Sigma 24-70 II vs Leica 24-70 vs Leica 24-90

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone tried the new MkII version of Sigma’s 24-70? Would that be a better zoom than Leica’s 24-70? Presumably the 24-90 is still ranked higher than either of the 24-70’s?

[stephenmick]

I haven't shot with the latest version, but shot extensively with the first version on other systems. From what I've seen and heard, I think the Mark II would be slightly ahead of the Leica 24-70 (depending on the quality of the copy you're using), but neither of them would likely measure up to the 24-90. (I now have the 24-90, and it's fantastic.)

[PavelS]

I was using the Vario-Elmarit 24-70/2.8 for several months on SL-2s and Lumix S5IIX and now I am using the MkII Sigma 24-70/2.8 on S5IIX. Both are excellent (sharp on any f-stop and any focal length), Leica is heavier although fully metal shell. Both are focusing fast (faster than any of my fixed focus L mount lenses from Sigma, Panasonic or Leica). Unfortunately I was not able to try them side by side to compare the rendering character in the same situation. Vario-Elmarit struck me with extremely pleasing - forgive me the overused term - cinematic rendering. New Sigma is also nice in this regard although I am still reserving my opinion whether it is as charming as Vario-Elmarit. I have been reading on this forums that the Vario-Elmarit is just re-branded Sigma 24-70/2.8 first gen but I have been also reading that these two lenses are NOT identical design (different number of aspherical surfaces for example). For me it would be a tough call to choose the winner between those two. Sigma for its lower weight and for the same price of new one with full warranty as used Vario-Elmarit, Leica for its rendering.

I have already posted the images from Leica 24-70 in other thread but for sake of simplicity here are two samples from Vario-Elmarit

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 August 5, 2024 by PavelS

[goodbokeh]

02mpx, 24-70/2.8 zooms of all brands are notorious for sample variation. It's due to the challenging design parameters combined with competitive price pressures. When I received my Leica 24-70, I tested it with my SL2 up against my 24-70/2.8 GM II on my Sony A1. I used my standard targets which are about 60 feet in distance. I discovered in the comparison that my GM II was under performing along the far right side. I sent the GM II in for warranty service and it was rebuilt with new mechanical parts. Afterwards, I judged the Sony was performing correctly. It was slightly better in the 24-35 focal lengths and the Leica performed better at 50 & 70.

My point is the Sigma 24-70 II is suppose to have improved close focus at the 70mm setting and slightly higher MTFs overall. But in reality sample variation is going to be a very strong influence on any particular lens that you purchase. With my experience of the Leica 24-70 performing similar to my factory repaired Sony GM II you may want to consider purchasing a mint Leica 24-70 (which likely has better QC) instead of the Sigma 24-70 II.

My Leica 24-90 has tested slightly better in the 24-35 range, about even with my Sony GM II. But again my Leica 24-70 is stronger at the 50 & 70 settings. Candidly the 24-90 is a very old zoom design which is past its competitive prime optically and is very large and heavy to boot. It still has cache with many here but...

Good luck with your decision.

Edited August 5, 2024 by goodbokeh
Typo and added info

[Olaf_ZG]

Love that second image @PavelS

[o2mpx]

@PavelS

@goodbokeh

Thanks for the insights. 

Owning the Leica 24-90 has been a trade off given its weight and bulk in exchange for supposedly image quality. The Sigma 24-70MkII is 100g less than Leica’s 24-70, which is another 200g roughly less than the Leica 24-90 for a total savings of close to 300g by going with the Sigma MkII. 

OTOH as all the pictures are landscape with F8 aperture so the give up on quality by going to the Sigma MkII might not be significant, let alone the $5-600 savings against a used Leica 24-70. 

On the fence about giving up the 20mm on the long end…

[PavelS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

49 minutes ago, o2mpx said:

@PavelS

@goodbokeh

On the fence about giving up the 20mm on the long end…

Then add either Lumix 85/1.8 or 100/2.8 to the combo. Depending on situation you decide wherher to carry it along with 24-70 or not.

[o2mpx]

@PavelS

The other challenge, probably drank the koolaid, nagging thought that Leica camera should go with Leica lenses….:-)

[hoolyproductions]

I've been using a 24-90mm, it has been my only standard zoom since 2021 and I love it. I very commonly shoot landscapes at 90mm+ and love the extra range this lens gives me. I also shoot a lot in the Finnish winter - in a snow storm with very low temperatures, or in very wet weather. Here Leica's weather sealing is (IMO) worth the extra (this applies both to the 24-90mm and the Leica variant of the 24-70mm).

I've read many points of view on these lenses over the years. On average 24-90mm is still considered to be the stronger lens (but others have posted specific examples/situations where sometimes the 24-70 variants are better - perhaps due to sample variation, perhaps not).

Whilst overall weight is important to me, after 3 years using this lens I do not think that a 300g weight difference is worth (to me) the loss of 90mm and IP rated weather sealing. Others feel differently about this and it's all good. Generally when I am using the 24-90mm I do not have any other lenses to carry (sometimes I take a UWA or telephoto zoom), and I find the weight/size very ergonomic.

