New: Leica Vario-Elmarit-SL 28–70 f/2.8 ASPH.

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

Are we looking at a different MPB? The latest model "like new" starts around 800,

https://www.mpb.com/en-eu/product/sony-fe-70-200mm-f-4-g-oss
 

perhaps the ones you see are without sales tax? By default, in Europe, VAT is always included in the price from the start. 

2 hours ago, BernardC said:

700 on a 2,000 lens is roughly 1/3, which is in-line with the 20% trade-in I mentioned.

No, you got it wrong, the price of that lens brand new is 1500, not 2000. Even at 700€ it’s still about 50%. 

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!

[BernardC]

29 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

No, you got it wrong, the price of that lens brand new is 1500, not 2000.

You are the one who said 2000: 

4 hours ago, Simone_DF said:

The Sony 70-200 F4 II is 1999€ brand new on Amazon. 

 

[jaapv]

On 6/30/2025 at 3:22 AM, hellobrandonscott said:

Just arrived. Love the intent behind designing its form factor.

 

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!

Now that I thoroughly dislike. Despite that having all lenses identical looks pretty, it is a PITA having to select one from your bag.  

[Jeff S]

1 hour ago, jaapv said:

Now that I thoroughly dislike. Despite that having all lenses identical looks pretty, it is a PITA having to select one from your bag.  

Well, the zoom will be much lighter and presumably one wouldn’t need most of the rest while traveling light with it. I, for one, never shoot with a bag full of lenses anyway. The approach did save money for Leica, sharing barrels and various internal parts, so hopefully that also translated to lower prices.  That said, I would have preferred that at least the 35 APO were smaller, as Karbe said it would have been relatively easy to do, even if economies of scale (prices) were sacrificed (and perhaps a bit of IQ). 

[jaapv]

It was the same with the Summarit-M series. 

[Archiver]

4 hours ago, jaapv said:

Now that I thoroughly dislike. Despite that having all lenses identical looks pretty, it is a PITA having to select one from your bag.  

Depending on the bag and how one positions the lenses, labeled end caps and rear caps can help:

 

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!

[Simone_DF]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

11 hours ago, BernardC said:

You are the one who said 2000: 

 

You're mixing up the first vs second version of this lens:

Sony 70-200 F4 version I (2014-2023): MSRP 1500€, used 800-900€

Sony 70-200 F4 Macro version II (2023-present): MSRP 2000€, used 1500€

 

So no, you're wrong. No Sony, Canon or Nikon lens devalues to 20% like you claim.

[BernardC]

Oh please, it's too late to change what you wrote. Even if you cherry-pick a very high-priced used seller, Sony's older lenses sell for about a third of new, whereas a lens like the 24-90 sells for half of new even though it's been out for a decade.

That's what professionals who shoots Sony tell me. Their old lenses aren't worth anything, and they need to replace them often. It's a business expense, so presumably the maths work-out for them.

[Simone_DF]

On 7/6/2025 at 3:41 PM, Simone_DF said:

Can you post some real example? Or did you just make that up? I went and checked on MPB.com. I picked Sony because it's the only mirrorless brand older than 10 years. Canon and Nikon came later on.

Sony 55mm, 750€ brand new, 450€ used. Release date 2013.

Sony 70-200 F4, first model, 1500€ brand new, 900€ used. Release date 2014.

Sony 70-200 F2.8, first model, 3100 brand new, 1900€ brand used. Release date 2016.

Sony 28mm, one the weakest lens in that lineup, 380€ new, 250€ used. Release date 205.

@BernardC nope, I did write it correctly in the first post quoted above, pointing out it was the first model and with the release date. Not my problem if you don't know that there are two versions of the lens. You should familiarise yourself with Sony and other brands before making bold statements about prices.

Besides, I'm not cherry picking any seller. I choose MPB because it's a well known platforms for used gear, and one that offers returns at that. It's not something like "I heard it from the cousin of the neighbour of the friend of my nephew". 

