Leica launched the new LEICA VARIO-ELMARIT-SL 1:2.8 /70-200mm ASPH. & Leica Extender L 2x

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have seen very little vignette on the Sigma Interested in comparisons. 

[Advertisement]

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

[LocalHero1953]

A pity, and a surprise, that Leica did not reverse Sigma's zoom direction. Perhaps too much retooling for a low production run lens? But in these CNC days I would not expect that to be a significant issue. I can understand that swapping the zoom and focus rings would be a bigger issue.

[Overgaard]

The Leica 70-200mm Vario-Elmarit-SL ASPH f/2.8 ($3,295, 1540 g, 82mm filter diameter)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 L ($1,499, 1345 g, 77mm filter diameter)
Panasonic Lumix S PRO L 70-200mm f/2.8 ($2,295, 1570 g, 82mm filter diameter).

I would expect the Leica to maintain resale price the best.

Would love to see them side-by side. The Leica 70-200 appear pretty large. Either due to the way it is designed, or just because it is.

The all-classic 70-200/2.8 sports/reportage lens seems to be the Canon ($2,099, 1480 g, 77mm filter diameter). Not that we can use it for anything in this context, but I'e just seen so many of them at press events it was obvious Leica needed one like that. And not they have it. 

 

[hdmesa]

On 9/6/2024 at 2:25 AM, tom0511 said:

...The Leica has filter 82, the Sigma 77,...wonder if that has influence on vignetting behaviour (could be advantage for Leica)??

he 82mm filter was probably necessary to make room for Leica to write the lens engravings around the front element. 

[hdmesa]

22 hours ago, Overgaard said:

The Leica 70-200mm Vario-Elmarit-SL ASPH f/2.8 ($3,295, 1540 g, 82mm filter diameter)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 L ($1,499, 1345 g, 77mm filter diameter)
Panasonic Lumix S PRO L 70-200mm f/2.8 ($2,295, 1570 g, 82mm filter diameter).

I would expect the Leica to maintain resale price the best.

Would love to see them side-by side. The Leica 70-200 appear pretty large. Either due to the way it is designed, or just because it is.

The all-classic 70-200/2.8 sports/reportage lens seems to be the Canon ($2,099, 1480 g, 77mm filter diameter). Not that we can use it for anything in this context, but I'e just seen so many of them at press events it was obvious Leica needed one like that. And not they have it. 

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!

 

In the US, the Leica 24-70 and 100-400 sell for much less used. In the US, I’m seeing the 24-70 loses about $1,000 of its $3,000 new price when sold as used. The Sigmas could be treated as disposable by comparison. Accidentally tossed the Sigma out of a 10 story building window? Buy a second one and still have not spent more than one Leica. Anyway, I can see some reasons to choose the Leica version, but for me it wouldn’t be because of resale. The best case for the Leica would be buying the used Leica versus a new Sigma.

Edited September 7, 2024 by hdmesa

[Leicalook]

Is there any really neutral and independent comparison/test:

Leica 90-280 vs. Leica 70-200

Leica 70-200 vs. Sigma 70-200.

 

I am very interested in an open-minded and comprehensive review.

Without any prejudice - if possible. 

With emotions based on facts, figures, photos.

 

I am really thinking about buying something in this category - and I am still feeling let's say confused 

 

Thank you very very much & best wishes

Stefan

[LocalHero1953]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 9/7/2024 at 10:57 PM, hdmesa said:

he 82mm filter was probably necessary to make room for Leica to write the lens engravings around the front element. 

The 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280 also use 82mm. Consistency across the range.

[jaapv]

13 hours ago, Leicalook said:

Is there any really neutral and independent comparison/test:

Leica 90-280 vs. Leica 70-200

Leica 70-200 vs. Sigma 70-200.

 

I am very interested in an open-minded and comprehensive review.

Without any prejudice - if possible. 

With emotions based on facts, figures, photos.

 

I am really thinking about buying something in this category - and I am still feeling let's say confused 

 

Thank you very very much & best wishes

Stefan

Maybe you can rent and judge for yourself. You won’t see optical difference between the Leica and Sigma 70-200; there are other considerations. Haptics and the presence or absence of controls on the lens and the styling. Obviously the 90-280 will win out on a pixel level but at a smaller aperture. Only you can judge whether that is of any relevance for your photography. 

[tom0511]

Am 7.9.2024 um 01:18 schrieb Overgaard:

The Leica 70-200mm Vario-Elmarit-SL ASPH f/2.8 ($3,295, 1540 g, 82mm filter diameter)
Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 L ($1,499, 1345 g, 77mm filter diameter)
Panasonic Lumix S PRO L 70-200mm f/2.8 ($2,295, 1570 g, 82mm filter diameter).

I would expect the Leica to maintain resale price the best.

Would love to see them side-by side. The Leica 70-200 appear pretty large. Either due to the way it is designed, or just because it is.

The all-classic 70-200/2.8 sports/reportage lens seems to be the Canon ($2,099, 1480 g, 77mm filter diameter). Not that we can use it for anything in this context, but I'e just seen so many of them at press events it was obvious Leica needed one like that. And not they have it. 

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!

 

the newer Canon R-70200/2.8 is just 1070 g!!! and 146mm long. I love it. Wish Leica had a colaboration with Canon instead of Sigma

 

[BernardC]

5 hours ago, Leicalook said:

I am very interested in an open-minded and comprehensive review.

