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

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

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

Not necessarily. 

[Advertisement]

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

[Sjz]

43 minutes ago, jaapv said:

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. 

Going with my friends who are born and brought in the farming community in SA, they are determined to show me the ‘non-tourist’ experience.  I will take your advice though and the 150-600 will be my friend.

[LocalHero1953]

5 hours ago, pf4eva said:

 

 

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).

Quote from lens specs: "Magnesium and aluminum full-metal housing, black anodized, dust and splash water protected"

Leica's statements about weather resistance are erratic: the cameras are IP54 protected, but lens protection is either not mentioned, IP54 protected, or a similar statement as that above. I have always assumed they are good in the rain (and have used them in the rain). This looks to me like: OK in rain but don't put it under water.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, Sjz said:

Going with my friends who are born and brought in the farming community in SA, they are determined to show me the ‘non-tourist’ experience.  I will take your advice though and the 150-600 will be my friend.

It won't disappoint

[FlashGordonPhotography]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

It won't disappoint

Mine would. Enough that I bough a completely different system for this year’s Africa trip. I have the Sigma 150-600 in L mount. I also have the Canon 100-500, Nikon 200-500, Fujifilm 150-600 and have tested the Sony 200-600 side by side with my SIgma. The Sigma was the weakest of the bunch. It may be my copy but all the others are better.

Gordon

[jaapv]

It might be your copy. I have no complaints and I have been using both Leica and Canon lenses in similar lengths.it was soft until I discovered that it needed electronic shutter. Obviously the OIS is not very effective with higher frequencies. It is certainly better than the 100-400 that I traded in on it. It is comparable to the VE 105-280 in my hands. 

[Richardgb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

While I am interested in the topic, I am disinterested in the actual lens.

However, IMHO, it is perfectly reasonable to compare the diagrams of the lens elements arrangement and conclude they are optically the same, especially when considering their manufacturing and the development cost of the lens as whole.

However, 'optical quality' does not end with the lens elements themselves. As Peter Karbe was wont to point out in this video nearly 3 years ago, the assembly and mechanical construction, for example to maintain the elements' 'centredness' - play a large part in final image quality. Is it reasonable to assume, then, that a metal housing and Leica branding offer better quality than the Sigma construction? You pays your money, you take your choice. You would have to test a large sample of both versions of the lens to say 'X is better than Y' or not; a one-off test by an online reviewer, while interesting, would not be conclusive.

Remember the adage: If you want to know what a car is like, ask the user, not the owner.

[pf4eva]

7 hours 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  

 

Many folks would probably use it for landscape work, where corner sharpness is quite important. And we know that sigma is pretty average in corners. 

[pf4eva]

6 hours ago, Sjz said:

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.

You can find comparison here:

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1571&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=0&API=0&LensComp=1536&CameraComp=0&FLIComp=0&APIComp=0

I've both sigma lenses, both are ok for the price, but far behind Canon 100-400/500 or Sony 200-600mm. I Suggest buying/renting Sony or Canon RF camera, they're miles better in terms of AF and lenses for wildlife.

Edited March 12, 2023 by pf4eva

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

It might be your copy. I have no complaints and I have been using both Leica and Canon lenses in similar lengths.it was soft until I discovered that it needed electronic shutter. Obviously the OIS is not very effective with higher frequencies. It is certainly better than the 100-400 that I traded I’m on it. 

Some people just are more picky in terms of picture quality. If you're not - that's ok. I have SIgma 100-400 on L mount, 150-600 for L mount and Sony 200-600mm with A7Rii, both sigmas more or less ok in the center, but way way worse in corners than Sony. You can also watch multiple reviews online comparing those lenses. So not, it is not Gordon's or mine are average. Again, Sigmas are ok for their price, but they're pretty average in comparison.

[pf4eva]

32 minutes ago, Richardgb said:

While I am interested in the topic, I am disinterested in the actual lens.

However, IMHO, it is perfectly reasonable to compare the diagrams of the lens elements arrangement and conclude they are optically the same, especially when considering their manufacturing and the development cost of the lens as whole.

