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

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

30 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

Sigma 100-400mm does not compete with Sony's, they're completely different lenses for different audiences.

They aren't that different. The Sony is 4.5, whereas the Sigma is 5.0. That's 1/3 stop difference. I would consider both if I was in the market. Knowing that the Sigma is "Leica quality" could convince me to save $1500.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

Remember folks, that with the Sigma version and the USB dock, you can tune your lens to your body...

And your use. 

[thatkatmat]

56 minutes ago, BernardC said:

They aren't that different. The Sony is 4.5, whereas the Sigma is 5.0. That's 1/3 stop difference. I would consider both if I was in the market. Knowing that the Sigma is "Leica quality" could convince me to save $1500.

Agree'd, When I was looking at Tele zooms for Sony, I looked at both the Sigma and the Sony version and of course they compete against each other. Just because one costs twice as much doesn't mean you do, or don't consider it. 

[pf4eva]

10 minutes ago, thatkatmat said:

Agree'd, When I was looking at Tele zooms for Sony, I looked at both the Sigma and the Sony version and of course they compete against each other. Just because one costs twice as much doesn't mean you do, or don't consider it. 

You're comparing professional grade zoom with low end offering. Optically they're very far apart, not to mention the build quality. You can compare them, there is nothing wrong with that, but they really do not compete with each other.

[thatkatmat]

28 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

You're comparing professional grade zoom with low end offering. Optically they're very far apart, not to mention the build quality. You can compare them, there is nothing wrong with that, but they really do not compete with each other.

Um, they "really" did compete with each other while I owned them. I think a lot of folks have compared these two and decided on one that fit their needs. but I guess I don't know much, you seem to have all the answers

Edited March 13, 2023 by thatkatmat

[pf4eva]

5 minutes ago, thatkatmat said:

Um, they "really" did compete with each other while I owned them. I think a lot of folks have compared these two and decided on one that fit their needs. but I guess I don't know much, you seem to have all the answers

Never mind 🤣

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

At least from my standpoint, I think it is fair to expect that they will be more or less the same in performance, until proven otherwise. The reason for this being Occam's Razor: Sigma has a 100-400mm lens with more or less identical MTF specs, the Leica version is made in Japan, and the lens diagrams indicate the same formula. Even though there is not a guarantee it is the same, that would a logical assumption. Especially since Leica is increasingly putting out lenses that are made, at least in large part, by subcontractors. In the last year or so we have the 35mm and 50mm Summicron ASPH lenses, the 24-70mm lens and the 100-400mm. In all cases they line up nearly perfectly with another cheaper lens available in L mount. Going the other direction, Panasonic has put out lenses that advertise Leica's involvement, and all three companies have a close degree of contact due to the L mount alliance. In the case of the zoom lenses, even the zoom direction is the same as the rebranded lens, not a Leica standard direction. This suggests that they did not go completely out of their way to re-engineer the lens. To me at least, all this means that it is most logical to assume that they are functionally and optically comparable to the native lenses. We know as well that lenses are prone to variation, so individual cases where the Leica lens is better or the Sigma/Panasonic lens is better may well be down to individual variations, rather than substantive improvements in the more expensive Leica version. Basically, until there is concrete evidence that the Leica is somehow different, then it makes sense to treat it as the same. This is not to say there is no reason to buy the Leica version. Having metal as a body component is a preference, as is the design and look of the lens. One might also prefer to buy from their Leica dealer, rather than somewhere else. People have their reasons...

Personally, I would think this has something to do with Leica's difficulty to build enough lenses to keep up with demand, as well as a marker of the large stake of private equity ownership. I think in the past Leica was not as keen on having lenses they did not design, except in special cases such as tilt/shift or in certain zooms. They did, however do it. I think from a profit standpoint, it is the kind of move that private equity seems to like to make...outsource production to a cheaper country to produce something at a lower cost and have a large markup on it. It is what it is. I am just glad that the lenses they are doing are still good lenses, and that you can still get their top quality lenses, like the APO Summicron line.

Edited March 13, 2023 by Stuart Richardson

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, pf4eva said:

You're comparing professional grade zoom with low end offering. Optically they're very far apart, not to mention the build quality.

I'm not convinced that slow mid-range zooms are a "professional" thing. Canon's old (EOS) 100-400 was somewhat popular among professionals, but mostly as as a backup that could be used when portability was needed. That lens was never considered particularly sharp, but it was serviceable for its intended purpose (local news and sports). It also met the criteria for CPS coverage, which was a bonus.

I still haven't seen any indication that these lenses are "very far apart" optically. For instance, Dustin Abbott found that the Sigma was sharper at 400 over most of the field, with the Sony catching-up in extreme corners, and the new RF Canon being consistently strong. The other focal lengths were similarly closely ranked. Not a scientific test, but also not a sponsored test, and Mr Abbott seems earnest. If they are "far apart," it's not in a way that reveals itself in images.

I don't doubt that you get a bit better build quality for an extra $1500, but there is no reason to think that the Leica version hasn't addressed this.