Without any prejudice - if possible. 

With emotions based on facts, figures, photos.

The problem with that notion is that a lot of differences will be subjective, based on the photographer's use case.

The 90-280 might be the best if you do landscapes and need edge to edge sharpness for big prints, however that extra bit of edge sharpness is immaterial for other telephoto use cases. For instance, those who photograph birds in flight or sports will only care about center sharpness, reach, and AF speed. Having a consistent filter size might be the deciding factor for someone who uses filters a lot. Or you might prefer the lightest lens if you are going to be carrying it all day.

The choice can also depend on other lenses in your kit. Do you own a longer lens, like a 500? Do you carry two bodies? Do you use a tripod?

One key factor that a review can't answer for you is, simply enough, which one feels better in your hands and encourages you to use it? Sigma's 60-600 might be the perfect lens for some, but it's way too big for casual photography.

[Luke_Miller]

1 hour ago, BernardC said:

The problem with that notion is that a lot of differences will be subjective, based on the photographer's use case.

Exactly. I'm an event photographer and like to frame tightly, so I am often at the long end of the zoom range.  My Leica 24-90 and 90-280 zooms are more useful in my work than the 24-70 and 70-200 (Nikon) lenses I shot with previously due to the additional reach.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, tom0511 said:

the newer Canon R-70200/2.8 is just 1070 g!!! and 146mm long. I love it. Wish Leica had a colaboration with Canon instead of Sigma

 

I do not think Canon collaborates with anybody as they are not third-party lens providers. The excellent RF 70-200/4 is only 695g! Note that because of their compactness, you cannot use a teleconverter with RF 70-200 lenses.

Edited September 10, 2024 by SrMi

[hdmesa]

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

...The 90-280 might be the best if you do landscapes and need edge to edge sharpness for big prints...

I shoot a lot of infinity landscapes with telephotos, and the Sigma 70-200 is as good as it gets – stunningly sharp at 60mp on the SL3. It completely outclasses the Canon RF 70-200 2.8, which can't hold consistent sharpness across the frame at infinity. I don't know if the 90-280 is better at infinity, but I can be confident that its AF will be nowhere near as fast as the Sigma, making the Sigma a much more versitile lens (IMO).

Edited September 10, 2024 by hdmesa
grammar

[SrMi]

13 minutes ago, hdmesa said:

I shoot a lot of infinity landscapes with telephotos, and the Sigma 70-200 is as good as it gets – stunningly sharp at 60mp on the SL3. It completely outclasses the Canon RF 70-200 2.8, which can't hold consistent sharpness across the frame at infinity. I don't know if the 90-280 is better at infinity, but I can be confident that it's AF will be nowhere near as fast as the Sigma, making the Sigma a much more versitile lens (IMO).

Is your RF 70-200/2.8 still not working correctly after removing the filter and servicing it?

[hdmesa]

2 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Is your RF 70-200/2.8 still not working correctly after removing the filter and servicing it?

Canon said it was within spec. On FM Forum, you may find an old thread where I thought removing the filter solved the problem. It didn't in the end, though it helped some. I think it may have something to do with how aggressive Canon's optical image stabilization is in these lenses and how it is integrated with IBIS – optimized for portraits, sports/action, etc. Or it could have been simple copy variation. I never tried another copy.

Canon's 100-500 (I had two copies) were perfect at infinity, though that lens was also negatively affected by my B+W clear filter.

[BernardC]

2 hours ago, hdmesa said:

I shoot a lot of infinity landscapes with telephotos, and the Sigma 70-200 is as good as it gets – stunningly sharp at 60mp on the SL3. It completely outclasses the Canon RF 70-200 2.8, which can't hold consistent sharpness across the frame at infinity. I don't know if the 90-280 is better at infinity, but I can be confident that its AF will be nowhere near as fast as the Sigma, making the Sigma a much more versitile lens (IMO).

Like I said, it depends on use-case. Fast AF isn't often needed for landscape, or for infinity, so the extra reach of the 90-280 might be more versatile. There are no bad choices. The Sigma 70-200 seems like an excellent lens.

[Olaf_ZG]

3 hours ago, Luke_Miller said:

Exactly. I'm an event photographer and like to frame tightly, so I am often at the long end of the zoom range.  My Leica 24-90 and 90-280 zooms are more useful in my work than the 24-70 and 70-200 (Nikon) lenses I shot with previously due to the additional reach.

The range and weather proofing were/are to me the reasons to keep with the originals.

[hdmesa]

4 hours ago, BernardC said:

Like I said, it depends on use-case. Fast AF isn't often needed for landscape, or for infinity, so the extra reach of the 90-280 might be more versatile. There are no bad choices. The Sigma 70-200 seems like an excellent lens.

True. If I already owned the 90-280, I would definitely make use of it. But coming into SL lenses at this point, I think it’s a hard sell unless you can find a used one for a heavy discount. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[hdmesa]

15 hours ago, LocalHero1953 said:

The 16-35, 24-90 and 90-280 also use 82mm. Consistency across the range.

Yes, they all consistently needed to be 82mm instead of 77 to fit that engraving around the front element 🫣

[tom0511]

One comment regarding the 90-280. The AF might be slower than the new Sigma, but it is not totally unusable even for sports I had quite fine results on the SL3.

I am interested to try out a Sigma 70-200/2.8 one day.

One question: Some guys reported an annoying AF noise of the Sigma. Is this commen sense? Or only some samples of the lens?