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

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

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

Do you use electronic or mechanical shutter with those lenses, and do you see any difference in shutter shock between them? Thanks.

[Advertisement]

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

[NicholasT]

I would also like to clarify that any comments I make about a lens are based on my own limited testing.

I do not normally test my lens side by side with other alternatives. When I do so it's generally because I already have one copy, I acquired the competitive lens and am trying to decide which one to keep. The results can’t be considered scientific but rather the best testing I’m able to perform so I can draw my own conclusions.

Also, I'm testing the lens with my personal use case foremost in my mind. This may be the most important point of all which I see rarely mentioned on the forum.

By way of example, a photographer who plans to use a lens 80% of the time on a tripod doesn't much care if the lens stabilization is particularly good because it will be turned off (or at least it should be) Focusing speed is critical to a wildlife or sports photographer but is far less important to a landscape photographer. If one intends to use the lens mostly in low light conditions or subject isolation is critical to one's style of photography, the extra F stop takes on added meaning, as does testing of a lens wide open. 

Also, I do not test multiple copies of a given lens so if one copy happens to be particularly good and the other not so good, clearly, the test results will be useless.

Maybe I’ve just been lucky but with Leica in particular I generally assumed the probabilities of getting a bad copy were relatively low. That is why I found Gordon’s comments mildly disconcerting. With so few copies out there at this stage, It indicated that there may be more sample variation than I had previously assumed.

From now on when possible I may try to test a new lens versus a demo copy although that is not easy to do in my case, because unlike others I do not have a Leica store nearby.

Lastly, when considering the views of others on the forum I assume the same caveats apply to their testing. The only “filter” I have to evaluate their views is the credibility of their past comments over time ( clearly a personal perspective), their experience as photographers, and to the extent that they have posted photos, what those might suggest as it relates to the subject at hand.

 

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by NicholasT

[NicholasT]

13 hours ago, kobra said:

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

Hi Brad,

Apologies for the slow response. I'm about to depart on a short trip.

I'll respond upon my return. 

Thanks.

Nicholas

[SrMi]

6 hours ago, pf4eva said:

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...

Roger Cicala says that Sigma's MTFs are computed: link.

AFAIK, Leica's published MTFs are also computed (Erwin Puts wrote that for M lenses, the calculated and measured MTFs are very close).

However, I looked up some Leica MTFs published in their lens specs and tried to see where they say whether the MTF has been computed or measured. Do you have a link where it says that it is measured?

 

[MediaFotografie]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb SrMi:

 

AFAIK, Leica's published MTFs are also computed (Erwin Puts wrote that for M lenses, the calculated and measured MTFs are very close).

 

 

yes, that's what Peter Karbe told several times 

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

Roger Cicala says that Sigma's MTFs are computed: link.

That is very old article, a lot of things changed since then:

https://www.sigma-imaging-uk.com/geometrical-mtf-charts-to-be-released/

Also apart from this old article, he is not mentioning it anywhere on any other Sigma review either.

 

1 hour ago, SrMi said:

AFAIK, Leica's published MTFs are also computed (Erwin Puts wrote that for M lenses, the calculated and measured MTFs are very close).

 

As far as I know, Leica is one of the few manufacturers who actually measure.

https://diglloyd.com/prem/s/MSI/publish/MTF.htm

https://photographylife.com/how-to-read-mtf-charts
"While many manufacturers provide MTF charts for the lenses they manufacture, it turns out that very few actually test lenses. This may sound shocking to you, but it is true. Aside from very few manufacturers like Zeiss, Schneider and Leica, most MTF charts are theoretical that only show the “potential” performance of a lens, not its actual real-world performance. "

 

Also:

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2014/05/mtf-the-english-translation/

"Except for the ones put out by Zeiss and Leica, these MTF maps are generated from computer models. Looking at the computer-model MTF map is like looking at a retouched photo of a swimsuit model — the real-life the curves are never quite as good as the image suggests."

 

I'm pretty sure on one of those Leica videos Peter Karbe also said they provide measured MTFs. But I'm too lazy to check them all now. The statements above are sufficient to prove my point IMO.

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, MediaFotografie said:

yes, that's what Peter Karbe told several times 

Could you please provide a link? As far as I remember he told exactly the opposite. 

