SL 28-70 f2,8 on June 12?

[S Maclean]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I am very happy withthe sigma 24-70 II I am very happy with the 70-200 and love the apo's and 50m non apo.

I would LOVE a new version of rhe 50 Lux with closer focusing and faster AF.  If those two things alone where corrected, even if it remained a monster (and yes, would love to see a smaller one, but I respect that, when they made it, they gave prefference to the best optics they could get to make it truly special as a system launch premium lens)

I don't mind that the lenses are three dollars or three thousand...I mind if they are not great. That said I rather spend the money on the sigma 24-70 II than the leica 24-70. Better performance, less cost.

Fortunately, also, we do get to use the M lenses in the SL system as well.

 

As for the 28-70? I don't see any use for it whatsoever over the 24-70. It seems like a waste of time and money IMO.

 

Edited Sunday at 08:39 PM by S Maclean

[Advertisement]

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

[LD_50]

27 minutes ago, Einst_Stein said:

I mean what difference you are after?  I can't see the difference that worth to be excitedf about.   

I’m not after either lens. 

[SrMi]

1 hour ago, S Maclean said:

<snip>

As for the 28-70? I don't see any use for it whatsoever over the 24-70. It seems like a waste of time and money IMO.

Rumored 570g vs 856g is a significant difference for a walk-around lens.

[Einst_Stein]

5 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Rumored 570g vs 856g is a significant difference for a walk-around lens.

Practically, ergo wise, around or below one third or at most half of camera, such as 300g, could make compelling sense. 

[jaapv]

31 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Rumored 570g vs 856g is a significant difference for a walk-around lens.

The Sigma is 470 grams. 

[S Maclean]

52 minutes ago, SrMi said:

Rumored 570g vs 856g is a significant difference for a walk-around lens.

I rather have a wider lens that is one stop faster than 300g off my back.

[jaapv]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Maybe but both lenses are 2.8. 

[jaapv]

BTW the Leica 24-70 is a reworked Sigma lens as well

[Einst_Stein]

6 minutes ago, jaapv said:

BTW the Leica 24-70 is a reworked Sigma lens as well

But Leica version has the red dot logo that some people are dreamed of !

[Virob]

I bought the Sigma 28-70/2.8 over the other standard zooms because:

1) it takes 67mm filters like all the L summicrons,  unlike any of the other standard zooms. 
2) it is a lot smaller, more like an F4.0 lenses which is how I mostly treat it, with the bonus that is will go to 2.8 if needed.

3] stopped down, it is excellent, especially between 28-50, where I mainly us it.

4) my favourite lens is the 21 apo. The 28-70 pairs great with it.
5)  My other favourite is the 75 apo, which makes a nice 2 or 3 lens combo.

No, I will not be getting the Leica version.

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Einst_Stein said:

But Leica version has the red dot logo that some people are dreamed of !

Same as with cameras, I don’t care about the logo but about ergonomics.

[jaapv]

Well, the in ergonomic terms, there is very little if any difference between all lenses discussed in this thread. 

[SrMi]

11 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Well, the in ergonomic terms, there is very little if any difference between all lenses discussed in this thread. 

I find quite a bit of a difference between my Sigma and Leica 24-70. Despite the difference in weight that favors the Sigma, I use the Leica version most of the time.

[Oxfordian]

15 hours ago, LD_50 said:

There is a lot of discussion about whether it hurts the brand to essentially rehouse and rebadge cheaper lenses.

This is similar to Hasselblad’s rehouse and rebadge of Sony cameras years ago. It’s pretty well universally accepted it was bad for the brand and would have killed it if they hadn’t changed direction. 

Nikon shut the door to 3rd party lenses when they designed and built their new Z mount, Tamron have now an agreement to build Z mount lenses and the same discussion you mention has been levelled at Nikon for 'copying' or rebadging Tamron lenses rather than building their own but Nikon is very much on the up as a brand.

I'm not a follower of Canon cameras but I believe that Canon don't have any 3rd party lenses for their RF cameras, please correct me if I'm wrong, and are getting flack for this this.

