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

[thatkatmat]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

6 minutes ago, tritentrue said:

LOL!!!  😂 Looks like the same old s**t around here:  people trashing gear they've never used and/or owned; and trashing others' photos when they rarely if ever post their own.  So sorry to hear about all those "bad" copies other people got; mine works just fine, as does the EV dial on my camera.

Thanks again to Leica for listening and coming through with a great option.  Now about that CL2 . . . 😉

I post photos here almost every post I create, your point is mute. Seems weird that I can't have an opinion. 

[Advertisement]

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

[macromatic]

5 hours ago, thatkatmat said:

This is a Leica product...We should not be talking about "good" and "bad" copies. We pay a premium to have all good copies.

So, you guys who bought this lens aren't going to want to hear this...But wow...these images look VERY pedestrian. 1/2 the images look out of focus, the other 1/2 look washed out and/or under exposed. Certainly not what I would expect from a "Leica" product (looks more like a kit zoom). The 90-280 at least has optics that BLOW you away at times. Shoot the 90-280 with the SL2 so you can crop and IQ will still be better it seems.

This is a disappointing release for me.

My test shots weren't very good but i was trying to show a comparison.  I have no doubt that if this were a Leica lens it would be equally as good a my canon 100-400 mk ii, or even better!

But it's just a rehoused and rebadged Sigma. If Leica have done something significant to improve it,  then they should be honest,  because until then they are just pushing a lie to sell a £1k lens for £2k.

I don't think it was a bad lens,  but not £2k good nor Leica badge worthy.

[BLeventhal]

I don't have the lens, but I am a longtime wildlife and landscape photographer. In wildlife photography we often expect too much out of our lenses. We expect that a $2000 to $15000 lens should be able to produce brilliant photos under all conditions. However, the more you shoot wildlife, the more you learn that light, atmospherics, proximity, and subject position are the determining factor. Images from a $2000 lens will always look better than one from a $15000 lens if you are pointing the less expensive lens at.a closer target in flattering light than one at a distance. 

I am certain that either the 90-280 or 100-400 Vario will make amazing photos under the right conditions and lousy photos under the wrong conditions. 

While I generally use Nikon gear for wildlife photography, I plan on adding the 100-400 to my SL kit for those days when I want shoot landscapes and wildlife without all of the additional bulk and weight.

[macromatic]

6 minutes ago, BLeventhal said:

I don't have the lens, but I am a longtime wildlife and landscape photographer. In wildlife photography we often expect too much out of our lenses. We expect that a $2000 to $15000 lens should be able to produce brilliant photos under all conditions. However, the more you shoot wildlife, the more you learn that light, atmospherics, proximity, and subject position are the determining factor. Images from a $2000 lens will always look better than one from a $15000 lens if you are pointing the less expensive lens at.a closer target in flattering light than one at a distance. 

I am certain that either the 90-280 or 100-400 Vario will make amazing photos under the right conditions and lousy photos under the wrong conditions. 

While I generally use Nikon gear for wildlife photography, I plan on adding the 100-400 to my SL kit for those days when I want shoot landscapes and wildlife without all of the additional bulk and weight.

You're absolutely right.  My main lens for wildlife is a 30+ year old Canon FD 500mm 4.5 L lens.  It resolves detail better than the Leica 100-400 at a reasonable distance.  The Canon 100-400 MK II beats both of them.  You can buy that Canon 100-400 MK II brand new for £2200 or less if you shop around. 

In that case I want comparing apples to oranges.  As you will appreciate,  500mm is rarely enough for serious wildlife photography,  and so we do push our lenses to the maximum sometimes. Which is why it's ability to resolve detail becomes even more important. 

I am going to demo the Sigma 150-600 but from all the reviews and samples I've seen,  it will be look of the draw whether I get a good copy or not.  The only consistent lenses I've ever bought are Canon, not had a bad one yet... but I love the L Mount cameras so won't sacrifice the camera for the lens. 

