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

[pf4eva]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

16 minutes ago, mzbe said:

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 ...).

We shall see, at this stage there is no indication that Leica lens is any better than Sigma. It is hard to buy the argument about QC, better QC will be visible optically.

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, Photoworks said:

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

Yes. My 24-90 extends on its own by gravity. 

[jaapv]

I won’t argue with this level of partisanship. Have it your way. Fortunately for Leica the vast majority of photographers judge lenses by their actual characteristics. Some lenses are good sellers, prestige objects or must-haves. Those they will develop themselves. Other lenses are needed to fill gaps in the line-up, wouldn’t sell as many, but as a small brand they cannot afford  the R and D needed without making them so expensive that they would not sell a single one. So they adapt and improve existing designs that they deem Leica worthy. Why shouldn’t they? 

[LBJ2]

Personally, I think it's a good day when a camera system adds new lenses. Particularly a system I happen to own. Speaks well for the future of the system. I am happy to see Leica continuing to support and build out this system. I also appreciate the L-Mount alliance which adds alternatives to include budget alternatives to Leica brand but the same Lmount technology for mix and match as needed/wanted. What's not to like about that? Spend your money as you see fit.

I also think Leica is getting ready for Leica SL PDAF with such a lens 😉

 

 

[BernardC]

38 minutes ago, pf4eva said:

My comparison is more correct, a premium brand (leica/ferrari) is rebranding midrange brands product (sigma/toyota).

Car comparisons are always telling, but not in the way that the person making them intends!

Let's see what we've got here: "Leica is a Ferrari, Sigma is a Toyota." So if a $2,200 Leica 100-400 lens is a Ferrari, what does that make a $2,700 Canon 100-500 lens, a Lamborghini? And a $2,500 Sony 100-400 lens is what? I give up, and I haven't mentioned the $2,700 Nikkor 100-400 yet!

What have we learned from this, that we all drive supercars? That someone who own a Sony a1 or a9 is driving a Toyota, but someone who pays the same amount for an SL2-S is driving something else?

[helged]

10 hours 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

Thanks Gordon - much appreciated! Yes, Canon 100-500 RF is a splendid telezoom, the SL90-280 as well, clearly, but the reach of the Canon is impressive given modest weight and size. I would prefer to use L-mount bodies only, but this depends on the continuous AF which is excellent on eg R5, and will likely be greatly improved on the next incarnation of SL (similarly to Lumix S5 II, I presume, although I haven't tested the latter, yet). 

[rtai]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am buying the new Leica 100-400mm when it becomes available. So the Leica badge costs more over the Sigma. What do I get for that $1300 difference:

Solid construction (I don’t have either lens so need to confirm)

Stricter QC not the typical Japanese sample variation BS, why I have a closet full of Leicas (I don’t own any Sigma so shouldn’t slander a fine company but experience generally holds true)

Mirrorless tech involves a lot of algorithms for that final look including distortion correction and Leica branded will have that Leica look (speculation perhaps)

Leica will update firmware and it will be different than Sigma firmware (speculation perhaps)

 

[cj3209]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

Personally, I think it's a good day when a camera system adds new lenses. Particularly a system I happen to own. Speaks well for the future of the system. I am happy to see Leica continuing to support and build out this system. I also appreciate the L-Mount alliance which adds alternatives to include budget alternatives to Leica brand but the same Lmount technology for mix and match as needed/wanted. What's not to like about that? Spend your money as you see fit.

I also think Leica is getting ready for Leica SL PDAF with such a lens 😉

 

This is off-topic but I read a review of the new Pany S5ii and the reviewer said PDAF wasn't that great - although it was more for video shooting.  Is PDAF more for decreasing AF hunting and ability to focus quickly in low light?

 

[thatkatmat]

1 hour ago, LBJ2 said:

Personally, I think it's a good day when a camera system adds new lenses. Particularly a system I happen to own. Speaks well for the future of the system. I am happy to see Leica continuing to support and build out this system. I also appreciate the L-Mount alliance which adds alternatives to include budget alternatives to Leica brand but the same Lmount technology for mix and match as needed/wanted. What's not to like about that? Spend your money as you see fit.

I also think Leica is getting ready for Leica SL PDAF with such a lens 😉

 

 

I agree 100%

What's not to like, that they have a better built 100-400 than Sigma.......AND.....it doesn't cost $8000?

I love that we now have a choice between APO's and ASPH primes, $6000 Standard Zooms and (My new favorite the Sigma 28-70). I feel like I came back to the L-Mount at the perfect time. There's so much AMAZING glass to choose from. I mean, just look at 35mm's, The APO, the ASPH, the Sigma f2, Sigma 1.4, Panny 1.8, take your choice...Do you want to Spend $500 or $6000, up to you, either way, you're gonna end up with a really good 35mm, it's just, how much do you want to pay for REALLY small improvements in IQ and various build quality. For me, that depends on the lens FL and how much I see myself using it.

I say keep pumping them out...but in the mean time lets see that 21mm APO!!!

 

 

Edited March 10, 2023 by thatkatmat

[Kristofferpaulsen]

9 minutes ago, thatkatmat said:

I agree 100%

What's not to like, that they have a better built 100-400 than Sigma.......AND.....it doesn't cost $8000?

