Leica SL 100-400 vs Sigma sibling

[PDP]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Hello,

looking for 100-400 I ask myself if the Leica SL 100-400 performs better than Sigma. I am not looking at build quality or design, my only concern is image quality. Any experience here in this forum or has someone found competent articles comparing the two?

Philipp

[Advertisement]

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

[jaapv]

You’ll be very hard pushed to see a difference, if any. 

[Simone_DF]

It’s the same lens. Same glass, same everything. 
Any difference will be due to sample variation. 

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, PDP said:

looking for 100-400 I ask myself if the Leica SL 100-400 performs better than Sigma.

That's a very controversial question, unfortunately. Some people here are 100% certain that they are the same lens, and made that pronouncement months before the Leica lens was available. That means you'll see a lot of categorical answers from people who have not tried either lens!

[Simone_DF]

If it has the same size of the Sigma, the same optical scheme of the Sigma, the same focus direction of the Sigma, which is also the OPPOSITE of the 24-90, and if it’s made in Japan, where Leica doesn’t have a factory, you can be 100% certain it’s a Sigma, but wishful thinking and marketing are powerful tools for a brand, so die hard fans will try to find non-existing differences to defend their favorite brand. 
The only Leica thing in this lens is the price tag, but if you prefer a metal casing to the Sigma polycarbonate, by all means get the Leica. 

[Boojay]

It could be as simple as deciding between 1530 or 1135 grams.   I can't say I've ever tried the Leica version, or would want to, but having had three copies of the Sigma, there is some sample variation, so whichever lens you go with a hope you get lucky, my current one is spot on for me, happy user.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

7 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

It’s the same lens. Same glass, same everything. 
Any difference will be due to sample variation. 

Maybe, just maybe, the Leica lens will be subject to QC selection and show less sample variation. 

[BernardC]

1 hour ago, Simone_DF said:

If it has the same size of the Sigma, the same optical scheme of the Sigma, the same focus direction of the Sigma, which is also the OPPOSITE of the 24-90, and if it’s made in Japan, where Leica doesn’t have a factory, you can be 100% certain it’s a Sigma, but wishful thinking and marketing are powerful tools for a brand, so die hard fans will try to find non-existing differences to defend their favorite brand. 
The only Leica thing in this lens is the price tag, but if you prefer a metal casing to the Sigma polycarbonate, by all means get the Leica. 

That's a straw man argument. Nobody denies that it's made in Japan. Nobody. Move on.

We also know why it's made in Japan, just look at the price of Leica's 90-280.

Are all the elements the same? We don't know. The diagram is the same, but that doesn't mean that each element is the same, especially when you realize how expensive ED glass is. 

As noted, QC criteria can also be different, with the Leica having tighter pass/fail tolerances. 

What we know for sure is that both lenses are class-competitive with similar lenses from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. You need to go up a segment in price and/or size to get something significantly better from any company. You may want to look at Leica's 90-280, Canon's 100-300, or Sigma's own 60-600 if you want a significant difference. 

[PDP]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb Boojay:

It could be as simple as deciding between 1530 or 1135 grams.   I can't say I've ever tried the Leica version, or would want to, but having had three copies of the Sigma, there is some sample variation, so whichever lens you go with a hope you get lucky, my current one is spot on for me, happy user.

i had such experience with the Sigma 14-24, the first was a disaster, the second fine. Whereas the Leica Sigma-sibling 24-70 is my favorite lens. I might be mistaken , but I read that Leica is more restrictive interms of production tolerances and lens surfaces with third party producers.

[Luke_Miller]

I have no interest in either 100-400, but if they are both the same why are the filter sizes different as well as nearly 400g of weight?

[PDP]

Thanks for this discussion! It helps and it does not help (😅), would be easier if thousands of specialists would write: buy this one, I tested both!

[PDP]

UPDATE:

In the meantime I acquired the Sigma version for 2 reasons, the lower weight and the price (it will not be my most important lens). At f8 the pictures are quite sharp and show nice colors; both not as good as my Leica SL 24-70, but the 24-70 is my by far most important lens. The Sigma has some weaknesses when it comes to metal surfaces in combination with sunlight (for example street signs), then it lacks sharpness (in some cases significantly). But I solved that with a pol-filter to an acceptable level; anyhow metal surfaces in sunlight will not be my focus in landscape photography 🙂

So thanks for all the good advice; I may save some money for the upcoming SL3.

Philipp

 

[Richardgb]

On 1/28/2024 at 6:53 PM, BernardC said:

That's a straw man argument. Nobody denies that it's made in Japan. Nobody. Move on.

We also know why it's made in Japan, just look at the price of Leica's 90-280.

Are all the elements the same? We don't know. The diagram is the same, but that doesn't mean that each element is the same, especially when you realize how expensive ED glass is. 

As noted, QC criteria can also be different, with the Leica having tighter pass/fail tolerances. 

