Help me understand: Leica’s “B” line

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

So Leica has it’s normal great lenses for a great price (read high). As we all know, Leica is very capable of designing lenses.

Looking at the latest 70-200, it looks like a little 90-280 design wise. So, if they took the design from Sigma, they quite redesigned it. If they can design lenses, why do they need the base design from Sigma or Panasonic?

I could understand if it was basically the same and just rebadged, but the 70-200 is more than that.

Very curious about this. Thanks for discussing/ feedback.

[Olaf_ZG]

7 minutes ago, Al Brown said:

Many SL lenses consist of optical assembly manufactured by third parties mounted in Leica housing, keeping the QC high and charging a premium for it. Much bigger DIP = much bigger profit for Leica.

I can understand outsourcing production, but why design? (I guess they need to pay for it, while having own resources).

[Simone_DF]

20 minutes ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I can understand outsourcing production, but why design? (I guess they need to pay for it, while having own resources).

Because the additional cost of purchasing an existing Sigma or Panasonic design is offset by lower production costs. Both Sigma and Panasonic are already producing the same lenses, they just need to produce an additional amount of samples for Leica, swap the poly case with a metal case, and perhaps add a different coating. Same performance, but twice the price. What's not to love?

[Olaf_ZG]

So, the innercase is the same and the outercase is the only difference?

[jaapv]

Looks like it. And of course the name on the package. It is not a bad thing. These days cooperation between companies is of benefit for the customers. I can quite understand people to like their lens to have the Leica style and feel, it is very appealing Others look at practical use and then the Sigma may win, depending on your usage; others again look at pure quality/price and that is not Leica’ strong point. Take your pick. 

[jaapv]

They also rebranded  a Sigma zoom back then. They did not design their own zooms for a very long time - the first was an Agenieux one, then mainly Minolta and .some Sigma. Only the very last R zooms were Leica designs ( but those were outstanding). It is not Leica's strongest point. The SL zooms are the culmination of this learning process, but it makes them expensive and bulky. Organizing the cooperation in the L alliance is one of the smartest moves Leica ever made. 

[Olaf_ZG]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thanks for feedback. I am mainly wondering design wise, especially the glass part, as I assume(d) Leica had top designers for this in house already, so designing a “B” line might be cheaper doing it yourself then buying a design.

Ofcourse, I am totally unaware of the ratio for cost of production and design.

To be clear, I do not mind the strategy, though most probably I would buy the original (sigma/pana) if I would have to buy new. But I bought secondhand/demo and then price difference is less, and to me, weatherproof is an important factor.

 

[jaapv]

Well, the Sigma is weatherproof as well. The main difference is that the Sigma, albeit very well and solidly built, has some composite parts, useful switches and an aperture ring which have been sacrificed in the very clean all-metal industrial design of Leica. This results in a 200 gram  weight increase. it is very personal but I prefer the Sigma functionality and ergonomics and the Leica design. Oh - and the Leica lens hood is much better. 

[helged]

Several (many/most) of the Sigma and Panasonic lenses focus MUCH faster than the SL-lenses. AF is an integrated part of the optical design. So it is not ‘only’ the optical design Leica ‘borrows’ from eg Sigma, it is the full package. I would think Leica doesn’t have the resources to develop everything from scratch, just look at the time it took Leica to come with SL21. In addition, the newer Sigma and Panasonic offerings are optically excellent. And the Sigma lenses are also moderately priced. So hard to do everything in-house with a cost that is considered acceptable for the customers.

[jaapv]

Sigma seems to be on a roll of bringing out lenses of an amazingly high optical quality the last few years. I would not be surprised if the L Alliance were a two way street with Leica optical expertise being shared with a Sigma resulting in amazing products for both companies. - Optically superior lenses for Sigma, more affordable Leica level lenses for Leica. Win-win. It has been this way with Panasonic for many years. 

[hansvons]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Sigma seems to be on a roll of bringing out lenses of an amazingly high optical quality the last few years.

Absolutely. If Sigma didn't exist, it had to be invented. 

14 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I am mainly wondering design wise, especially the glass part, as I assume(d) Leica had top designers for this in house already, so designing a “B” line might be cheaper doing it yourself then buying a design.

You may read too much into designing/computing a lens. I'm not a physicist or optical engineer, but in 2024, optical design shouldn't be an art anymore regarding performance (expression, personality, etc, is another story). With some experience, and the right tools (CAD etc.), everyone should be able to design a high-performance lens. The challenges, I guess, are elsewhere. E.g., how much a brand can charge for a lens, how big the market is, how I can streamline my production line and offerings, and many other factors determining the lenses one can buy from different brands.

