SL 100-400 f/5.6-6 Rebrand But Not the Same Lens

[davidmknoble]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

RE: weatherproofing

I think Leica has always given more weather sealing language to lenses that have internal focusing systems, and less language to those with a focus tube that extendss.

The 24-90, the 24-70 and the Leica S 120 macro all have extending tubes.

I shoot the S lens in the windy sand on the coast, and shot the 24-90 in Haiti, and never got dust or problems in the tube. 

I think they would explicitly states if the lens was not capable of being used in a rain storm, especially with the aqua dura coating applied.

I won’t baby this lens in the weather.

[Advertisement]

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

[Archiver]

Are the lens design cross sections available anywhere? Would be interesting to see those, too. My guess is that the Leica version is based on Sigma, but has extra flourishes, like different glass composition or coatings.

[pf4eva]

35 minutes ago, davidmknoble said:

I keep reading posts and reviews as well as studying the Sigma and Leica information available. I believe (without any direct knowledge) that the Leica lens is a result of the Sigma lens, but I also believe it is different.  Here’s why.

1. The Sigma lens has more plastic and the Leica lens is all metal
2. The Sigma lens has lower contrast in the 30 lp MTF charts, regardless of which you use (diffraction or geometric).

Regarding the MTF, I’m sure that someone will argue it depends on how you measure it, and there is probably some truth.  However, consider auto brands.  Toyota and Lexus are the same vehicle, yet the models have differences and the price of the Lexus is always higher than the Toyota of the same brand.

I’m willing to bet that Leica has different light baffling and anti-reflection coatings on the inside to give the lens a little more contrast.  It’s what they’ve done for 100 years.  Rebranding does not mean the same lens.

I’ve attached the Sigma MTF screen shot from their website.  The 30 lp lines for the 100mm f/5 position are clearly below the 90% contrast mark, in both styles of MTF.  Yet the Leica MTF, which is in their PDF and I did not include here (edit: added Leica MTF), is clearly above 90% contrast.  That may or may not be glass type, but it is part of the lens system.  

This is what we pay for, and with the added durability and tolerance of construction, we have to make our own choice on cost, but I believe it is a different lens.

 

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!

Well, as you mentioned,Leica is using different methodology to do MTF graphs. Putting emotions apart, they very well could be identical optically. Until we'll see a proper comparison, the only difference is a build quality, although I must say, this extending barrel without the lock is very bad design IMO.

 

[pf4eva]

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

OK. I have the lens in hand.  I also dug out my Sigma 100-400. I also have the Sony GM and the Canon 100-500 L IS RF lens plus the Leica 90-280.

1. The Canon and Leica 90-280 are equal first in IQ. The others are a hair or so behind.

2. The front element on the Leica is identical to the SIgma. The filter size difference is just bezel on the Leica.

3. The Sigma has more buttons. And more IS odes.

4. The Leica is heavier but better build and nicer to hold.

5. The Leica teleconverter works on the Sigma. I have the Sigma TC but I haven’t pulled it out yet.

6. The Leica TC seems to have very little impact on IQ, if any. My memories of the SIgma aren’t as favourable but I’m old and prone to delusion. Watch this space.

7. The colours are identical. Absolutely identical.

8. Both zoom rings are in the wrong spot. You can’t do an emergency zoom shot with the hood in reverse.

Now IQ……

This is VERY preliminary. I’ve done about 20 shots and only at 400mm wide open. I’m using the latest version of LR Classic. Other software may perform differently.I’ll wait to see a DXO profile before passing final judgement. I shot with the hybrid and mechanial shutter.

a. AF is the same. Expected

b. Colour is absolutely identical. Likely the same coatings.

c. The Leica has slightly lower contrast and slightly less bite than the SIgma, SOOC, into Lightroom. This could change with LR profiles etc for the lens or with different software. If I add 26 units of extra sharpening to the Leica it’s as good as identical to the Sigma, best I can tell. The actual detail appears to be exactly the same. It just takes a bit of coaxing to get it out of the Leica. If I pushed the SIgma until I thought it was too crunchy and falling apart, I could push the Leica 26 units further before I saw it there. After 30 mins of testing at one focal length and exposure I can’t say whether the Sigma is *better* but it’s one less step. Also I have 1 copy of each. I have zero idea about sample variety with either. This is at 400mm with shots from 5 meters to 30(ish) meters. It’s early evening and I was at 800ISO and 1/800th shutter speed for my shots. I used the same camera body and swapped lenses so shots were less than a minute apart on a sunny afternoon. All other settings in LR were identical except the sharpening amount. I haven’t yet played with detail and radius. 

