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

[SrMi]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

FWIW, a Sigma 100-400 review, compared with Canon's and Sony's versions:

https://dustinabbott.net/2020/06/sigma-100-400mm-f5-6-3-dn-os-review/

[Advertisement]

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

[michali]

21 hours ago, SrMi said:

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. 

 

21 hours ago, jaapv said:

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

My standard setting is Electronic Shutter on both the SL2 & SL2-S.  My experience in the field has been that the Mechanical Shutter produces shutter shock/slap, no doubt at all in my mind. I complained of this back in 2019 with the Lumix S1R, many of us here thought that it was the IBIS & OIS working against each other. In fact it was shutter slap. As Jaap says, you always have the option to switch shutter type.

I've had no major issues of warped wings with any number of birds in flight.  I could bore everyone with many images to illustrate my point, here are 2 examples, both hand held.

(please click on images for better res.)

SL2 & VE90-280mm  Flock of Queleas.

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!

 

SL2-S  & Canon USM DOll 400mm f4  Pied Kingfisher, its right wing is slightly distorted, probably also to do with DOF, shot at f4. Left wing is sharp.

 

Edited March 17, 2023 by michali

[jaapv]

That Kingfisher is an interesting illustration as their wings have a very high frequency when hovering. 

[pf4eva]

9 hours ago, Planetwide said:

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

As I stated above, you can spot geometric MTF by simply looking at them. If you see first solid line starts right at 100% - it is a geometric MTF.

You can find more information here: https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2014/geometric-and-diffraction-mtf-charts/ 

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!

[SrMi]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

That Kingfisher is an interesting illustration as their wings have a very high frequency when hovering. 

In that case a mechanical shutter would have been suitable, as there should be no shutter shock visible at high shutter speeds.

[helged]

7 hours ago, michali said:

 

My standard setting is Electronic Shutter on both the SL2 & SL2-S.  My experience in the field has been that the Mechanical Shutter produces shutter shock/slap, no doubt at all in my mind. I complained of this back in 2019 with the Lumix S1R, many of us here thought that it was the IBIS & OIS working against each other. In fact it was shutter slap. As Jaap says, you always have the option to switch shutter type.

I've had no major issues of warped wings with any number of birds in flight.  I could bore everyone with many images to illustrate my point, here are 2 examples, both hand held.

(please click on images for better res.)

SL2 & VE90-280mm  Flock of Queleas.

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!

 

SL2-S  & Canon USM DOll 400mm f4  Pied Kingfisher, its right wing is slightly distorted, probably also to do with DOF, shot at f4. Left wing is sharp.

 

Just to add my experience regarding electronic shutter on SL2-S. Firstly, I use it (almost) all the time. There are, however, a few cases when I shift to mechanical shutter, like when using long-ish lenses with rapidly changes in the subject. The example below is with SL2-S w/electronic shutter, and Canon 400mm f4 DO v2 (a brilliant tele, by the way), on a distance of about 6 m. Actually, I discarded all images in this series due to the 'deformation' of wings. For comparison, a similar setup with Canon R5 worked fine. 

Another example is shown here, with SL: 

.

[Planetwide]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 hours ago, pf4eva said:

As I stated above, you can spot geometric MTF by simply looking at them. If you see first solid line starts right at 100% - it is a geometric MTF.

You can find more information here: https://blog.sigmaphoto.com/2014/geometric-and-diffraction-mtf-charts/ 

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!

There are loads of Canon computed MTF's that do not start at 100 or 1.0, and we know that all Canon MTF's are generated geometric MTF's. Here are two examples. Also, here is a measured MTF from Leica R 280mm F4... I am just trying to verify that modern Leica MTF's are computed diffraction MTF's.

 

 

Edited March 18, 2023 by Planetwide

[jaapv]

According to Erwin Puts Leica MTF curves are computed, but it is an older source. However, I doubt that. Leica changed its method.

[pf4eva]

10 hours ago, Planetwide said:

There are loads of Canon computed MTF's that do not start at 100 or 1.0, and we know that all Canon MTF's are generated geometric MTF's. Here are two examples. Also, here is a measured MTF from Leica R 280mm F4... I am just trying to verify that modern Leica MTF's are computed diffraction 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!

