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

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Just now, pf4eva said:

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

Quite right, I don't, and I guess most others here don't either. Please tell us about your hands on experience with the new Leica 100-400. We can then each of us assess the value of your opinions.

[Advertisement]

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

[pf4eva]

1 hour 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

If you're ok with used and 280mm is long enough, I'd say get 90-280mm hands down. You can get it used for almost half of original price now. It is true internal zoom, built like a tank, as sharp as lens can get and it will hold value significantly better than any rebadge Leica or Sigma.

However if you need longer lens I'd get 150-600mm. It decently sharp in the centre and even with 1.4x is useable if needed.

[kobra]

13 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

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

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

 

 

 

 

Where I think your comments come across as controversial is when you mix confirmed facts with your own conjecture (ie, statements without evidence).

To speak directly to the above... Point #1 is established fact. Point #2 is conjecture. Point #3, unclear (I think you are referring to a TC for the 90-280). Yet you bundle all these as "fact". YMMV, but I don't think it should be a surprise when you get called out for portraying your negative opinions as facts. 

BTW, I thanked you for your helpful advice, and I welcome more of that. 

Brad

[dem331]

38 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

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

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

 

 

 

 

All we know about your hands on experience is that of your 73 posts on this board, 52 have been on a thread about a lens you dislike despite never having held it in your hands. I know I am slow, but even I am beginning to get the gist of what you think about this lens. 

[NicholasT]

3 hours 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.

 

I find your response quite condescending.

You have no idea what testing I did of Sigma 24-70 versus Leica 24-70, but somehow you concluded that my findings constitute “confirmation bias”.

For your information, I tested both lens side by side extensively, following a similar process that Gordon did with 100-400 over multiple sessions.

The fact that I indicated that the results were proven to my satisfaction doesn’t imply that the results were not valid. To my satisfaction would imply that they satisfied a photographer with 40 years of experience and one who feels no obligation to prove anything to anyone other than himself when making a decision regarding what equipment to use or keep. I was simply reporting on my personal findings.

Regarding your conclusion that the Leica TC is an exact badge of the Sigma you appear to have reached this conclusion without actually owning the TC and yet you are not shy about pressing everyone for “proof” of their every comment.

Just as an FYI, whatever you have to say in response, I will be more than happy to let you have the last word. I will not be responding to your future posts.

Edited March 14, 2023 by NicholasT

[thatkatmat]

16 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

I find your response quite condescending.

To my satisfaction would imply that they satisfied a photographer with 40 years of experience and one who feels no obligation to prove anything to anyone other than himself when making a decision regarding what equipment to use or keep. I was simply reporting on my personal findings

Just as an FYI, whatever you have to say in response, I will be more than happy to let you have the last word. I will not be responding to your future posts.

My thoughts exactly

[kobra]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

I find your response quite condescending.

You have no idea what testing I did of Sigma 24-70 versus Leica 24-70, but somehow you concluded that my findings constitute “confirmation bias”.

For your information, I tested both lens side by side extensively, just like Gordon did with 100-400.

The fact that I indicated that the results were proven to my satisfaction doesn’t imply that the results were not valid. To my satisfaction would imply that they satisfied a photographer with 40 years of experience and one who feels no obligation to prove anything to anyone other than himself when making a decision regarding what equipment to use or keep. I was simply reporting on my personal findings.

Regarding your conclusion that the Leica TC is an exact badge of the Sigma you appear to have reached this conclusion without actually owning the TC and yet you are not shy about pressing everyone for “proof” of their every comment.

Furthermore, you indicate that you’ll “take Gordon’s report over LocalHero’s any day”. Well, Gordon reported that he has concluded that the Leica TC is MUCH MUCH better than the Sigma TC. Yet while implying that you take his comments at face value, you somehow have determined (without owning the Leica TC) that the Leica is an exact re-badge of the Sigma 1.4X!

So which is it? Do you take Gordon’s comments at face value or do you arbitrarily make up your own facts?

Just as an FYI, whatever you have to say in response, I will be more than happy to let you have the last word. I will not be responding to your future posts.

Thanks for weighing in on this and sharing your process. I appreciate it greatly when folks do that. 

Earlier you mentioned the 90-280 and that you've owned it twice; any comments on your experience using that against the Sigma 100-400? I do hope this is not too OT. 

Thanks!

Brad

[larsv]

2 hours ago, pf4eva said:

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

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

 

 

 

 

Trolling again. What’s new. Challenging everybody sharing their experiences and not providing any facts yourself or even results of your own testing. Blaming Leica for not disclosing differences to Sigma lenses. You’re not real. As you are completely disingenuous, you’re now on my ignore list. 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Can I be clear that this is just my experience with ONE Leica and Sigma TC and TWO copies of the Leica 100-400. I’m not Lens Rentals. I can’t do Rogers tests (he’s sold the business but still has his *lab*). Nor are my tests particularly scientific. What I have is a shit ton of experience with lenses and a decent nose for quality. Scientist, I am not. What happens in my studio is not indicative of all the 100-400’s out there.