So, Sigma may easily be able to design Lenses like the APO SL line, but they need the market (and their ART lenses are arguably very close). On the other hand, Leica has a market for top-notch zooms made only from glass and metal but can only afford the production, not the design, as that would require specialised R&D (zooms are not Leica's core domain). Plus, chances are high that the initial design will be on a new level by fine-tuning the tolerances and providing upgraded metal housing using top-shelve glass and coatings. As @jaapv pointed out, properly executed, the L-Mount Alliance is an excellent business model that benefits anyone involved, most notably the customers.

Sidenote: Zooms tend not to show distinct personalities as primes do, at least not in an FF-format stills design (cine zooms are another story, as they can be 3-5 times larger within the same specs). That is because they are a compromise, naturally offering various focal lengths, adding multiple personalities, etc. (what can be said is that the 24-90 at 35-50mm shows more 3D pop than the 24-70 Leica zoom). A telephoto zoom's quality, like its prime siblings, is primarily determined by the image sharpness it provides. Thus, no magical "secret sauce" is involved, as we experienced with the 35mm APO SL, for instance. 

Edited September 7, 2024 by hansvons

[BernardC]

19 hours ago, Olaf_ZG said:

I can understand outsourcing production, but why design? (I guess they need to pay for it, while having own resources).

As mentioned in a concurrent thread, Leica has been doing this since the 1930s. It's not a new thing, or a sign of Leica's decline. They do it to offer additional lens options at a reasonable price.

In almost every case, Leica's "re-badged" lenses have been extensively modified. The only notable exceptions I can think of are the Schneider PC Super Angulons, Angenieux zooms, and a few Zeiss super-wides like the Hologon and 15/3.5. Other than those, you usually get different mechanics, optimized optical designs, and tighter QC standards.

[frame-it]

16 hours ago, jaapv said:

Well, the Sigma is weatherproof as well. The main difference is that the Sigma, albeit very well and solidly built, has some composite parts, useful switches and an aperture ring which have been sacrificed in the very clean all-metal industrial design of Leica. This results in a 200 gram  weight increase. it is very personal but I prefer the Sigma functionality and ergonomics and the Leica design. Oh - and the Leica lens hood is much better. 

 

[JoshuaR]

I'm new to the SL system and only own the Sigma 35 f/2 DG DN and the Leica version of the Sigma 24-70. Going in, my assumption was that I would be disappointed by these lenses; on some level, I figured that I'd use them for a while, then upgrade to the Leica 35 APO SL and 24-90. Now that I've used the lenses extensively, however, my views are a little different. I'm still open to the idea of upgrading, and will probably rent a 35 APO SL, but the Sigma lenses have really impressed me, and I'm no longer sure that the improvements offered by the Leica glass will justify the price for my use. It's really changed my perception of L-mount; it now feels much more like a partnership system between Leica/Panasonic and Sigma.

The aperture ring situation has turned out to be highly relevant to me. I've realized that my enjoyment of my SL2-S is much higher with the aperture ring on the lens. This lets me map shutter speed to the top dial and ISO to the back dial. On the SL3, I'd have a dedicated ISO dial, but I'd still prefer an aperture ring. Comparing my experience between the Sigma 35 (with ring) and the Leica 24-70 (without), I prefer the aperture ring so much that I'm considering selling the Leica 24-70 to get the Sigma 24-70 II (or 28-105). So I find myself headed towards a world in which I use my SL camera almost exclusively with Sigma lenses (and adapted M glass). This is a big change from what I assumed going in, which is that I'd be working my way towards a first-party setup with the SL, just as I have with my M over the years.

Conversely, I feel that I get the "B" line aspect of the lens lineup more. The optical quality of the Sigma glass is very high. And so it's really not that different from M mount, where I'm okay with paying a lot more for a a 35mm Summicron because of handling and first-party integration, even though, optically, the Voigtlander 35s are basically equally good. I only wish that Leica had chosen the Sigma DG DN lenses, with aperture rings, to rebadge, instead of the Lumix ones. But I understand the thinking, from a design perspective.

[huwm]

that's the beauty of L mount

great results from almost all the lenses so aesthetic and ergonomic factors become more important

I prefer the Lumix/Leica approach having tried all 3

you will have to try an SL APO prime at some point though

[frankchn]

On 9/6/2024 at 11:59 AM, jaapv said:

The SL zooms are the culmination of this learning process, but it makes them expensive and bulky.

The 90-280 is actually a Panasonic design: https://patents.google.com/patent/JP2016139125A/en, so even on the "premium" SL zooms Leica will use someone else's optical design.

[Archiver]

I suspect there is a lot more cross pollination between the brands than they would care to admit.

Some years ago, someone on LUF did a deep dive into the metadata in Leica X Vario files and found code that named a Panasonic autofocus algorithm. The Leica SL is very close in features to the later Panasonic S1, and the SL2 very close in features to the S1R.

Sigma designed the much vaunted Olympus 45mm f1.2 and 8mm, and the Panasonic Leica 12mm f1.4.

@JoshuaRothman If you like the Sigma 35/2, see if you can try to the Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN. Try it and see. That's a lens that Leica could easily have rebranded as a Summilux.