According to links I've posted previously all Leica curves are measured diffraction MTFs. I cannot see anywhere leica mentioned otherwise.

5 hours ago, jaapv said:

According to Erwin Puts Leica MTF curves are computed, but it is an older source. However, I doubt that. Leica changed its method.

Would you mind to quote him where he says it is computed?

Here are quotes from Puts regarding MTFs:

"

How are MTF measurements actually obtained?

There are two methods: one method computes MTF data, the other method measures MTF values. Basically, there are no differences, and Leica uses either method, whichever is most appro- priate: the optical design department computes the MTF values, and the manufacturing department uses an MTF-measuring instrument to obtain MTF data (see the diagrams). Both methods are based on the same theo- retical principles, so that their results should not be different from one an- other. A variance between the two val- ues only occurs when the lens assem- bly department can not conform to calculated tolerance values.

"

[jaapv]

Leica Lens Compendium. I am sitting on a mountain in nice sun now, so no page number I am afraid  

illustrative shot by iPhone 13. 
Not meant for further forum display  

 

 

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!

[Dean Swartz]

On 3/8/2023 at 8:10 AM, pf4eva said:

It looks exactly the same to me:

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!

It (the Sigma) looks nothing like the Leica. (I'm sitting here looking at my Leica). The tripod foot is not between the focus and zoom rings as it is on the Sigma. Furthermore, the Leica is metal (including the lens hood), And, before any of you go nuts about the "Made in Japan" issue (with the implication that the Japanese cannot assemble great lenses), remember that the best Nikon and Canon lenses (I've owned many of them) that can cost far more than $10,000 (600mm f4 comes to mind) as well as countless current and classic prime lenses (have you ever shot with the Canon 85mm f1.2?) are all fantastic, "Made in Japan" lenses.  In my brief comparison (I just got my Leica 100-400 yesterday) with the "Made in Germany" Leica 90-280, the new "Made in Japan" Leica 100-400 comes pretty darned close to the image quality and focus speed & accuracy and nearly one fourth the cost and with a considerable weight and size savings. And, it goes to 400mm! It requires good light (I'm not sure I'd ever use the teleconverter on it; it already labors in low light.) The new Leica is not going to recreate the image quality of the 90-280, but for those who do not want to, cannot justify, or simply can't afford to spend more than $7,000 (US) on a 90-280, and want better build quality than the Sigma offers (I make no comment about image quality, focus, etc), then the new 100-400 Leica is a welcome addition to the arsenal.

[pf4eva]

2 hours ago, Dean Swartz said:

It (the Sigma) looks nothing like the Leica. (I'm sitting here looking at my Leica). The tripod foot is not between the focus and zoom rings as it is on the Sigma. Furthermore, the Leica is metal (including the lens hood), And, before any of you go nuts about the "Made in Japan" issue (with the implication that the Japanese cannot assemble great lenses), remember that the best Nikon and Canon lenses (I've owned many of them) that can cost far more than $10,000 (600mm f4 comes to mind) as well as countless current and classic prime lenses (have you ever shot with the Canon 85mm f1.2?) are all fantastic, "Made in Japan" lenses.  In my brief comparison (I just got my Leica 100-400 yesterday) with the "Made in Germany" Leica 90-280, the new "Made in Japan" Leica 100-400 comes pretty darned close to the image quality and focus speed & accuracy and nearly one fourth the cost and with a considerable weight and size savings. And, it goes to 400mm! It requires good light (I'm not sure I'd ever use the teleconverter on it; it already labors in low light.) The new Leica is not going to recreate the image quality of the 90-280, but for those who do not want to, cannot justify, or simply can't afford to spend more than $7,000 (US) on a 90-280, and want better build quality than the Sigma offers (I make no comment about image quality, focus, etc), then the new 100-400 Leica is a welcome addition to the arsenal.

C'mon why couldn't they at least make some minimal effort and make zooming rotation it the same direction as true Leica lenses.

