Sigma I Series Primes vs Leica M Lenses on SL2

[o2mpx]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Looking for feedback: the Sigma primes(F2 and smaller) are light weight, small form factor, autofocus. How are they compared to equivalent(roughly) Leica M lenses on a SL2?

Know M lenses vary greatly in focal lengths and apertures and direct compare isn’t possible, so looking for comments if in general trade offs on IQ overrode benefits with Sigma’s auto focus, ability to view/shoot wide open, weather resistance etc. 

[LD_50]

The only comparison is size and weight. 

If you want the M-lens IQ, combined with size and weight, M cover it. 

If you want AF combined with size and weight, Sigmas cover it.

There are reviews available for both M lenses and Sigmas, but I wouldn’t expect any direct comparisons, outside of users of both giving you anecdotal statements about how they feel about them. Sean Reid I believe did a direct comparison of the 35 f/2 Sigma with the 35 SL APO. You can then compare the 35 SL APO to M versions and deduce the Sigma is likely inferior to the best M lenses in IQ but offers AF and native mount.

[Chris Nebard]

I prefer to use primes on my SL2-S - a mixture of both Leica M and Sigma I Contemporaries. If I am genuinely honest with myself, I cannot in all conscience say that the Leica M’s are obviously superior in image quality. I’m not a reader of charts, I don’t zoom in a thousand percent to check corner sharpness, I just shoot the things. However, a number of contributors to the forum will provide suitable evidence to shoot me down in flames and prove the Leicas better. And I wouldn’t argue the point. The technical specs don’t matter to me - but there’s absolutely no criticism here of those who find them useful. For me, the experience and joy of using the kit does matter. If the output is excellent, all the better, but it isn’t a competition to me.

This is what I have: 24mm f3.5 Sigma, 35mm f2 Sigma, 45mm f2.8 Sigma, 50mm f2 Summicron, 75mm f2.4 Summarit. 

I love using the Summicron, it’s a classic and sometimes I can convince myself that it has that unique, lovely “Leica look”: a gentle fall-off from sharpness into the out of focus areas with great colours - similarly the 75 Summarit which is now a highly regarded lens. I love using both.

BUT: to assume that Leica M lenses are simply superior would, in my view, be a big mistake. Optically they might be, I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that the Sigma Contemporaries are capable of fabulous images, they are beautifully built (All metal & glass; splash and dust resistant at the Mount only); they are premium quality, tactile, small and portable. And they look as if they belong on an SL. The design language just works. And there is actually a synergy with the M nomenclature: Sigma Contemporary f2 lenses might be seen as relating to Summicron, the 2.8s to Elmarit, and the 3.5s to Elmars. The blogger Hugh Brownstone reckons that they’re the equivalent of what autofocus M lenses might be. I’d gamble decent money that if Leica re-badged them, they’d be a huge success.

Another thing; the EXIF data is properly recorded with the I Contemporaries because they are native L Mount. The aperture information is estimated with M lenses via the M-L adapter (not that this unduly bothers me).

I do (lightly) post process most of my pictures and, genuinely, I couldn’t in the main say that there is a clear and obvious difference between the Ms and the Sigmas. Sacrilege, I know. I love Leica - and I’ll admit to being as big a brand snob as anyone. But, if I denied myself these Sigmas, I’d be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Brilliant little lenses.

Here’s just a couple; one with my 50 Summicron, one with my 45 f2.8 (which divides opinion massively and is accused by some of being soft and slow). I won’t tell you which is which 😂.

I’ll be travelling to New York from the UK in March to take some street and urban landscape. The Sigma Contemporaries will feature heavily. At the end of the day, there is far more to my choices than pure optical quality, but I’m satisfied that the Sigma I Contemporaries have more than enough of it.

I was once amazed (and honoured) to be on a forum chat with the legendary Nick Ut. He praised them. That’ll do for me.

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 February 15 by Chris Nebard

[BruceRH]

I would agree 100% with Chris in the above post. The Sigma primes are excellent lenses. I have had the 35, 45 and 90 for Sony, which I am currently trying to sell as I slowly reduce my use of Sony. So far I only have the 35/2 in L mount. With my recently purchased SL2-S, I do plan to mainly use my M mount lenses but I do want a few L mount AF primes. I haven't decided whether or not to add any more AF lenses to my SL2-S kit but if I do, I would lean heavily towards the Sigma's, the build is excellent along with the image quality at a great price, nothing not to like. 

[Chris W]

Yeah.

For a slightly different perspective, I had an SL1 and my Leica M lenses are 1980's, pre asph, and not APO.

