"Taking a look at the provided MTF charts for 70, 120 and 200mm, at f/2.8, f/5.6 and f/8, we can see that the lens is capable of resolving 40 lp/mm at about 90% contrast wide-open at all focal lengths. Aberrations are well-controlled and sharpness is consistent across the frame, only falling off slightly in the extreme corners. While not quite up to the reference class optical performance of the APO-Vario Elmarit-SL 90-280mm, the 70-200mm isn't too far off, while offering a constant f/2.8 aperture throughout the range.
In addition to quick and quiet autofocus, the 70-200mm features OIS, or optical image stabilization. When used on an original SL (Typ 601) the lens provides a 3.5 stops of effective stabilization. When used on SL2, SL2-S or SL3, all of which offer sensor-based IBIS, effective stabilization increases to around 6-stops. Autofocus is quick and quiet, with all internal focus and zoom operation. The lens also has an rotating tripod collar with removable tripod foot, which is Arca-Swiss compatible."Red Dot
Forum https://www.reddotforum.com/content/2024/09/leica-vario-elmarit-sl-70-200mm-f-2-8-asph-leica-extender-l-2-0x/
Are we thinking this is a rebadged Panasonic based on size (vs Sigma)? The Panasonic is a great lens if you get a good copy, which I assume these all will be.
wdshuck wrote:
Are we thinking this is a rebadged Panasonic based on size (vs Sigma)? The Panasonic is a great lens if you get a good copy, which I assume these all will be.
Sigma due to the optical design. The 82mm filter thread is so Leica could fit their lens engravings around the front element.
This will be Leica's first fast-focusing dual-linear AF motor lens. Hopefully Leica updates their 24-70 to the version II that Sigma recently released with the faster motors. I'm sure Leica is eyeing the Sigma 28-45 1.8 as well.
Why not just buy the Sigma version? I don't understand why you would pay the extra money for the exterior changes to the lens and maybe a different coating.
RustyRus wrote:
Why not just buy the Sigma version? I don't understand why you would pay the extra money for the exterior changes to the lens and maybe a different coating.
Superior weather sealing with an IP rating is the only reason I can think of, and less seriously perhaps for the less awkward hood design that doesn't block part of the zoom ring. Unless Leica has finally integrated IBIS and the lens OS (currently it's either-or), I don't see a reason to spend so much more.
I just bought the Sigma version a week ago, and it's incredible on the SL3. I don't use the Sigma buttons on the lens, but I'd hate to give up the additional switches.
RustyRus wrote:
Why not just buy the Sigma version? I don't understand why you would pay the extra money for the exterior changes to the lens and maybe a different coating.
It's also 200 grams lighter than the Leica version.
RustyRus wrote:
Why not just buy the Sigma version? I don't understand why you would pay the extra money for the exterior changes to the lens and maybe a different coating.
The construction and weather resistance of Leica SL lenses are undoubtedly superior, though this does add extra weight. I believe that for the SL system, only Leica extenders are compatible.
Leica can sell these lenses at a relatively lower cost because purchasing the optical design from Sigma is likely much cheaper than developing it in-house. There's nothing wrong with using the Sigma version if those points don't concern you.
Fred Miranda wrote:
The construction and weather resistance of Leica SL lenses are undoubtedly superior, though this does add extra weight. I believe that for the SL system, only Leica extenders are compatible.
Leica can sell these lenses at a relatively lower cost because purchasing the optical design from Sigma is likely much cheaper than developing it in-house. There's nothing wrong with using the Sigma version if those points don't concern you.
From what I understand, the Sigma and Leica TCs are compatible with the same L-mount lenses (Leica and Sigma 100-400 and now the 70-200s), but neither are compatible with the Leica SL 90-280.
The TCs are good for the 24mp cameras, but for the 60mp SL3, I would expect cropping to provide the same or better results. That is, if the experience I had with Canon R5 + RF 1.4x + RF 100-500 translates to Sigma/Leica TCs.
highdesertmesa wrote:
From what I understand, the Sigma and Leica TCs are compatible with the same L-mount lenses (Leica and Sigma 100-400 and now the 70-200s), but neither are compatible with the Leica SL 90-280.
The TCs are good for the 24mp cameras, but for the 60mp SL3, I would expect cropping to provide the same or better results. That is, if the experience I had with Canon R5 + RF 1.4x + RF 100-500 translates to Sigma/Leica TCs.
