Leica SL 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH (non APO) vs Sigma 35mm f2 DG DN

[petereprice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi all - Was wondering if anyone has done a comparison between the new Leica SL 35mm f2 Summicron ASPH vs the Sigma 35mm f2 DG DN lenses?

I'm torn between these two lenses. I like the size and compactness of the Sigma Contemporary I series lenses, but noticed that when shot wide open, and shooting close focus distances, I lose a little contrast and sharpness, however it is corrected when stopping down to f2.8, which is probably what you should do when shooting close anyways. However I do have the 50mm SL Summicron ASPH, and really like the rending on that lens, as well as it's sharpness and contrast even at close focus distances, so I'm wondering if I would like the 35mm f2 SL Summicron better than the 35 Sigma.

 

Does anyone have experience with both these lenses or were in a similar dilemma trying to choose between the two?

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!

[Stuart Richardson]

I do not have the 35mm ASPH, but I do have the 35mm APO Summicron and the 35mm Sigma f2. I think there is a very substantial difference, and the 35mm APO Summicron is a much better lens, particularly wide open. I would say that if it is within your budget, consider a used 35mm APO SL lens. It is one of the best lenses Leica has ever made, and it really is not that unreasonably priced in comparison to other Leica lenses, particularly in the M line. If you cannot justify the 35mm APO, personally I think I would stick with the 35mm Sigma, as the value proposition of the 35mm ASPH does not seem particuarly great to me, since it is substantially similar to the much cheaper Panasonic 35mm 1.8.

[Advertisement]

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

[Ken Abrahams]

I have the Sigma 35 F2 Lens, it's still in its box unopened. I got the lens when I purchased the SL2S Reporter model, it was "thrown in" for the deal last month. 

The lens probably wont even make it onto any of my cameras as I am selling my 601 with the lens a part of the deal. I have the Summicron 50 SL Asph and I think it's a pretty good lens. Quick to focus, sharp in a clinical way but very light and generally a good lens. The APO 35 SL is a fantastic lens. I would probably go for the Leica Summicron 35 Asph over the Sigma 35 without even looking. 

Ken 

[Virob]

Would be great if someone would do a comparison between the Sigma 35/2, Leica 35/2 asph and Panasonic 35/1.8. I got the Sigma some time ago and choose it over the Panasonic based on online reviews that showed better resolution, contrast and flare control. I think moving to the asph  from your Sigma would be more or less a lateral shift image wise, probably not worth it. If you want better, start looking for an used apo.

[STurner]

I have tested the 35 f2 sigma vs the Panasonic 35 f1.8 and the sigma was noticeably sharper with less CA

[petereprice]

I ended up settling on the 35mm f2 SL ASPH.  I like the Sigma's compact design, and build quality.  However there were some characteristics of the lens, that I didn't like right away.  For instance, you lose contrast when shooting wide open, and shooting within the minimum focus distance.  When I stop down it gets better, but I didn't like how the lens rendered.  I realize this is completely subjective, but I've never gotten along with Sigma lenses, except for the 85mm f1.4 DG DN in Sony E-Mount.  Otherwise historically I've always returned Sigma lenses for some reason or another.  But I'm starting to realize, that for some reason the Sigma image quality doesn't sing to me.

The 35 SL Cron ASPH, has a nice rendering, and maintained contrast and sharpness, to me at close distances and wide open, better than my copy of the Sigma at f2.  Based on the reviews and videos of the comparisons between the Lumix 35 and the Leica SL Cron, although they are very close, there are advantages to the Leica version.  It seems to be more consistent corner to corner, provides a very nice all metal design, and perhaps has slightly better coating?  Is the extra cost worth it?  Well...any of my Leica purchases have never been fully justified, so I'm used to it with Leica products by now.  But I do like that the L Mount does offer options and if I couldn't afford the SL 35, I would most likely settle on the Sigma or get a Lumix 35mm f1.8.

[Chris Nebard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I love the Sigma DG DN Contemporaries and so I’m completely biased and subjective. The 35 is, I think, a very, very good lens in its own right. It’s sharp, it suits the SL cameras, it has an aperture ring, it has decent subject separation - and as with the other i-Contemporary lenses, I love using it. These are just documentary/street snaps from the SL2-S and Sigma 35 f2, but I like the results. 

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!

[huwm]

I had the Sigma 35 f2 and the f1.4 and preferred the 1.4 by a good margin, pretty much never using the f2 despite finding the art lens a bit ‘big’ for my standard go to prime.

When I traded the SL2 for Sl2-S I went for the kit deal with 35 ASPH ditching the 2 Sigmas at the same time.

I don’t feel I’m missing out having done so and personally much prefer the overall look and feel of the pairing which given how good all these lenses are might as well be the deciding factor?

 

[Chris Nebard]

5 hours ago, huwm said:

I had the Sigma 35 f2 and the f1.4 and preferred the 1.4 by a good margin, pretty much never using the f2 despite finding the art lens a bit ‘big’ for my standard go to prime.

When I traded the SL2 for Sl2-S I went for the kit deal with 35 ASPH ditching the 2 Sigmas at the same time.

I don’t feel I’m missing out having done so and personally much prefer the overall look and feel of the pairing which given how good all these lenses are might as well be the deciding factor?

 

Yes, I can understand that. I’m not sure there’s a bad decision to be made really. it’s good to have such a variety of choice with the L mount 👍

[Luta13]

Here is a shot with an SL2-S and the 35mm Summicron-SL ASPH. Sorry, no experience with the Sigma. Best of luck!

(Please click the image for better res.)

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 July 24 by Luta13

[wellknown]

i can definitely confirm what was said on post #7: The sigma is a superb lens! It is light, renders nicely, it's tack sharp and beautifully made. Using it on a SL-2 (S) is a pure joy - the aperture ring clicks  in a very defined way and the overall balance of the camera is great when attached. 

No need to say it is a quarter of the price Leica is asking for the PanaLeica 35mm. So - if one doesn't need the brand name on it: Perfect choice!

 

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!

[Kristofferpaulsen]

I havent had a 35 since swapping to Leica SL system over a year ago.. I've got a Q2, so my reasoning has been that it's kinda covered.. However I've been using my old Canon 35 1.4L adapted a little lately, and it's making me remember how much I like the focal length.. Got an international hotel job coming up, and I'm considering the new 35 Summi. Looks great, and tiny!

[goodbokeh]

12 minutes ago, Kristofferpaulsen said:

I havent had a 35 since swapping to Leica SL system over a year ago.. I've got a Q2, so my reasoning has been that it's kinda covered.. However I've been using my old Canon 35 1.4L adapted a little lately, and it's making me remember how much I like the focal length.. Got an international hotel job coming up, and I'm considering the new 35 Summi. Looks great, and tiny!

Ya know Kristoffer when I look into my M finder I see quite a difference between the 28 & 35mm frame lines. Also, the Q2's lens coverage is more like a 26mm lens and so a 35mm lens is not that close of coverage really.

Edited August 13 by goodbokeh
typo

[Kristofferpaulsen]

5 hours ago, goodbokeh said:

Ya know Kristoffer when I look into my M finder I see quite a difference between the 28 & 35mm frame lines. Also, the Q2's lens coverage is more like a 26mm lens and so a 35mm lens is not that close of coverage really.

oh i realise that. I crop a lot with my q2, i kinda treat it like a large format camera, in that i treat the uncropped file like the image circle and put my frame where I want it to be.. it's more of a "what can i avoid dropping six grand on" situation..!