I imagine the APO lenses are absolutely stunning, although not characterful and hugely expensive. 

The Sigma lenses punch above their weight price wise. They are also very compact and light.

I wouldn't hesitate to say the Sigma lenses would suit most people's needs. If for some reason you wanted to acquire a couple of modern, high end Leica M lenses, it wouldn't hurt, but wouldn't make an obvious difference to most images.

 

[o2mpx]

56 minutes ago, Chris W said:

I imagine the APO lenses are absolutely stunning, although not characterful and  hugely expensive. 

The Sigma lenses punch above their weight price wise. They are also very compact and light.

Thanks for the feedback. Found a couple of Sean Reid reviews on the Sigma I primes and they are good. The corners on the 35 as expected aren’t as detailed compared to the APO 35 M across the apertures but close; definitely viable choices.

[Chris Nebard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I’ve also read that the Sigma 24 3.5 is considered to be at least the equal of the 24 Elmar. Again, I’ve not compared the two and the Elmar has a great reputation, but, for them to be even in the same conversation is remarkable to be honest. And at least one contributor to this thread says the Sigma performs better. I’ve had lovely results from it.  I’m also really tempted by the 90 f2.8. 

[Chris W]

I have the Sigma  I series 90mm. It is gorgeous.

I have the 24mm 3.5 but haven't used it much for photography. I bought it for video.

[davidmknoble]

Leica lenses are more ‘weatherproof’ than typical sigma lenses. 

[jaapv]

Depends. If you are talking about  Contemporary lenses you are right. However the Sports series is as well or better waterproofed The Art series varies but in general is close to Leica. 

[Smogg]

21 hours ago, Chris Nebard said:

I prefer to use primes on my SL2-S - a mixture of both Leica M and Sigma I Contemporaries. If I am genuinely honest with myself, I cannot in all conscience say that the Leica M’s are obviously superior in image quality. I’m not a reader of charts, I don’t zoom in a thousand percent to check corner sharpness, I just shoot the things. However, a number of contributors to the forum will provide suitable evidence to shoot me down in flames and prove the Leicas better. And I wouldn’t argue the point. The technical specs don’t matter to me - but there’s absolutely no criticism here of those who find them useful. For me, the experience and joy of using the kit does matter. If the output is excellent, all the better, but it isn’t a competition to me.

This is what I have: 24mm f3.5 Sigma, 35mm f2 Sigma, 45mm f2.8 Sigma, 50mm f2 Summicron, 75mm f2.4 Summarit. 

I love using the Summicron, it’s a classic and sometimes I can convince myself that it has that unique, lovely “Leica look”: a gentle fall-off from sharpness into the out of focus areas with great colours - similarly the 75 Summarit which is now a highly regarded lens. I love using both.

BUT: to assume that Leica M lenses are simply superior would, in my view, be a big mistake. Optically they might be, I wouldn’t know. What I do know is that the Sigma Contemporaries are capable of fabulous images, they are beautifully built (All metal & glass; splash and dust resistant at the Mount only); they are premium quality, tactile, small and portable. And they look as if they belong on an SL. The design language just works. And there is actually a synergy with the M nomenclature: Sigma Contemporary f2 lenses might be seen as relating to Summicron, the 2.8s to Elmarit, and the 3.5s to Elmars. The blogger Hugh Brownstone reckons that they’re the equivalent of what autofocus M lenses might be. I’d gamble decent money that if Leica re-badged them, they’d be a huge success.

Another thing; the EXIF data is properly recorded with the I Contemporaries because they are native L Mount. The aperture information is estimated with M lenses via the M-L adapter (not that this unduly bothers me).

I do (lightly) post process most of my pictures and, genuinely, I couldn’t in the main say that there is a clear and obvious difference between the Ms and the Sigmas. Sacrilege, I know. I love Leica - and I’ll admit to being as big a brand snob as anyone. But, if I denied myself these Sigmas, I’d be cutting off my nose to spite my face. Brilliant little lenses.

Here’s just a couple; one with my 50 Summicron, one with my 45 f2.8 (which divides opinion massively and is accused by some of being soft and slow). I won’t tell you which is which 😂.

I’ll be travelling to New York from the UK in March to take some street and urban landscape. The Sigma Contemporaries will feature heavily. At the end of the day, there is far more to my choices than pure optical quality, but I’m satisfied that the Sigma I Contemporaries have more than enough of it.

I was once amazed (and honoured) to be on a forum chat with the legendary Nick Ut. He praised them. That’ll do for me.

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!

