Leica SL2 + Panasonic 24-70/2.8

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As far as reviews go, I would take the people at the Leica store in Miami over most youtubers...I have simply seen too many spew the most ridiculous BS. The Dunning-Kruger effect is visible in its full glory on youtube. It is true that there is bias with Leica Store Miami, but I think in general the findings they publish are quite accurate, in my view. I also don't think David or Josh are really in the business of making false claims about the gear they sell. I think they want to sell you Leica gear, but if you ask them how the Sigma zoom compares to the Leica version, I don't think they are going to lie to you that there is a huge difference, for example. But I agree, they are also not going to voluntarily do a review that is a hit piece on a particular bit of gear they sell. In the end, it is kind of more on you to either demo or read extensively about a lens before deciding. I know people like to complain about MTF charts as not being important in real photographs, but they are an objective way to compare different lenses, and they really do tell you quite a bit once you learn how to read them. They also remove a lot of the marketing BS. Beyond that, the only real way to know is to have the lens in hand or to go with people you really trust. Malabito has a great point about focus breathing too -- if you intend to use the zoom for video and plan to change the focus point a lot while filming from a fixed position, then the Panasonic would be helpful for that. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter much. If your a stills photographer it does not matter at all, unless you are doing an extremely critical composition or scientific work, which you are unlikely to be doing with a standard zoom anyway.

[Advertisement]

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

[Malabito]

12 hours ago, goodbokeh said:

Malabito, the context of the Leica Miami reference was a Red Dot video comparison for a number of 24-70 & 90 lenses when the Leica SL 24-70 was introduced. The Sigma 24-70, Leica 24-90, Leica 24-70, and Canon EF 24-70/2.8 II were compared. The Panasonic 24-70/2.8 was mentioned as simply not competitive with that group of lenses... 

and you tink they will say otherwise? they are a store selling leica. Just the fact that they even mentioned about the parrafocal or the leica 2470mm been the same sgma lens tells you how serious the review should be taken.. they are a leica store. 

[Malabito]

1 hour ago, Stuart Richardson said:

As far as reviews go, I would take the people at the Leica store in Miami over most youtubers...I have simply seen too many spew the most ridiculous BS. The Dunning-Kruger effect is visible in its full glory on youtube. It is true that there is bias with Leica Store Miami, but I think in general the findings they publish are quite accurate, in my view. I also don't think David or Josh are really in the business of making false claims about the gear they sell. I think they want to sell you Leica gear, but if you ask them how the Sigma zoom compares to the Leica version, I don't think they are going to lie to you that there is a huge difference, for example. But I agree, they are also not going to voluntarily do a review that is a hit piece on a particular bit of gear they sell. In the end, it is kind of more on you to either demo or read extensively about a lens before deciding. I know people like to complain about MTF charts as not being important in real photographs, but they are an objective way to compare different lenses, and they really do tell you quite a bit once you learn how to read them. They also remove a lot of the marketing BS. Beyond that, the only real way to know is to have the lens in hand or to go with people you really trust. Malabito has a great point about focus breathing too -- if you intend to use the zoom for video and plan to change the focus point a lot while filming from a fixed position, then the Panasonic would be helpful for that. Otherwise, it doesn't really matter much. If your a stills photographer it does not matter at all, unless you are doing an extremely critical composition or scientific work, which you are unlikely to be doing with a standard zoom anyway.

many reviews have shown the pana 50mm sharper then the leica one and yet they shown otherwise, many as well have shown the panasonic 2470mm to be a much better lense than the sigma and they shown otherwise, (sharpenss is not the only quality of  lense)... i have fun watching the reviews they make cause i am a leica user, but i dont really take any of the reviews seriously they are completely biased and wil never say anything that in someway jepordize leica, or impact the sells

[Olaf_ZG]

I am not a reviewer. Neither biased. Have the panasonic 70-200/4 and 16-35/4 as well as the 24-90. The panasonic are really good, but my lesser f/l’s. The 24-90 is not really good, it s great.

I can’t afford all zooms for Leica, so I bought my most used f/l. It’s wonderful, it really is. Having had good experiences with the pano70-200, I decided I wanted the same haptics for the wide angle, hence my choice for the p16-35. Weather resistant is important to me as well.

to be short, panasonic is good, leica s great. Both are great value to me.

[agentsim]

33 minutes ago, Malabito said:

many as well have shown the panasonic 2470mm to be a much better lense than the sigma

Would you mind pointing me to some?