[drjonb]

2 minutes ago, macromatic said:

You're absolutely right.  My main lens for wildlife is a 30+ year old Canon FD 500mm 4.5 L lens.  It resolves detail better than the Leica 100-400 at a reasonable distance.  The Canon 100-400 MK II beats both of them.  You can buy that Canon 100-400 MK II brand new for £2200 or less if you shop around. 

In that case I want comparing apples to oranges.  As you will appreciate,  500mm is rarely enough for serious wildlife photography,  and so we do push our lenses to the maximum sometimes. Which is why it's ability to resolve detail becomes even more important. 

I am going to demo the Sigma 150-600 but from all the reviews and samples I've seen,  it will be look of the draw whether I get a good copy or not.  The only consistent lenses I've ever bought are Canon, not had a bad one yet... but I love the L Mount cameras so won't sacrifice the camera for the lens. 

In the past I have shot with several Nikon long lenses, mainly for sport.  I am now using an SL2-S.  Formerly I had the SL2 when it first came out and used it with the 90-280 Leica - an outstanding lens but without the reach needed for the wildlife images I like to take now.  I used the Sigma 100-400 for a brief period, excellent results but, again, did not have the reach I wanted, so I swapped it for the new Sigma 60-600 zoom which I use almost exclusively with the Sigma 1.4x extender attached.  I have been astounded by the results I have got so far with this lens and extender - I never expected such performance in a £2K lens.  The OIS and AF combined with the SL2-S are superb, and on a par with the Nikon kit I have used in the past.  While the widest aperture is obviously a constraint, the optical quality in the right conditions are more than excellent - for the price, this is lens is tremendous value.  To get better, I would need to spend 3 - 5 times as much, and have to carry another 3 - 5kg!  The incremental performance I could get, are not worth it to me, given the latter.  The 60-600 is a bit heavy, but I have posted hand-held results on the forum - the images are testament to the updated OIS incorporated in this lens.

[macromatic]

1 hour ago, drjonb said:

In the past I have shot with several Nikon long lenses, mainly for sport.  I am now using an SL2-S.  Formerly I had the SL2 when it first came out and used it with the 90-280 Leica - an outstanding lens but without the reach needed for the wildlife images I like to take now.  I used the Sigma 100-400 for a brief period, excellent results but, again, did not have the reach I wanted, so I swapped it for the new Sigma 60-600 zoom which I use almost exclusively with the Sigma 1.4x extender attached.  I have been astounded by the results I have got so far with this lens and extender - I never expected such performance in a £2K lens.  The OIS and AF combined with the SL2-S are superb, and on a par with the Nikon kit I have used in the past.  While the widest aperture is obviously a constraint, the optical quality in the right conditions are more than excellent - for the price, this is lens is tremendous value.  To get better, I would need to spend 3 - 5 times as much, and have to carry another 3 - 5kg!  The incremental performance I could get, are not worth it to me, given the latter.  The 60-600 is a bit heavy, but I have posted hand-held results on the forum - the images are testament to the updated OIS incorporated in this lens.

That's great to hear. Especially as you know the quality of the 90-280. Any reason you went for the 60-600 as opposed to the 150-600?

I've heard mixed reports about the differences too. 

Edited May 1, 2023 by macromatic

[drjonb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

15 minutes ago, macromatic said:

That's great to hear. Especially as you know the quality of the 90-280. Any reason you went for the 60-600 as opposed to the 150-600?

I've heard mixed reports about the differences too. 

I went for the 60-600 primarily because it is the first Sigma zoom with its new AF focus system - I think they call it ‘HLA’, and the improved in-lens OIS.  The smaller aperture at the short end does make it very versatile.  With the weight of the bigger lens, the OIS is obviously important for hand-held shots, and it does not disappoint.  

[fotonutzz]

I have the 90-280 and I just got the 100-400mm for a buddy of mine.  After using it for a while, I am thinking of ditching my 90-280 for the 100-400. 

While I understand it is an F4 vs F6.3, I am not sure if there is gonna be much of a difference in bright sunlight.  The image quality is actually quite decent even though it is a rebadged Vario Elmar DG DN😀

I prefer the sleeker and cleaner looks of the Leica 100-400 as compared to the undulating lines of the Sigma 100-400.

