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

[FlashGordonPhotography]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

OK. I have the lens in hand.  I also dug out my Sigma 100-400. I also have the Sony GM and the Canon 100-500 L IS RF lens plus the Leica 90-280.

1. The Canon and Leica 90-280 are equal first in IQ. The others are a hair or so behind.

2. The front element on the Leica is identical to the SIgma. The filter size difference is just bezel on the Leica.

3. The Sigma has more buttons. And more IS odes.

4. The Leica is heavier but better build and nicer to hold.

5. The Leica teleconverter works on the Sigma. I have the Sigma TC but I haven’t pulled it out yet.

6. The Leica TC seems to have very little impact on IQ, if any. My memories of the SIgma aren’t as favourable but I’m old and prone to delusion. Watch this space.

7. The colours are identical. Absolutely identical.

8. Both zoom rings are in the wrong spot. You can’t do an emergency zoom shot with the hood in reverse.

Now IQ……

This is VERY preliminary. I’ve done about 20 shots and only at 400mm wide open. I’m using the latest version of LR Classic. Other software may perform differently.I’ll wait to see a DXO profile before passing final judgement. I shot with the hybrid and mechanial shutter.

a. AF is the same. Expected

b. Colour is absolutely identical. Likely the same coatings.

c. The Leica has slightly lower contrast and slightly less bite than the SIgma, SOOC, into Lightroom. This could change with LR profiles etc for the lens or with different software. If I add 26 units of extra sharpening to the Leica it’s as good as identical to the Sigma, best I can tell. The actual detail appears to be exactly the same. It just takes a bit of coaxing to get it out of the Leica. If I pushed the SIgma until I thought it was too crunchy and falling apart, I could push the Leica 26 units further before I saw it there. After 30 mins of testing at one focal length and exposure I can’t say whether the Sigma is *better* but it’s one less step. Also I have 1 copy of each. I have zero idea about sample variety with either. This is at 400mm with shots from 5 meters to 30(ish) meters. It’s early evening and I was at 800ISO and 1/800th shutter speed for my shots. I used the same camera body and swapped lenses so shots were less than a minute apart on a sunny afternoon. All other settings in LR were identical except the sharpening amount. I haven’t yet played with detail and radius. 

I should note that all my systems and some lenses have slightly different capture sharpening settings in my workflow. So it’s not unusual for one lens to have different ideal capture sharpening settings. It is just a difference that should be pointed out and of note because EVERYTHING else is so similar.

Preliminary conclusion: The Leica is better made and feels nicer in the hand and you get matched filters to your other zooms. But you’re not gaining anything optically buy not buying the Sigma. But with a bit of extra sharpening you’re not losing anything either. Both lenses are actually pretty good. Very good but not at the level of the 90-280 or the Canon L 100-500. AT 400 I like it better than the Sigma 150-600. I don’t have the newer 60-600.

I have yet to really do side by side but my gut says I like the Leica or SIgma 100-400 with the TC better than the Sigma 150-600 without.

If you have the SIgma it’s not worth an *upgrade* but even though the SIgma has more bite out of camera I’ll likely use the Leica over the SIgma anyway.

The extender is a gem. I don’t generally like them. Even the 1.4x on the Canon 100-500 disappoints me. This is the second TC I’d use regularly (1st is the 1.7x for the Hasselblad XCD system). Might be the pick of the two new products announced today.

Gordon

Edited March 10, 2023 by FlashGordonPhotography

[FlashGordonPhotography]

10 hours ago, dpitt said:

In this case you can hardly speak of a rebrand. Weather sealing alone makes it different. And 30% weight difference is an other major difference. I am confident all this will show in the optical performance as well as the mechanical performance.

Absolutely NOWHERE does Leica mention weather sealing in the release and release notes. I was in the Leica Store Sydney today and they had no immediate information either. They assumed it was until I pointed out the lack of mention in the release notes. Bothe the Sigma and Leica have a gasket on the lens mount.