My mistake, I thought extenders were incompatible with the Sigma lens on the SL, similar to the situation with Sony cameras.
I have the Sigma. It's an Art so I have no issues about improved build for the Leica. The Sigma is lighter and cheaper. It has an aperture ring.
I don't like the zoom ring position on the Sigma and I won't like it on the Leica. Not dropping 5.5k for a lens I won't enjoy using that much whereas I'll put up with the Sigma version for its other advantages.
I'm really liking the 100-400 for travelling so it wouldn't get a huge amount of use for that. And I have the 90-280. I got the Leica 100-400 for the extra weather sealing. That's not a thing this time. I got the Sigma because it was relatively light, No point adding useless weight.
The main thing would be filter compatibility. But since I've switched to magnetic filters a magnetic step up ring works just fine and I only carry one magnetic hood for all my travel lenses. So the improved hood design isn't an issue for me.
And for the record all the L mount tc's are cross compatible. The Leica is a rebadged Sigma anyway.
I wouldn't say no to a sub 1kg f4 version like the Canon or Sony ones though.
Fred Miranda wrote:
My mistake, I thought extenders were incompatible with the Sigma lens on the SL, similar to the situation with Sony cameras.
The Leica tc's are rebadged Sigma versions. In L mount tc's work fine on compatible lenses. Sigma is a native lens and not subject to Sony's artificial limitations.
I've used the 1.4x on my 70-200, 150-600, 60-600 and 100-400 extensively. Oh and it's great on the 500.
Jman13 wrote:
I just can't imagine paying more than twice the price for the same lens with a different finish.
Agreed, and glad no one has trotted out the old "well you are paying for Leica QC" excuse.. given their ability as of late to QC their own in-house products..
Just a quick note, I will be rigorously testing the resolution of the L mount Leica 70-200 side by side the L mount Sigma 70-200 (on the Leica SL2 and maybe SL3) the next two weeks. If the testing process goes well, I will drop some info here on the results for those who may be interested.
Oct 21, 2024 at 01:35 PM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
RustyRus wrote:
Why not just buy the Sigma version? I don't understand why you would pay the extra money for the exterior changes to the lens and maybe a different coating.
I have always wondered if the Leica SL cameras have thinner cover glass (which they seem to) and if the Leica L mount lenses are designed for this cover glass in ways that Sigma and Panasonic lenses are not (I have no evidence this actually happens). Probably wouldn't matter for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but it might matter for faster and shorter exit pupil lenses but then again maybe it isn't a thing and nobody in the L alliance takes cover glass into consideration.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I have always wondered if the Leica SL cameras have thinner cover glass (which they seem to) and if the Leica L mount lenses are designed for this cover glass in ways that Sigma and Panasonic lenses are not (I have no evidence this actually happens). Probably wouldn't matter for a 70-200 f/2.8 lens, but it might matter for faster and shorter exit pupil lenses but then again maybe it isn't a thing and nobody in the L alliance takes cover glass into consideration.
Leica's thinner filter stack and modified micro lenses are primarily for the performance of wider and older M lenses on the system. Panasonic cameras are OK but not quite as good as the SL cameras. Actually, the next best seems to be the Nikon ZF which has a very thin filter stack. Sony is only beaten by Canon into last place. The Canon stack is not only the thickest but they still use AA filters in the stack.
For L mount lenses the differences are virtually non-existent between the Panasonic and SL bodies. It is there but it's miniscule.
I did extensive side by side testing of the SL2 vs the S1R. There was a *very* small difference. But I needed to use one of the SL APO Summicrons to see it and then only sometimes. With anything less I couldn't discern any difference at all.
Gordon
Oct 21, 2024 at 05:58 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Thank you, Gordon. May I ask you how you did your tests? MFT charts?
flash wrote:
Leica's thinner filter stack and modified micro lenses are primarily for the performance of wider and older M lenses on the system. Panasonic cameras are OK but not quite as good as the SL cameras. Actually, the next best seems to be the Nikon ZF which has a very thin filter stack. Sony is only beaten by Canon into last place. The Canon stack is not only the thickest but they still use AA filters in the stack.
For L mount lenses the differences are virtually non-existent between the Panasonic and SL bodies. It is there but it's miniscule.
I did extensive side by side testing of the SL2 vs the S1R. There was a *very* small difference. But I needed to use one of the SL APO Summicrons to see it and then only sometimes. With anything less I couldn't discern any difference at all.
