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

[dkCambridgeshire]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Would be interesting to see some 'same subject' comparison pix taken at same focal lengths / apertures using the Sigma 150-600mm L Mount and SL 100-400mm lenses. 

[Advertisement]

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

[kobra]

3 hours ago, giampo said:

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.

...

Wonderful pictures, thanks for sharing! 

I am really torn about my Sigma 100-400 and whether to get the Leica 100-400... as noted before, I had to get a couple copies of the Sigma to get a good one and the TC has now caused communication errors with the lens itself (still not resolved). But, you bring up another interesting point... I shoot desert racing and sporting events, and used the Sigma 100-400 at a single event for a couple hours - I don't yet see dust inside the lens, but I did have to clean my sensor after. It makes me very nervous to use it for future events. 

My choices come down to this: do I put up with the size and weight of the 90-280 APO, knowing that I will get the ultimate in IQ? Do I also keep the Sigma 100-400 alongside it for an easier carry at times? ... OR (and why I am interested in this thread), do I sell the Sigma, get the Leica 100-400 (because the IQ and build quality is enough) and stop dreaming of the 90-280? 

Unfortunately, I'm still not clear whether there will be differences in the IQ of the Leica 100-400 vs the Sigma, so I'm doing nothing right now. Perhaps others are facing a similar conundrum. 

Brad

 

 

 

[analogfilms]

On 3/13/2023 at 6:04 AM, Stuart Richardson said:

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.

This!

[Planetwide]

4 hours ago, pf4eva said:

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

Geometric means computed mtf. I understand that the Leica MTF's are also computed, and not measured. We should be using the Sigma Geometric MTF's, which should sorta even the playing field somewhat.

https://inf.news/en/digital/fd2ab9759d7762b2216402d97f9eeb7e.html

Sigma 100-400mm Geometric MTF's

 

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]

I agree they look identical, certainly within the tolerance of individual lenses. Personally, I am quite disappointed in Leica. They could have easily worked with Panasonic and produced a world class 100-400mm.

[jaapv]

4 hours ago, giampo said:

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!

With present day noise performance of cameras and exceptional OIS am not convinced that the aperture of 6.3 is a valid minus point. 

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, Planetwide said:

Geometric means computed mtf. I understand that the Leica MTF's are also computed, and not measured. We should be using the Sigma Geometric MTF's, which should sorta even the playing field somewhat.

https://inf.news/en/digital/fd2ab9759d7762b2216402d97f9eeb7e.html

Sigma 100-400mm Geometric MTF's

 

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!

As I've posted above, Leica MTFs are Diffraction MTFs and they do match perfectly with the ones Sigma Has for the same lens.

If you want to compare Leica MTFs to Sigma Geometric MTFs, Sigma looks significantly better.

You can identify Geometric MTFs just by looking on them:

You can see solid lines are extremely high.

[pf4eva]

4 hours ago, dkCambridgeshire said:

Would be interesting to see some 'same subject' comparison pix taken at same focal lengths / apertures using the Sigma 150-600mm L Mount and SL 100-400mm lenses. 

https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1536&Camera=1175&Sample=0&FLI=4&API=0&LensComp=1571&CameraComp=1538&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0

Also note the focus breathing on those two

[BernardC]

36 minutes ago, jaapv said:

With present day noise performance of cameras and exceptional OIS am not convinced that the aperture of 6.3 is a valid minus point. 

6.3 is one-third stop down from 5.6. There's a reason why f-stops and film speeds are calibrated in thirds, not halves or quarters, and that's because 1/3 stop is generally agreed to be the minimum perceptible difference in exposure. So, 6.3 is slower than 5.6, but just enough to notice. In real life, the effectiveness of the OIS mechanism is more important than that fractional stop.

Nikon and Canon both sell zoom that reach 400 at f:4.0, but the cheapest of these is over $11,000 at B&H. Sigma had a 200-500/2.8, but that listed at $25,000.

Your next cheapest bet would be either a 400/4.0, or a 300/2.8 with a 1.4x extender (making a 420/4.0). That's still several times more expensive than the 100-400's actual competitors.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

18 hours ago, SrMi said:

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

Generally I shoot with the hybrid shutter but for the testing I did try both mechanical and electronic, mostly because with the first lens they were different and that made me look further. I hav shot them in manual mode at different shutter speeds above 400. 90% of the shots were with the lenses on a gimbal head and the rest hand held.

