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

[Photoworks]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

4 hours ago, pf4eva said:

this extending barrel without the lock is very bad design

Was it ever a problem on the 24-90mm?

[dkCambridgeshire]

21 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

gimme a break with this.  OK so we are all getting ripped off when we buy into their APO lenses.  I think you. get what I am referring to but nitpick if you must

Not 'nit picking' https://leicarumors.com/2016/08/17/leica-apo-vario-elmarit-sl-90-280mm-f2-8-4-lens-designed-by-panasonic.aspx/

Leica Camera AG 'cooperates' with other manufacturers; their "Leica" lenses are a team effort rather than being 100% in-house designed / manufactured.

Edited March 10, 2023 by dkCambridgeshire

[kobra]

32 minutes ago, Priaptor said:

the 90-280 is a zoom and by naturally is going to be heavier than say a 280 prime.  I hear over and over again that people are buying this zoom and using it with a tele to get the best Leica has to offer at long focal lengths.  A "lighter" alternative for those of us looking for a high quality 400 mm lens, instead of filling this gap with either a Sigma lens or a heavy 90-280 plus tele is a good quality prime lens. 

I don't know of a teleconverter for the 90-280; can you send more info on that?

Brad

[Mak67]

SL 16-35 is a minolta design 

Sl90-280 is a Panasonic design

 what about the 24-90?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[kobra]

5 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

RE: weatherproofing

I think Leica has always given more weather sealing language to lenses that have internal focusing systems, and less language to those with a focus tube that extendss.

The 24-90, the 24-70 and the Leica S 120 macro all have extending tubes.

I shoot the S lens in the windy sand on the coast, and shot the 24-90 in Haiti, and never got dust or problems in the tube. 

I think they would explicitly states if the lens was not capable of being used in a rain storm, especially with the aqua dura coating applied.

I won’t baby this lens in the weather.

I have the Sigma 100-400 and find it to be good but not great. I've recently switched from Fuji X, and the Sigma 100-400 is the one lens that I feel is a step down from my prior Fuji (XF100-400). 

So, I am very interested to see what advantages the new Leica 100-400 offers. As per Gordon's initial testing, at least at 400mm it seems the IQ results are not very different. (I would strongly suspect that the difference in sharpening is down to a missing lens profile that should get updated in LR and other software) 

BUT, in spite of little information on the weather sealing, I do hope the new Leica is better. I cover desert racing which of course is very dusty. I was at a small event recently with the Sigma 100-400 and shot near the track for a couple hours and had dust on the sensor. It didn't make me feel all that comfortable with the weather sealing of the Sigma. 

Brad

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, sebben said:

The problem is they Leica uses it’s brand to charge much more money than almost everyone else. They justify this by providing the best optical performance and superior haptics*. 
 

This doesn’t work when they use 3rd party optics that is also available for 1/3 the price. I as a customer start getting the sensation that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. If they just subcontracted the design and it was exclusive then it would be all gravy. 

I would gladly buy a Rimowa suitcase without the branding for a 1/3 the price. 

*Maybe one could argue that the improved haptics justify the 2/3rds price increase. 

Well, I understand that there are no complaints about the sales of such products. Justification does not. appear to be needed.

[ynp]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

1 hour ago, sebben said:

I as a customer start getting the sensation that the emperor is not wearing any clothes. If they just subcontracted the design and it was exclusive then it would be all gravy.

Then do not buy the Sigma or Panasonic designed Leica glass. Instead of very few purists who will abandon Leica,  many more people will come for those reasonably priced lenses, and I am among them, I have ordered the SM35mm ASPH and I am not ashamed to be owning a Minolta R lens, a T/S lens and others non Leica designed glass. 

[pf4eva]

3 hours ago, Jipster said:

Imagine that the glass is actually different and/or the coating is different and/or criteria for rejection of said glass are different and/or pairing of lens elements is different, would that make it "optically" the same? No. I am not saying any of this is true. I am just saying it's naive and not really aware of the factors that goes into optics to assume that because they look the same and have the same optical formula, they are the same optically. No shade intended, I am just trying to point out some of the factors that go into optical excellence. Of course, the Sigma might be better than the Leica on all of these, for all I know!

Of course theoretically it can be different optically, but some common and economic sense tells us they're most likely not. Tests so far just confirming that. But if you like to think they're somehow magically different optically, you're welcome to do so. 

[jaapv]

Those purists should check their car. Platforms are shared betere many brands and price classes. Expensive watches share calibers, etc. 

[jaapv]

1 minute ago, pf4eva said:

Of course theoretically it can be different optically, but some common and economic sense tells us they're most likely not. Tests so far just confirming that. But if you like to think they're somehow magically different optically, you're welcome to do so. 

This is not theory but fact. 

[kobra]

1 minute ago, pf4eva said:

Of course theoretically it can be different optically, but some common and economic sense tells us they're most likely not. Tests so far just confirming that. But if you like to think they're somehow magically different optically, you're welcome to do so. 

That's a very strange comment that actually makes no "common sense" at all. If anything, "economic sense" would say that if a manufacturer charges more there is room to improve the quality of the product. Another commenter compared the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus; if a shared design in the Lexus were not worth more money, the brand would not exist. Which is exactly the case here - if all of these Leica "rebadged" lenses offered nothing more valuable, they would soon disappear. 

Brad

[pf4eva]

3 hours ago, hansvons said:

It's a brand and market thing.

