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

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

In their Australian blurb ( see elsewhere in this thread ) Leica suggests better optical performance.

If you're talking about the video review - I've just re-watched it and I cannot confirm they suggest better optical performance than Sigma.

 

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Even of the optical quality is equal it should be up to the buyer to decide whether the far better build quality is worth the price difference.

That's fair enough, I just wanted to split facts from a lot of misinformation. As this thread revealed, a lot of people do believe that Leica version is somehow optically better than Sigma.

PS. Also, there are some thing which even worse than on sigma variant, for example there is no zoom lock as well as warranty (3 vs 2 years)

Edited March 11, 2023 by pf4eva

[Advertisement]

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

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, thatkatmat said:

 I mean, who's to say Leica's engineers, working closely with the Sigma and or Panasonic, didn't come up with the designs in the 1st place? I don't know...I don't think anyone knows except them.

Actually we do know. The Panasonic lenses made in collaboration with Leica re marked as “Leica certified”, like the 50mm 1.4

[thatkatmat]

21 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Actually we do know. The Panasonic lenses made in collaboration with Leica re marked as “Leica certified”, like the 50mm 1.4

No, I don't think we do...

They "Certified" it.

I'm talking about the designs of the lenses that have come out, especially since the "alliance". Anyways, to me, it's not really a big deal. 

Edited March 11, 2023 by thatkatmat

[Simone_DF]

17 minutes ago, thatkatmat said:

No, I don't think we do...

They "Certified" it.

I'm talking about the designs of the lenses that have come out, especially since the "alliance". Anyways, to me, it's not really a big deal. 

Leica doesn’t have an alliance like the L2 with Sigma, or it’d be called L3. 
moreover, Sigma’s main market platform is Sony, not the L mount. 

[thatkatmat]

9 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Leica doesn’t have an alliance like the L2 with Sigma, or it’d be called L3. 
moreover, Sigma’s main market platform is Sony, not the L mount. 

Still doesn't answer my question, and like I said, it doesn't matter to me.

Edited March 11, 2023 by thatkatmat

[kobra]

It's quite interesting how many people confuse conjecture with facts, then add opinions that somehow need to be sorted into "right" and "wrong" while trying to validate their points with "it's just common sense". Whether Voltaire or Twain, "common sense ain't so common". 

Those who have actually experienced this lens are very few so far; I am trying to get my hands on one to compare with the Sigma 100-400. Until I do, I won't know for sure what my opinion is. In the meantime, I respect everyone's right to their opinion... and, well, of course I respect their right to be wrong too! LOL 

Brad

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Actually we do know. The Panasonic lenses made in collaboration with Leica re marked as “Leica certified”, like the 50mm 1.4

That is correct. The L alliance is a contractually binding agreement between Leica, Sigma and Panasonic to build L mount lenses to a common standard. Furthermore there is a far-reaching technology cooperation contract between Leica and Panasonic. Regarding the Panasonic Leica branded lenses. The development process is monitored by Leica and when the lens meets Leica standards they will grant a branding license. Other top-end Panasonic lenses carry the designation Pro. 

[thatkatmat]

I guess my original point was that they ARE working together and I (personally) am not bothered by that. On the contrary, I'm excited that we have so many choices now, compared to when i bought my 1st SL just a few years ago.

 

[JohnathanLovm]

The SL version is made in Japan mean the lens is built by Sigma and optical quality should be same with Sigma version.

But bear in mind that the Sigma version is under “Contemporary” category that the lens is not fully weather sealed and using lightweight materials, while the SL version judging from SL24-70, the lens should more “heavy duty” build quality than Sigma version. Both lenses are the same optical design for different types of customers.

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!

[jaapv]

9 hours ago, JohnathanLovm said:

Both lenses are the same optical design for different types of customers.

Certainly true. After a fortnight in the Bush my 150-600 needed maintenance - screws fallen out, filter ring wouldn't keep the filter (I had to glue it in on the road), the zoom lock switch took effort to move, lens hood  fixing screw broke, etc.- Nothing major and no complaint, Sigma fixed it perfectly for free except the price of a new hood, but I would have preferred -and paid for- Leica robustness.

[pf4eva]

 

 

10 hours ago, JohnathanLovm said:

But bear in mind that the Sigma version is under “Contemporary” category that the lens is not fully weather sealed

Sigma only has a mount weather sealed:

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!

Leica doesn't say anywhere that 100-400mm has a weather sealed construction (except the mount).