Please do post proofs that Sony, Canon or Nikon mirrorless lenses devalue to 20%, because as it is now, it only speculation from your side.

Edited July 8 by Simone_DF

[BernardC]

15 minutes ago, Simone_DF said:

Besides, I'm not cherry picking any seller. I choose MPB because it's a well known platforms for used gear, and one that offers returns at that. It's not something like "I heard it from the cousin of the neighbour of the friend of my nephew". 

Please do post proofs that Sony, Canon or Nikon mirrorless lenses devalue to 20%, because as it is now, it only speculation from your side.

I did post examples, and frankly so did you. While the most expensive previous-gen 70-200 at MPB is still under half of the replacement price (not some price from years ago, the price that's available today), they have other copies that are significantly cheaper. I've never dealt with MPB, maybe their prices are justified through excellent service. All I know about them are some complaint threads on this forum, and also the fact that they sponsor a few YT channels. A quick scan of European retailers that I've dealt with tells me that the going rate for a previous-gen Sony 70-200 is around 1/3 of today's new price, which translates to a trade-in around 25% or 20% of the new price (depending on whether it's a trade or a straight sale, and your relationship with the shop). A similar scan of used 24-90 prices has them at just over half of the new price at reputable retailers.

This tracks with North American prices, and also with what Sony shooters tell me. Maybe you can find exceptions, where a shop is selling Leica zooms at much lower prices. If that's the case, and the lens is in good shape, buy it!

None of this is controversial. Sony shooters tell me that they trade-in their lenses when the warranty runs-out. It's a business expense, and worth it for them because they like the system (their professional video cameras are very good). I'm sure they wish they could get more on resale, but it's a relatively small difference in their bottom line.

[hellobrandonscott]

On 7/4/2025 at 6:32 AM, jacopastorius said:

thanks. I already checked those videos but they are not a truly and detailed review of the lens. Just a first "hands on"

 

[SrMi]

The lens looks really good and produces good results (initial testing). It will replace my 24-70/2.8 as my main travel lens.

[TeleElmar135mm]

Beside the discussion which is better, the sigma or the Leica, I found that in the technical datas is a difference in the angele of view. The sigma has 75,4 - 34,3 and the leica 73,8 - 35,4 degree. This could come from the different flange focal distance - Sigma is also producing this lens for Sony e-mount. On the other hand Leica could have make some corrction to improve the lens for the SL-System. We will never know  

[beewee]

17 hours ago, TeleElmar135mm said:

Beside the discussion which is better, the sigma or the Leica, I found that in the technical datas is a difference in the angele of view. The sigma has 75,4 - 34,3 and the leica 73,8 - 35,4 degree. This could come from the different flange focal distance - Sigma is also producing this lens for Sony e-mount. On the other hand Leica could have make some corrction to improve the lens for the SL-System. We will never know  

I see that the Sigma and Leica have the same magnification ratio and minimum focusing distance. I think the different angle of view is more likely from different definitions. Leica is likely using the distortion corrected angle of view whereas Sigma is using uncorrected angle of view.

For L-mount lenses, there’s built-in correction at least on Leica bodies for distortion correction. However, Sigma lenses on Sony does not have distortion correction built into the camera. So for that reason, Sigma is probably quoting the uncorrected angle of view and leaving out the distortion corrected angle of view to avoid confusing people.

[DenverSteve]

 

On 6/18/2025 at 8:07 AM, Ivar B said:

I believe I have read that the Sigma 24-70 clearly outperforms the 28-70 optically, but much more expensive as well. I guess it is likely to be like this also for the "Leica" 24-70 and 28-70? I know the 28-70 will be cheaper, but will it match the 24-70 optically?

As you stated elsewhere............... Interesting. Is there a www you can share?

 

[Chosemerveilleux]

On 7/17/2025 at 12:53 PM, SrMi said:

The lens looks really good and produces good results (initial testing). It will replace my 24-70/2.8 as my main travel lens.

