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

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

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.

Thanks, this is a very important piece of information

[Advertisement]

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

[helged]

6 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.

Thanks for keeping us updated, Gordon! The finding with the 1.4x exterder is particularly interesting.

I am on the fence regarding long L-mount zooms. With (greatly) improved continuous AF in the next generation of L-mount bodies, as expected, this can change. For the time being Canon R5 with (the very good) 100-500 RF serves me well - for cont AF applications - but a single mount system would be good and more convenient. 

[geoffreyg]

Lets toss an idea on the table: split the Leica upgrade cost into two, one half going to Leica overhead, marketing, smaller production numbers (perhaps), etc. Allocate the other half to QC and upgrades. Where to put that? Can't redesign the lens, change some aspects, be it coatings, housings, dimensional tolerances. Does this make a difference? Hard to tell without inside knowledge, but testing over time will reveal.

For me, its a matter of trust: did Leica put some $$ into improvements? I would think yes. And do we think they used good judgment on where they did this, were they reasonable and thoughtful? Likely yes again. How much improvement does (say) $500 a lens get you? A metal housing, likely resulting in more precise  "fixedness" to the elements over their lifespan. And in a precise optical instrument which moving parts and long telephoto reach - heck, that's exactly what the doctor would order. In that sense, this upgrade may be ideal: take a good or decent lens formula and apply some limited but precisely focused improvements. 

The difficulty is that we really don't know too much about what was changed - other than the housing. But somehow, that does makes some sense. +1 to Leica, pending of course, good test results over time.  

[NicholasT]

1 hour ago, geoffreyg said:

Lets toss an idea on the table: split the Leica upgrade cost into two, one half going to Leica overhead, marketing, smaller production numbers (perhaps), etc. Allocate the other half to QC and upgrades. Where to put that? Can't redesign the lens, change some aspects, be it coatings, housings, dimensional tolerances. Does this make a difference? Hard to tell without inside knowledge, but testing over time will reveal.

For me, its a matter of trust: did Leica put some $$ into improvements? I would think yes. And do we think they used good judgment on where they did this, were they reasonable and thoughtful? Likely yes again. How much improvement does (say) $500 a lens get you? A metal housing, likely resulting in more precise  "fixedness" to the elements over their lifespan. And in a precise optical instrument which moving parts and long telephoto reach - heck, that's exactly what the doctor would order. In that sense, this upgrade may be ideal: take a good or decent lens formula and apply some limited but precisely focused improvements. 

The difficulty is that we really don't know too much about what was changed - other than the housing. But somehow, that does makes some sense. +1 to Leica, pending of course, good test results over time.  

+1

We will never find out from Leica what they have done to improve a lens.
Any disclosures would require appearing to imply lesser quality by their L Mount partner something they will never do legally or morally.

It is up to users and testers to determine to what degree usability, durability and performance has improved.

[Stuart Richardson]

3 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

Thanks, this is a very important piece of information

I think the “apparently” is the big thing here. Who said this? Was it a clerk in the store, or someone at Leica themselves? Why isn’t this communicated in the sales literature? Are they just so afraid that people will know it is a panasonic formula at all? It is pretty apparent to anyone paying attention…

In any case, I will be less skeptical once I hear it from someone like Peter Karbe, Stefan Daniel, rather than a reseller at a single location. I have heard some inaccurate information in stores in the past…

[Ivar B]

14 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the “apparently” is the big thing here. Who said this? Was it a clerk in the store, or someone at Leica themselves? Why isn’t this communicated in the sales literature? Are they just so afraid that people will know it is a panasonic formula at all? It is pretty apparent to anyone paying attention…

In any case, I will be less skeptical once I hear it from someone like Peter Karbe, Stefan Daniel, rather than a reseller at a single location. I have heard some inaccurate information in stores in the past…

Yes, my thoughts were exactly the same. I believe that Leica pioneered development of aspherical molded glass elements. This is much cheaper and easier than grinding the lens elements. Apparently, molding places some restrictions on which glass types that can be used. I believe Voigtlander stressed that their new 1.0/50mm has a grinded aspherical front element which apparently enables a more compact design and explains the superb quality and the high price for this lens. The new 35/50 lenses are designated as made in Portugal, and I believe that in order to do so, a high share of the value added must be done in Portugal. But presumably the mechanics are more than enough in this respect. I don`t think we can take it as a fact yet that the lens elements are grinded. Why should Leica use this here and not in their other lenses? 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Ivar B

[BernardC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

48 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I have heard some inaccurate information in stores in the past…

Most stores will tell you what you want to hear. They don't necessarily know more than you. Company reps are scarce these days (the pandemic certainly didn't help, but they were endangered before that), so they don't have any inside information.