Edited March 12, 2023 by pf4eva

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Certainly true. After a fortnight in the Bush my 150-600 needed maintenance - screws fallen out, filter ring wouldn't keep the filter (I had to glue it in on the road), the zoom lock switch took effort to move, lens hood  fixing screw broke, etc.- Nothing major and no complaint, Sigma fixed it perfectly for free except the price of a new hood, but I would have preferred -and paid for- Leica robustness.

Better materials used in the construction doesn't mean Leica is more reliable. I agree, it feels significantly more robust than other brand lenses, however, Leica lenses are not immune to issues. I've being selling Leica lenses in the past and owned/collected a lot of them. I can assure you, Leica is not much different than any other 1st tier brands in that regard. 

[jaapv]

In my experience they stand up to heavy use better.  I have been using heavy lenses in the field for many years. All, except Leica and Novoflex, needed repairs after intensive use. A Canon  even broke its O.I.S by screws working loose. 

[BernardC]

11 hours ago, JohnathanLovm said:

The SL version is made in Japan mean the lens is built by Sigma and optical quality should be same with Sigma version.

Do you mean to imply that every lens made in Japan has the same optical quality? Or that every Sigma lens has the same optical quality? Or that Sigma has never produced lenses with the same boilerplate specifications that have different optical quality? Or that mechanical build has no bearing on optical quality?

None of those statements is true, and all of them are beside the point. The difference between Sigma's 100-400 and higher-priced competitors from Canon, Nikon, Sony isn't optical quality. That's not to say that you won't find anecdotal tests that rank one brand over the other, and tests that rank them the other way. That's almost unavoidable with extreme telephotos, where a bit of water vapour or heat haze, kilometers away, can have huge bearing on clarity. Never mind that any vibration is magnified 8x at 400mm...

If all that Leica did was to house the optics in a sturdier shell, that would be enough to justify a higher price. The lens is still less expensive than Canon/Nikon/Sony competitors, so I don't understand the fuss. People who want to pay the absolute lowest price can still get the Sigma. If you want to pay more than what Leica charges, lots of competitors will take your money. If you start to get serious about super-telephoto imaging, you can easily spend over $10,000 on professional-level lenses from the aforementioned three.

[jaapv]

Precisely If there is any optical difference it will be in the corners  Utterly uninteresting for most if not all  wildlife and sports  photography The main point is how will the lens hold up during tough treatment  

 

[Kim Dahl]

Absolutely correct.  That durability matters.  Believe me, over 35 years I have used so many (Nikon and Canon) telephoto lenses for sports photography.  Durability - even though it is plastic - has been very good.  But Leica's new 100-400 looks very interesting.  it is not expensive - almost cheap - and if the optical quality is good / very good with the 1.4 extender.  Then it's a no brainer.  The next step is perhaps the most important.  And it is AFC accuracy and speed in focus.  How AF and how the camera locks on an eye, whether it's a person or a bird.  It will mean much more.  A lens quality is no better than how well the camera can focus.  I am very optimistic about leica's new 100-400.  Unfortunately I have tried it.

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Precisely If there is any optical difference it will be in the corners  Utterly uninteresting for most if not all  wildlife and sports  photography The main point is how will the lens hold up during tough treatment  

 

I hope that 100-400 is a great landscape lens as well.

[jaapv]

Even with landscape. You’ll be looking for the detail, not the wide panorama. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Sjz]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Certainly true. After a fortnight in the Bush my 150-600 needed maintenance - screws fallen out, filter ring wouldn't keep the filter (I had to glue it in on the road), the zoom lock switch took effort to move, lens hood  fixing screw broke, etc.- Nothing major and no complaint, Sigma fixed it perfectly for free except the price of a new hood, but I would have preferred -and paid for- Leica robustness.

Damn, that was the lens I was going to purchase prior to a trip to South Africa.   I wonder how the 15-600 image quality compares to the Leica 100-400 (with and without the 1.4 TC).

My real preference would be a 1.4 TC for my 90-280 but hey, am sure that will only appear the week after I buy a different solution.  I must admit I do wonder in 90-280 could have enough reach and go with that as a phenomenally robust solution for my SL2.

[jaapv]

South Africa is reasonably tame. The lens certainly will work well. I use it very hard in places that are off the beaten track and have a lot of off-roading. Most visitors are more gentle. The Kruger is mainly Tarmac.  You can buy this lens without second thoughts. 280 is rather short in the African bush IMO, but you can crop a lot on the SL2.