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

I'm not convinced that slow mid-range zooms are a "professional" thing. Canon's old (EOS) 100-400 was somewhat popular among professionals, but mostly as as a backup that could be used when portability was needed. That lens was never considered particularly sharp, but it was serviceable for its intended purpose (local news and sports). It also met the criteria for CPS coverage, which was a bonus.

Well, It is Sony, who calls GM series "professional", not just me. Are there bad professional lenses? Sure thing.

I'd put it this way, majority of professional grade lenses currently on sale today is optically better than its consumer grade counterparts, that's my personal experience with lenses I've own/owned (including Sigma 100-400), and it is also confirmed by tests I saw online for lenses I do not own/owned.

Sharpness of Sigma, especially on 400mm and especially in corners is average at best:

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!

[SoCalLeicanator]

FWIW

https://neunzehn72.de/leica-100-400mm-f-5-6-3-beispielbilder/

[jaapv]

To be honest, his results are better than I got with the Sigma. More “Leica-like”. But then, quite possibly he is simply the better photographer. 

[Richardgb]

22 hours ago, pf4eva said:

Yes, mechanical quality is also important, but we don't know if mechanical quality is any different in Leica re-badge. Or they just changed outer lens casing and all internal mechanisms are the same as in Sigma. It would be interesting to see what's inside. I hope that someone would at least take pictures thru the lens of internal lens barrel so it could be compared with Sigma.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

9 hours ago, BernardC said:

Those diagrams don't tell you anything, and they often aren't accurate. They also represent something a system that requires nanometer precision, inside of a hundred pixels. If they were correct, every single fast 50mm made prior to 1998 (for SLRs) would have the exact same performance!

We don't know anything about the "manufacturing and the development cost of the lens as whole", so I'm not sure how that factors into any conclusions. One assumes that Leica validated the design(s) using their in-house expertise, and identified areas to be optimized (optically or mechanically), but what was the cost of that? Which measures were implemented, and which were rejected?

Hile we don't know the costs, we do know the Leica product is just over twice the retail price of the Sigma (in the UK £1910 vs £899. Prices from Wex Photo Video). This suggests that Leica has not gone back to basics and designed a comparable lens of its own but has used / shared design and manufacturing expertise with Sigma. The difference in price would most likely be down to a different casing, and perhaps tighter QC... and the Leica premium.

[SoCalLeicanator]

Quote

27 minutes ago, jaapv said:

To be honest, his results are better than I got with the Sigma. More “Leica-like”. But then, quite possibly he is simply the better photographer. 

 

They're pretty good and on the SL2-S (my vehicle).  I think I will pony up for the Leica 100-400.  It's all giving me second thoughts about my 24-70 Sigma.  Is there really enough of a difference to merit an upgrade?  I find the autofocus to be quite fast but also at some parts of the range it's a little softer than others. 

[Olaf_ZG]

1 hour ago, pf4eva said:

Well, It is Sony, who calls GM series "professional", not just me.

Well, ofcourse, any producer calls his item professional, even my toothpaste is professional nowadays or at least powered by p&g.

so, I don’t care how Sony calls it, I want to know from those earning their living if it is a professional lens (including service and so on).

Regarding the latter, there are quite some examples here in this subforum where Leica isn’t a professional partner, due to lack of support for working pro’s.

I just want to say that being professional, means more than just saying on of your items is professional…

[Printmaker]

I think we can all agree this is a Sigma lens design built to Leica standards. Here is a sample taken with the Sigma 100-400, hand held on a SL2S with the optical stabilizer set to normal.

 

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!

[Printmaker]

Here is another shot hand held 100-400 with OS set to normal on a SL2S.

 

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!

[Printmaker]

Here is a comparison shot taken with my benchmark 75 Summicron on the SL2S tripod mounted.

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]

Tbh. The only noticeable difference (except the logical DOF difference) is one of contrast, that would be the least of worries during postprocessing. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

OK. An update….

Something wasn’t feeling right about the copy of the Leica lens I picked up on Friday, so I rang the Leica Store in Sydney who immediately asked me to come in and check the lens against another one in stock. A friend of mine (working photographer) had commented that my 100-400 SL looked like it had a weak diffusion filter on it.

SO off to the store this morning and the display copy was tested against my copy. The difference was stark and immediate. The lens was swapped out immediately for the one I had tested it against. I want to note the superb service from the boys at the Leica Store Sydney. Danny and the manager Matt are as good as it gets.

Only a quick test so far. It’s raining and the light is flat and dull. But the new copy is at lest the equal of the SIgma I have. In my original post I said I could get there with a bit of sharpening, which is true. But as I thought about it over the weekend it just seemed logical to check to be sure. The difference was small but noticeable in every shot. I also provided some files of comparison that they’ll send back with the original lens.

Had I not had the SIgma I just would have put it down to it being an OK but not stellar optic. Now it’s become very good to excellent.