However, I may not get the 1.4X though.

Would you guys ditch your 90-280 or keep both?

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 May 2, 2023 by fotonutzz

[fotonutzz]

Another sample shot at 400mm

The full-res uncompressed image is quite good.  However, I have to add that my Canon EF600/F4L II is sharper than the 100-400mm

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 May 2, 2023 by fotonutzz

[macromatic]

20 hours ago, drjonb said:

I went for the 60-600 primarily because it is the first Sigma zoom with its new AF focus system - I think they call it ‘HLA’, and the improved in-lens OIS.  The smaller aperture at the short end does make it very versatile.  With the weight of the bigger lens, the OIS is obviously important for hand-held shots, and it does not disappoint.  

Ok thanks.  I've currently got the 150-600 on demo.  The stepper motors sigma normal use for their AF system have always been a bit junk and behind everyone else.  Its nice they've finally updated to linear motors. 

I'm not sure i want to pay 2k for the 60-600 just yet.  The weight is off-putting considering my canon 500mm Weighs the same and I'm trying to reduce weight a bit.

Initial quick tests put the 150-600 very close to the Canon 100-400 mkii in terms of IQ. AF is a bit slow with some breathing which I read about. 

Build quality is average imo. I prefer metal. 

[macromatic]

3 minutes ago, fotonutzz said:

Another sample shot at 400mm

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!

 

11 minutes ago, fotonutzz said:

I have the 90-280 and I just got the 100-400mm for a buddy of mine.  After using it for a while, I am thinking of ditching my 90-280 for the 100-400. 

While I understand it is an F4 vs F6.3, I am not sure if there is gonna be much of a difference in bright sunlight.  The image quality is actually quite decent even though it is a rebadged Vario Elmar DG DN😀

I prefer the sleeker and cleaner looks of the Leica 100-400 as compared to the undulating lines of the Sigma 100-400.

However, I may not get the 1.4X though.

Would you guys ditch your 90-280 or keep both?

Your copy looks sharper than mine was, especially at distance.  Considering how sharp it does look,  perhaps the 90-280 is a little redundant,  though unless you've really got a top quality copy,  I'd be surprised if the 100-400 is sharper than the 90-280.  Then again,  the later is 2.8 and a fast sharp lens is always welcome in any kit

[drjonb]

16 minutes ago, macromatic said:

Ok thanks.  I've currently got the 150-600 on demo.  The stepper motors sigma normal use for their AF system have always been a bit junk and behind everyone else.  Its nice they've finally updated to linear motors. 

I'm not sure i want to pay 2k for the 60-600 just yet.  The weight is off-putting considering my canon 500mm Weighs the same and I'm trying to reduce weight a bit.

Initial quick tests put the 150-600 very close to the Canon 100-400 mkii in terms of IQ. AF is a bit slow with some breathing which I read about. 

Build quality is average imo. I prefer metal. 

Good luck with your testing of the 150-600; maybe you can get a demo 60-600!  I do feel that the latter’s AF is a step up from the Sigma 100-400 I had.  No question that the 60-600 is weighty.

[drjonb]

29 minutes ago, fotonutzz said:

I have the 90-280 and I just got the 100-400mm for a buddy of mine.  After using it for a while, I am thinking of ditching my 90-280 for the 100-400. 

While I understand it is an F4 vs F6.3, I am not sure if there is gonna be much of a difference in bright sunlight.  The image quality is actually quite decent even though it is a rebadged Vario Elmar DG DN😀

I prefer the sleeker and cleaner looks of the Leica 100-400 as compared to the undulating lines of the Sigma 100-400.

However, I may not get the 1.4X though.

Would you guys ditch your 90-280 or keep both?

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!