I love that we now have a choice between APO's and ASPH primes, $6000 Standard Zooms and (My new favorite the Sigma 28-70). I feel like I came back to the L-Mount at the perfect time. There's so much AMAZING glass to choose from. I mean, just look at 35mm's, The APO, the ASPH, the Sigma f2, Sigma 1.4, Panny 1.8, take your choice...Do you want to Spend $500 or $6000, up to you, either way, you're gonna end up with a really good 35mm, it's just, how much do you want to pay for REALLY small improvements in IQ and various build quality. For me, that depends on the lens FL and how much I see myself using it.

I say keep pumping them out...but in the mean time lets see that 21mm APO!!!

 

 

+1 for the 21!

[Guest]

2 hours ago, pf4eva said:

We shall see, at this stage there is no indication that Leica lens is any better than Sigma. It is hard to buy the argument about QC, better QC will be visible optically.

Better QC means less variation. I.e. 5/5 samples will be 'as good as it gets', vs. buy 5, send 4 back ...

[Printmaker]

I’ve been using the Sigma 100/400 for a few months and it is a good lens. I bought it for an upcoming Africa trip. So far I’m quite pleased with the results. It is very sharp and fairly light. I know I will want it to be faster for shooting lions at dusk but the SL2S has remarkable low light ability and between IBIS and lens stabilization, I should be fine.

Even though I knew Leica was going to rebrand this lens with a slightly better build quality, it is a lens that I will probably use for less than 5% of my future photos. I just couldn’t justify spending nearly 3X as much for a little more metal and the tripod foot. 
 

One thing that has not been mentioned is the difference between the 67mm and 82mm filter threads. This might indicate a different front element or an upgrade in the design of the zoom mechanism. If I were 30 years younger and still did a lot of backpacking, I’d probably spend the extra money on a slightly more robust version of this lens. The money saved, however, allowed me to get the equally remarkable 28-70 and 105 Macro for the same price as the Leica model. Both of these lenses are rumored to wear the Leica red dot soon.

Normally I would only purchase Leica lenses… as I do for my M cameras… but if Sigma lenses are good enough for Leica to put their name on them, well then I’d be foolish not to.

[hansvons]

3 hours ago, Priaptor said:

A "lighter" alternative for those of us looking for a high quality 400 mm lens

A 400mm prime will be roughly 400mm long, as this is the nature of the beast. Add Leica-esk specs, eg f 2,8 and weather resistance, plus proper housing, and the lens will be considerably bulkier and heavier than the 90-280. For reference, check Canon's telephoto primes. Leica is no wizard shop.

[Simone_DF]

9 hours ago, davidmknoble said:

I believe it is a different lens.

You forgot to list the magic ingredient that makes the Leica version better:

 

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!

[pf4eva]

54 minutes ago, mzbe said:

Better QC means less variation. I.e. 5/5 samples will be 'as good as it gets', vs. buy 5, send 4 back ...

It depends on QC. We don't know if those lenses have a different QC than Sigma ones.

[pf4eva]

1 hour ago, rtai said:

Stricter QC not the typical Japanese sample variation BS, why I have a closet full of Leicas (I don’t own any Sigma so shouldn’t slander a fine company but experience generally holds true)

Where this info is coming from? Or it is your speculation?

[pf4eva]

2 hours ago, jaapv said:

I won’t argue with this level of partisanship. Have it your way. Fortunately for Leica the vast majority of photographers judge lenses by their actual characteristics. Some lenses are good sellers, prestige objects or must-haves. Those they will develop themselves. Other lenses are needed to fill gaps in the line-up, wouldn’t sell as many, but as a small brand they cannot afford  the R and D needed without making them so expensive that they would not sell a single one. So they adapt and improve existing designs that they deem Leica worthy. Why shouldn’t they? 

Back to the topic, could you please provide the link to the test which compares them and shows that those lenses are optically different? Link to older 24-70mm comparison will also work, as I'm genuinely interested in anything factual.

[pf4eva]

55 minutes ago, hansvons said:

A 400mm prime will be roughly 400mm long, as this is the nature of the beast. Add Leica-esk specs, eg f 2,8 and weather resistance, plus proper housing, and the lens will be considerably bulkier and heavier than the 90-280. For reference, check Canon's telephoto primes. Leica is no wizard shop.

This is just not true, there are a lot of modern and not so technologies how to make them smaller, Canon and Nikon have PF/DO lenses, even zooms, I'm sure Leica can make it, it is not a patented or anything. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[jaapv]

You’ll need to buy a book Erwin Puts Leica Compendium. 

[LocalHero1953]

3 hours ago, LD_50 said:

Yes. My 24-90 extends on its own by gravity. 

So does mine, but the only time I notice it is when pointing vertically downwards for negative copying. I do that at 90mm anyway, and I've never noticed creep in any other scenario (with this or the other SL zooms, the TL zooms or the 80-200 R zoom). Having a focus lock never occurred to me as a 'thing' until I heard here that the absence of one is very bad design.

Edited March 10, 2023 by LocalHero1953