So it’s worth listening to your gut if you think something is off. I’m sure it’s rare. And it can happen in any brand. Matt and Danny’s service is really why I like Leica.

 

Gordon

p.s. I also pulled out my SIgma TC. Night and day. The Leica I have is MUCH MUCH better. Looks to be the same unit with better construction. Weight is only 15 grams difference on my scales. Both converters work on both lenses and both work on the SIgma 150-600. I don’t have a 60-600. Maybe I should……

p.p.s. I also had a play with the new Summicrons. Apparently they have the same formula but not the same glass as the Panasonics. Leica uses ground ASPH elements vs the moulded ones in the Panasonic. Very nice on the SL2. If I didn’t already have the APO’s, I’d be very tempted.

Edited March 14, 2023 by FlashGordonPhotography

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[NicholasT]

4 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

OK. An update….

Something wasn’t feeling right about the copy of the Leica lens I picked up on Friday, so I rang the Leica Store in Sydney who immediately asked me to come in and check the lens against another one in stock. A friend of mine (working photographer) had commented that my 100-400 SL looked like it had a weak diffusion filter on it.

SO off to the store this morning and the display copy was tested against my copy. The difference was stark and immediate. The lens was swapped out immediately for the one I had tested it against. I want to note the superb service from the boys at the Leica Store Sydney. Danny and the manager Matt are as good as it gets.

Only a quick test so far. It’s raining and the light is flat and dull. But the new copy is at lest the equal of the SIgma I have. In my original post I said I could get there with a bit of sharpening, which is true. But as I thought about it over the weekend it just seemed logical to check to be sure. The difference was small but noticeable in every shot. I also provided some files of comparison that they’ll send back with the original lens.

Had I not had the SIgma I just would have put it down to it being an OK but not stellar optic. Now it’s become very good to excellent.

So it’s worth listening to your gut if you think something is off. I’m sure it’s rare. And it can happen in any brand. Matt and Danny’s service is really why I like Leica.

 

Gordon

p.s. I also pulled out my SIgma TC. Night and day. The Leica I have is MUCH MUCH better. Looks to be the same unit with better construction. Weight is only 15 grams difference on my scales. Both converters work on both lenses and both work on the SIgma 150-600. I don’t have a 60-600. Maybe I should……

p.p.s. I also had a play with the new Summicrons. Apparently they have the same formula but not the same glass as the Panasonics. Leica uses ground ASPH elements vs the moulded ones in the Panasonic. Very nice on the SL2. If I didn’t already have the APO’s, I’d be very tempted.

Ok some random reactions / thoughts:

Modestly unsettled...but ultimately pleasantly surprised with your updated findings.

Leica may have more sample variation than we thought, which with their reputation for superior QC begs the question of how much actual sample variation one might find with lens of other manufacturers.

I was grateful to have your initial head to head testing feedback. Unlike some other posters who have reached unfavorable conclusions simply based on lens design, I’m happy to accept “objective” performance conclusions about this and any new lens released by Leica.

Your update restores my initial (unsubstantiated at the time) belief that Leica would not introduce a lens with exactly the same design and no appreciable build or performance difference.

I have the reference point of my Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and conducting extensive comparison testing with my recently acquired Leica 24-70 F2.8. I have proven, at least to my satisfaction, that Leica made meaningful improvements to their version of the lens.

While your findings with new copy of the SL 100-400 are encouraging, I have the SL 100-400 and 1.4 TC on order and will do further testing when I receive the lens. I’ll probably do more testing than I would have otherwise done prior to reading your latest post!

The most surprising part of your post relates to the Leica 1.4 TC. I suspect that in spite of its astronomical cost, your post may start a mad scramble of owners of both Sigma long zooms and new Leica 100-400 lens to place orders for the Leica 1.4x TC . Being able to leverage a superior TC with Sigma 150-600 is a very big deal. 

We can also anticipate a lot of unhappy (and vocal) SL90-280 owners who will see this as further evidence that Leica introduced a highly capable and expensive zoom and yet failed to further leverage that release with a suitable high quality TC. Having owned the 90-280 (twice) I find this one critique to be very valid.

Giving Leica the benefit of the doubt maybe they plan to rectify this in the near future with the release of an additional TC for 90-280. Alternately there may be some reason relating to the design of the 90-280 that Leica lens designers have found it challenging to build a TC that will perform at the very high standard set by that lens,.

That single issue aside, for all the noise about Leica betraying its brand and users, the L mount eco system is working as intended. To those of us who choose to ignore the background noise, more options from Leica, Panasonic and Sigma is nothing but good news. We can mix and match in accordance with our use case, our personal perception of performance (tailored to our use case), our budget and any other factors we wish to consider.

Leica like all companies has limited resources. With multiple camera mounts to support ( M / L / S ) it can only design and produce so many lens in Germany. The fact that Leica choses to work with its L mount alliance members to release its own version of other L Mount alliance partner lens designs, with whatever improvements Leica deems suitable for its customers, its brand and target price point is to be applauded.

Edited March 14, 2023 by NicholasT