I can not and do not say the Leica all TC’s are better than the SIgma. Just that my Leica TC is better than my Sigma. Same with the lenses. Please, please, do your own testing. Be sceptical. It’s 99.9% likely you get a good one. But be sure. I’m sure both the lens and TC are basically identical except for the housings. The coatings aren’t different. If it wasn’t for LR telling me which is which I probably wouldn’t know.

If Leica’s manufacturing and QC were perfect then there’s be no need for a warrantee. And I can easily think of a dozen reasons the original lens may have been a bit lower in IQ, some of which could have occurred after testing. If there’s a lesson, it’s to double check and trust your gut. That’s it.

As for the Summicrons. Again, be sceptical. It’s true it’s from a single source. But it’s a source I trust. You make up your own minds. And don’t shoot the messenger. I will note the Leica is made in Portugal, so it’s not from the same factory as the Panasonic. It’s a Leica production line and likely that Leica also makes the glass as they do grind their own optics. But again, be sceptical.

I hope to do some testing of the new lens against the SIgma and 150-600 today. I’m interested in how they do with the Leica TC versus my copy of the 150-600. Up front, I don’t think I have a good copy of the 150-600. I’ve heard reports of excellent performance. Mine is not that. So we’ll see…..

Gordon

[Planetwide]

On 3/13/2023 at 9:25 AM, SrMi said:

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. 

So don't buy it... Some of us like the sharpest output possible from our lenses. Having sent a few Leica lenses back to Germany for calibration, I wouldn't assume that they are intrinsically "tuned" from the factory.

[dkCambridgeshire]

On 3/8/2023 at 11:53 AM, pf4eva said:

Hi guys,

Could someone explain me what is the point of this new rebadged lens? I had sigma 100-400mm and it wasn't a great 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!

Perhaps you acquired a poorly assembled example 

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Perhaps you acquired a poorly assembled example 

I suspect something else; you as long lens user know that using one takes a learning curve, and specifically for this lens (amongst a few other) the use of electronic shutter is essential. The vibrations of shutter slap overcome the OIS (and are only partly damped by a tripod) making images soft through micro motion blur. The combination of the two leads to disappointing results. 

[pf4eva]

2 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Perhaps you acquired a poorly assembled example 

No, I tried few, They're pretty sharp in center, but quote poor in corners, especially at 400mm when those lenses used the most IMO.

38 minutes ago, jaapv said:

I suspect something else; you as long lens user know that using one takes a learning curve, and specifically for this lens (amongst a few other) the use of electronic shutter is essential. The vibrations of shutter slap overcome the OIS (and are only partly damped by a tripod) making images soft through micro motion blur. The combination of the two leads to disappointing results. 

Thanks, I do know how to get sharp images. Motion blur doesn't explain softness in corners.

[pf4eva]

3 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Can I be clear that this is just my experience with ONE Leica and Sigma TC and TWO copies of the Leica 100-400. I’m not Lens Rentals. I can’t do Rogers tests (he’s sold the business but still has his *lab*). Nor are my tests particularly scientific. What I have is a shit ton of experience with lenses and a decent nose for quality. Scientist, I am not. What happens in my studio is not indicative of all the 100-400’s out there.

I can not and do not say the Leica all TC’s are better than the SIgma. Just that my Leica TC is better than my Sigma. Same with the lenses. Please, please, do your own testing. Be sceptical. It’s 99.9% likely you get a good one. But be sure. I’m sure both the lens and TC are basically identical except for the housings. The coatings aren’t different. If it wasn’t for LR telling me which is which I probably wouldn’t know.

If Leica’s manufacturing and QC were perfect then there’s be no need for a warrantee. And I can easily think of a dozen reasons the original lens may have been a bit lower in IQ, some of which could have occurred after testing. If there’s a lesson, it’s to double check and trust your gut. That’s it.

As for the Summicrons. Again, be sceptical. It’s true it’s from a single source. But it’s a source I trust. You make up your own minds. And don’t shoot the messenger. I will note the Leica is made in Portugal, so it’s not from the same factory as the Panasonic. It’s a Leica production line and likely that Leica also makes the glass as they do grind their own optics. But again, be sceptical.

I hope to do some testing of the new lens against the SIgma and 150-600 today. I’m interested in how they do with the Leica TC versus my copy of the 150-600. Up front, I don’t think I have a good copy of the 150-600. I’ve heard reports of excellent performance. Mine is not that. So we’ll see…..

Gordon

If you could share a RAW of leica and sigma lens at 400mm open wide it would be great. Brick wall would be fine. If you have SL2/2s, please make a multishot as well, electronic shutter on tripod with short shutter speed with timer, disabled IOS and low iso.

Would you be able to take pictures of the internal side of the lens barrel as well as lens from a mount side? It would be interesting to compare it with sigma.

Same for Leica TC, if you could take more pictures of it would be very interesting.