However, 'optical quality' does not end with the lens elements themselves. As Peter Karbe was wont to point out in this video nearly 3 years ago, the assembly and mechanical construction, for example to maintain the elements' 'centredness' - play a large part in final image quality. Is it reasonable to assume, then, that a metal housing and Leica branding offer better quality than the Sigma construction? You pays your money, you take your choice. You would have to test a large sample of both versions of the lens to say 'X is better than Y' or not; a one-off test by an online reviewer, while interesting, would not be conclusive.

Remember the adage: If you want to know what a car is like, ask the user, not the owner.

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.

[pf4eva]

5 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Quote from lens specs: "Magnesium and aluminum full-metal housing, black anodized, dust and splash water protected"

Leica's statements about weather resistance are erratic: the cameras are IP54 protected, but lens protection is either not mentioned, IP54 protected, or a similar statement as that above. I have always assumed they are good in the rain (and have used them in the rain). This looks to me like: OK in rain but don't put it under water.

You're right, I found it. Interesting quote. I wonder what they mean by that, only mount or whole lens. 

What is more interesting is Sigma uses the same wording but regarding the mount "Mount with Dust and Splash Resistant Structure · Rounded diaphragm · Designed to minimize flare and ghosting · High-precision, rugged brass bayonet mount."

In any case, unless it is IP rated, all this can be taken with a grain of salt IMO. I had professional "weather sealed" cameras failing in some condition and had basic consumer grade cameras working fine in awful conditions.

[graeme_clarke]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

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. 

Just to add that on my last visit to SA in December 2022 I was able to crop mammal shots with an SL2-S and 90-280 very satisfactorily.  Small birds some distance away taxed the reach of the lens though unless still and focused upon very carefully  using a monopod (usually 1/1600s or faster at f4 and floating iso).  Cropping with an SL2 should give you very acceptable results as long as you nail the focus!

best wishes,

Graeme

[BernardC]

14 hours ago, Richardgb said:

However, IMHO, it is perfectly reasonable to compare the diagrams of the lens elements arrangement and conclude they are optically the same, especially when considering their manufacturing and the development cost of the lens as whole.

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?

[HPFM]

I am one of these guys who already own the Sigma 100-400 and now are looking for any acceptable reason to switch to the new lens 😀. I had a phone call with a German dealer today (Foto Görlitz) who told me, that according to Leica official statements they not only modified the lens case but also changed something within optics.... Thursday this week he will get the lens and test it - so i hope for more reasons to buy the new lens but I think, I will buy this lens in the end only for "I want a LEICA-lens in front of my LEICA" 😂

[Planetwide]

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

[pf4eva]

27 minutes ago, HPFM said:

I am one of these guys who already own the Sigma 100-400 and now are looking for any acceptable reason to switch to the new lens 😀. I had a phone call with a German dealer today (Foto Görlitz) who told me, that according to Leica official statements they not only modified the lens case but also changed something within optics.... Thursday this week he will get the lens and test it - so i hope for more reasons to buy the new lens but I think, I will buy this lens in the end only for "I want a LEICA-lens in front of my LEICA" 😂

It is a speculation by the seller, if they'd did something, they'd make it clear. But they can't put it on their website as that might trigger a lot of claims.

 

10 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

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

Yeah, and 2x converter option and zoom lock and longer warranty...

[SrMi]

20 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

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

Sigma has lots of tuning possibilities (USB dock) and lots of additional buttons. All disadvantages, in my book, as I want "das Wesentliche" in my Leica system. 

I own a Sony system where I can tune stuff for the sake of tuning. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

9 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

It is a speculation by the seller, if they'd did something, they'd make it clear. But they can't put it on their website as that might trigger a lot of claims.

It's in both companies' best interest not to make it clear. Sigma is getting a lot of free publicity out of this, which I'm sure will sell lots of units in Sony mount (it's "good enough for Leica," which makes Sony's competing 100-400 seem over-priced).

Leica gains nothing by saying bad things about their suppliers.

[pf4eva]

6 minutes ago, BernardC said:

It's in both companies' best interest not to make it clear. Sigma is getting a lot of free publicity out of this, which I'm sure will sell lots of units in Sony mount (it's "good enough for Leica," which makes Sony's competing 100-400 seem over-priced).

Leica gains nothing by saying bad things about their suppliers.

Yes, it is better to stay quite. Also Sigma 100-400mm does not compete with Sony's, they're completely different lenses for different audiences.