I should note that all my systems and some lenses have slightly different capture sharpening settings in my workflow. So it’s not unusual for one lens to have different ideal capture sharpening settings. It is just a difference that should be pointed out and of note because EVERYTHING else is so similar.

Preliminary conclusion: The Leica is better made and feels nicer in the hand and you get matched filters to your other zooms. But you’re not gaining anything optically buy not buying the Sigma. But with a bit of extra sharpening you’re not losing anything either. Both lenses are actually pretty good. Very good but not at the level of the 90-280 or the Canon L 100-500. AT 400 I like it better than the Sigma 150-600. I don’t have the newer 60-600.

I have yet to really do side by side but my gut says I like the Leica or SIgma 100-400 with the TC better than the Sigma 150-600 without.

If you have the SIgma it’s not worth an *upgrade* but even though the SIgma has more bite out of camera I’ll likely use the Leica over the SIgma anyway.

The extender is a gem. I don’t generally like them. Even the 1.4x on the Canon 100-500 disappoints me. This is the second TC I’d use regularly (1st is the 1.7x for the Hasselblad XCD system). Might be the pick of the two new products announced today.

Gordon

Thank you for this, just confirms my expectations that lenses are absolutely identical optically minus sample variation.

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

I remember looking at this before and, if I'm not mistaken, it was:

Leica body + Leica lens: either OIS or IBIS, not both

Leica body + Sigma/Pana lens: IBIS only

Panasonic body + Panasonic lens: OIS and IBIS work in tandem

Panasonic body + Leica / Sigma lens: IBIS only

OIS works on SL 601 + Sigma 150-600mm and it is extremely good.

[Ivar B]

1 hour ago, Archiver said:

Are the lens design cross sections available anywhere? Would be interesting to see those, too. My guess is that the Leica version is based on Sigma, but has extra flourishes, like different glass composition or coatings.

They are available on Leica and Sigma www. Design is identical, but not impossible I guess that some glass elements may be upgraded or that the best copies are reserved for Leica. There will always be some in sample variation. There is no doubt that the lens is made by Sigma and I would guess going through the same process.

 

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

The expression that you can put lipstick on a pig BUT it's still a pig applies here.  Many of us who have purchased SL2/SL2s did so for Leica optics and the hope and promise of real Leica lenses as illustrated on their roadmap.  Truth is, these cheaper lenses are available in L mount from Sigma and Panasonic varieties and from my perch I want Leica to release some real Leica glass.  How about the wide angle APO or a real legitimate Leica long end zoom. 

Totally agree, but I bet it is too expensive to develop for them. And then how many of those will they sell, probably even less than R-glass back in a day. 
I'd like to see some 200-400/500 lens with similar IQ of canon 100-500 or sony 200-600. I'm just hoping that panasonic will release some proper S pro glass in this range.

Edited March 10, 2023 by pf4eva

[Jipster]

1 hour ago, pf4eva said:

Thank you for this, just confirms my expectations that lenses are absolutely identical optically minus sample variation.

Imagine that the glass is actually different and/or the coating is different and/or criteria for rejection of said glass are different and/or pairing of lens elements is different, would that make it "optically" the same? No. I am not saying any of this is true. I am just saying it's naive and not really aware of the factors that goes into optics to assume that because they look the same and have the same optical formula, they are the same optically. No shade intended, I am just trying to point out some of the factors that go into optical excellence. Of course, the Sigma might be better than the Leica on all of these, for all I know!

[jaapv]

52 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

The expression that you can put lipstick on a pig BUT it's still a pig applies here.  Many of us who have purchased SL2/SL2s did so for Leica optics and the hope and promise of real Leica lenses as illustrated on their roadmap.  Truth is, these cheaper lenses are available in L mount from Sigma and Panasonic varieties and from my perch I want Leica to release some real Leica glass.  How about the wide angle APO or a real legitimate Leica long end zoom. 

Nobody is pointing a gun at you to buy it. This is a  good lens, and fills a gap. Leica is a company selling (excellent) photographic gear, not a religious sect. They have been rebadging lens designs from other companies for over eighty years. With excellent results and happy customers (mostly  )

[hansvons]

45 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

Totally agree, but I bet it is too expensive to develop for them. And then how many of those will they sell, probably even less than R-glass back in a day. 

