Leica VE 24-90 f2.8-4 compared to Sigma SL 28-105mm f2.8

[billhart]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Has anyone compared the Leica Vario-Elmarit 24-90mm f2.8-4 to the Sigma L mount 28-105mm f2.8?

[gdb]

Very good question ! I am thinking of switching to Sigma Lens, but only when I see the proof of better results with the 28-105 than with the VE 24-90. Since I bought the APO 21mm, the loss of the 24mm focal lens is nothing to me (the APO 21mm is awesome)

[thatkatmat]

I wish the 28-105 was a 24-105,  I don't own the 21..(i have the 24-90)

Would be great to see a comparison

Edited October 20, 2024 by thatkatmat

[billhart]

This thread should probably be in the L Mount Lenses section of the SL threads.

 

[Ivar B]

From what I have seen in some reviews optical performance of the 28-105 is not quite up to the level one had hoped for, so the superb Leica24-90 is likely to be a clearly superior performer. However, there are reviews coming all the time so it should be easy to check out for oneself. 

 

[Einst_Stein]

For above 90mm, definitely Sigma wins.

For the rest, Leica!

[bherman01545]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I owned the Leica 24-90 a couple of times but don't own it anymore because I found it too heavy to carry around. I opted for the new Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 DG DN v2 and found it superb.

I took tons of photos while in Berlin, Budapest, and Prague over the summer with the SL2-S and Sigma 24-70 F/2.8 DG DN v2

Here is a link to my IG page. There are probably 70 examples posted there.

https://www.instagram.com/bhermanphoto/

-Brad

[Planetwide]

I wonder if their will be a Leica version...

[bherman01545]

I can’t speak to the 28-105, but from the reviews, I’ve heard that it’s only a decent lens. I own the 24-70 F/2.8 DG DN v2 and can tell you that it is superb. I traveled all around Europe. Severe heat, rain and dusty conditions, and call tell you that it’s very well weather sealed. The quality of the images on my SL2-S really surprised me. I can’t imagine that the Leica 24-90 is that much better, and if so, it’s probably by a very small margin. I owned that lens three times and sold it three times, since it is such a beast to carry.

You can check out 50-60 images on my IG under the name bhermanphoto from my trip. I may now look at the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 DG DN Sports lens. I’m a big Leica guy, but I’m really impressed with Sigma.

I also shoot quite a bit with 10-12 different R lenses on my SL2-S, but that’s an entirely different experience altogether.

-Brad

[Ivar B]

8 hours ago, bherman01545 said:

I can’t speak to the 28-105, but from the reviews, I’ve heard that it’s only a decent lens. I own the 24-70 F/2.8 DG DN v2 and can tell you that it is superb. I traveled all around Europe. Severe heat, rain and dusty conditions, and call tell you that it’s very well weather sealed. The quality of the images on my SL2-S really surprised me. I can’t imagine that the Leica 24-90 is that much better, and if so, it’s probably by a very small margin. I owned that lens three times and sold it three times, since it is such a beast to carry.

You can check out 50-60 images on my IG under the name bhermanphoto from my trip. I may now look at the Sigma 70-200 F/2.8 DG DN Sports lens. I’m a big Leica guy, but I’m really impressed with Sigma.

I also shoot quite a bit with 10-12 different R lenses on my SL2-S, but that’s an entirely different experience altogether.

-Brad

No doubt the 24-70 DG DN V2 is a superb lens and you are probably right that the Leica 24-90 is not much better. The 24-70 VI had not so good weather sealing and it sucked in dust, just like the Leica sibling 24-70, but this I am told is much better on V2. Leica just cleaned my 24-70 free of charge. But the Leica 24-70 almost matched the performance of the 24-90 and was fairly identical to Sigma 24-70 V1, so when VII is supposedly a little bette optically than VI it should be even closer to the 24-90. 

Edited December 13, 2024 by Ivar B

[davidmknoble]

Every time I have compared a sigma lens to a native Leica lens, the color output and really very fine details (read:  cat fur) and corners of the frame are better on the Leica.  I have used the 24-90 Leica lens since it was released (and the 90-280) and the output remains incredible, but not crunchy (meaning 5 and 10 LPM on the MTF).  I do have the 500mm Sigma f/5.6 and while it doesn’t draw quite like the Leica’s, it is the only option for pure prime long lens.  It does work with the Leica extender giving it a longer option, but at a loss of the finest details.