[kobra]

1 hour ago, pf4eva said:

C'mon why couldn't they at least make some minimal effort and make zooming rotation it the same direction as true Leica lenses.

I find that irritating on the SL 24-70 also; but I guess we shouldn't be surprised - they didn't do it last time, so why would they this time? There must be a good reason for it, and we surely cannot know all of the challenges involved in changing that. 

Related; I've always wondered why Sigma seems to go against the grain with this in the first place. 

Brad

[NicholasT]

On 3/14/2023 at 6:06 PM, 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

 

@Kobra sorry for the delay in responding. Just returned from a trip and had some trouble locating your earlier post. Your post is clearly not OT as we seem to have migrated to a generic discussion about MTFs

Regarding my ownership of two copies of the 90-280. I sold it the first time because I found it to be too big and heavy considering its limited reach. Later I was reminded of its sheer quality while owning the Sigma 100-400, so I sold the Sigma and purchased the 90-280 (again). Once I owned the lens I took it on several longer hikes mostly for landscape photography and decided that the quality was clearly there but lugging the lens any distance was a chore. The fact that I purchased the lens twice would suggest that I’m either a slow learner or the 90-280 is such a good lens that it easily lends itself to such a dilemma. Also should mention that the issue of reach was a consideration in my decision to sell.

Since I did not own the Sigma 100-400 and 90-280 at the same time, I was not able to do side-by-side tests. That said, I compared the photos taken with each lens and concluded (no surprise) that for certain shots in particular the 90-280 is in a class of its own. The way the lens renders wide open is very special. The only long lens which I can compare it to in terms of rendering is the Nikon 400mm F2.8 which I consider the best long lens I’ve ever owned.

As I mentioned in a prior post I believe that there is far too little mention of “use cases” when discussing the merits of various lenses. I don’t know enough about your style of photography or shooting priorities, but you did mention that you shoot desert racing and sporting events. Desert racing would appear to be a use case that would strongly favor either the Leica 100-400 or 90-280. Even if we assume that the only difference between the Sigma and Leica 100-400 is in the build quality, shooting in desert conditions should tip the scales in favor of the Leica lens. I seriously doubt the durability of the Sigma would hold out in the long run, not to mention dust incursion, etc.

Before moving on and to avoid any misunderstanding I'd like to clarify that I have absolutely nothing against Sigma, Panasonic, or other lens manufacturers. They make fine optics particularly when price points are taken into account. In fact, until I receive the Leica 100-400 which is on order, my current go-to long lens is the Panasonic Lumix 70-300 F 4.5 to 5.6. Were it not for the added reach, Leica build quality, and TC I probably would just stick with Panasonic Lumix 70-300. I find the performance and build quality of the Lumix to be well above average, its light (easy to carry and handhold) and in general represents great value for the money.

Turning back to the subject at hand, I thought I’d share a few photos taken with 90-280, Sigma 100-400 and Nikon 400 F2.8 on the off chance that they might provide further context and help with your decision.

Photo #1  Taken with Leica 90-280. This photo was taken from quite a distance (due to access reasons). I believe this photo could have been taken with almost any of the above-mentioned lens with similar results.

Photo #2 Taken with Leica 90-280. The subject and composition of this photo aren’t sufficiently interesting to be included in my portfolio. It's just a test shot with SL 90-280. I offer it up because I find that the subtle quality of the falloff, subject isolation, etc is outstanding and a good example of what is possible with this lens. I doubt that either the Sigma or the Leica 100-400 could produce an equivalent result.

Photo #3 Taken with Sigma 100-400. The Sigma rendered the photo well in that I was pleased with the colors, rendering etc. If all my photography consisted of shots like this I wouldn’t need a different lens.

Photo #4 Taken with Nikon 400 F2.8

Photo #5 Taken with Nikon 400 F2.8. Shutter speed and wing blur were intentional. Capturing this photo took 3 hour drive and 3 hours at the shooting location (twice) as I had to locate the owl, study its flight patterns, position myself in the best location, and wait patiently.

Photo #6 Taken with Nikon 400 F2.8

I’m sharing the Nikon 400mm F 2.8 shots because I believe that the Leica 90-280 can produce equivalent results but the reject rate on #4 and #5 would be much higher due to Leica's more limited autofocus performance.

