Leica 28-70 vs 24-70

[SudaliuS]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Have a nice day everyone!

After a couple of months of using the SL2-s with the Lumix S 50mm lens, I had a strong desire to buy one of the zooms for the SL system. To be honest, when I bought the SL2-s, I didn't think that I would shoot with it more often than with my current M11. I thought that I would play with it and sell it. But in reality, I want to go further with this camera and for versatility I need a zoom lens.

I read a lot of good reviews about the 24-90, but it is quite expensive and questionable in terms of dimensions for me. Therefore, the obvious choice for me fell on the new 28-70 and the older 24-70. In fact, it is possible to buy these two lenses new for the same price. But I have to wait a couple of weeks for the 28-70, and I want the lens here and now))

I don't really need the 24mm and it is a little confusing that the lens is made in Japan, not Germany. Plus, some friends say that the 24-70 has a "boring and flat picture".

I wrote this text and it seems that I have already answered the question for myself which lens I need) But I would probably still like to ask you what you would choose in my place? And what are the strengths of the 24-70 lens that I don't see yet?

[Advertisement]

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

[Printmaker]

Both lenses are made in the Sigma factory in Japan. The only difference is the Leica version is made to Leica specs to conform to the SL standards. Optical they are the same.

 I purchased the Sigma 28-70 and the 100-400 several years ago and have been extremely impressed with the quality of construction and the results. Leica must have been as well as they subcontracted Sigma to make the Leica versions. Yes, it would be nice to have the metal versions but they were not available when I needed them. And they are significantly more expensive. At that time I was shooting with the SL type 601 and using my M glass. The results were pretty good but I felt the need for a few autofocus zooms. Leica’s 24-90 was simply too large and cumbersome. So I bought the 28-70 and Sigma’s 105 Macro. I added the 100-400 together with a SL2S shortly after. When Leica put the SL2 on sale, I added one to the kit. I couldn’t be more pleased.

I’ve never used the 24-70 but Sigma makes a 16-28 that gets excellent reviews. Based on my experience with the other Sigma lenses and the fact that Leica is willing to put their name on the others, I plan to add one to my collection.
 

 Only you can decide if the metal barrel and Leica badge is worth more than twice the price. All I can say is I’ve put thousands of miles bouncing around the back country with the Sigma lenses without any issues. 

You can check out some of the photos taken with these lenses in my Africa portfolios here:

http://www.barefootinkauai.com

[SudaliuS]

@Printmaker
Thanks for your reply. I've read a lot about Sigma lenses and for various reasons I've decided that they're not for me. If not Leica, I'd rather go with Panasonic Lumix. I read that Sigma isn't very good in terms of weather protection...
In my first post I was referring to the new Leica SL 28-70 lens🙂

[beewee]

I just posted this comparison: 

 

[Printmaker]

1 hour ago, SudaliuS said:

@Printmaker
Thanks for your reply. I've read a lot about Sigma lenses and for various reasons I've decided that they're not for me. If not Leica, I'd rather go with Panasonic Lumix. I read that Sigma isn't very good in terms of weather protection...
In my first post I was referring to the new Leica SL 28-70 lens🙂

The Leica 28-70 is made by Sigma. I have had mine in the rain and very dusty conditions without issue but by all means get the Leica version.

[Chris Nebard]

14 hours ago, Printmaker said:

Both lenses are made in the Sigma factory in Japan. The only difference is the Leica version is made to Leica specs to conform to the SL standards. Optical they are the same.

 I purchased the Sigma 28-70 and the 100-400 several years ago and have been extremely impressed with the quality of construction and the results. Leica must have been as well as they subcontracted Sigma to make the Leica versions. Yes, it would be nice to have the metal versions but they were not available when I needed them. And they are significantly more expensive. At that time I was shooting with the SL type 601 and using my M glass. The results were pretty good but I felt the need for a few autofocus zooms. Leica’s 24-90 was simply too large and cumbersome. So I bought the 28-70 and Sigma’s 105 Macro. I added the 100-400 together with a SL2S shortly after. When Leica put the SL2 on sale, I added one to the kit. I couldn’t be more pleased.

I’ve never used the 24-70 but Sigma makes a 16-28 that gets excellent reviews. Based on my experience with the other Sigma lenses and the fact that Leica is willing to put their name on the others, I plan to add one to my collection.
 

 Only you can decide if the metal barrel and Leica badge is worth more than twice the price. All I can say is I’ve put thousands of miles bouncing around the back country with the Sigma lenses without any issues. 

You can check out some of the photos taken with these lenses in my Africa portfolios here:

http://www.barefootinkauai.com

Great shots, thanks for sharing them 

[harbelot]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sigma 28-70 Contemporary.

It's a decent lens!

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!

[Jeff S]

The Leica SL 28-70 is better weather sealed than the Sigma 28-70, according to Gaston Shutters’ experience..

I can’t speak to the Sigma 24-70 as a comparison.  But as an owner of the Leica SL 24-90, I’m waiting for an available Leica 28-70 as a compact alternative.
 

Fwiw, Sigma’s Pro lens line is better weather sealed than their Contemporary lenses like the compact zooms.  For these I prefer the all-metal, more minimalist, Leica counterparts.  I wish, however, that all these lenses, including the 24-90, had internal zoom for even better sealing and balance, but we apparently can’t have it all.

[jaapv]

After fifty years of non-weather sealed lenses without a single one with moisture damage, I think that this marketing feature is rather overrated. 