As I mentioned earlier I have found it difficult to find any comparisons between the Sigma and the Panasonic. Even good quality individual reviews of the Panasonic are few and far between. For the Sigma there are more due to the larger community of FE mount users.

[Stuart Richardson]

I would also be happy to see some of those reviews. Just for curiosity...not interested in any of those lenses to be honest...

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

22 hours ago, BernardC said:

True, but that's an issue with almost all lens reviews these days. When an influencer begs you to "use my affiliate links," it's because they get a cut from every sale. They also often get free trips, gear, and special gifts, provided that they show the brand in the best possible light.

At least the Miami store is up-front about what they sell, and their reviews are very thorough by internet standards.

True that, but there are also more objective reviewers around. Fred Miranda comes to mind. His reviews are very throughout, and corroborated by plenty of images. Users on the FM forum also add images and point out pros and cons of lenses. Other honest reviewers are Dustin Abbot, the gang at Phillip Reeve's website, Sean Reid. I'm sure there are more, but these 4 are already enough for me. If you then decide to go watch some random youtube video of an influencer, then that's a different issue.

At their very best, the Miami store guys are simply embarrassing with their bias. Call me a cynic, but I watched one of their videos, and I'd trust Mr Burns from The Simpsons more than these guys.

[BernardC]

17 hours ago, Malabito said:

many reviews have shown the pana 50mm sharper then the leica one and yet they shown otherwise, many as well have shown the panasonic 2470mm to be a much better lense than the sigma and they shown otherwise, (sharpenss is not the only quality of  lense)

You are correct about sharpness. It's not the only quality of a lens. Often with modern lenses it's not a significant differentiator.

The thing about sharpness is that it's easy to "test." We've all see brick wall tests, and landscape tests that pick one area from the middle of the frame, and one edge, and declare a winner. Anybody can run a dozen of these tests on a sunny afternoon, and almost every amateur reviewer does. This type of test tells us more about the reviewer's technique than they do about lenses.

Here's "what they don't want you to know about sharpness" (to use unfluencer-speak): if your photography is sharpness-limited, you should improve your technique, or move to a larger format, or reconsider your photographic style. Viewers don't care about sharpness, at all. They especially don't care about pixel-level sharpness that can only be distinguished on a big monitor at 200% magnification. If your photographs are saying "I'm sharp," and nothing else, people will walk right by, and look for images that appeal to their emotions instead.

That's not to say that sharpness isn't a useful photographic tool. It certainly can be, and not just for landscapes. The thing is, it's easier to convey sharpness by contrasting it with its opposite, in the same image.

Moving on, what I disagree with in your statement is the whole "much better lens" notion. That's an influencer sales pitch. We are talking about high-end modern zooms, none of them are bad, and none of them are unusable in the hands of a conscientious photographer. Blanket statements like "much better lens" mean absolutely nothing. Lenses all have different image characteristics, handling, and value propositions. Pick the lens that suits your images, not the other way around. Examples of this abound in cinema, where film makers might choose to film a project (or a scene within a project) with an "inferior" lens, because it works better within their narrative. What's your narrative?

[BernardC]

27 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Fred Miranda comes to mind. His reviews are very throughout, and corroborated by plenty of images. Users on the FM forum also add images and point out pros and cons of lenses. Other honest reviewers are Dustin Abbot, the gang at Phillip Reeve's website, Sean Reid. I'm sure there are more, but these 4 are already enough for me. If you then decide to go watch some random youtube video of an influencer, then that's a different issue.

Those reviewers come across as shopping guides. Shopping is a hobby in itself. It's the web version of "Modern Photography," "Popular Photography," "What Camera" from the print days. They make charts, assign points, declare a winner, and follow that up with a million adverts/affiliate links. The whole point is to get you to shop, because they won't make money if you don't. That's not to say that they aren't thorough, compared to some other channels. They provide lots of data, none of which will make much difference to your artistic output.

[Simone_DF]

38 minutes ago, BernardC said:

Those reviewers come across as shopping guides. Shopping is a hobby in itself. It's the web version of "Modern Photography," "Popular Photography," "What Camera" from the print days. They make charts, assign points, declare a winner, and follow that up with a million adverts/affiliate links. The whole point is to get you to shop, because they won't make money if you don't. That's not to say that they aren't thorough, compared to some other channels. They provide lots of data, none of which will make much difference to your artistic output.