It's a brand and market thing.

I understand Sigma as a proud, traditional family-owned success story that started as an underdog in the global photography lens business and is today a force to reckon with. I'm sure they can build lenses as good as Leica's, but they need the brand power to sell them at the price they must ask, which they don't have. Leica is very different as it has a long-standing history as a top-tier camera and lens manufacturer with a high brand value. That means, contrary to Sigma, they can build and sell high-end photography lenses in volumes that make the whole endeavour a proper business. 

But even this has an end. In Leica's case, that's the 90-280, as it's costly and so heavy that it somewhat represents the boarder of what's feasible for the user in the FF format. If Leica were to build a "proper" zoom in the 100-400 range, internally focusing, f4.0 at the long end and all that, it would be larger and much heavier than the 90-280 - and even more expensive. How many of these would Leica sell, and how much better would it be than what Sigma is already building?

Leica is highly invested in the SL system and wants it to become more mainstream and accessible. And with the APO Summicrons and the two original zooms, they already have the market's best glass in their portfolio, and that in focal lengths which can be sold in significant numbers.

And then there is the S line waiting for an upgrade. That will, inevitably, be purely German (which is not always brilliant) and an excellent playground for Leica purists.

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by hansvons

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Priaptor said:

these cheaper lenses are available in L mount from Sigma and Panasonic varieties and from my perch I want Leica to release some real Leica glass.  How about the wide angle APO or a real legitimate Leica long end zoom.

We all know that Leica is behind schedule releasing APO-Summicrons, but these collaborations aren't the reason. If anything, they bring-in more cash, which will help Leica solve their manufacturing issues.

[geoffreyg]

It seems there are two tracks at Leica - one which is all in-house design, making superb products which are usually expensive, heavy and totally excellent in both build quality and optics. The second track is one where they try to find a  more accessible fit in the marketplace, offering upgraded design/equipment that might have originated from others, but that they improve. For obvious reasons, they do not spell out the improvements, leaving the consumer to decide if there is enough difference to make it worthwhile. 

In the second group, you can see some variation in direction - sometimes its more rebranding and adjusting (D-Lux), sometimes its their own product, say 2X the price of the competition, but for some of us well worth it (CL).

They have tried to "bridge" between these two tracks from time to time - see the L lenses, as being more cost competitive; but the SL lenses harken back perhaps more to the in-house design and manufacture model (bigger, heavier, high quality, expensive). 

One thing clear is that there are  hits and misses in both tracks: the S line struggles, although rumors of an S4 mirrorless have some folks excited; the CL line (which I really like, and they were excited about for a brief moment) is now left behind, so what to do with those nice L lenses? And add the M line - where improvements are both sought and fought - as tradition dukes it out with new market desires (personally preferring the M10 to the M11).

Must be fun in those hallways in Wetzlar! 

 

[davidmknoble]

2 hours ago, Archiver said:

Are the lens design cross sections available anywhere? Would be interesting to see those, too. My guess is that the Leica version is based on Sigma, but has extra flourishes, like different glass composition or coatings.

They look very similar and may be the same I have not compared lens element by lens element.  I would assume they are the same design, but potentially different glass and coatings.

[davidmknoble]

1 hour ago, Ivar B said:

They are available on Leica and Sigma www. Design is identical, but not impossible I guess that some glass elements may be upgraded or that the best copies are reserved for Leica. There will always be some in sample variation. There is no doubt that the lens is made by Sigma and I would guess going through the same process.

 

We know for a fact that there are outside lens coatings that differ.  Leica patented the Dura Aqua coating and no one else uses it.  So, it would be likely some other coatings are different.  I realize the difference may be very minor, but I believe it is there, as it is in the 24-70.  I know its splitting hairs.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Priaptor said:

I agree that no one is pointing a gun at me.  However, many of us purchased this sytem with the "belief" as illustrated by their roadmap that additional REAL Leica glass would be rolling out for the system.  So far the main releases have been rebranded Sigma lenses.  Their gap at the long end should be real Leica glass for their high end SL line not rebranded Sigma.  

Well, most older R zoom lenses are Minolta and Sigma designs, the PA Curtagon was built by Schneider-Kreuznach, Leica Fisheye Elmarit by Minolta, Summarit 1.5/50. was a Schneider design (actually a Zeiss Sonnar clone)  originally branded Leica Xenon, the Super Angulon 21-3.4 again by Schneider, etc. The first R zoom an Angenieux not even rebranded.  These are all real Leica glass, except to brand fanatics.