Sony however has a number of different suppliers of lenses for their cameras and seems to be going from strength to strength as a result. You can include Fuji in this as they have an excellent range of crop sensor cameras with a wide range of lens suppliers.

If Leica are going to build the brand and get new users into the family they need to have a wide selection of lenses available. Through Sigma and Panasonic users now have a greater choice of lenses to use on their SL cameras than they ever have. Sigma are updating their Art range to make the range more Mirrorless friendly, their Contemporary range is getting plaudits for the small size and excellent build quality, either range is up their with the best for image quality. I see reviews for Panasonic lenses highlighting just how good they are for the price.

My SL2 came to me as a 'Like New' secondhand camera, it was built in 2020 according to the paperwork that came with it, I have to wonder if the camera has actually seen any serious action as it is so clean and tidy, I certainly cannot afford a set of APO lenses from Leica I may get one or two via the pre-loved market but definitely not new.

For me as a new Leica owner the variety of lenses for the SL2 is wonderful, I can build a system of lenses at price points based on my photographic needs, I'm not hampered by only having expensive Leica lenses to purchase, having this wide selection was one of the key reasons I chose Leica.

I wonder if this collaboration between Leica, Sigma and Panasonic could open the door to a new range of M mount lenses in the future, especially if the M cameras of tomorrow gain some Mirrorless or Q technologies. I can see steam (or is it smoke) rising from diehard M owners if it happens.

Leica are not big enough to keep their range of cameras and lenses up to date in this fast moving technological world, they need help and assistance if their products are going to continue to appeal to users, without Sigma and Panasonic Leica could (maybe would) struggle or even fail, with Sigma and Panasonic they can now operate from a position of strength.

[BernardC]

9 hours ago, jaapv said:

BTW the Leica 24-70 is a reworked Sigma lens as well

While the lens is most likely manufactured by Sigma, it is not the same as either version of Sigma's mirrorless 24-70. It uses more special elements (ED/SLD) than Sigma's first version, and it has a different number of elements/groups than Sigma's second version. All three lenses are very good, as is Panasonic's own 24-70/2.8.

[LD_50]

1 hour ago, Oxfordian said:

Nikon shut the door to 3rd party lenses when they designed and built their new Z mount, Tamron have now an agreement to build Z mount lenses and the same discussion you mention has been levelled at Nikon for 'copying' or rebadging Tamron lenses rather than building their own but Nikon is very much on the up as a brand.

I'm not a follower of Canon cameras but I believe that Canon don't have any 3rd party lenses for their RF cameras, please correct me if I'm wrong, and are getting flack for this this.

Sony however has a number of different suppliers of lenses for their cameras and seems to be going from strength to strength as a result. You can include Fuji in this as they have an excellent range of crop sensor cameras with a wide range of lens suppliers.

If Leica are going to build the brand and get new users into the family they need to have a wide selection of lenses available. Through Sigma and Panasonic users now have a greater choice of lenses to use on their SL cameras than they ever have. Sigma are updating their Art range to make the range more Mirrorless friendly, their Contemporary range is getting plaudits for the small size and excellent build quality, either range is up their with the best for image quality. I see reviews for Panasonic lenses highlighting just how good they are for the price.

My SL2 came to me as a 'Like New' secondhand camera, it was built in 2020 according to the paperwork that came with it, I have to wonder if the camera has actually seen any serious action as it is so clean and tidy, I certainly cannot afford a set of APO lenses from Leica I may get one or two via the pre-loved market but definitely not new.

For me as a new Leica owner the variety of lenses for the SL2 is wonderful, I can build a system of lenses at price points based on my photographic needs, I'm not hampered by only having expensive Leica lenses to purchase, having this wide selection was one of the key reasons I chose Leica.

I wonder if this collaboration between Leica, Sigma and Panasonic could open the door to a new range of M mount lenses in the future, especially if the M cameras of tomorrow gain some Mirrorless or Q technologies. I can see steam (or is it smoke) rising from diehard M owners if it happens.

Leica are not big enough to keep their range of cameras and lenses up to date in this fast moving technological world, they need help and assistance if their products are going to continue to appeal to users, without Sigma and Panasonic Leica could (maybe would) struggle or even fail, with Sigma and Panasonic they can now operate from a position of strength.