No optical performance differences in my SIgma vs my Leica I collected today apart from some import setting in LR.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

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

[cheekz4dayz]

6 hours ago, Kristofferpaulsen said:

i think maybe the point of it is that people who dont want to spend TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS on a fuckin zoom lens have another option (said as someone who bought the 90-280) that has a red dot on it..

I think you summarized it well. Add the fact that some of Leica native zooms are apochromatic. It's probably safe to say that this is Leica's way of adding optionality to the consumers and for their revenue. Nothing wrong with it, as this all helps the company keep making more products and more R&D towards my beloved apo primes 🤓

[LocalHero1953]

The specs here state dust and splash protection. No mention of an IP standard. Weather resistance is patchily mentioned in specs for other SL lenses and bodies, so I look forward to something more definitive. The SL35 specs for example, use the same terminology, while the 24-90 specs do not mention weather resistance at all.

Edited March 10, 2023 by LocalHero1953

[NicholasT]

31 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

OK. I have the lens in hand.  I also dug out my Sigma 100-400. I also have the Sony GM and the Canon 100-500 L IS RF lens plus the Leica 90-280.

1. The Canon and Leica 90-280 are equal first in IQ. The others are a hair or so behind.

2. The front element on the Leica is identical to the SIgma. The filter size difference is just bezel on the Leica.

3. The Sigma has more buttons. And more IS odes.

4. The Leica is heavier but better build and nicer to hold.

5. The Leica teleconverter works on the Sigma. I have the Sigma TC but I haven’t pulled it out yet.

6. The Leica TC seems to have very little impact on IQ, if any. My memories of the SIgma aren’t as favourable but I’m old and prone to delusion. Watch this space.

7. The colours are identical. Absolutely identical.

8. Both zoom rings are in the wrong spot. You can’t do an emergency zoom shot with the hood in reverse.

Now IQ……

This is VERY preliminary. I’ve done about 20 shots and only at 400mm wide open. I’m using the latest version of LR Classic. Other software may perform differently.I’ll wait to see a DXO profile before passing final judgement. I shot with the hybrid and mechanial shutter.

a. AF is the same. Expected

b. Colour is absolutely identical. Likely the same coatings.

c. The Leica has slightly lower contrast and slightly less bite than the SIgma, SOOC, into Lightroom. This could change with LR profiles etc for the lens or with different software. If I add 26 units of extra sharpening to the Leica it’s as good as identical to the Sigma, best I can tell. The actual detail appears to be exactly the same. It just takes a bit of coaxing to get it out of the Leica. If I pushed the SIgma until I thought it was too crunchy and falling apart, I could push the Leica 26 units further before I saw it there. After 30 mins of testing at one focal length and exposure I can’t say whether the Sigma is *better* but it’s one less step. Also I have 1 copy of each. I have zero idea about sample variety with either. This is at 400mm with shots from 5 meters to 30(ish) meters. It’s early evening and I was at 800ISO and 1/800th shutter speed for my shots. I used the same camera body and swapped lenses so shots were less than a minute apart on a sunny afternoon. All other settings in LR were identical except the sharpening amount. I haven’t yet played with detail and radius. 

I should note that all my systems and some lenses have slightly different capture sharpening settings in my workflow. So it’s not unusual for one lens to have different ideal capture sharpening settings. It is just a difference that should be pointed out and of note because EVERYTHING else is so similar.

Preliminary conclusion: The Leica is better made and feels nicer in the hand and you get matched filters to your other zooms. But you’re not gaining anything optically buy not buying the Sigma. But with a bit of extra sharpening you’re not losing anything either. Both lenses are actually pretty good. Very good but not at the level of the 90-280 or the Canon L 100-500. AT 400 I like it better than the Sigma 150-600. I don’t have the newer 60-600.

I have yet to really do side by side but my gut says I like the Leica or SIgma 100-400 with the TC better than the Sigma 150-600 without.