SO far I don’t think I’ve been in the shutter shock zone (was really only comparing) but also no difference so far.

Gordon

[jaapv]

Actually, I fail to see any drawback for using Electronic Shutter.  Being silent helps for wildlife shooting; in my hands (and in quite a few other hands as well, see the posts in the relevant threads) it yields sharper images and as very few of my furry and feathery subjects have wheels, they don't turn oval either.  What is there not to like?

[kobra]

22 hours ago, pf4eva said:

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

Surely even you must realize that none of your provoking posts have received any likes, whereas those who challenge your negative comments have received many. 

When you post helpful information, that is welcome and I hope you do more of those. When you want to disparage others, not so much. Stick to the helpful stuff... please. 

Brad

[SrMi]

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

Actually, I fail to see any drawback for using Electronic Shutter.  Being silent helps for wildlife shooting; in my hands (and in quite a few other hands as well, see the posts in the relevant threads) it yields sharper images and as very few of my furry and feathery subjects have wheels, they don't turn oval either.  What is there not to like?

As implemented in L mount camera (slow readout), electronic shutters have the issue of rolling shutter, which appears with fast movements (camera and subject). Unfortunately, SL2 cannot switch to the 12-bit mode, which would double the readout speed. Can Panasonic use 12-bit mode? AFAIK, the readout speed is much faster with 24MP than with +40MP cameras.

 

[jaapv]

What rolling shutter effect are you expecting to see in a wildlife shot? In fact, there are hundreds of ES photographs in the forum and the only one showing a real destructive rolling shutter deformation was by me. Of an airplane propellor, and there were a couple of a cycle race. Actually the mildly oval wheels made them better by symbolizing speed.  If I missed any I am happy to know.

like any photographic tool, one should know when to use it and when not. 

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

What rolling shutter effect are you expecting to see in a wildlife shot? In fact, there are hundreds of ES photographs in the forum and the only one showing a real destructive rolling shutter deformation was by me. Of an airplane propellor, and there were a couple of a cycle race. Actually the mildly oval wheels made them better by symbolizing speed.  If I missed any I am happy to know.

like any photographic tool, one should know when to use it and when not. 

The classic examples are warped hummingbird wings. With cameras that have a slow readout, e.g., X1D, I cannot handhold long lens without seeing warped vertical lines. If you track a flying bird or a running animal, I could imagine warping to appear.

A high MP sensor needs about 1/15 sec to read out data. You can approximate what kind of movement is needed for distortion to appear. 

[jaapv]

Yes, hummingbird wings are a problem. As are Pied Kingfisher ones. So switch to regular shutter then. 

[Richardgb]

On 3/15/2023 at 4:36 PM, Planetwide said:

I agree they look identical, certainly within the tolerance of individual lenses. Personally, I am quite disappointed in Leica. They could have easily worked with Panasonic and produced a world class 100-400mm.

But from a cost-benefit viewpoint to Leica, why would they do this? Would they entice current Sigma users to trade in their lenses? Or attract new users to choose the Leica-Pana version? How big is the market?

[Planetwide]

3 hours ago, Richardgb said:

But from a cost-benefit viewpoint to Leica, why would they do this? Would they entice current Sigma users to trade in their lenses? Or attract new users to choose the Leica-Pana version? How big is the market?

What is Leica's target customer? Why would I buy this Leica lens, when I can get at least two Sigma's for the same price. For that matter, why wouldn't I just go Canon or Sony and get a better 100-500mm RF? Even the EF 100-400mm is better, and faster. I don't know about you, but I shoot Leica because the lenses are supposed to be the best - not average.

Just for the record, I own the Sigma and the RF100-500mm, and RF is better.

Edited March 16, 2023 by Planetwide

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Planetwide]

On 3/15/2023 at 8:23 AM, pf4eva said:

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

Perhaps you can point me to where Leica states that their MTF charts are measured or computed, and if computed, where diffraction is included. I have looked around the net with no success. I do remember that Leica MTF's used to be measured fro real lenses, but somewhere along the way they supposedly became "computed" 

Thanks

[jaapv]

I would suggest that Leica does not publish their target customer and that it varies by product. For instance I don’t imagine Leica expecting to sell a 100-400 to a street photographer, nor a Summilux-M 35 to a wildlife specialist.