I’ve never questioned having a variety of lenses available, or the merits of L mount alliance in general. I own a Sigma macro for my SL system. 

I question the lack of UNIQUE Leica branded lenses for the system while the rebrand/rehouse list keeps growing. 

Nikon is a great comparison I’m familiar with. Sure, rebadging a Tamron or having Tamron build a lens might receive criticism. But what has kept Nikon competitive is their unique lens lineup. See what they’ve done with the Z lens lineup. The Noct, the Plena, the light telephotos, the supertelephotos, the 1.2 primes, etc.  They’ve set themselves up to be a great wildlife option. They’ve always done this with special lenses. They aren’t sales leaders but they’re halo products to aspire to. 

I fail to see how this is supports Leica’s rebadge/rehouse strategy. 

Edited Monday at 12:14 PM by LD_50

[jaapv]

35 minutes ago, BernardC said:

While the lens is most likely manufactured by Sigma, it is not the same as either version of Sigma's mirrorless 24-70. It uses more special elements (ED/SLD) than Sigma's first version, and it has a different number of elements/groups than Sigma's second version. All three lenses are very good, as is Panasonic's own 24-70/2.8.

Yes. I said reworked. 

[Oxfordian]

2 hours ago, LD_50 said:

I’ve never questioned having a variety of lenses available, or the merits of L mount alliance in general. I own a Sigma macro for my SL system. 

I question the lack of UNIQUE Leica branded lenses for the system while the rebrand/rehouse list keeps growing. 

Nikon is a great comparison I’m familiar with. Sure, rebadging a Tamron or having Tamron build a lens might receive criticism. But what has kept Nikon competitive is their unique lens lineup. See what they’ve done with the Z lens lineup. The Noct, the Plena, the light telephotos, the supertelephotos, the 1.2 primes, etc.  They’ve set themselves up to be a great wildlife option. They’ve always done this with special lenses. They aren’t sales leaders but they’re halo products to aspire to. 

I fail to see how this is supports Leica’s rebadge/rehouse strategy. 

Nikon's Noct was there at the beginning of the Z mount launch, the Plena is a more recent arrival with 6 or so years between them. When Nikon started the Z mount there was a real deficit of lenses for the cameras, and as an owner of the original Z7 I was gutted with the lack of choice for native lenses. Yes I could mount my F mount via the FTZ but a big DSLR lens became even bigger and not easy to handle and I really wish that Nikon had a collaboration with a 3rd party from the outset.

You're right that Nikon now have a very good and diverse range of lenses but it has taken time, in my view I believe it is because Nikon is a bigger company than Leica (I could be wrong) with the ability to bring products from design to market much much quicker.

There is also a question that needs to be asked, a Nikon 600mm/f4 costs £13,000, what would a Leica version cost if it was made and how many would be sold? As an aside the Sigma 300-600/f4 is a shade under £6k, less than half the price of the Nikon and arguably more flexible. The market for big telephoto's is limited, Leica isn't the swiftest AF whereas CaNikony have cameras with exceptional AF capabilities, if I were into photography that required the use of long tele lenses on a regular basis I am fairly sure that I wouldn't be using a Leica system but one from Nikon, Canon or Sony.

Why haven't Leica followed the example of CaNikony and developed a wider range of lenses incorporating ultra fast primes or big telephoto's or other unique lenses for the SL series my guess that the answer is cost and limited interest. Yes they will sell these lenses but will they sell them in sufficient quantity to recover the costs incurred to design and bring them to market?

An Leica APO prime lens costs around £4500, what would the price of a 85mm f1.2 or a SL 50mm Noct or a 135mm f1.8 made to the same standard as the APO range? I think that this is the limiting factor for Leica, they must sell products to stay in business and I wonder whether there really is the requirement to produce their own f1.2 range of lenses when they have a partner who will do it for them. As an example the Sigma 50mm f1.2 DGDN Art is £1300, the 35mm f1.2 is £1350. In reality I could buy both the 35 and 50 1.2 Sigma's, add in a wide angle and short tele from their Art range and spend about the same as one APO lens.