[pf4eva]

3 hours ago, SrMi said:

However, I looked up some Leica MTFs published in their lens specs and tried to see where they say whether the MTF has been computed or measured. Do you have a link where it says that it is measured?

My bad, I though I saw it in a data-sheet, but not, it was somewhere else. 

[MediaFotografie]

vor 24 Minuten schrieb pf4eva:

Could you please provide a link? As far as I remember he told exactly the opposite. 

no, sorry, no link, but I heard him several times in Wetzlar and one time in Leica Store Stuttgart saying this (first was December 13th, 2019 when he spoke about the APO Summicron-SL line)

 

 

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!

[Planetwide]

Leica MTF

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!

[Planetwide]

Sigma Diffraction MTF

 

 

 

 

 

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!

Edited March 15, 2023 by Planetwide
Reduced the image size

[Ivar B]

1 minute ago, Planetwide said:

Sigma Diffraction MTF

 

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!

These are interesting to compare. I wonder if Sigma only reports MTF wide open. Leica also use 40LP max - I think Sigma 30LP. Looking at MTF it is hard to argue that optical performance is much different

[Planetwide]

Canon 100-400mm MTF

 

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!

 

Edited March 15, 2023 by Planetwide

[Planetwide]

The Leica is 5/10/20/40 LP/MM

Sigma 10/30

Canon 10/30 They have both Wide Open and F8 in the chart.

Edited March 15, 2023 by Planetwide

[pf4eva]

26 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

Leica MTF

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!

You can only compare 10LP/mm because we don't have data reported for other resolutions to make a comparison.

And they're identical, you can calculate pixels to get an estimate. (see my post above)

Also what is funny - there is an error in Leica graph, there is no f/5 in this lens at 400mm.

 

[pf4eva]

27 minutes ago, Ivar B said:

These are interesting to compare. I wonder if Sigma only reports MTF wide open. Leica also use 40LP max - I think Sigma 30LP. Looking at MTF it is hard to argue that optical performance is much different

That is correct, the only datapoint we can compare is 10Lp/mm and as I've posted above, it is pretty identical:

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.

[pf4eva]

26 minutes ago, Planetwide said:

The Leica is 5/10/20/40 LP/MM

Sigma 10/30

Canon 10/30 They have both Wide Open and F8 in the chart.

Canon chart is "geometrical" chart and not a diffraction one, we do not have geometrical for Leica, so we can't compare.

Edited March 15, 2023 by pf4eva

[giampo]

Well, in the end, optically speaking, I think that the two lenses are simply the same, the image quality is the same.
So talking so much on super micro differences and MTF charts makes no sense for me, in real world they will deliver the same results. Pixel picking is good enough for pixel pickers, not for photographers.

The construction of the Leica is clearly better. That is the real big difference.
Weather and dust sealing will permit to use the lens safely in any condition, but far more important, will make the lens last much more, in durability terms.
I'm sure that the Sigma after a relatively short time of use will pump inside it's body a ton of dust. And that is very annoying.

I'm an more than happy owner og the Sigma 100-400, I think that, for the price, is an exeptional lens. Nothing really to complain on its image quality.
But the dust, after only 6 months, is already entering in the glasses.

It could be hopefull that the autofoucs capability of the Leica would be better than the Sigma, but someone here that have tryed both already wrote that they are the same.
And the autofocus of my Sigma, is more bad than good. Horrible if compared to other brands.

Both Leica and Sigma are simply not lenses suited for sport or wildlife, good just enough if those geners are done in more than an amateurish way. F 6.3 is simply no good at all, for minimum serius wildlife, but if you go in a zoo in daylight. And the autofocus is simply not good enough for today sport standards, actually is pretty bad.

But I use my Sigma 100-400 for landscape and for that I find it exeptional! I won't upgrade to the Leica, because having already the Sigma I find it none sense.
If I wouldn't owned the Sigma, I would buy the Leica, for the durability that I wrote above.

Two examples of the Sigma:

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!

Edited March 15, 2023 by giampo

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[BernardC]

13 hours 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.

It sounds like you should head down to your local Leica dealer and check these things out for yourself, pf.

[pf4eva]

1 minute ago, BernardC said:

It sounds like you should head down to your local Leica dealer and check these things out for yourself, pf.

I definitely will, it is a bit of commitment from where I live and I thought it might be interesting to other users here as well, that's why I've asked.