I understand Sigma as a proud, traditional family-owned success story that started as an underdog in the global photography lens business and is today a force to reckon with. I'm sure they can build lenses as good as Leica's, but they need the brand power to sell them at the price they must ask, which they don't have. Leica is very different as it has a long-standing history as a top-tier camera and lens manufacturer with a high brand value. That means, contrary to Sigma, they can build and sell high-end photography lenses in volumes that make the whole endeavour a proper business. 

But even this has an end. In Leica's case, that's the 90-280, as it's costly and so heavy that it somewhat represents the boarder of what's feasible for the user in the FF format. If Leica were to build a "proper" zoom in the 100-400 range, internally focusing, f4.0 at the long end and all that, it would be larger and much heavier than the 90-280 - and even more expensive. How many of these would Leica sell, and how much better would it be than what Sigma is already building?

Leica is highly invested in the SL system and wants it to become more mainstream and accessible. And with the APO Summicrons and the two original zooms, they already have the market's best glass in their portfolio, and that in focal lengths which can be sold in significant numbers.

And then there is the S line waiting for an upgrade. That will, inevitably, be purely German (which is not always brilliant) and an excellent playground for Leica purists.

 

This is exactly the reason why i dislike those re-branded lenses. They already have S-pro Panasonic collaboration, why not to stick to it. For me it is just depreciates brands value, like Gucci did back in a days when they started selling cheaper stuff under their brand.
Also, even now L-mount still doesn't have a proper professional grade long telephoto. 

[NicholasT]

22 minutes ago, kobra said:

I don't know of a teleconverter for the 90-280; can you send more info on that?

Brad

There is no teleconverter for 90-280.

 

[pf4eva]

4 minutes ago, jaapv said:

This is not theory but fact. 

Based on what? Do you have any material proofs?

[pf4eva]

5 minutes ago, kobra said:

That's a very strange comment that actually makes no "common sense" at all. If anything, "economic sense" would say that if a manufacturer charges more there is room to improve the quality of the product. Another commenter compared the difference between a Toyota and a Lexus; if a shared design in the Lexus were not worth more money, the brand would not exist. Which is exactly the case here - if all of these Leica "rebadged" lenses offered nothing more valuable, they would soon disappear. 

I'm not sure from which planet you're from. This is not a Toyota/Lexus comparison. This is Ferrari putting their label on a Toyota with better interior. 
In terms of value - you can compare value of 24-70mm on a second hand market, those lenses dropping in prices significantly, it is exactly the same as with old R-mount non Leica designs. No one want them long term.

[jaapv]

Post a bit back - you’ find a number of lenses providing proof. 

[jaapv]

9 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

I'm not sure from which planet you're from. This is not a Toyota/Lexus comparison. This is Ferrari putting their label on a Toyota with better interior. 
In terms of value - you can compare value of 24-70mm on a second hand market, those lenses dropping in prices significantly, it is exactly the same as with old R-mount non Leica designs. No one want them long term.

Poor comparison. Talk Morgan using a Ford drivetrain. Your last statement is incorrect. As I and some others have said-if you don’ like it don’t buy it. The times of burning heretics at the stake lies sometime in the past. 

[Guest]

First and foremost, the new lens will have to 'prove itself' on its own merits (irrespective of lineage). Comparisons with the Sigma 100-400 should be a secondary concern? Esp. since there are significant physical differences. Tighter quality control, resulting in less unit variation, could be another differentiator. From that PoV the Leica is almost 'too cheap' as the highest QC standards can get very expensive (AFAIR Zeiss made a statement a while back that the biggest difference between the $4k Otus and the $1k Batis was cost of quality control ...).

[pf4eva]

13 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Poor comparison. Talk Morgan using a Ford drivetrain. Your last statement is incorrect. As I and some others have said-if you don’ like it don’t buy it. The times of burning heretics at the stake lies sometime in the past. 

My comparison is more correct, a premium brand (leica/ferrari) is rebranding midrange brands product (sigma/toyota). Those tesla lenses give me a vibes of some high end audio, when company literally takes pretty average HW from well known mass production brand and present it like it is theirs and somehow very different. And don't get me wrong, there is nothing wrong in making money, It is just a bit fraudulent IMO. And yes, I'm not going to buy this lens, but that's not the point.

18 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Post a bit back - you’ find a number of lenses providing proof. 

Would you mind to post a link with a proper comparison? I searched the web, but couldn't find anything done more or less scientifically.

Edited March 10, 2023 by pf4eva

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[pf4eva]

2 hours ago, Virob said:

We can speculate all we want, but only Leica knows, and doubtful that they will reveal much, if anything. The only thing that is really clear is that it isn’t a rebrand, since the housing is very different. What it looks like inside will have to wait until someone takes both versions apart.
Someone will eventually do a comparison between the Leica and Sigma versions.  If it is anything like the Leica vs Sigma 24-70, some people will observe a slight difference and others no difference at all. Optically that is, obviously they will feel different, weather sealing is different and focus response may be different.

In the end, if they are, for all practical purposes optically the same, does it matter so long as the  image quality is high enough? The Sigma is available in L an E mounts. The Sony 100-400 is optically not much different than the Sigma, but plenty of people still buy it even though it is even more expensive than the Leica.

 

That's the problem, sigma 100-400mm is pretty average lens. It is not in the same league as canon 100-400mmII and far from 100-500mm. Even sigma themselves ranking it in "contemporary" series.