By reading your comment I understand you never even had a look at the 4 I mentioned, which is fine, but Fred Miranda makes most of his money through his marketplace, which is very active. While he has affiliate links, he has no problem "demolishing" a lens, go there and check. After all, other users won't take long to post negative comments. Sean Reid is a paid subscription website. Phillip Reeve's folks mostly reviews lens they purchase or borrow themselves. @BastianK is also a user here, you can see his posts on the M side of things. Dustin Abbot is the only one that has mostly affiliate links, but I still find his reviews honest and thorough.

What really makes a difference is that credibility and integrity is important for some. I personally think that the same can't be said for the Miami store. 

[Planetwide]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

You are correct about sharpness. It's not the only quality of a lens. Often with modern lenses it's not a significant differentiator.

Here's "what they don't want you to know about sharpness" (to use unfluencer-speak): if your photography is sharpness-limited, you should improve your technique, or move to a larger format, or reconsider your photographic style. Viewers don't care about sharpness, at all. They especially don't care about pixel-level sharpness that can only be distinguished on a big monitor at 200% magnification. If your photographs are saying "I'm sharp," and nothing else, people will walk right by, and look for images that appeal to their emotions instead.

That's not to say that sharpness isn't a useful photographic tool. It certainly can be, and not just for landscapes. The thing is, it's easier to convey sharpness by contrasting it with its opposite, in the same image.

Moving on, what I disagree with in your statement is the whole "much better lens" notion. That's an influencer sales pitch. We are talking about high-end modern zooms, none of them are bad, and none of them are unusable in the hands of a conscientious photographer. Blanket statements like "much better lens" mean absolutely nothing. Lenses all have different image characteristics, handling, and value propositions. Pick the lens that suits your images, not the other way around. Examples of this abound in cinema, where film makers might choose to film a project (or a scene within a project) with an "inferior" lens, because it works better within their narrative. What's your narrative?

100% Agree

[BernardC]

19 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Fred Miranda makes most of his money through his marketplace, which is very active. While he has affiliate links, he has no problem "demolishing" a lens, go there and check. After all, other users won't take long to post negative comments. Sean Reid is a paid subscription website. Phillip Reeve's folks mostly reviews lens they purchase or borrow themselves. @BastianK is also a user here, you can see his posts on the M side of things. Dustin Abbot is the only one that has mostly affiliate links, but I still find his reviews honest and thorough.

Miranda is mostly a user forum. Is there a relevant page you want to share? Reid is behind a paywall, I'll take your word about that site's usefulness. The other two are littered with affiliate links. They seem to have every characteristic of what I call a "shopping site," but opinions will vary. I'm not particularly interested about which wide zoom has better edge performance at 1m and f:3.5 (Tamron or Tokina?). Not every aesthetic issue can be fixed by buying one more lens.

That reminds me of a story from my uni days. I was hanging-out at the student darkroom, idly flipping through a photo gear mag, the kind with star ratings and "exclusive" reviews of new gear. One of my mentors walked by and asked "haven't you outgrown those by now?" It didn't take me long to realize that I had. There's nothing in there that would make me improve as a photographer.

[goodbokeh]

Just to be clear, I'm in no way biased against Panasonic lenses. I use the S Pro 16-35/4 and it is a wonderful lens. I like to think I'm an educated user. I visit the Fred Miranda site regularly and subscribe to Sean Reid. I don't agree with those here that think Red Dot/Leica Miami just markets Leica with rose colored glasses and doesn't have accurate findings. I have found any number of their observations quite on the mark.

An example of Red Dot accuracy would be Josh's observation that the Leica 24-90 has lower contrast. I can confirm that with my copy, especially in the 50mm to 90mm range. I also own the Leica SL 24-70 and Sony 24-70 GM II that I use on my Sony A1. All three lenses have similar performance but present IQ strengths in different focal lengths. The lens that I enjoy using most is the SL 24-70 on my SL2 though. Agentsim, that is the Leica version of your Sigma Art lens.

[agentsim]

Just watched the Red Dot reviews of the 35 and 50mm Leica-badged Panasonic's. They don't try to hide the performance being identical, so kudos to them on that.

Doing more research on 24-70s, I found the Panasonic (and apparently many other Panasonic lenses) is prone to element separation, resulting in myriad little white dots on an internal element. The Sigma, at least at my serial #, is apparently prone to sucking in vast quantities of dust. Seems you can't win either way!

I'll keep pining for a 24-90

[huwm]

2 hours ago, agentsim said:

Just watched the Red Dot reviews of the 35 and 50mm Leica-badged Panasonic's. They don't try to hide the performance being identical, so kudos to them on that.