It is a lovely lens. Picked my copy up yesterday and used it today with my SL2S on a hike. Produced some lovely images.

While I was at the Leica Boutique picking up the 28-70 I checked out the 24-90. This is absolutely just my opinion but I would never use a lens that heavy, especially one that heavy that wasn't covering at least 70-200 at a constant f2.8. The weight is a complete non starter. I am definitely not nostalgic for some of the boat anchor camera and lens combinations from the pro dslr days, and the heft of the SL plus these larger SL zooms like the 24-90 and the 90-280 is just too much for me. 

But the 28-70 (and the APO primes) are right in the goldilocks zone for me, which is honestly a bit unfortunate because I see what I'll be budgeting for lens wise over the next eighteen months or so. Ouch.

Dennis 

[SrMi]

I think the most interesting alternative to 28-70 is the 24-60, lighter, and the difference between 24 and 28 is larger than between 60 and 70.

[Chosemerveilleux]

18 hours ago, SrMi said:

I think the most interesting alternative to 28-70 is the 24-60, lighter, and the difference between 24 and 28 is larger than between 60 and 70.

I have the 20-60 kit lens, which is hilariously good for the money (especially as I picked up a used copy for $200). I think my issue with the 24mm focal length is that it introduces a decent amount of distortion while not truly being "wide". When I look at my focal length usage on the wider end I see a lot of time spent at 28, followed by 20, 21, and 18mm depending on what lens and camera I'm using. I almost never find myself seeing a composition in 24mm, let alone missing that focal length when I don't have it. 

I'll be using the 28-70 for a good amount of event work in closer spaces with fair to middlin light. I use 24mm even less indoors photographing people than I do out photographing landscapes and architecture. And indoors losing 10mm on the long end would have me running out of range more than a little bit. For me an interesting proposition is the Sigma 28-105 2.8, with the Rokinon 35-150 f2-2.8 a distant second (but I've heard too many bad things about its inconsistent autofocus to go that route). But these are very specific to the type spaces that I find myself working in. Both are also too heavy and unwieldy for me to ever want to cart them around for personal photography.

Dennis 

[SrMi]

3 hours ago, Chosemerveilleux said:

I have the 20-60 kit lens, which is hilariously good for the money (especially as I picked up a used copy for $200). I think my issue with the 24mm focal length is that it introduces a decent amount of distortion while not truly being "wide". When I look at my focal length usage on the wider end I see a lot of time spent at 28, followed by 20, 21, and 18mm depending on what lens and camera I'm using. I almost never find myself seeing a composition in 24mm, let alone missing that focal length when I don't have it. 

I'll be using the 28-70 for a good amount of event work in closer spaces with fair to middlin light. I use 24mm even less indoors photographing people than I do out photographing landscapes and architecture. And indoors losing 10mm on the long end would have me running out of range more than a little bit. For me an interesting proposition is the Sigma 28-105 2.8, with the Rokinon 35-150 f2-2.8 a distant second (but I've heard too many bad things about its inconsistent autofocus to go that route). But these are very specific to the type spaces that I find myself working in. Both are also too heavy and unwieldy for me to ever want to cart them around for personal photography.

Dennis 

Here is the simulation of 24 vs 28, and 60 vs 70. The difference between 60 and 70 seems quite small and can be compensated with slight cropping.

 

 

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!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Chosemerveilleux]

13 hours ago, SrMi said:

Here is the simulation of 24 vs 28, and 60 vs 70. The difference between 60 and 70 seems quite small and can be compensated with slight cropping.

 

 

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!

Valid and interesting diagram. I reckon one of the primary things that drove my purchase of the 28-70 2.8 vs 24-60 2.8 is that I find myself using 70mm far more than 24mm (And by far more I mean a nice amount for one and almost never for the other), so I would rather have an option available that I use relatively frequently than one I rarely use at all.

Given how many folks I know who love spending time at the 24mm FL I am very likely an outlier. I'm okay with that, especially as 28mm is one of my favorite FLs.

 

Dennis