Looking for a smaller & lighter 50mm .... Sigma DG DN 50mm f2.0 Contemporary - versus SL 50mm ASPH (non-APO)?

[Jon Warwick]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I already have the Sigma 50mm DG DN 50mm 1.4, and what a brilliant lens it is in terms of image quality, even forgetting the price tag, IMHO.

I'm looking now for a smaller and lighter L-Mount 50mm lens for travel.

I bought the Panasonic S 50mm 1.8, but cannot get the sides to be even vaguely sharp, even when stopped down to f8 - maybe I had poor luck and simply got a very bad copy?

Regardless, I am now considering 2 lenses (either Sigma DG DN 50mm f2.0 Contemporary, or SL 50mm ASPH non-APO) - and hoping that one or both provide true edge sharpness stopped down.

Anyone experience one versus the other, or at least have a view on them individually?

Many thanks

[Advertisement]

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

[Chosemerveilleux]

Regarding the Panny 50 1.8, that does indeed sound like you got an iffy one. My copy is sharp from edge to edge by f5.6.

I personally don't have any of the Sigma contemporary lenses. I'm not particularly fond of the line's very limited effort at weather resistance, so besides the 90 f 2.8 (which due to its size and FL are interesting to me as a very compact light tele) I've no interest in them. 

I have the Panny 35, 50, and 85, and they're all quite good; But I can't help wonder if the Leica versions of the 35 and 50 have a bit "extra" going on. I just don't know if that extra is worth paying so much more for them to get though.

That being said, I recently picked up the Leica 28-70 2.8, and had the opportunity to use a friend's Sigma Contemporary version. Their copy was noticeably weaker from the outer third to the extreme edges and contrast generally seemed a bit lower. But again that could be a weak copy of the Sigma, or better coatings on the Leica. I would hope there would be less sample variation in the Leica version, so perhaps its worth it just for that?

Dennis 

Edited Wednesday at 04:25 PM by Chosemerveilleux
capitalization correction

[Jon Warwick]

That’s really helpful. Many thanks for your comments! I will try another sample of the Panasonic 50 1.8 as a starting point. I got it new but as a discounted “white box” version, which was a bit odd, so maybe there’s more to why it might be a poor copy? Who knows. Separately, for the price differential, I’d assume that Leica copies have less sample variation and higher quality control.

Edited Wednesday at 05:24 PM by Jon Warwick

[Jon Warwick]

2 hours ago, Chosemerveilleux said:

Regarding the Panny 50 1.8, that does indeed sound like you got an iffy one. My copy is sharp from edge to edge by f5.6.

 

I’ve now found some files from this S 50mm 1.8 lens (on DP Review), and one of them at f4 shows a cityscape that’s a good test - and it looks very sharp from edge-to-edge, and completely different to any f-stop on my sample. So I think your comment is likely correct, sounds like I got an iffy one. Thanks again for your help.

[Chosemerveilleux]

1 hour ago, Jon Warwick said:

I’ve now found some files from this S 50mm 1.8 lens (on DP Review), and one of them at f4 shows a cityscape that’s a good test - and it looks very sharp from edge-to-edge, and completely different to any f-stop on my sample. So I think your comment is likely correct, sounds like I got an iffy one. Thanks again for your help.

Yes no worries. I think one of the potential issues with the Panny 50 (and to a lesser extent perhaps the other cheap and cheerful primes they offer) is that they're likely not as rigorous with controlling for sample variation as say, the Leica factory where their variant is produced (I think Portugal but I could be wrong there). I paid $265 new for mine, which likely means there's a much wider acceptable range of being "in specification" (amongst a long list of other variables)for them in order to sell that lens at that price and not have that model sell for less than it costs to make. I don't know how much Panasonic cares if every few lenses are on the minimum spec end of things. Leica would be dragged mercilessly were they to put out a varient of the same lens (priced at a factor of over 7 times more) and have it be a dog. 

Dennis 

[PhotoCruiser]

I have 3 Sigma ART lenses and they are great, but the 14mm very heavy and bulky, the 28mm acceptable and the 105mm is fine for it's size.
Sigma has probably the higher quality control then Panasonic and some claim the the contemporary series is not much below their ART series.
Should i need a 50mm lens for travel i would first check if there is a reasonable good optical quality pancake lens if available.
However, it depends on what model of camera the lens goes.

A good solution is always either renting or borrowing one for testing the lens throughly.