What we know for sure is that both lenses are class-competitive with similar lenses from Canon, Nikon, and Sony. You need to go up a segment in price and/or size to get something significantly better from any company. You may want to look at Leica's 90-280, Canon's 100-300, or Sigma's own 60-600 if you want a significant difference. 

Correct, but for the difference in price, of which some must be down to the metal housing, do you think that Leica would change either the material or the surface characteristics of one or more elements? Bear in mind that, if they were to do so, the changed element(s) would still have to fit in optically and mechanically with its (their) neighbours, and achieve better performance.

The points about better QC or, more likely taking samples from a narrower range of tolerances plus, perhaps, better control over the centering of the elements, are much more likely to stand up than anything concerning an optical redesign. This is not a criticism Sigma nor an implication that they are in any way slapdash - their lenses are, by all accounts (including users on this Forum), extremely well made.

[jaapv]

On 1/28/2024 at 8:56 PM, Luke_Miller said:

I have no interest in either 100-400, but if they are both the same why are the filter sizes different as well as nearly 400g of weight?

Different housing (metal vs composite and Leica esthetics) 

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, Richardgb said:

do you think that Leica would change either the material or the surface characteristics of one or more elements? Bear in mind that, if they were to do so, the changed element(s) would still have to fit in optically and mechanically with its (their) neighbours, and achieve better performance.

My theory is that Leica's version is a design that was deemed too expensive for Sigma's target price.

I'm sure that Sigma does what almost every other company does with a new product: they come-up with a few designs, cost them out, and pick the one that best matches the brief. So what do you do with a rejected design that would have cost a few hundred more? You shop it around, of course.

Before you say "that's impossible," consider the fact that Sigma's been in the business for six decades, that they've done this before (including with Leica for at-least one R zoom), and that they just did the exact same deal, with the same 100-400, with OM System (formerly Olympus). In that case, OM System wouldn't care about corner performance (their cameras use the smaller four-thirds sensor size), so they would want a design that has maximum sharpness in the centre of the frame, at the expense of field coverage.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

On 1/29/2024 at 5:09 AM, jaapv said:

Maybe, just maybe, the Leica lens will be subject to QC selection and show less sample variation. 

Nope. My first copy of the Leica was a shocker and was swapped out. My Leica 1.4x is vastly better than my Sigma version.

I have both the Sigma and Leica variants. They are the same except for the build, tripod collar and weight. That matters to some and not to others.

Weirdly I've just firmware updated my Leica version in preparation for the SL3 and it's improved optically. And not by a small amount. And no, I'm not imagining it. I have the Sigma to directly compare it with. Yesterday it was slightly behind the Sigma and today it's slightly ahead. It's now what I would say is excellent. Comparable to my Sony 100-400GM, which is a very good lens. Close to my 90-280 at the same focal lengths (but not quite at the APO's level). I suspect the firmware did some changes to the IS algorithms. A rather pleasant surprise and I do wonder if my first copy suffered from this rather than being the optical mess, I thought it was.

For those that have older firmware. Update now.

Gordon

[helged]

8 hours ago, FlashGordonPhotography said:

Nope. My first copy of the Leica was a shocker and was swapped out. My Leica 1.4x is vastly better than my Sigma version.

I have both the Sigma and Leica variants. They are the same except for the build, tripod collar and weight. That matters to some and not to others.

Weirdly I've just firmware updated my Leica version in preparation for the SL3 and it's improved optically. And not by a small amount. And no, I'm not imagining it. I have the Sigma to directly compare it with. Yesterday it was slightly behind the Sigma and today it's slightly ahead. It's now what I would say is excellent. Comparable to my Sony 100-400GM, which is a very good lens. Close to my 90-280 at the same focal lengths (but not quite at the APO's level). I suspect the firmware did some changes to the IS algorithms. A rather pleasant surprise and I do wonder if my first copy suffered from this rather than being the optical mess, I thought it was.

For those that have older firmware. Update now.

Gordon

Interesting comparison between the two 1.4x extenders... So for your (forthcoming) Sigma 500 5.6, you may end up with using the Leica extender? 

[FlashGordonPhotography]

1 hour ago, helged said:

Interesting comparison between the two 1.4x extenders... So for your (forthcoming) Sigma 500 5.6, you may end up with using the Leica extender? 

Yep. The Sigma extender isn't good (my copy). I can't even sell it as I wouldn't inflict it on someone else. I didn't realise they could even be decent until the Leica one arrived.

Gordon

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

That must have been a lemon. I cannot fault mine. 

[PCPix]

On 2/24/2024 at 11:14 PM, FlashGordonPhotography said:

For those that have older firmware. Update now.

Can you just imagine what Mr.Mandler could have designed if he could use software to improve image quality?
 

Back in his day ‘software’ was the pouch and cleaning cloth that came with the lens 😎