If you have the SIgma it’s not worth an *upgrade* but even though the SIgma has more bite out of camera I’ll likely use the Leica over the SIgma anyway.

The extender is a gem. I don’t generally like them. Even the 1.4x on the Canon 100-500 disappoints me. This is the second TC I’d use regularly (1st is the 1.7x for the Hasselblad XCD system). Might be the pick of the two new products announced today.

Gordon

Many thanks for doing this and for providing so many details on your findings!

Nothing like having factual information with interpretation from an experienced photographer.

Your comment re SL 100-400 + 1.4X versus Sigma 150-600 was particularly helpful as I was seriously considering that lens but preferring the idea of 100-400 with 1.4x if teleconverter was of high quality.

The difference between a 1.5 kg lens and 2.5 kg lens (not to mention size difference) is a serious consideration particularly if one is doing any hiking to get to photo location.

Again great feedback and much appreciated!

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by NicholasT

[dem331]

53 minutes ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

OK. I have the lens in hand.  I also dug out my Sigma 100-400. I also have the Sony GM and the Canon 100-500 L IS RF lens plus the Leica 90-280.

1. The Canon and Leica 90-280 are equal first in IQ. The others are a hair or so behind.

2. The front element on the Leica is identical to the SIgma. The filter size difference is just bezel on the Leica.

3. The Sigma has more buttons. And more IS odes.

4. The Leica is heavier but better build and nicer to hold.

5. The Leica teleconverter works on the Sigma. I have the Sigma TC but I haven’t pulled it out yet.

6. The Leica TC seems to have very little impact on IQ, if any. My memories of the SIgma aren’t as favourable but I’m old and prone to delusion. Watch this space.

7. The colours are identical. Absolutely identical.

8. Both zoom rings are in the wrong spot. You can’t do an emergency zoom shot with the hood in reverse.

Now IQ……

This is VERY preliminary. I’ve done about 20 shots and only at 400mm wide open. I’m using the latest version of LR Classic. Other software may perform differently.I’ll wait to see a DXO profile before passing final judgement. I shot with the hybrid and mechanial shutter.

a. AF is the same. Expected

b. Colour is absolutely identical. Likely the same coatings.

c. The Leica has slightly lower contrast and slightly less bite than the SIgma, SOOC, into Lightroom. This could change with LR profiles etc for the lens or with different software. If I add 26 units of extra sharpening to the Leica it’s as good as identical to the Sigma, best I can tell. The actual detail appears to be exactly the same. It just takes a bit of coaxing to get it out of the Leica. If I pushed the SIgma until I thought it was too crunchy and falling apart, I could push the Leica 26 units further before I saw it there. After 30 mins of testing at one focal length and exposure I can’t say whether the Sigma is *better* but it’s one less step. Also I have 1 copy of each. I have zero idea about sample variety with either. This is at 400mm with shots from 5 meters to 30(ish) meters. It’s early evening and I was at 800ISO and 1/800th shutter speed for my shots. I used the same camera body and swapped lenses so shots were less than a minute apart on a sunny afternoon. All other settings in LR were identical except the sharpening amount. I haven’t yet played with detail and radius. 

I should note that all my systems and some lenses have slightly different capture sharpening settings in my workflow. So it’s not unusual for one lens to have different ideal capture sharpening settings. It is just a difference that should be pointed out and of note because EVERYTHING else is so similar.

Preliminary conclusion: The Leica is better made and feels nicer in the hand and you get matched filters to your other zooms. But you’re not gaining anything optically buy not buying the Sigma. But with a bit of extra sharpening you’re not losing anything either. Both lenses are actually pretty good. Very good but not at the level of the 90-280 or the Canon L 100-500. AT 400 I like it better than the Sigma 150-600. I don’t have the newer 60-600.

I have yet to really do side by side but my gut says I like the Leica or SIgma 100-400 with the TC better than the Sigma 150-600 without.

