Leica SL2-S with Panasonic and Sigma Lenses

[nemendes]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hi Everyone! I just got my Leica sl2-s and I am using it with my m mount lenses. I want to try Panasonic or sigma lenses as well (native Leica l-mount lenses are quite pricey). I have looked at couple of videos on internet and read some blogs but I didn't quite get which model I should pick or should I pick at all. I am using only prime lenses and my favourite focal lengths are 24, 35, 50 and 85. 

Can you give me advices about for which focal length which lens I should choose? For me the most important thing is image quality. Of course they won't be perfect as native Leica lenses but maybe there are some lenses that I get quality almost same as natives. 

Thank you very much in advance!

[Advertisement]

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

[nemendes]

no ideas at all?

[Tpau17]

@nemendes In addition to the SL lenses (24-90/90-280), I also use prime lenses from Sigma on my SL, but only ever from the Art line and DG DN series.
The 35/1.2 is really almost on the Leica level in terms of quality and weight; my Sigma 85/1.4 is also really very very good and the 105 macro is anyway without comparison on the Leica side (on SL level). 
The only thing I've noticed so far between the two companies is that the Sigma lenses tend to be more clinically sharp and the Leica lenses have a bit of a "Leica look" to them. Color-wise, both are really on an extremely high level and you won't go wrong. Especially with regard to your m-lenses (my M-summilux 35/1.4 on the SL is simply warmer and from the bokeh simply "different") you can achieve with these and the Sigma selection a nice combination, depending on the image goal, in photography. 
The C-series from Sigma is also supposed to be good, but not equal to the Art series, but have the great advantage of size and weight (when traveling a factor not to be underestimated) Panasonic lenses I do not know, but after Leica has released the cheaper 35/50 lenses on calculation and basis of Panasonic, these will also be very good. 

[nemendes]

11 minutes ago, Tpau17 said:

@nemendes In addition to the SL lenses (24-90/90-280), I also use prime lenses from Sigma on my SL, but only ever from the Art line and DG DN series.
The 35/1.2 is really almost on the Leica level in terms of quality and weight; my Sigma 85/1.4 is also really very very good and the 105 macro is anyway without comparison on the Leica side (on SL level). 
The only thing I've noticed so far between the two companies is that the Sigma lenses tend to be more clinically sharp and the Leica lenses have a bit of a "Leica look" to them. Color-wise, both are really on an extremely high level and you won't go wrong. Especially with regard to your m-lenses (my M-summilux 35/1.4 on the SL is simply warmer and from the bokeh simply "different") you can achieve with these and the Sigma selection a nice combination, depending on the image goal, in photography. 
The C-series from Sigma is also supposed to be good, but not equal to the Art series, but have the great advantage of size and weight (when traveling a factor not to be underestimated) Panasonic lenses I do not know, but after Leica has released the cheaper 35/50 lenses on calculation and basis of Panasonic, these will also be very good. 

Thank you very much for your opinions! Do you have any comments about F2 lenses? I mean, I want to make my set-up as much as smaller, so I have looked at options like sigma 24mm f2 and 50-85 f2 versions. 

[Tpau17]

vor 46 Minuten schrieb nemendes:

Thank you very much for your opinions! Do you have any comments about F2 lenses? I mean, I want to make my set-up as much as smaller, so I have looked at options like sigma 24mm f2 and 50-85 f2 versions. 

I myself have no experience with the Sigma C-series lenses, but this should offer a very good compromise between image quality and size - weight of the lens.

[Simone_DF]

2 hours ago, nemendes said:

I want to make my set-up as much as smaller, so I have looked at options like sigma 24mm f2 and 50-85 f2 versions. 

I have the 24mm f/3.5 and I’m very happy with it. Very small, great image quality, close up capability. 
For 85mm, Sigma has only the f/1.4 version, which is bulky and heavy. If you want to go smaller, consider the Sigma 90mm f/2.8

[Tpau17]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

vor 11 Minuten schrieb Simone_DF:

f/1.4 version, which is bulky and heavy. I

absolutely !