Thanks in advance!

 

Edited March 14, 2023 by pf4eva

[pf4eva]

7 hours ago, kobra said:

Where I think your comments come across as controversial is when you mix confirmed facts with your own conjecture (ie, statements without evidence).

To speak directly to the above... Point #1 is established fact. Point #2 is conjecture. Point #3, unclear (I think you are referring to a TC for the 90-280). Yet you bundle all these as "fact". YMMV, but I don't think it should be a surprise when you get called out for portraying your negative opinions as facts. 

BTW, I thanked you for your helpful advice, and I welcome more of that. 

Brad

Well, 2, is kinda fact, Leica and sigma provided all the information already, their MTF charts are identical, i don't know what other proof to you need.

We can compare only 10 Lp/mm, as only this measurement is overlapping.

I've calculated some stats from MTF graphs:

Sagittal:
Leica center - 0.9743040685
Leica corner - 0.9379014989

Sigma center - 0.9505617978
Sigma corner - 0.9459459459

Tangential:
Leica center - 0.9743040685
Leica corner - 0.8222698073

Sigma center - 0.9505617978
Sigma corner - 0.8445945946

Looking at above, sigma looks quote a bit better in corners and marginally worse in the center, but realistically they are the same, within the margin of an observational error.

 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, pf4eva said:

If you could share a RAW of leica and sigma lens at 400mm open wide it would be great. Brick wall would be fine. If you have SL2/2s, please make a multishot as well, electronic shutter on tripod with short shutter speed with timer, disabled IOS and low iso.

Would you be able to take pictures of the internal side of the lens barrel as well as lens from a mount side? It would be interesting to compare it with sigma.

Same for Leica TC, if you could take more pictures of it would be very interesting.

Thanks in advance!

 

I'm not doing raw files. I send out one shot and next thing it's a *definitive* comparison..... It's unfair to both Leica and Sigma and not worth the pages of lies and misinformation that would inevitably follow. I'd rather start a thread on the definition of DoF or perspective!!  . The IQ I get may or may not be what others get and I don't need people wondering why they didn't get the same.. My testing this morning already showed me that the lenses I have (replacement Leica and original Sigma) are basically identical and that I'm only fair at doing a side by side test. The differences I see are mostly focusing differences (my issue, not the system) as I'd get a shot where the SIgma was better and the next identical shot it was the Leica. Mostly I couldn't tell. You'll need to do your own testing, I'm afraid. This is the way.

If I get time I'll post a pick of the rear mount and the same for the TC's. They're basically identical, so it'll be pretty boring. The only difference is the housing. I don't know what your looking for but there's no difference. None.

And no, I'm not pm'ing files to anyone either.

Gordon

[FlashGordonPhotography]

20 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

Well, 2, is kinda fact, Leica and sigma provided all the information already, their MTF charts are identical, i don't know what other proof to you need.

We can compare only 10 Lp/mm, as only this measurement is overlapping.

I've calculated some stats from MTF graphs:

Sagittal:
Leica center - 0.9743040685
Leica corner - 0.9379014989

Sigma center - 0.9505617978
Sigma corner - 0.9459459459

Tangential:
Leica center - 0.9743040685
Leica corner - 0.8222698073

Sigma center - 0.9505617978
Sigma corner - 0.8445945946

Looking at above, sigma looks quote a bit better in corners and marginally worse in the center, but realistically they are the same, within the margin of an observational error.

 

Both of these aren't measured. So what's the point?

Gordon

[kobra]

1 minute ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Both of these aren't measured. So what's the point?

Gordon

Exactly! I appreciate your prior post also where you explain that most of the "tests" that folks on the forum want to do and/or to see results of are not definitive. 

It seems on this thread especially there have been a number of people who want to prove their opinion as fact, whether for or against. 

Thank you again for your reasoned replies! 

Brad

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pf4eva]

41 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Both of these aren't measured. So what's the point?

Gordon

Wrong, Sigma does measure:

https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/lounge/what-is-sfr-mtf/

"Computers can work out what a lens should be like from the design parameters. That is the way that Canon produce their MTF charts. This method gives a theoretical answer that does not take into account manufacturing anomalies.

Another way is to put an example of the lens in question onto a camera, shoot some targets that can be measured, and get the results from that. That is the way that we do it here at SigmaUser. It has some obvious advantages, in that you get to see how a real lens works in real circumstances, but it also has some disadvantages. The disadvantages have come about by the modern media we now use, that of digital capture of our images."

Leica measure as well. In fact it is written under every MTF graph...

Edited March 15, 2023 by pf4eva

[pf4eva]

38 minutes ago, kobra said:

Exactly! I appreciate your prior post also where you explain that most of the "tests" that folks on the forum want to do and/or to see results of are not definitive. 

It seems on this thread especially there have been a number of people who want to prove their opinion as fact, whether for or against. 

Thank you again for your reasoned replies! 

Brad

Jeez, what an echo-chamber... Do some research at least...