If you have the SIgma it’s not worth an *upgrade* but even though the SIgma has more bite out of camera I’ll likely use the Leica over the SIgma anyway.

The extender is a gem. I don’t generally like them. Even the 1.4x on the Canon 100-500 disappoints me. This is the second TC I’d use regularly (1st is the 1.7x for the Hasselblad XCD system). Might be the pick of the two new products announced today.

Gordon

Thank you for these comments. Very useful. It will be very interesting if you get a chance to compare the two TCs.  This could be the decisive factor in deciding which of the two lenses to get.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

51 minutes ago, NicholasT said:

Many thanks for doing this and for providing so many details on your findings!

Nothing like having factual information with interpretation from an experienced photographer.

Your comment re SL 100-400 + 1.4X versus Sigma 150-600 was particularly helpful as I was seriously considering that lens but preferring the idea of 100-400 with 1.4x if teleconverter was of high quality.

The difference between a 1.5 kg lens and 2.5 kg lens (not to mention size difference) is a serious consideration particularly if one is doing any hiking to get to photo location.

Again great feedback and much appreciated!

 

Quite apart from image quality the use of an extender can be a bit of a hassle in the field. I have used them a lot on the Leica R for wildlife. and I found that having to dig one out of a bag and mount it broke my workflow and sometimes cost me a shot in dynamic situations. I prefer the convenience of a long zoom lens, and am willing to take a minor step backwards in quality, especially as the difference is nearly always totally evened out in the final print.

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, NicholasT said:

Many thanks for doing this and for providing so many details on your findings!

Nothing like having factual information with interpretation from an experienced photographer.

Your comment re SL 100-400 + 1.4X versus Sigma 150-600 was particularly helpful as I was seriously considering that lens but preferring the idea of 100-400 with 1.4x if teleconverter was of high quality.

The difference between a 1.5 kg lens and 2.5 kg lens (not to mention size difference) is a serious consideration particularly if one is doing any hiking to get to photo location.

Again great feedback and much appreciated!

 

Quite apart from image quality the use of an extender can be a bit of a hassle in the field. I have used them a lot on the Leica R for wildlife and I found that having to dig one out of a bag and mount it broke my workflow and sometimes cost me a shot in dynamic situations. I prefer the convenience of a long zoom lens, and am willing to take a minor step backwards in quality, especially as the difference is nearly always totally evened out in the final print. 

Not to mention the loss of aperture.

I think using a high resolution camera and crop is preferable.

[bandrews]

1 hour ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

OK. I have the lens in hand.  I also dug out my Sigma 100-400. I also have the Sony GM and the Canon 100-500 L IS RF lens plus the Leica 90-280.

1. The Canon and Leica 90-280 are equal first in IQ. The others are a hair or so behind.

2. The front element on the Leica is identical to the SIgma. The filter size difference is just bezel on the Leica.

3. The Sigma has more buttons. And more IS odes.

4. The Leica is heavier but better build and nicer to hold.

5. The Leica teleconverter works on the Sigma. I have the Sigma TC but I haven’t pulled it out yet.

6. The Leica TC seems to have very little impact on IQ, if any. My memories of the SIgma aren’t as favourable but I’m old and prone to delusion. Watch this space.

7. The colours are identical. Absolutely identical.

8. Both zoom rings are in the wrong spot. You can’t do an emergency zoom shot with the hood in reverse.

Now IQ……

This is VERY preliminary. I’ve done about 20 shots and only at 400mm wide open. I’m using the latest version of LR Classic. Other software may perform differently.I’ll wait to see a DXO profile before passing final judgement. I shot with the hybrid and mechanial shutter.

a. AF is the same. Expected

b. Colour is absolutely identical. Likely the same coatings.