Doing more research on 24-70s, I found the Panasonic (and apparently many other Panasonic lenses) is prone to element separation, resulting in myriad little white dots on an internal element. The Sigma, at least at my serial #, is apparently prone to sucking in vast quantities of dust. Seems you can't win either way!

I'll keep pining for a 24-90

had the Sigma and it did indeed 'suck in ' dust

I only noticed when selling it as no effect on IQ that I'd noticed

Sigma fixed it for me under warranty, new front element, I sold it for the Leica version which I found a bit heavy for all day travel photos and traded for the lighter weight, longer ranged and surprisingly good Panasonic 24-105 f4

[goodbokeh]

12 hours ago, agentsim said:

Just watched the Red Dot reviews of the 35 and 50mm Leica-badged Panasonic's. They don't try to hide the performance being identical, so kudos to them on that.

Doing more research on 24-70s, I found the Panasonic (and apparently many other Panasonic lenses) is prone to element separation, resulting in myriad little white dots on an internal element. The Sigma, at least at my serial #, is apparently prone to sucking in vast quantities of dust. Seems you can't win either way!

I'll keep pining for a 24-90

Well agentsim there are a lot of 24-90s around and they can be relatively affordable used. Example: https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1825130/0?keyword=Leica,sl,24-90#16345012

Edited January 12, 2024 by goodbokeh
Added link

[agentsim]

That is a pretty decent price!

[NightPix]

On 1/11/2024 at 9:11 AM, BernardC said:

Pick the lens that suits your images, not the other way around.

Very well said. You can go crazy trying to determine which lens is technically the “best”. Even if you could, a better one will probably come out next month. If a lens is too big or too heavy you will end up leaving it at home no matter how good it is technically. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Simone_DF]

On 1/11/2024 at 10:55 PM, BernardC said:

Miranda is mostly a user forum. Is there a relevant page you want to share?

Miranda also hosts reviews made by the owner of the site. Here's an example.

https://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1719880

There's a 1:1 comparison with the Nokton at infinity, the usual brick wall test to appease pixel peepers and landscape photographers, and, on page 2, close up photos for the bokeh, field curvature test, aberrations, with plenty of sample photos. On page 3, even more samples, like a close distance comparison with the Nokton, the Summilux and the Sonnar. 

I would say it has more than enough content for everyone, from the landscape to the portrait photographer. In fact, I was initially interested in this lens, but decided not to go for it (but I have the Lux M and Sonnar)

On 1/11/2024 at 10:55 PM, BernardC said:

The other two are littered with affiliate links. They seem to have every characteristic of what I call a "shopping site," but opinions will vary.

 Running a website is not free. This same forum has affiliate links and advertising. Not everyone with affiliate links is desperately trying to sell you something. As I said above, reputation is often more important and more effective in the long run, whereas influencers can pull the trick to sell you something once or twice, but eventually it will bite them back.

[BernardC]

I realize that websites are not free. The business model is based upon getting you to buy gear via their links, that's obvious.

What I think is a fake notion is the whole idea that there is a mid-range zoom out there that is materially different from other mid-range zooms in the same price range, and that this difference will be revealed by looking looking at an "aperture series" at 200% magnification. "What they don't want you to know" is that there isn't much of a difference between Sony's $2,000 mid-range zoom and Canon's $2,000 mid-range zoom. Pick the one that fits on your camera, or the one that has a better UX. There isn't one that will make you a better photographer.

If you followed their advice, you'd purchase several camera bodies from every system, along with countless overlapping lenses (because one is a better at 3.5 and 1m, whereas the other "excels" at 8.0 and 3.0m). That would be great for them, but let's be real: it would cripple your photography.

The Nokton article is interesting, if only because the lens has an obvious signature, but we are still subjected to page after page of shots at every aperture and distance. Anyone can tell from the very first shot that it's not a "sharp" lens, so why bother with the charade of showing multiple ultra-magnified crops? Did we learn anything when we saw that it was substantially the same at 5.6 and 8.0? When faced with such an outlier, my first thought is "we know what it can't do, let's find-out where it shines." Maybe it's great for portraits, or abstracts, or flares, or something. It's not a cheap lens, people are buying it for a reason, and that reason isn't "shooting pictures of a brick wall at every aperture."

What can we learn from all this? The same things your grandmother taught you (hopefully): it's better to buy quality once than to buy junk over and over; don't be a nit-picker, nobody likes a nit-picker; think about the big picture; when in doubt, follow your heart; make a decision and move forward; don't waste your life shopping.

As I wrote previously, it's not that this type of site has no value. They have value for some beginners, but they are something that you will quickly outgrow.