Edited September 10, 2024 by Archiver

[Printmaker]

On 9/6/2024 at 8:41 AM, jaapv said:

Looks like it. And of course the name on the package. It is not a bad thing. These days cooperation between companies is of benefit for the customers. I can quite understand people to like their lens to have the Leica style and feel, it is very appealing Others look at practical use and then the Sigma may win, depending on your usage; others again look at pure quality/price and that is not Leica’ strong point. Take your pick. 

Well said. Here’s my pick:

I have three Sigma lenses (28-70, 105/2.8, and 100-400). All are high quality and work perfectly on my SL2 and SL2S. Were I to be shooting professionally again, I’d probably have spent the additional money on the metal housing of the Leica versions. Yes, the 105 is not yet available in the Leica housing but it will be one day.

 I also have a M10 with a full stable of Leica M lenses and a M to SL adapter. But zoom and macro lenses are the reason why I also use the SL system. And I plan to add the 16-28 and the 70-200 Sigma lenses in the future. 

BTW: the 28-70 is much lighter and smaller than either the Leica or Sigma 24-70 and the image quality is virtually identical. I went with that model because it shares the same 67 mm filter size as the 100-400.

[Chris Nebard]

On 9/7/2024 at 2:25 PM, JoshuaRothman said:

I'm new to the SL system and only own the Sigma 35 f/2 DG DN and the Leica version of the Sigma 24-70. Going in, my assumption was that I would be disappointed by these lenses; on some level, I figured that I'd use them for a while, then upgrade to the Leica 35 APO SL and 24-90. Now that I've used the lenses extensively, however, my views are a little different. I'm still open to the idea of upgrading, and will probably rent a 35 APO SL, but the Sigma lenses have really impressed me, and I'm no longer sure that the improvements offered by the Leica glass will justify the price for my use. It's really changed my perception of L-mount; it now feels much more like a partnership system between Leica/Panasonic and Sigma.

The aperture ring situation has turned out to be highly relevant to me. I've realized that my enjoyment of my SL2-S is much higher with the aperture ring on the lens. This lets me map shutter speed to the top dial and ISO to the back dial. On the SL3, I'd have a dedicated ISO dial, but I'd still prefer an aperture ring. Comparing my experience between the Sigma 35 (with ring) and the Leica 24-70 (without), I prefer the aperture ring so much that I'm considering selling the Leica 24-70 to get the Sigma 24-70 II (or 28-105). So I find myself headed towards a world in which I use my SL camera almost exclusively with Sigma lenses (and adapted M glass). This is a big change from what I assumed going in, which is that I'd be working my way towards a first-party setup with the SL, just as I have with my M over the years.

Conversely, I feel that I get the "B" line aspect of the lens lineup more. The optical quality of the Sigma glass is very high. And so it's really not that different from M mount, where I'm okay with paying a lot more for a a 35mm Summicron because of handling and first-party integration, even though, optically, the Voigtlander 35s are basically equally good. I only wish that Leica had chosen the Sigma DG DN lenses, with aperture rings, to rebadge, instead of the Lumix ones. But I understand the thinking, from a design perspective.

Absolutely bang on. Couldn’t agree more. I trod the same path - getting the 24-70 VE, using my M lenses and adding Sigma DG DN primes. I have a photographer friend who would never consider Sigma because of the brand name and its less than perfect history. He won’t accept that recent years’ offerings have altered the perception of the brand. As I’ve said on these threads before, I wouldn’t have moved into the SL system without there being small, well built, optically good a/f primes - with aperture rings. The 35 DG DN i-contemporary is a fantastic example of this, as is the 24 f3.5 (along with a number of other native L-Mount lenses from Sigma). I doubt that Leica would limp along with an L-Mount Partner whose gear neither complemented nor met Leica standards. As a Nikon user since the 1970s, I would never have used third party lenses on my cameras. The L-Mount is different; Leica benefits from the alliance as much as the other companies do (in the ways detailed here by others). But, it wouldn’t last long if Sigma and Panasonic optical/lens products didn’t meet proscribed standards.  Like you, I’m tempted by owning an SL APO (never say never!) but the 28mm I tried didn’t have me rushing to replace my 24 and 35 Sigmas. And that is no criticism of the APO at all. It’s just an indication of how much I like the I-contemporary DG DNs. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Archiver]

On 9/11/2024 at 10:40 AM, Printmaker said:

BTW: the 28-70 is much lighter and smaller than either the Leica or Sigma 24-70 and the image quality is virtually identical. I went with that model because it shares the same 67 mm filter size as the 100-400.

This is very good to know, as I'm considering the 28-70 as a lightweight zoom option for walkaround photography and some work applications that don't require the extra reach of a 24-105 but could benefit from f2.8 aperture. The new 24-70 looks fantastic, but it more expensive, and heavier.