c. The Leica has slightly lower contrast and slightly less bite than the SIgma, SOOC, into Lightroom. This could change with LR profiles etc for the lens or with different software. If I add 26 units of extra sharpening to the Leica it’s as good as identical to the Sigma, best I can tell. The actual detail appears to be exactly the same. It just takes a bit of coaxing to get it out of the Leica. If I pushed the SIgma until I thought it was too crunchy and falling apart, I could push the Leica 26 units further before I saw it there. After 30 mins of testing at one focal length and exposure I can’t say whether the Sigma is *better* but it’s one less step. Also I have 1 copy of each. I have zero idea about sample variety with either. This is at 400mm with shots from 5 meters to 30(ish) meters. It’s early evening and I was at 800ISO and 1/800th shutter speed for my shots. I used the same camera body and swapped lenses so shots were less than a minute apart on a sunny afternoon. All other settings in LR were identical except the sharpening amount. I haven’t yet played with detail and radius. 

I should note that all my systems and some lenses have slightly different capture sharpening settings in my workflow. So it’s not unusual for one lens to have different ideal capture sharpening settings. It is just a difference that should be pointed out and of note because EVERYTHING else is so similar.

Preliminary conclusion: The Leica is better made and feels nicer in the hand and you get matched filters to your other zooms. But you’re not gaining anything optically buy not buying the Sigma. But with a bit of extra sharpening you’re not losing anything either. Both lenses are actually pretty good. Very good but not at the level of the 90-280 or the Canon L 100-500. AT 400 I like it better than the Sigma 150-600. I don’t have the newer 60-600.

I have yet to really do side by side but my gut says I like the Leica or SIgma 100-400 with the TC better than the Sigma 150-600 without.

If you have the SIgma it’s not worth an *upgrade* but even though the SIgma has more bite out of camera I’ll likely use the Leica over the SIgma anyway.

The extender is a gem. I don’t generally like them. Even the 1.4x on the Canon 100-500 disappoints me. This is the second TC I’d use regularly (1st is the 1.7x for the Hasselblad XCD system). Might be the pick of the two new products announced today.

Gordon

Not sure if it has been mentioned already or if I've got it all wrong but is the OIS of the lens able to work in tandem with the IBIS of the SL cameras? I'm pretty sure with the Sigma lens (which I have), it's either one or the other...

[MediaFotografie]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb bandrews:

Not sure if it has been mentioned already or if I've got it all wrong but is the OIS of the lens able to work in tandem with the IBIS of the SL cameras? I'm pretty sure with the Sigma lens (which I have), it's either one or the other...

good point! I asked this several times since 2019, even Leica Stuff, and got different answers;

the last one was like you said; long lenses OIS (only), short IBIS (only)

[NicholasT]

28 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Quite apart from image quality the use of an extender can be a bit of a hassle in the field. I have used them a lot on the Leica R for wildlife and I found that having to dig one out of a bag and mount it broke my workflow and sometimes cost me a shot in dynamic situations. I prefer the convenience of a long zoom lens, and am willing to take a minor step backwards in quality, especially as the difference is nearly always totally evened out in the final print. 

Not to mention the loss of aperture.

I think using a high resolution camera and crop is preferable.

Excellent points. 

A few years ago, when I was using a long lens mostly for wildlife in Africa, Yellowstone etc., like you, I strongly favored a long zoom lens and relied on Nikon 400mm F.28 and Nikon 600mm F4. I generally avoided using teleconverters unless absolutely necessary.

My current use of long lenses is very much mixed-use, with at least 50% on more static subjects and compressing landscapes and only periodic use for wildlife.

As a result, I'm less frequently in the situation you describe of missing a shot while attempting to use a teleconverter. On the other hand, using a lighter, more portable lens becomes increasingly important when one has to hike a fair distance to the shooting location rather than shooting from a vehicle or relatively fixed point.

Edited March 10, 2023 by NicholasT

[dem331]

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Quite apart from image quality the use of an extender can be a bit of a hassle in the field. I have used them a lot on the Leica R for wildlife and I found that having to dig one out of a bag and mount it broke my workflow and sometimes cost me a shot in dynamic situations. I prefer the convenience of a long zoom lens, and am willing to take a minor step backwards in quality, especially as the difference is nearly always totally evened out in the final print. 