[justru49]

vor 12 Minuten schrieb jaapv:

After fifty years of non-weather sealed lenses without a single one with moisture damage, I think that this marketing feature is rather overrated. 

The problems beginn with electronics inside

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

After fifty years of non-weather sealed lenses without a single one with moisture damage, I think that this marketing feature is rather overrated. 

Tell that to Gaston Shutters, whose 28-70 fogged up twice in the rain and became unusable. The Leica counterpart, under identical conditions, was fine.  

I have friends who regularly travel to places like Iceland and have been exposed to unavoidable crazy wind, rain and ice for hours at a time.  They surely would not rely on Sigma Contemporary lenses for the trip. 

[SudaliuS]

Sometimes I have a trips to Siberia where lot of snow and temperature is about -25-30 celsius 🤗

Edited September 2 by SudaliuS

[jaapv]

1 hour ago, justru49 said:

The problems beginn with electronics inside

That is quite true.

[jaapv]

21 hours ago, SudaliuS said:

@Printmaker
Thanks for your reply. I've read a lot about Sigma lenses and for various reasons I've decided that they're not for me. If not Leica, I'd rather go with Panasonic Lumix. I read that Sigma isn't very good in terms of weather protection...
In my first post I was referring to the new Leica SL 28-70 lens🙂

That depends. The Contemporary series is limited, but the Art is better and the Sports lenses are very well sealed. 

[Chris Nebard]

If featured weather sealing is mandatory for the OP, on the zoom range he mentions, then I think either the 24-70 or 28-70 Leicas might be the best bet. I’ve no experience with the 28-70 but the 24-70 is a great performer. I’ve never found it “boring & flat” to quote the earlier post - quite the contrary to be honest. Lovely lens. 

Edited September 2 by Chris Nebard

[Bikie John]

18 hours ago, jaapv said:

After fifty years of non-weather sealed lenses without a single one with moisture damage, I think that this marketing feature is rather overrated. 

After getting rain inside the lovely Olympus 250mm f/2 while shooting a rugby match, which necessitated an expensive repair, I value this "marketing feature" very highly.

John

[jaapv]

Of course, but the problem is that weather sealed is by no means waterproof.
Very few lenses boast an IP rating and you will find that guarantees exclude moisture damage. And if something is rated it is like IP 54:  maximum. 15 degrees from vertical and maximum half an hour. Certainly not all day or a rain storm coming in horizontally.
The best you can say: It helps but you still need to take care. 

[Stuart Richardson]

19 hours ago, Jeff S said:

Tell that to Gaston Shutters, whose 28-70 fogged up twice in the rain and became unusable. The Leica counterpart, under identical conditions, was fine.  

I have friends who regularly travel to places like Iceland and have been exposed to unavoidable crazy wind, rain and ice for hours at a time.  They surely would not rely on Sigma Contemporary lenses for the trip. 

I live here and use the 24 3.5 and never gave it any extra thought. Nor have I ever had a problem...with ANY lens. That includes large format lenses, medium format, Leica M etc. A little drizzle or blown snow is unlikely to affect a lens. Heavy, driving rain, seawater or submersion are of course a different matter. Iceland has low humidity indoors, so perhaps that has dried any residual moisture out in between, but just wanted to interject that this has not really been an issue for me here at least. 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Jeff S]

8 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

 A little drizzle or blown snow is unlikely to affect a lens. Heavy, driving rain, seawater or submersion are of course a different matter. 

I was thinking about the write up here, in particular the first pic.  Not exactly a little drizzle. 

And the video from Gaston Shutters I linked demonstrated real life experience with the Sigma 28-70 fogging up, twice… in NYC, I think. Doesn’t have to be Iceland, and doesn’t mean that the lens is destroyed, just disabled.

[Stuart Richardson]

I don't know what to say man...I have lived here twenty years and photograph all year round. Yes, if it is pouring rain or you want to stick your camera under waterfall spray, then yes. But I think the issue is wildly overblown by adventure-seeking photographers who live in the suburbs. My advice: 1. Get a bag and keep your gear in it when it is raining. 2. Carry a towel in the car to dry off the gear after you use it. 3. Try to minimize the exposure to the rain by covering it with your jacket in between pictures or keep it in the bag, as said before. If you want to photograph while it is actually raining heavily for long periods, then get a sealed camera/lens combo. I will certainly say that if you are in very bad conditions, a sealed combo is nice because then you don't have to think about it. But for me at least, I could not let that stop me as my most often used cameras are unsealed (just like every camera older than about 15 years old). You just have to use common sense. If the gear is professional and you take reasonable precautions, you should be fine. 

The picture below was one of the only times I have been really caught out. I was helping with the sheep roundup in autumn, so I could not carry a bag, only the camera and an extra lens and some film. I was using the Mamiya 7II. The conditions changed and it turned into driving rain. I tried to protect the camera but was out for hours. The Mamiya is an unsealed electronic camera (shutter, meter). It got very wet during the day. I was quite worried. I dried it off when I got in. It was fine. The camera is 25 years old and this was 10 years ago. It is still fine. It is hard to tell how hard it was raining in the small picture, but you might be able to see how wet the people working on the fence are. And yes, my RF was off lol. So it was all mostly for naught. Again, I am not saying nothing can go wrong, just that I think people worry about it a bit too much. 

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 September 3 by Stuart Richardson