In closing, if the size and weight of the SL 90-280 is not a problem for you and you can achieve the desired results with modest cropping, you might want to take a serious look at a well-preserved copy of the SL 90-280.

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 18, 2023 by NicholasT

[NicholasT]

Images #4, #5 & #6 referenced in prior post

 

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!

[kobra]

24 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

 

@Kobra sorry for the delay in responding. Just returned from a trip and had some trouble locating your earlier post. Your post is clearly not OT as we seem to have migrated to a generic discussion about MTFs

Regarding my ownership of two copies of the 90-280. I sold it the first time because I found it to be too big and heavy considering its limited reach. Later I was reminded of its sheer quality while owning the Sigma 100-400, so I sold the Sigma and purchased the 90-280 (again). Once I owned the lens I took it on several longer hikes mostly for landscape photography and decided that the quality was clearly there but lugging the lens any distance was a chore. The fact that I purchased the lens twice would suggest that I’m either a slow learner or the 90-280 is such a good lens that it easily lends itself to such a dilemma. Also should mention that the issue of reach was a consideration in my decision to sell.

Since I did not own the Sigma 100-400 and 90-280 at the same time, I was not able to do side-by-side tests. That said, I compared the photos taken with each lens and concluded (no surprise) that for certain shots in particular the 90-280 is in a class of its own. The way the lens renders wide open is very special. The only long lens which I can compare it to in terms of rendering is the Nikon 400mm F2.8 which I consider the best long lens I’ve ever owned.

As I mentioned in a prior post I believe that there is far too little mention of “use cases” when discussing the merits of various lenses. I don’t know enough about your style of photography or shooting priorities, but you did mention that you shoot desert racing and sporting events. Desert racing would appear to be a use case that would strongly favor either the Leica 100-400 or 90-280. Even if we assume that the only difference between the Sigma and Leica 100-400 is in the build quality, shooting in desert conditions should tip the scales in favor of the Leica lens. I seriously doubt the durability of the Sigma would hold out in the long run, not to mention dust incursion, etc.

Before moving on and to avoid any misunderstanding I'd like to clarify that I have absolutely nothing against Sigma, Panasonic, or other lens manufacturers. They make fine optics particularly when price points are taken into account. In fact, until I receive the Leica 100-400 which is on order, my current go-to long lens is the Panasonic Lumix 70-300 F 4.5 to 5.6. Were it not for the added reach, Leica build quality, and TC I probably would just stick with Panasonic Lumix 70-300. I find the performance and build quality of the Lumix to be well above average, its light (easy to carry and handhold) and in general represents great value for the money.

Turning back to the subject at hand, I thought I’d share a few photos taken with 90-280, Sigma 100-400 and Nikon 400 F2.8 on the off chance that they might provide further context and help with your decision.

Photo #1  Taken with Leica 90-280. This photo was taken from quite a distance (due to access reasons). I believe this photo could have been taken with almost any of the above-mentioned lens with similar results.

Photo #2 Taken with Leica 90-280. The subject and composition of this photo aren’t sufficiently interesting to be included in my portfolio. It's just a test shot with SL 90-280. I offer it up because I find that the subtle quality of the falloff, subject isolation, etc is outstanding and a good example of what is possible with this lens. I doubt that either the Sigma or the Leica 100-400 could produce an equivalent result.

Photo #3 Taken with Sigma 100-400. The Sigma rendered the photo well in that I was pleased with the colors, rendering etc. If all my photography consisted of shots like this I wouldn’t need a different lens.

Photo #4 Taken with Nikon 400 F2.8

Photo #5 Taken with Nikon 400 F2.8. Shutter speed and wing blur were intentional. Capturing this photo took 3 hour drive and 3 hours at the shooting location (twice) as I had to locate the owl, study its flight patterns, position myself in the best location, and wait patiently.

Photo #6 Taken with Nikon 400 F2.8

I’m sharing the Nikon 400mm F 2.8 shots because I believe that the Leica 90-280 can produce equivalent results but the reject rate on #4 and #5 would be much higher due to Leica's more limited autofocus performance.