Not to mention the loss of aperture.

I think using a high resolution camera and crop is preferable.

I agree, but for me the point of the TC is to have it permanently glued to the lens since I am only interested in the longer focal lengths for this set up. I cannot really imagine using it much below 200mm. If it has almost no quality loss, as I think Gordon is saying, I like the option despite the loss in aperture. 

[jaapv]

Yes, but extended focal length plus loss of aperture will introduce (micro) motion blur, which negates sharpness. I used them in the past to reduce weight and bulk of my kit. 
 

Edit: I am a disciple of the late Fritz Pölking, whose mantra was “Wildlife photography is cropping photography“ even before digital. 

[Mak67]

Looking at the ftm chart of this new Lens(available on Leica website) , it's 'ooks pretty good at 100 and 200 et bit less at 400... In all case a little behind the 90-280.

 

[Ralf]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb FlashGordonPhotography:

OK. I have the lens in hand.  I also dug out my Sigma 100-400. I also have the Sony GM and the Canon 100-500 L IS RF lens plus the Leica 90-280.

1. The Canon and Leica 90-280 are equal first in IQ. The others are a hair or so behind.

2. The front element on the Leica is identical to the SIgma. The filter size difference is just bezel on the Leica.

3. The Sigma has more buttons. And more IS odes.

4. The Leica is heavier but better build and nicer to hold.

5. The Leica teleconverter works on the Sigma. I have the Sigma TC but I haven’t pulled it out yet.

6. The Leica TC seems to have very little impact on IQ, if any. My memories of the SIgma aren’t as favourable but I’m old and prone to delusion. Watch this space.

7. The colours are identical. Absolutely identical.

8. Both zoom rings are in the wrong spot. You can’t do an emergency zoom shot with the hood in reverse.

Now IQ……

This is VERY preliminary. I’ve done about 20 shots and only at 400mm wide open. I’m using the latest version of LR Classic. Other software may perform differently.I’ll wait to see a DXO profile before passing final judgement. I shot with the hybrid and mechanial shutter.

a. AF is the same. Expected

b. Colour is absolutely identical. Likely the same coatings.

c. The Leica has slightly lower contrast and slightly less bite than the SIgma, SOOC, into Lightroom. This could change with LR profiles etc for the lens or with different software. If I add 26 units of extra sharpening to the Leica it’s as good as identical to the Sigma, best I can tell. The actual detail appears to be exactly the same. It just takes a bit of coaxing to get it out of the Leica. If I pushed the SIgma until I thought it was too crunchy and falling apart, I could push the Leica 26 units further before I saw it there. After 30 mins of testing at one focal length and exposure I can’t say whether the Sigma is *better* but it’s one less step. Also I have 1 copy of each. I have zero idea about sample variety with either. This is at 400mm with shots from 5 meters to 30(ish) meters. It’s early evening and I was at 800ISO and 1/800th shutter speed for my shots. I used the same camera body and swapped lenses so shots were less than a minute apart on a sunny afternoon. All other settings in LR were identical except the sharpening amount. I haven’t yet played with detail and radius. 

I should note that all my systems and some lenses have slightly different capture sharpening settings in my workflow. So it’s not unusual for one lens to have different ideal capture sharpening settings. It is just a difference that should be pointed out and of note because EVERYTHING else is so similar.

Preliminary conclusion: The Leica is better made and feels nicer in the hand and you get matched filters to your other zooms. But you’re not gaining anything optically buy not buying the Sigma. But with a bit of extra sharpening you’re not losing anything either. Both lenses are actually pretty good. Very good but not at the level of the 90-280 or the Canon L 100-500. AT 400 I like it better than the Sigma 150-600. I don’t have the newer 60-600.

I have yet to really do side by side but my gut says I like the Leica or SIgma 100-400 with the TC better than the Sigma 150-600 without.

