Which 70-200mm is better?

[IvanC]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Anyone know of the reviews comparing : Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN OS Sports versus Panasonic Lumix S PRO 70-200mm f/2.8? I know the sigma is not being shipped yet, but once it is it will be nice to hear about the benefit of using one versus the other. I have not been able to find any review comparing the L mount version of these two lenses.

[PeterBoyadjian]

I only have experience with the Sigma 24-70 and Panasonic 24-70 in which I can clearly say the Panasonic is better. 

Also the Sigma lenses flicker when you have aperture changes in video. 

Sigmas are excellent value for the money, but cheaper for a reason. 

[Advertisement]

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

[goodbokeh]

Regarding the Panasonic 24-70, that just goes to show how sample variation can impact results. When Red Dot forum did a YouTube comparison of 24-70 zooms awhile back they said the Panasonic 24-70 had decidedly lower results. But I guess this is off topic for the OP.

[Dr. G]

Just speculating, but since the 24-70 Leica branded lens was very similar to the Sigma to the point where many believe it is a rebranded Sigma (although there apparently are some differences), if you can wait I imagine a Leica 70-200 2.8 will be available in the near future.

[Richardgb]

3 hours ago, IvanC said:

Anyone know of the reviews comparing : Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 DG DN OS Sports versus Panasonic Lumix S PRO 70-200mm f/2.8? I know the sigma is not being shipped yet, but once it is it will be nice to hear about the benefit of using one versus the other. I have not been able to find any review comparing the L mount version of these two lenses.

I had the Panasonic 70-200/2.8 for a while but for my purposes it was a beast to use at >1.5kg and an 82mm filter thread. I did, eventually, find a case which would carry it with the camera attached but the weight and bulk meant the lens - sadly, for the results were excellent - got little use.

Nevertheless, I would find a lens covering that range useful, and the Sigma 70-200/2.8 caught my eye. At least it's ~200g lighter and slightly smaller, with a 77mm dia filter thread which is shared by my other lenses. As for optical performance, reports so far seem to rate it as very good / excellent, and the MTF curves seem to bear this out, maybe even nudging past the Panasonic. Watch this space...

[Olaf_ZG]

I have none of both, went with the 70-200/4 from Panasonic, because it’s weight and it is still weather sealed. To me a great lens.

[RBB]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I also had the Panasonic 70-200 f/2.8 for a while, when I had the chance to do a one on one comparison with the 90-280 from Leica I was sold and traded the lens for the 90-280.

[PDP]

I also heard about quality issues of Lumix lenses, you could get a perfect one or a not so perfect one. Even in the Pro-series. Red Dot Forum in one of their live stream argued it is about the tolerances the producers accept. And here Sigma seems better than Lumix, Leica Japan better than Sigma and Leica Portugal/Germany even better.

[BernardC]

6 hours ago, PDP said:

you could get a perfect one or a not so perfect one

If there is a problem, which is rare, you can always return the lens.

I think what Red Dot was saying is that Leica uses tighter pass/fail tolerances. For instance, a lens that is 5% worse than average might get shipped if the front ring says Sigma, but it would be rejected/re-worked if it says Leica. That costs extra, which is reflected in the retail price.

I don't trust hearsay rankings of "factory quality." Who really knows? I'm sure we've all read stories of old-time pros who used to take 10 Nikkors home from their dealer, and only keep the best sample. Obviously, they would have tested for their own use case, so a portrait photographer wouldn't care about edge sharpness at infinity. They might not even want the sharpest sample, but rather the one that needs least amount of retouching/makeup.