The art-lenses with this aperture"summulix"-values are not light-wight 😊. My Sigma 35/1.2 is "1.090 g" and 82mm filter size (+ SL-body weight); but the depth of field,  bokeh and colors are amazing. 

 

 

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 November 2, 2023 by Tpau17

[nemendes]

12 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

I have the 24mm f/3.5 and I’m very happy with it. Very small, great image quality, close up capability. 
For 85mm, Sigma has only the f/1.4 version, which is bulky and heavy. If you want to go smaller, consider the Sigma 90mm f/2.8

I agree totally. In fact I want to buy sigma 24mm f2, 50mm f2 and 90mm f2.8. But I have only concern that as much as from videos or photos, these lenses are not sharp enough in the center area. I mean, of course they wont be like as apo's but at least I would like to see quiet sharpness, especially in the center area. Or do you I think wrong?

[dpitt]

If you do not mind MF lenses, have a look at the Leica R lenses. They were made with the same IQ as their M counterparts, and still perform very good at a fraction of the price of their M siblings. First that comes to mind is the Summicron 50 R. The 35 and 90 Summicron are great too. The 35-70 F4 vario is slow but just as good.

I tested a few of the Panasonic S options against my R lenses. The Panasonics are in general bulkier, around the same weight or heavier than the R lenses (certainly the zoom lenses).  In the IQ department the R lenses give much more value for the money IMO, and they keep their value much better than the Panasonic. I do not have Sigma lenses to compare. The main reason is that I already have all the FL that I need in the R primes. And I feel that they will even beat the Sigma's in IQ. That and the size and weight of the best Sigma options made that I did not invest in them yet.

My TL2 came with a Leica Summilux 35 TL. I tried it once on my SL just for fun, and found that it is one of the best lenses that I ever used. It is AF and moderate in size compared to the FF lenses for the SL range.
If 10 excellent MP is good enough for you then I see nothing (regardless of price) that can beat it in FF 50mm lenses, except the Leica SL primes and zoom lenses. And apart from being out of my budget, the Leica SL options all have a big weight and size disadvantage.

 

Edited November 2, 2023 by dpitt

[nemendes]

5 minutes ago, dpitt said:

If you do not mind MF lenses, have a look at the Leica R lenses. They were made with the same IQ as their M counterparts, and still perform very good at a fraction of their M siblings. First that comes to mind is the Summicron 50 R. The 35 and 90 Summicron are great too. The 35-70 F4 vario is slow but just as good.

I tested a few of the Panasonic S options against my R lenses. The Panasonics are in general bulkier, around the same weight or heavier than the R lenses (certainly the zoom lenses).  In the IQ department the R lenses give much more value for the money IMO, and they keep their value much better than the Panasonic. I do not have Sigma lenses to compare. The main reason is that I already have all the FL that I need in the R primes. And I feel that they will even beat the Sigma's in IQ. That and the size and weight of the best Sigma options made that I did not invest in them yet.

My TL2 came with a Leica Summilux 35 TL. I tried it once on my SL just for fun, and found that it is one of the best lenses that I ever used. It is AF and moderate in size compared to the FF lenses for the SL range.
If 10 excellent MP is good enough for you then I see nothing (regardless of price) that can beat it in FF 50mm lenses, except the Leica SL primes and zoom lenses. And apart from being out of my budget, the Leica SL options all have a big weight and size disadvantage.

 

I did not think about r lenses before, I will check them for sure. Thanks for the advice!

[SoCalLeicanator]

I am one of the lurkers in the shadows who when using autofocus pretty much sticks to Panasonic and Sigma for my SL2-S.  I do have one APO SL the 50 and that is great of course but a beast.

Run down

Sigma 24-70 2.8.  Excellent lens.  I maybe even prefer it's rendering to the Sigma 35 1.4 but it's damn heavy (as is the 35 1.4)

Sigma 35 1.4 also great, has a really nice rendering, not clinical IMO.  Also pretty damn heavy.  