Just my opinion, no scientific analysis.

[CptSlevin]

Sigma 28-105 is superb lens for 25% of a price of Leica 24-90 with constant aperture of 2.8 with 105 reach and 25% lighter.

Leica 24-90 might be nice, but it's not a viable option in comparison at all, heavy, big, overpriced.

[tom0511]

No experience with the Sigma 28-105, but with the 2490 Leica and 2470 Sima-Leica.

After using the 2470 for some time I came back to the Leica 2490. Nothing wrong with the Sigma, but for some reason I feel the 2490/ Leica designs to render somewhat smoother transitions and richer colors and giving a slightly more natural look. very subjective, and I can't prove it in direct comparisons. The Sigmas look very sharp (I own the Leica 2470, Sigma 70200 sports and 500/5.6 ND THE 135/1.8), but I feel most Leica SL lenses still ofer a slightly something special.

 

[tom0511]

For me 24 mm at the wide end is more useful than 105 at the long end.

 

[Homo Faber]

vor 37 Minuten schrieb CptSlevin:

Sigma 28-105 is superb lens for 25% of a price of Leica 24-90 with constant aperture of 2.8 with 105 reach and 25% lighter.

Leica 24-90 might be nice, but it's not a viable option in comparison at all, heavy, big, overpriced.

How do you can tell that 24-90mm is "overpriced"? Asking for a friend...

[bherman01545]

4 minutes ago, Homo Faber said:

How do you can tell that 24-90mm is "overpriced"? Asking for a friend...

It is way overpriced, which is why the resale value for these lenses is a little more than half of the MSRP. 

[Homo Faber]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb bherman01545:

It is way overpriced, which is why the resale value for these lenses is a little more than half of the MSRP. 

 No, it is not. It might be expensive but it is not "overpriced". Otherwise nobody would ever buy a new one at MSRP. 

Beside that the Leica 24-90mm is arguably one of the best zoom lenses ever built.  It definitely has that "Leica look" and the images look (almost) like done with a prime lens. Don't let size and weight scare you: excellent image is still heavy and hard to carry...

[hdmesa]

I'd be interested to know how the Sigma does wide open at the long end at minimum focus distance. That's where the Leica was a little weak, which is typical for zoom lenses but annoying nonetheless.

[tom0511]

vor 8 Stunden schrieb hdmesa:

I'd be interested to know how the Sigma does wide open at the long end at minimum focus distance. That's where the Leica was a little weak, which is typical for zoom lenses but annoying nonetheless.

Here are 2 images at 90 at short distance. First wide open second 1 stop down (5.6).  I can live 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!

Edited December 14, 2024 by tom0511

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[BernardC]

3 hours ago, CptSlevin said:

Stop gimmicking, there is no leica look on modern digital cameras, you can argue all way you want it.
It's common misconception, which was bashed on this forum too many times.

It's the other way around. There are too many Leica "looks," and they are contradictory.

The original look is best expressed by a screw-mount pre-war 5cm Elmar (still the most sold Leica lens ever?). The Elmar look is completely different from the Summicron look (1950s onward), the Mandler look, the Asph look. And yet you'll find many photographers arguing that each is the one true Leica look.

On the camera side it's even more complicated. Lots of people will proclaim that they can't tell two cameras apart (see above), and they are absolutely right. They can't. It's a real minefield, given that a double-digit percentage of men are partly colour-blind, everyone has different eyesight, everyone has different quality criteria, and there are some aspects of imaging that you don't notice until they are pointed-out to you, and after that you can't un-notice them (think "bokeh" pre-1990). On top of that you've got the same problem you had with lenses: an M9 looks different from an M-240, M10, M11, SL, SL2, etc... Which one is the true one?

There's a truism in the cinema industry: "you can make a good camera look like a lesser camera, but you can't go the other way." That's why they shoot movies with Arriflexes that cost 15 times as much as our Leicas. If producers could get away with buying a crate of cheap Sonys and Canons at Best Buy they would!

 

The real question is "what is the Leica look to you?" It will be different to the next photographer, just like two painters have a different opinion about what oil paint "should" look like.

Ironically, it's a lot easier to define a Canon look or a Sony look. They both have very distinctive colour palettes.