I did have the 90-280 for a while.  A great lens with superb optical quality and very sharp.  Whether to “ditch”….depends primarily on what you want to image and in what type of conditions, and how much reach you need.  If you need to use high shutter speeds to capture moving targets in not so great light, there is no substitute for aperture.  But if you are shooting in good light, and need a bit more reach than 280mm, then the 100-400 or the 60-600 Sigmas can deliver really excellent optical quality and the AF in the 60-600 is first class. 

[macromatic]

19 minutes ago, drjonb said:

Good luck with your testing of the 150-600; maybe you can get a demo 60-600!  I do feel that the latter’s AF is a step up from the Sigma 100-400 I had.  No question that the 60-600 is weighty.

Aside the improved AF, there can't be much difference in IQ from what I've seen? Also,  is the whole thing metal or some plastic? I hate plastic

[drjonb]

26 minutes ago, macromatic said:

Aside the improved AF, there can't be much difference in IQ from what I've seen? Also,  is the whole thing metal or some plastic? I hate plastic

I think on IQ you are probably right (especially on a tripod), but, as I have said, I haven’t used the 150-600.  But I believe that the improved AF and OIS in the new 60-600, will mean better images and more keepers are attainable hand-held, and in more challenging conditions - but pure supposition on my part.  The 60-600 does have some plastic, if it was all metal, the weight would increase of course.  The lens feels very well made, is nice to handle, I have no complaints on that score.  

[macromatic]

1 hour ago, drjonb said:

I think on IQ you are probably right (especially on a tripod), but, as I have said, I haven’t used the 150-600.  But I believe that the improved AF and OIS in the new 60-600, will mean better images and more keepers are attainable hand-held, and in more challenging conditions - but pure supposition on my part.  The 60-600 does have some plastic, if it was all metal, the weight would increase of course.  The lens feels very well made, is nice to handle, I have no complaints on that score.  

Yes I think the linear motor will definitely prove superior.  A few shots tonight in my garden and the 150-600 sport did impress me for such a low price.  But I also noticed a drop of in AF lock on and a struggle to find target as the sun dropped,  nonetheless, it's got me interested...

Edited May 2, 2023 by macromatic

[jaapv]

2 hours ago, drjonb said:

I did have the 90-280 for a while.  A great lens with superb optical quality and very sharp.  Whether to “ditch”….depends primarily on what you want to image and in what type of conditions, and how much reach you need.  If you need to use high shutter speeds to capture moving targets in not so great light, there is no substitute for aperture.  But if you are shooting in good light, and need a bit more reach than 280mm, then the 100-400 or the 60-600 Sigmas can deliver really excellent optical quality and the AF in the 60-600 is first class. 

I think the recent improvement of ISO performance of sensors makes a pretty good substitute. Plus AI noise reduction. 

[drjonb]

1 hour ago, macromatic said:

Yes I think the linear motor will definitely prove superior.  A few shots tonight in my garden and the 150-600 sport did impress me for such a low price.  But I also noticed a drop of in AF lock on and a struggle to find target as the sun dropped,  nonetheless, it's got me interested...

Keep us posted on your developing interest!  I do agree on the price issue, the Sigma lenses I have tried so far, really do offer amazing performance for the price.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[drjonb]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

I think the recent improvement of ISO performance of sensors makes a pretty good substitute. Plus AI noise reduction. 

I agree.  But for fast moving sports and wildlife, in poor light, I don’t think sensors are there yet.  But they will get there.  

[fotonutzz]

On 5/3/2023 at 12:02 AM, macromatic said:

 

Your copy looks sharper than mine was, especially at distance.  Considering how sharp it does look,  perhaps the 90-280 is a little redundant,  though unless you've really got a top quality copy,  I'd be surprised if the 100-400 is sharper than the 90-280.  Then again,  the later is 2.8 and a fast sharp lens is always welcome in any kit

Well, it does look sharp when viewed on full-res!  I love to use the 90-280 for model shoots as I love the compression it gives. And this 100-400 looks awesome too. The subject isolation from the background and the bokeh is really pleasing. 

This is a tight crop of the 100-400 and the sharpness of the lens is clearly evident.  So, I'm not sure if there's any difference between the Leica version and the Sigma version.

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!