[pf4eva]

10 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

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.

So Leica has a better QC some said.... 

[pf4eva]

6 hours ago, NicholasT said:

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.

It called confirmation bias, that is perfectly fine. I haven't seen any more or less scientific tests of those lenses, which do confirm those lenses are any different optically. Maybe there is a reason we don't have such tests.

 

6 hours ago, NicholasT said:

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. 

So far, this TC looks like exact re-badge of Sigmas 1.4x. They didn't change a thing, even metalwork on bayonet looks identical and screws are in identical location. Also note that it doesn't work with any other Leica lenses which says a lot.

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by pf4eva

[LocalHero1953]

7 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

It called confirmation bias, that is perfectly fine. I haven't seen any more or less scientific tests of those lenses, which do confirm those lenses are any different optically. Maybe there is a reason we don't have such tests.

 

So far, this TC looks like exact re-badge of Sigmas 1.4x. They didn't change a thing, even metalwork on bayonet looks identical and screws are in identical location. Also note that it doesn't work with any other Leica lenses which says a lot.

 

Jeez, if there was one person on this forum who is determined to have his negative say from a standpoint of total lack of hands on knowledge…..

 I have no reason for wanting this lens to be better or worse than Sigma’s but I’ll take Gordon’s direct reports over yours any day. 

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

I think the “apparently” is the big thing here.

Yes, you have a point. 
I guess I’ll wait for the upcoming Sigma 50mm f2, there’s a good chance it could be better than both the Panasonic and the red dotted Panasonic 

[BernardC]

19 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

So Leica has a better QC some said.... 

"Better" QC could mean tougher pass/fail thresholds. In other words, it's the same QC, but fewer lenses pass. They could also run additional tests. We know from the old LensRentals blogs that these are very time-consuming, and that they occupy very expensive machines. It might not be worthwhile for a $1,000 lens, but the accountants will allow it at a higher selling price.

 

15 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

They didn't change a thing, even metalwork on bayonet looks identical and screws are in identical location.

They wouldn't change the bayonet and screws unless the original ones weren't strong enough (which I doubt). Even if Leica did suggest better fasteners, it would be cheaper for Sigma to introduce the change to all lenses on the production line, rather than have multiple incompatible parts.

[kobra]

27 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Jeez, if there was one person on this forum who is determined to have his negative say from a standpoint of total lack of hands on knowledge…..

 I have no reason for wanting this lens to be better or worse than Sigma’s but I’ll take Gordon’s direct reports over yours any day. 

There is a saying in business... "state your point once; anything further is just politicking". I guess if your goal is to be a politician then politicking is ok; but otherwise not appropriate here. 

But given the context, I agree that the person you refer to is jumping at every opportunity to bash these new L mount lenses from Leica without first hand knowledge. To me, the wiser course is what you've suggested - listen to those who actually have the lens. 

Brad

 

 

[kobra]

7 hours ago, NicholasT said:

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.

Can I ask why you have had the 90-280 twice? 

Here's my context; I have the Sigma 100-400 and have had mixed results. First, it took 2 tries to get a good one and even then it is good but not great. Second, I bought a Sigma 1.4 TC, and it bricked my good copy of the lens (lens communication error). That just happened, so obviously I am returning the TC, but wondering what will now happen with Sigma support. 

So... all that to say this; I am trying to decide if the Leica SL100-400 is the way to go, or if I should just pony up the money and get the APO 90-280. I'm sure there are a lot of differences, and my context is racing events and landscapes where I would likely be ok with the 280 length and cropping... but still if the Leica 100-400 is very good, then the extra reach in a smaller package will be welcome. 

Any info you can share is much appreciated! 

Brad

[Ivar B]

8 minutes ago, kobra said:

There is a saying in business... "state your point once; anything further is just politicking". I guess if your goal is to be a politician then politicking is ok; but otherwise not appropriate here. 

But given the context, I agree that the person you refer to is jumping at every opportunity to bash these new L mount lenses from Leica without first hand knowledge. To me, the wiser course is what you've suggested - listen to those who actually have the lens. 