Sigma 65 f2 not sure I'm going to keep this one.  It is clinical and not sure it has a niche for me at least. 

Lumix 50 1.8:  GREAT!! This lens is an absolute steal for the price.  It's weather/dust sealed out the wazoo, light and frankly gorgeous.  Check out Alex Barrera's channel on Youtube.  There is no difference with the NON APO Leica 50 (other than $1500).

Lumix 35 1.8 : not sure how I feel.  Sometimes I love it.  Sometimes it's a little flat looking.  The Phoblographer claims the Leica 35 f2 is NOT a rebadged panasonic.  I need convincing of this as I am lacking a light 35 and would pony up for the Leica version if there was a meaningful improvement.

Caveats: I've had some shutter lag with the Sigma lenses but this is better if you turn off the iAF and use AFS.  The Lumix lenses never lag.

Hope this helps. 

[gotium]

16 hours ago, nemendes said:

I agree totally. In fact I want to buy sigma 24mm f2, 50mm f2 and 90mm f2.8. But I have only concern that as much as from videos or photos, these lenses are not sharp enough in the center area. I mean, of course they wont be like as apo's but at least I would like to see quiet sharpness, especially in the center area. Or do you I think wrong?

I've used the Sigma contemporary line (50/2, 65/2, 90/2.8) and compared to my equivalent Leica M lenses they are generally SHARPER. I've not tried the SL lenses - while they may be a step up in terms of optics they are just too big for me. 

[nemendes]

5 hours ago, gotium said:

I've used the Sigma contemporary line (50/2, 65/2, 90/2.8) and compared to my equivalent Leica M lenses they are generally SHARPER. I've not tried the SL lenses - while they may be a step up in terms of optics they are just too big for me. 

Have you ever try Panasonic lenses like 24mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 or 85? I am curious which one has sharper lenses.

[JohnathanLovm]

I only have Sigma 40mm f/2.8 for few months before, it’s was ok for general uses. My personal opinion is Sigma is great for zoom lens ( I now using VE 24-70 which made by Sigma). For prime lens I think Panasonic f/1.8 is great for your wallet.

[keeping_a_balance]

I have several Sigma lenses and quite happy with them:

of the i series I have the 24, 35, and 90mm, have taken them on trips and can't complain in the least about IQ and performance.  Frankly love the aperture ring and the build/feel of them.

I also have the Art series 20mm and 85mm lenses.  I have limited use of the 20, but the 85 has been very good.

I also have the a few APO SL lenses and quite often find myself grabbing the sigma's if I know it's going to be a longer day.  For what I shoot, IQ difference between apo and sigma is not something I will ever cringe about for street/travel photography.

I also had the Pana 50mm 1.8 and it was very nice.  I was gifted the SL 50mm (which is also great imho) so ended up selling the Pana.

[Malabito]

I have a s2ls and use the following l mount lenses:

• Panasonic 24mm f1.8
• Leica SL APO 35mm f2.0
• Sigma 90mm DG DN f2.8, (AI Series)

The sigma i never really used, i bought it due to the size, its beautifully made, and super small, but i rarely use that focal so i can't provide feedback on that lens. AAlso,from the few images i taken it seems dull, i mean not bad, but not great either, just a good to have lens. I would rather go for the 65mm which seems to be really really good and if you don't mind the size the 85mm f1.4 dg dn which seems to be outstanding. 

The Leica SL APO 35mm has amazing image quality, really way better than the pana or sigmas i tested, but........ is huge, heavy, focuses slow... so sadly, i rarely take it out, but when i use it i am always amazed at the image quality, (when its in focus  ) Has this pop that i cant explain, images just look 3D.

The Panasonic 24mm f.18, its my favorite lens, yes image quality is not outstanding, but i would say is good enough. No strange aberrations, and at f1.8 is sharp enough, at least for me. The lens is really light, but well-constructed, (don't think that cause it's not all metal is a bad thing, actually an all metal lens will break easier if it was to be dropped), focuses faster than the sigma or leica and is relatively small. I tried the sigma 24mm f3.5, which is a beauty, but due to the f3.5 i ended going for the pana, (also if you do video is better corrected for video).