Don't get me wrong I think that the Leica SL system is brilliant and it works perfectly for me, I don't foresee having to buy a long lens at any point in the future nor do I need an ultra fast prime but if my needs change I know that within the L mount consortium I can buy a lens that will do the job from one of the partners.

Edited Monday at 02:12 PM by Oxfordian

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[S Maclean]

11 hours ago, jaapv said:

BTW the Leica 24-70 is a reworked Sigma lens as well

Yea, I know.  I actually had that one, traded it for a 24-90 and then ended up getting the sigma 24-70 II 

[LD_50]

3 hours ago, Oxfordian said:

Nikon's Noct was there at the beginning of the Z mount launch, the Plena is a more recent arrival with 6 or so years between them. When Nikon started the Z mount there was a real deficit of lenses for the cameras, and as an owner of the original Z7 I was gutted with the lack of choice for native lenses. Yes I could mount my F mount via the FTZ but a big DSLR lens became even bigger and not easy to handle and I really wish that Nikon had a collaboration with a 3rd party from the outset.

You're right that Nikon now have a very good and diverse range of lenses but it has taken time, in my view I believe it is because Nikon is a bigger company than Leica (I could be wrong) with the ability to bring products from design to market much much quicker.

There is also a question that needs to be asked, a Nikon 600mm/f4 costs £13,000, what would a Leica version cost if it was made and how many would be sold? As an aside the Sigma 300-600/f4 is a shade under £6k, less than half the price of the Nikon and arguably more flexible. The market for big telephoto's is limited, Leica isn't the swiftest AF whereas CaNikony have cameras with exceptional AF capabilities, if I were into photography that required the use of long tele lenses on a regular basis I am fairly sure that I wouldn't be using a Leica system but one from Nikon, Canon or Sony.

Why haven't Leica followed the example of CaNikony and developed a wider range of lenses incorporating ultra fast primes or big telephoto's or other unique lenses for the SL series my guess that the answer is cost and limited interest. Yes they will sell these lenses but will they sell them in sufficient quantity to recover the costs incurred to design and bring them to market?

An Leica APO prime lens costs around £4500, what would the price of a 85mm f1.2 or a SL 50mm Noct or a 135mm f1.8 made to the same standard as the APO range? I think that this is the limiting factor for Leica, they must sell products to stay in business and I wonder whether there really is the requirement to produce their own f1.2 range of lenses when they have a partner who will do it for them. As an example the Sigma 50mm f1.2 DGDN Art is £1300, the 35mm f1.2 is £1350. In reality I could buy both the 35 and 50 1.2 Sigma's, add in a wide angle and short tele from their Art range and spend about the same as one APO lens.

Don't get me wrong I think that the Leica SL system is brilliant and it works perfectly for me, I don't foresee having to buy a long lens at any point in the future nor do I need an ultra fast prime but if my needs change I know that within the L mount consortium I can buy a lens that will do the job from one of the partners.

I don’t think Leica needs similar lenses to Nikon. I wouldn’t expect Leica supertelephotos or the large range that Nikon offers. That wasn’t the point at all, it was offering unique lenses to the mount.

I do think Nikon needs unique lenses when compared to Sony and Canon. If they simply rebadged/rehoused Sigma or Tamron, there would be little reason to choose them over Sony or Canon, who both offer unique lenses and in Sony’s case those very similar or same lenses from the other brands. 

I do think Leica needs unique lenses. They’ve shown this works with the M, and originally it’s half of what got me into the SL (the other being the ability to use those unique M lenses).

If Leica only produced M or SL lenses that were rebadged/rehoused versions of Zeiss, Voigtlander, Sigma, and Panasonic, I wouldn’t own either the M or SL systems. I just don’t want that to be the future of the SL system.

The same goes for the S system, it was attractive to me because of the unique set of lenses (outside the AF reliability problems). If they had produced a mirrorless body, I would have bought in because of that unique set of lenses. If the lenses had been rebadged/rehoused Fuji or Hasselblad, I would never have considered it.