Brad

 

 

I have failed to notice that anyone bashes the new Leica lenses. What I have seen, are critical questions if they are likely to perform better or worse than their siblings from Sigma and Panasonic. This is a valid question to discuss. Personal experience is as we well know not a perfect guide. We see what we like to see. I have no doubt that there will be tests coming in the near future, which may shed some light on the question about optical performance. Mechanically, there is no question that the Leica lenses are superior. 

Edited March 14, 2023 by Ivar B

[jaapv]

6 minutes ago, kobra said:

Can I ask why you have had the 90-280 twice? 

Here's my context; I have the Sigma 100-400 and have had mixed results. First, it took 2 tries to get a good one and even then it is good but not great. Second, I bought a Sigma 1.4 TC, and it bricked my good copy of the lens (lens communication error). That just happened, so obviously I am returning the TC, but wondering what will now happen with Sigma support. 

So... all that to say this; I am trying to decide if the Leica SL100-400 is the way to go, or if I should just pony up the money and get the APO 90-280. I'm sure there are a lot of differences, and my context is racing events and landscapes where I would likely be ok with the 280 length and cropping... but still if the Leica 100-400 is very good, then the extra reach in a smaller package will be welcome. 

Any info you can share is much appreciated! 

Brad

My experience with Sigma support has been very good. 

[huwm]

My Sigma support experience also good

[Ivar B]

4 minutes ago, kobra said:

Can I ask why you have had the 90-280 twice? 

Here's my context; I have the Sigma 100-400 and have had mixed results. First, it took 2 tries to get a good one and even then it is good but not great. Second, I bought a Sigma 1.4 TC, and it bricked my good copy of the lens (lens communication error). That just happened, so obviously I am returning the TC, but wondering what will now happen with Sigma support. 

So... all that to say this; I am trying to decide if the Leica SL100-400 is the way to go, or if I should just pony up the money and get the APO 90-280. I'm sure there are a lot of differences, and my context is racing events and landscapes where I would likely be ok with the 280 length and cropping... but still if the Leica 100-400 is very good, then the extra reach in a smaller package will be welcome. 

Any info you can share is much appreciated! 

Brad

I owned the Sigma 100-400 for a short while. Optically, I was happy but of course there may be some sample variation just like we just learned about the poor copy of the Leica Elmar 100-400. I sold the 100-400 and got the 150-600, as I like the longer reach. I have not compared the two, but I see that some argue that the150-600 may be a better lens. Perhaps you should consider this one as well. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[LocalHero1953]

43 minutes ago, jaapv said:

My experience with Sigma support has been very good. 

+1. Sigma UK took full and rapid responsibility for a Sigma fp with a problem that I had bought from B&H NY. My email inquiries about firmware updates were forwarded to Japan HO, which gave a comprehensive reply. 

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, LocalHero1953 said:

Jeez, if there was one person on this forum who is determined to have his negative say from a standpoint of total lack of hands on knowledge…..

 I have no reason for wanting this lens to be better or worse than Sigma’s but I’ll take Gordon’s direct reports over yours any day. 

LOL, this is just funny, you have no idea about my "hands on experience". You feel free to sit in your echo-chamber. 

40 minutes ago, kobra said:

There is a saying in business... "state your point once; anything further is just politicking". I guess if your goal is to be a politician then politicking is ok; but otherwise not appropriate here. 

But given the context, I agree that the person you refer to is jumping at every opportunity to bash these new L mount lenses from Leica without first hand knowledge. To me, the wiser course is what you've suggested - listen to those who actually have the lens. 

Brad

 

 

Nice quote Brad!

You have no idea of what "hands on" experience I have with Leica lenses, I've used over 50 of different Leica lenses in different mounts and had multiple various of them. I'm not bashing L-mount, where did this came from? I have 24-90 in L mount, I have 75/2 and sigma 150-600mm, I also had 24-105 from Panasonic and 20-60 and Sigma 100-400mm until recently. I absolutely love those Leica lenses optically. Sigmas on another side is pretty average. Panasonic was a great lens, but despite a weather-sealing some particles got in and cracked internal lens element during the zooming.

I don't see how hands on experience of Leica SL 100-400mm will change its optical performance.

But it is true, that I dislike the lack of transparency from Leica on this and the fact that they:

1. Didn't even bother to re-do zooming mechanism to match rotation of other Leica lenses

2. Didn't make any optical improvements to the lens

3. Didn't bother making their own TC which works on Leica lenses