In closing, if the size and weight of the SL 90-280 is not a problem for you and you can achieve the desired results with modest cropping, you might want to take a serious look at a well-preserved copy of the SL 90-280.

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!

Thanks Nicolas, very helpful! 

I very much appreciate 'real world' examples, and you have delivered a wonderful set. Always learning, I aspire to achieve the results that you have displayed. 

This has been a very helpful thread for me. Some observations so far:

-Some early reviewers suggest noticeably better IQ with the new Leica 100-400 vs the Sigma 100-400, while others suggest it they are very similar. According to the published specs and MTFs, likely the differences in IQ will be small. 

-the Leica build quality is superior - no surprise as it is also the case when comparing the Leica 24-70 vs the Sigma 24-70. This can absolutely matter; whether it's that the superior construction will improve lens alignment and centering, overall lifespan, weather protection, etc. Whether it matters to each person and is worth the extra price is an individual decision; and like all individual decisions we will naturally defend our choice, but it doesn't make our choice the right one for others. 

-the 90-280 APO is clearly the winner when ultimate IQ is needed. Money aside, the extra size and weight are definitely a consideration. 

Where does that leave me? I switched from the Fuji X system to the SL system to 'step up' my photographic results. Of course, a big part of that is my abilities and I know I am weak in PP; others can massage RAFs on the same APS-C system I was using and impress me. But, even after a few weeks, I know that the SL2 with Leica lenses are giving me superior results than I had before. Am I 'in for a penny, in for a pound' and should just spend the money to buy the best Leica lenses? I'm leaning towards that, and the 90-280 is gaining on me. 

I actually rented a 90-280 for a week and took it to a Nascar event and a fun day at Old Tucson movie studios. I will start a new thread and post some images and my further thoughts on the lens. It has to go back now, and I am absolutely in love with the images... however, it is a beast so I am still very interested to see further results on the Leica 100-400 as it may be the 'goldilocks' of the 3. 

I hope my ramblings about how I am processing the choices are helpful to anyone else on the same journey. 

Brad

 

 

[Virob]

4 hours ago, NicholasT said:

Before moving on and to avoid any misunderstanding I'd like to clarify that I have absolutely nothing against Sigma, Panasonic, or other lens manufacturers. They make fine optics particularly when price points are taken into account. In fact, until I receive the Leica 100-400 which is on order, my current go-to long lens is the Panasonic Lumix 70-300 F 4.5 to 5.6. Were it not for the added reach, Leica build quality, and TC I probably would just stick with Panasonic Lumix 70-300. I find the performance and build quality of the Lumix to be well above average, its light (easy to carry and handhold) and in general represents great value for the money.

 

The Panasonic 70-300, doesn’t seem to get much love around here. It is an excellent lens for landscapes, travel and hiking. It is about half the weight and cost of the Leica 100-400 and can focus down to 1/2 life size. If I’m serious about critters, I’ll take the 150-600 Sigma, otherwise the 70-300 is a more practical.

[huwm]

Yes, I love my 70-300 too

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Shawn30]

I got my copy of the Leica VE SL 100-400mm on Saturday and all I can say is that I’m disappointed. It misses focus randomly and it’s not very sharp when it hits focus. The problem could be my SL2, but the problem has only popped up on 2 lens’s ever,  the Sigma 100-400, and Leica 100-400

When it nails focus, my copy of the Leica 100-400 isn’t as sharp as the Sigma 150-600 at the same focal length, shutter speed etc. it’s no where near as sharp as the Panasonic 70-300. Again I’ve had no missed focus problems with any other OIS zoom lens besides the two mentioned above. I’ll post a few examples pics

[BernardC]

19 minutes ago, Shawn30 said:

I got my copy of the Leica VE SL 100-400mm on Saturday and all I can say is that I’m disappointed. It misses focus randomly and it’s not very sharp when it hits focus. The problem could be my SL2, but the problem has only popped up on 2 lens’s ever,  the Sigma 100-400, and Leica 100-400

Are you using the the latest firmware (v5.1)?