Some images with the 24mm pana and the sl2s:

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!

[gotium]

13 hours ago, nemendes said:

Have you ever try Panasonic lenses like 24mm f1.8, 50mm f1.8 or 85? I am curious which one has sharper lenses.

Yes, the 50 and 85 and I'd definitely give the nod to the Sigmas. 

[hepcat]

On 11/2/2023 at 5:43 AM, nemendes said:

I did not think about r lenses before, I will check them for sure. Thanks for the advice!

I'm a little late to the party.  I embody the very essence of the term "frugal."  Rather than buying an SL2, I have a Lumix S1; essentially the same camera (same sensor) at less then a fifth of the cost.   I bought the Lumix S1 specifically to take advantage of my Leica-R lenses.  I have  28, 35, 90, 100 and 135 Elmarits, a 50 Summilux, and a 90mm Summicron.  They are remarkable glass.  In addition, when I want autofocus, I have a Lumix 24-105 f/4 and a Lumix 85mm f/1.8.  Both are excellent.  

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica L-Mount

[Malabito]

2 hours ago, hepcat said:

I'm a little late to the party.  I embody the very essence of the term "frugal."  Rather than buying an SL2, I have a Lumix S1; essentially the same camera (same sensor) at less then a fifth of the cost.   I bought the Lumix S1 specifically to take advantage of my Leica-R lenses.  I have  28, 35, 90, 100 and 135 Elmarits, a 50 Summilux, and a 90mm Summicron.  They are remarkable glass.  In addition, when I want autofocus, I have a Lumix 24-105 f/4 and a Lumix 85mm f/1.8.  Both are excellent.  

They are similar but not the same, I went from s1 to sl2s and at least to me,

I prefer the sl2s handling, the s1 feels like a box, i disliked the s1 grip

Sl2 seems better built, the s1 felt more plastic specially the camera covers on the side and plastic sd card cover

I prefer the sl2s colors I never really liked the s1 ones, and i was using spro glass.

The sl2 has way less pulsing than the s1, not sure how they achieved it given it's also contrast detect, but panas autofocus software i think it's way better implemented,  I specially miss the option to set the area where eye detect should be enabled.

The joystick in the s1 was a disaster, or to sensitive or to slow.

Also if you are planning to use rangefinder lensws, the sl2 is way better specially with wider angle lenses,  this due to sensor stack thickness, actually even the nikons mirrorles are better than the Panasonic for this.

Of course most of the above are subjective except the last point, but after using both i woudnt say they are the same caneras.

[hepcat]

9 hours ago, Malabito said:

They are similar but not the same, I went from s1 to sl2s and at least to me,

Of course most of the above are subjective except the last point, but after using both i woudnt say they are the same caneras.

Not arguing the differences.  But for MY purposes, having saved $5k buying the S1 over the SL2 (remember I said I'm the very definition of "frugal,") and being relatively brand-agnostic, they are close enough to having the same performance.  Of course there are differences, most particularly in the physical box and the menu implementation... and the optimization for M glass...  but none of that is important to me at all.   The ergonomics and menu implementation may be more important to some, even at the five times higher costs.  They're just not to me. 

Much of what is discussed here most of the time about the differences in cameras and lenses is negated by using the camera hand-held for snapshots anyway.  It's like the old joke about the definition of "MilSpec" (Military Specifications): "Measured with a micrometer, marked with chalk, and cut with an axe."   The very finely finessed distinctions in specifications disappear in actual field use.   As a matter of fact, I'm shooting my M10-P predominantly with 1950s Canon LTM glass and I'd challenge you to find a difference from the latest Leica glass in the images I post here.   Having tested the SL2 and now used the S1 extensively with R glass,  the output is pretty much indistinguishable. 

But returning to my original point... the R glass performs extraordinarily well on the S1/SL2 sensor, and that's what's important.

Edited November 4, 2023 by hepcat