My personal view is that there is not much value in using image quality as a deciding factor for any of the lenses under discussion here - provided you get a good sample you will likely be happy. And if you really want the utmost possible quality you might be better thinking about high quality primes. So IMHO it comes down (i) to whether you prefer a heavier optic to gain a bigger range (and IP rated weather sealing) or (ii) a slightly lighter with f2.8 at the long end (and then whether you feel that Sigma's weather sealing is enough for you - I'm sure it is plenty good for most situations, thus saving even more weight). And finally of course the various prices (although 24-90mm can be found at massive discounts second hand). 

Then 'Leica lenses for Leica cameras' - purely personal also - IMO there is nothing wrong with deciding also based on aesthetics. 

Regarding 20mm - I picked up the tiny Panasonic 17mm f4 for situations where I anticipate wanting an ultra wide. I've only used it a couple of times but was very impressed by the sharpness when stopped down.

[o2mpx]

@hoolyproductions

Similarly, the kit I travel with has the 16-35 plus the 24-90, which is on the heavy side and haven’t been able to travel with just 1 lens. 

For the weight reduction exercise, have been thinking about replacing the wide zoom with the APO21, when used copies become available, keeping the 24-90 or switching it out for the 24-70.

As a side note on traveling with 1 lens, have taken just the Panasonic 24-105, but it’s not on the same level when compared to the 24-90. 

Edited August 6, 2024 by o2mpx

[PavelS]

3 hours ago, o2mpx said:

@hoolyproductions

For the weight reduction exercise, have been thinking about replacing the wide zoom with the APO21

Until you find used APO21 the Lumix 18/1.8 might serve you well. It is actually excellent!

[stephenmick]

1 hour ago, PavelS said:

Until you find used APO21 the Lumix 18/1.8 might serve you well. It is actually excellent!

I’ve been thinking of giving this lens a try. Looks like a good, lightweight lens for wide landscapes and astro stuff. 

[SrMi]

I just got the Sigma 24-70 II, I have Leica 24-70 and 24-90.

The 24-90 has a unique, beautiful rendering. My Leica 24-70 is sharper than my 24-90. The new Sigma seems very similar to the Leica 24-70, but I need more experience. I prefer the ergonomics and the look of the Leica 24-70.

[Paul K]

This is a timely one for me.

I just made the jump from Sony and significantly thinned my collection to the 50/2 and the Sigma 90/2.8, along with a few manual primes. I've found the 90 really boring — not bad, but I think the Panasonic 85/1.8 or 100 will be closer to what I want. That said, I'm really torn between the new 14-24 Elmarit and leaning into the ultra wide end paired with the 50, versus adding the 24-70 and either trading the 50 or keeping it as a walkabout lens. My main hesitation on the more practical idea (the 24-70) is that I found mid-zooms mediocre compared to primes in the Sony system, and I'm intrigued by the possibilities with the 14-24, particularly for environmental portraiture and performances.

Has anyone tested the 14-24? If so, thoughts? 

[hoolyproductions]

9 minutes ago, Paul K said:

This is a timely one for me.

I just made the jump from Sony and significantly thinned my collection to the 50/2 and the Sigma 90/2.8, along with a few manual primes. I've found the 90 really boring — not bad, but I think the Panasonic 85/1.8 or 100 will be closer to what I want. That said, I'm really torn between the new 14-24 Elmarit and leaning into the ultra wide end paired with the 50, versus adding the 24-70 and either trading the 50 or keeping it as a walkabout lens. My main hesitation on the more practical idea (the 24-70) is that I found mid-zooms mediocre compared to primes in the Sony system, and I'm intrigued by the possibilities with the 14-24, particularly for environmental portraiture and performances.

Has anyone tested the 14-24? If so, thoughts? 

No thoughts on the 14-24mm but the idea of selling a 50mm lens gave me the shivers 😁 At least for me a relatively light and fast 50 is my go to lens if I'm e.g. going to an evening event, want something small as possible that can shoot in low light.

[Paul K]

4 minutes ago, hoolyproductions said:

No thoughts on the 14-24mm but the idea of selling a 50mm lens gave me the shivers 😁 At least for me a relatively light and fast 50 is my go to lens if I'm e.g. going to an evening event, want something small as possible that can shoot in low light.

Yeah, the chances that I'd sell it are extremely low. I just hate redundancy. 😆 It's much more a question of intrigue vs. pragmatism.

[Olaf_ZG]

I don’t have money to buy all three. I decided for a second hand 24-90. It’s rendering is as stated, gorgeous. 70-90 is very useful. Sharpness has never been a deciding factor for me though…

[Donald M]

I have tried the Sigma 14-24 and the Sigma 17mm dgdn. The 17mm was wide open a bit better than the 14-24 at f4. The 17mm is very light together with a 24-90. 24-90 + 14-24 is rather heavy. Apart from all the other differences between the two lenses.