Sigma 28-70 vs Sigma / Leica 24-70

[JoshuaR]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I'm really happy with the performance of the Leica Vario-Elmarit 24-70 on my SL2-S. But I hardly ever go wider than 28mm. I'm therefore tempted by the 28-70. I understand that I'd be giving up the metal barrel and superior weather sealing of the Leica lens—but, in return, I'd get a smaller, lighter lens with an aperture ring and an AF/MF switch. I'd value a smaller and lighter lens, and I actually think I'd use the switch.

What about image quality, though? Some of the reviews I've read suggest that the 28-70 is a little worse than the 24-70. Could anyone who's used both comment on whether that difference would be noticeable in candid photographs of people? I wouldn't be using this for landscapes—more for pictures of my family around the house. I'm really enjoying my 24-70 pictures (which surprises me, because on the M system I"m a total snob); I find that I like the sharp-but-not-too-sharp way the lens captures faces and people. Should I expect similar results from the 28-70, or is there a noticeable loss of IQ, however that's defined?

Many thanks for any insights!

[Advertisement]

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

[WvE]

Not familiar with these lenses but for travel take a look at the rather unique Panasonic 20-60mm kit lens, it's no slouch and you can get one for almost no money. I occasionally use the 50 Zeiss Sonnar (ZM), but otherwise, the Panny is glued to my SL2-s.     

[SrMi]

I have the lenses and found 28-70 slightly worse than 24-70 wide open and quite good, starting at f/5.6. The 20-60 is worse than the 28-70. However, the differences may not matter much for many. All mentioned lenses are more than usable.

I prefer the Leica 24-70.

[Archiver]

16 hours ago, WvE said:

Not familiar with these lenses but for travel take a look at the rather unique Panasonic 20-60mm kit lens, it's no slouch and you can get one for almost no money. I occasionally use the 50 Zeiss Sonnar (ZM), but otherwise, the Panny is glued to my SL2-s.     

I wish I could like the 20-60 more, but the distortion on the wide end is ridiculous. Same with the Panasonic 24-105 f4, the distortion on the wide end is awful, and demonstrably worse than both the Canon and Sigma 24-105mm f4 lenses. Mind you, I'm using an old version of Lightroom that doesn't recognize embedded lens profiles because I don't want to give Adobe any more subscription money than I absolutely have to.

[WvE]

Yes, you might be right, but otherwise, it performs quite well between say 28 and 60.

[BernardC]

10 hours ago, Archiver said:

I wish I could like the 20-60 more, but the distortion on the wide end is ridiculous. Same with the Panasonic 24-105 f4, the distortion on the wide end is awful, and demonstrably worse than both the Canon and Sigma 24-105mm f4 lenses. Mind you, I'm using an old version of Lightroom that doesn't recognize embedded lens profiles because I don't want to give Adobe any more subscription money than I absolutely have to.

I don't see any notable distortion in my environment, but I don't use Lightroom. Modern wide angle lenses are essentially mild fisheyes. Fisheye lenses always had very high sharpness across the frame, at the cost of extreme distortion. New lenses use software to fix the distortion, while keeping the sharpness. It's a very reasonable compromise, given that traditional wide-angle retrofocus lenses were usually weak in the corners, slow, expensive, and large.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly. This shows that you are missing out by using obsolete software. And it is not only distortion. Adobe does deliver for their money.