It seems to me that the first frame is Sigma 45 2.8, the second Summicron 50. I may be wrong, but Sigma would have made the bokeh on the second frame more delicately, it would look a little busy. But the shots overall are beautiful and I really like both of them.

Edited February 16 by Smogg

[Chris Nebard]

Thanks Smogg, that’s kind and greatly appreciated. Ok, as you’ve been so generous - and bold enough to have a go, I’ll spill the beans: the top photo is the Summicron and the bottom shot is the Sigma.  
Cheers 👍

Edited February 16 by Chris Nebard

[keeping_a_balance]

Original question well covered by most answers. 

The Sigma lenses are great. I use them more for travel as I usually want to have other family members take images and actually get focus, as with manual lenses most ppl are too scared to even try.  

i series image quality is sharp, will lack character of some of the M lenses you may have, but not much else to say.

 

 

 

[Stuart Richardson]

M lenses don't necessarily do well on the SL cameras. The Sigmas do. Below is the Zeiss 25mm 2,8 ZM at f4 vs the 24mm 3.5 at f4. It is not even close. I took this yesterday to compare the M10M to the SL2 with the 25mm biogon, and the M10M was better, but still not great. Meanwhile the Zeiss is stellar on film where it does not have to deal with cover glass. My experience with the 35mm f2 versus the 35mm APO was not as good. The lens is softer and has a lot of longitudinal chromatic aberration by comparison. But it is still a great lens overall.I am fairly confident that it is better than all but the most recent 35mm APO. It is probably quite close to the 35mm 1.4 FLE in sharpness.

 

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 February 20 by Stuart Richardson

[chrismuc]

My similar experience: Sigma L 24f2 and L 35f2 perform quite much better reg. corner performance than Leica M 24f3.8 and M 35f2.4 on my S1R.

[PhotoCruiser]

vor 30 Minuten schrieb Stuart Richardson:

M lenses don't necessarily do well on the SL cameras.

Because of the M to L Adapter or because some M lenses are of suboptimal and less than Sigma optical quality?

The difference in the two photos is massive! The right photo is what brand, also a Zeiss?

Chris

Edited February 20 by PhotoCruiser

[Stuart Richardson]

The lens on the right is a Sigma 24mm 3.5. Just because Zeiss or Leica made it doesn’t mean it is better. In this case the issue is that the Zeiss was designed for film. This has been discussed a ton all the way back to the M8. Digital sensors do not like off-axis light because of the design of the pixel wells and because of cover glass. So lenses essentially have to be designed so that the rays exit as straight as possible out the rear of the lens. This is not what is normal for wide angles, so it needs to be designed in. This is one reason why lenses are now so much larger on average than they used to be. 
In the case of L mount, the Sigma lenses excel because they are recent designs and purpose built for that system. Many M lenses were designed decades ago for film, so they are just not as optimized for the task. Meanwhile M bodies themselves designed their sensors to have offset microlenses and thin cover glass to minimize this effect. The SL cameras have this too, but it does not appear to be quite as effective. 

[PhotoCruiser]

Thanks Stuart!
Great explanation why and your test confirm that i did well to buy my 3 Sigma lenses for main use and then experiment with older lenses for the non digital created old-school look. I prefer to have a razor sharp lens and if it bothers me apply some filters afterwards to make it more lovely than having a unsharp photo where sharpening is not so simple. Same as for recording max resolution photos and downsample in case i need to.

Chris

[carlosgavina]

The Sigma I Series are very good on an SL. Sharpness won't be an issue unless you are comparing to APO Leica lenses, they are very very good at normal distances — 0.7m and above — becoming just a bit softer when really up close, or at minimum distance, and well, at those distances you can't really focus most M lenses so.

I've tested the Sigma 35 against a 35 ASPH FLE Summilux (first version). At f/2 and 0.7m, I couldn't see a significant difference in sharpness, maybe just a tiny advantage to the Leica if you pixel peep. I do however prefer the rendering of the Summilux and the ability to go to f/1.4.

But for the price, the performance, the size, aperture control, autofocus, I think nothing matches the Sigma I series on L-Mount really.

I actually wish Leica would just "copy" the approach of this line and would do let's say a "Classic" line for L-Mount, with aperture control, small, with autofocus, weather sealed etc.

 

The forum compresses the image, so they are much sharper than they seem to be here. White balance adjusted, the Sigma by default usually has cooler tones.

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 March 13 by carlosgavina

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[jaapv]

The forum does not compress but the first image you see is a compressed thumbnail; to view the sharp image you must click on it. You posted a minuscule JPG here.