Chris 

[Oxfordian]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have the Leica 50mm (non APO) and it is excellent, a lovely lens images wide open are sharp as a tac and it balances well on my SL2, at some point I will add the Leica 35mm (non Apo) as well but that's not an immediate purchase.

I was interested in your comment about your Panasonic 50 and coming out of a white box, I had their 85/1.8, purchased secondhand and that came as a white box lens, it developed communication issues and had to be returned, its replacement again secondhand but this one came in a pukka Panasonic box, and in some weird way seems different from the first lens, I cannot believe that Panasonic would have two different standards for lenses unless white box lenses are repaired/seconds/returned versions, very odd.

[Jon Warwick]

1 hour ago, Oxfordian said:

I have the Leica 50mm (non APO) and it is excellent, a lovely lens images wide open are sharp as a tac and it balances well on my SL2, at some point I will add the Leica 35mm (non Apo) as well but that's not an immediate purchase.

I was interested in your comment about your Panasonic 50 and coming out of a white box, I had their 85/1.8, purchased secondhand and that came as a white box lens, it developed communication issues and had to be returned, its replacement again secondhand but this one came in a pukka Panasonic box, and in some weird way seems different from the first lens, I cannot believe that Panasonic would have two different standards for lenses unless white box lenses are repaired/seconds/returned versions, very odd.

Thanks for your comment. Yes, I was told the lens should be the same, whether in a white box or regular box. I think I perhaps just got bad luck with a really poor example. I read on the internet that the white boxes might normally be used for bundles (with a camera body) or promotions??

Edited 20 hours ago by Jon Warwick

[BernardC]

16 hours ago, Chosemerveilleux said:

Yes no worries. I think one of the potential issues with the Panny 50 (and to a lesser extent perhaps the other cheap and cheerful primes they offer) is that they're likely not as rigorous with controlling for sample variation as say, the Leica factory where their variant is produced (I think Portugal but I could be wrong there). I paid $265 new for mine

The ASPH 35 and 50 are a special case, because Leica assembles them at their Portugal factory, using their own QC protocols. Some people here have said that Leica grinds their own aspherical elements in Portugal as well. This is hearsay, of course, but it's not impossible since Leica grinds other lens elements in Portugal.

It's not hard to imagine why a lens with a target price under $300 might not be as good as a lens with a much higher selling price, even if the basic design is the same and some of the components are shared (electronics, motors/actuators, etc). 

The Sigma-sourced lenses are different because they come from the same Japanese factory as Sigma's own lenses. One assumes that Leica sets their own QC targets, meaning that a lens that passes as a Sigma could fail as a Leica, but the overall production process should be the same. The 24-70 has a small asterisk in this case because it has a different optical design than either of Sigma's 24-70 zooms.

[Ivar B]

I just read a review where a tester compared Panasonic S 1.8/50 to Sigma DG DN 2.0/50mm.

I terms of optical performance, the Sigma was the clear winner. No nontest.

Knowing that the non-apo Summicron SL 2/50 is identical to the Panasonic S 1.8/50, choosing Sigma should be easy. 

[dem331]

The Sigma is also considerably smaller - 68 mm long and 70mm diameter compared to 82x74 of the Panasonic (although it weighs slightly more) 

[Chris Nebard]

I can only say that the Sigma i Contemporary range suits my SL2-s perfectly. The size, tactile usability and results are all very good. And I do like the colours.  I don’t use them in storm conditions - I don’t photograph in extreme weather - but they seem to be fine in light rain. I just don’t go out of my way to unnecessarily drench them. I certainly trust them to cope with the same conditions I’d put my M lenses through. The i Contemporaries are sealed at the mount, so that’s at least one advantage they have over my M lenses. As for the Sigma 50 f.2, I’m sad to say that I’ve not tried it yet but, as Ivar B suggests, the odd review I’ve seen say that it’s at least as good a performer, optically, as the Panasonic f1.8 or the Leica f2 non-Apo. And it has the benefit of an aperture ring. The f-stop used is also correctly recorded in the exif data - another advantage over my M lenses (where the f-stop is guesstimated). I have the 24 f3.5, 35 f2, 45 f2.8, and I wouldn’t hesitate to get the 50 i Contemporary if I needed a fifty. As it is, I will be getting the 90 f2.8 to add to my others. My M-Summicron 50, Summarit 75, 24-75 SL Vario Elmarit, are beautiful lenses but the Sigmas more than hold their own. I find them to be terrific lenses to use. 

Edited 16 hours ago by Chris Nebard
Typo