]

Further to earlier message for anyone interested in Panasonic Lumix 70-300mm F4.5-5.6 below are couple of recent images taken with that lens.

Both had to be cropped which is one reason why I’m looking forward to the Leica SL 100-400 with 1.4X converter

 

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!

[sebben]

6 hours ago, AeroMirage said:

I think it is a reasonable deal. Given that the Leica 90-280 is $7295.00. This 100-400 being $2195.00 looks pretty tempting.

I thought about this but decided to go with a Lumix 70-200 F2.8.

With a 2x teleconverter I will have 400mm reach at a lower F stop which remains constant.

Plus the Lumix in an internal zoom which stays the same length and better weather sealing, (My opinion!)

Found a used one on B&H for $1967.00.

 

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!

Hopefully they will rebadge this one as well

[LocalHero1953]

7 hours ago, rsh said:

I have owned the 16-35, 24-90 & 90-280 for nearly two years and have experienced no lens creep.  As everyone knows, none of the three have a lock switch.

I use the 24-90 for digitising 4x4 negatives (in vertical orientation), and it has lens creep. I use it at 90mm, but anything less ends up at 90mm anyway. The 90-280 is an internal zoom and I'd be surprised to see lens creep.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

I use the 24-90 for digitising 4x4 negatives (in vertical orientation), and it has lens creep. I use it at 90mm, but anything less ends up at 90mm anyway. The 90-280 is an internal zoom and I'd be surprised to see lens creep.

As does the 16-35. My 24-90 (well loved/used) has some creep. I don’t use it in a way that it’s an issue though.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

39 minutes ago, dem331 said:

Nice video. I especially like the comment comparing it to the Sigma at 2’13 - “ it’s sharper, especially from 100mm up”

I have both in hand and have done some side by side testing in LR. There’s no difference. None. Actually the leica needs slightly more capture sharpening….

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

I now have my SL100-400 and have done some basic side by side comparisons with the Sigma. Observations on page 4 of the other thread….

Gordon

[dem331]

3 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

I have both in hand and have done some side by side testing in LR. There’s no difference. None. Actually the leica needs slightly more capture sharpening….

Gordon

Yes, I saw your post and I am sure you’re right. I was just wondering how they compare below 100 mm since the reviewer notices it is sharper especially from 100mm up. 🤷🏼‍♂️

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Mak67]

@FlashGordonPhotographythé Real question is:  which one will you keep? Sigma or Leica version ?