[Virob]

We can speculate all we want, but only Leica knows, and doubtful that they will reveal much, if anything. The only thing that is really clear is that it isn’t a rebrand, since the housing is very different. What it looks like inside will have to wait until someone takes both versions apart.
Someone will eventually do a comparison between the Leica and Sigma versions.  If it is anything like the Leica vs Sigma 24-70, some people will observe a slight difference and others no difference at all. Optically that is, obviously they will feel different, weather sealing is different and focus response may be different.

In the end, if they are, for all practical purposes optically the same, does it matter so long as the  image quality is high enough? The Sigma is available in L an E mounts. The Sony 100-400 is optically not much different than the Sigma, but plenty of people still buy it even though it is even more expensive than the Leica.

 

[sebben]

The problem is they Leica uses it’s brand to charge much more money than almost everyone else. They justify this by providing the best optical performance and superior haptics*. 
 

This doesn’t work when they use 3rd party optics that is also available for 1/3 the price. I as a customer start getting the sensation that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. If they just subcontracted the design and it was exclusive then it would be all gravy. 

I would gladly buy a Rimowa suitcase without the branding for a 1/3 the price. 

*Maybe one could argue that the improved haptics justify the 2/3rds price increase. 

[Jipster]

7 minutes ago, sebben said:

The problem is they Leica uses it’s brand to charge much more money than almost everyone else. They justify this by providing the best optical performance and superior haptics*. 
 

This doesn’t work when they use 3rd party optics that is also available for 1/3 the price. I as a customer start getting the sensation that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. If they just subcontracted the design and it was exclusive then it would be all gravy. 

I would gladly buy a Rimowa suitcase without the branding for a 1/3 the price. 

*Maybe one could argue that the improved haptics justify the 2/3rds price increase. 

But we don't know yet if it's just the haptics. People talk on forums who have not tried or done comparisons. Talk is cheap as they say

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Jipster]

1 hour ago, geoffreyg said:

It seems there are two tracks at Leica - one which is all in-house design, making superb products which are usually expensive, heavy and totally excellent in both build quality and optics. The second track is one where they try to find a  more accessible fit in the marketplace, offering upgraded design/equipment that might have originated from others, but that they improve. For obvious reasons, they do not spell out the improvements, leaving the consumer to decide if there is enough difference to make it worthwhile. 

In the second group, you can see some variation in direction - sometimes its more rebranding and adjusting (D-Lux), sometimes its their own product, say 2X the price of the competition, but for some of us well worth it (CL).

They have tried to "bridge" between these two tracks from time to time - see the L lenses, as being more cost competitive; but the SL lenses harken back perhaps more to the in-house design and manufacture model (bigger, heavier, high quality, expensive). 

One thing clear is that there are  hits and misses in both tracks: the S line struggles, although rumors of an S4 mirrorless have some folks excited; the CL line (which I really like, and they were excited about for a brief moment) is now left behind, so what to do with those nice L lenses? And add the M line - where improvements are both sought and fought - as tradition dukes it out with new market desires (personally preferring the M10 to the M11).

Must be fun in those hallways in Wetzlar! 

 

Very well put. The irony is that people complain that Leica lenses are too expansive and they can't produce them fast enough and when they try to address these issues by piggy-backing on some other companies but maybe improving those products (how much we'll have to see once serious comparisons are made), people complain. Hmm, I sense a theme here

 

[dkCambridgeshire]

2 hours ago, Priaptor said:

I agree that no one is pointing a gun at me.  However, many of us purchased this sytem with the "belief" as illustrated by their roadmap that additional REAL Leica glass would be rolling out for the system.  So far the main releases have been rebranded Sigma lenses.  Their gap at the long end should be real Leica glass for their high end SL line not rebranded Sigma.  

"REAL Leica glass" ?  Leica do not manufacture the actual glass (they used to manufacture glass but those days are long gone). Leica decides which glass to use by choosing the types required from the specifications offered by various optical glass manufacturers / suppliers.  Those same glass types are also supplied to other lens manufacturers. If you are referring to e.g., Wetzlar designed and manufactured Leica lenses, some are / have been, actually made in the Far East but not all are e.g., badge engineered Panasonic and Sigma optics. 

Edited March 10, 2023 by dkCambridgeshire