If you have the SIgma it’s not worth an *upgrade* but even though the SIgma has more bite out of camera I’ll likely use the Leica over the SIgma anyway.

The extender is a gem. I don’t generally like them. Even the 1.4x on the Canon 100-500 disappoints me. This is the second TC I’d use regularly (1st is the 1.7x for the Hasselblad XCD system). Might be the pick of the two new products announced today.

Gordon

Thank you for your extensive review, very helpful indeed, saving me quite a bit of cash.... as owner of the Sigma lens. 😉

[NicholasT]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Yes, but extended focal length plus loss of aperture will introduce (micro) motion blur, which negates sharpness. I used them in the past to reduce weight and bulk of my kit. 
 

Edit: I am a disciple of the late Fritz Pölking, whose mantra was “Wildlife photography is cropping photography“ even before digital. 

Agreed.

When shooting wildlife was more often than not hand holding or using bean bag.

Currently I’m using a tripod 80% of the time with long lens.

At the end of the day our individual choices are use case dependent.
That said, agree with all your points particularly for those using the lens for wildlife ( non static subjects ) and not having to walk for miles with their gear

Edited March 10, 2023 by NicholasT

[Simone_DF]

1 hour ago, bandrews said:

Not sure if it has been mentioned already or if I've got it all wrong but is the OIS of the lens able to work in tandem with the IBIS of the SL cameras? I'm pretty sure with the Sigma lens (which I have), it's either one or the other...

I remember looking at this before and, if I'm not mistaken, it was:

Leica body + Leica lens: either OIS or IBIS, not both

Leica body + Sigma/Pana lens: IBIS only

Panasonic body + Panasonic lens: OIS and IBIS work in tandem

Panasonic body + Leica / Sigma lens: IBIS only

[Boojay]

18 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I remember looking at this before and, if I'm not mistaken, it was:

Leica body + Leica lens: either OIS or IBIS, not both

Leica body + Sigma/Pana lens: IBIS only

Panasonic body + Panasonic lens: OIS and IBIS work in tandem

Panasonic body + Leica / Sigma lens: IBIS only

Seems to have been reported that with the new Sigma 60-600 and Panasonic Lumix S5II you get IBIS and OIS combined, and also this thread has positive comments regarding Sigma and Panasonic Dual IS.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4691405

 

[davidmknoble]

I keep reading posts and reviews as well as studying the Sigma and Leica information available. I believe (without any direct knowledge) that the Leica lens is a result of the Sigma lens, but I also believe it is different.  Here’s why.

1. The Sigma lens has more plastic and the Leica lens is all metal
2. The Sigma lens has lower contrast in the 30 lp MTF charts, regardless of which you use (diffraction or geometric).

Regarding the MTF, I’m sure that someone will argue it depends on how you measure it, and there is probably some truth.  However, consider auto brands.  Toyota and Lexus are the same vehicle, yet the models have differences and the price of the Lexus is always higher than the Toyota of the same brand.

I’m willing to bet that Leica has different light baffling and anti-reflection coatings on the inside to give the lens a little more contrast.  It’s what they’ve done for 100 years.  Rebranding does not mean the same lens.

I’ve attached the Sigma MTF screen shot from their website.  The 30 lp lines for the 100mm f/5 position are clearly below the 90% contrast mark, in both styles of MTF.  Yet the Leica MTF, which is in their PDF and I did not include here (edit: added Leica MTF), is clearly above 90% contrast.  That may or may not be glass type, but it is part of the lens system.  

This is what we pay for, and with the added durability and tolerance of construction, we have to make our own choice on cost, but I believe it is a different 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!

Edited March 10, 2023 by davidmknoble
Added Leica MTF

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Simone_DF]

Just now, Boojay said:

Seems to have been reported that with the new Sigma 60-600 and Panasonic Lumix S5II you get IBIS and OIS combined, and also this thread has positive comments regarding Sigma and Panasonic Dual IS.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4691405

 

Thanks! Even better!