Mark Metternich wrote:
Thank you, Gordon. May I ask you how you did your tests? MFT charts?
Some wall charts initially, sure. I have a resolution test board made up in my studio that I shoot with every new camera/ lens I get. I don't pretend it's perfect but I can see if a camera or lens is *off* pretty quickly. But really mostly just field testing. You get a pretty accurate view after 1000's of frames. I usually spend a week or two seeing where a new body or lens works best and compare it to its competitors and predecessors. Then I just go and use it, really. I'm more interested in working out how to make a piece of gear sing rather than judging it against other stuff I have. When I notice things it's just added to the usage envelope. I don't think it's a resolution thing between them. Shooting charts or walls or whatever isn't going to show it. That's not what I saw. It was rarely but sometimes the SL2 had more *bite*, for want of a better word. And any differences were *tiny*. Like a 5 point move in the texture slider.
Mind you I own exactly one of each of the APO's and had a chance to test side by side with another 90 on one occasion. So, any results are based on my gear only. I only know of one guy who did side by side shooting with a S1R and SL2 and he felt the same as I did. You could see it occasionally but not always. And never ever was it enough to make or break a shot.
Also, I don't have an SL2-S to test against my S5II. So, it may or may not apply at 24MP. Certainly, I wouldn't choose a SL2-S over a S5II, personally, even if there's the same microscopic differences. The S5II is a better camera, IMHO. And there's no Panny SL3 yet. So please don't take this as a general statement that Leica's are sharper than Panny's camera wise. Leica's don't even have EFCS and I'm in the middle of sending frames off so they can see that the SL3 has shutter shock issues they need to address.
The Lmount alliance 70-200s are all the lowest resolution of the modern 70-200s. That’s disappointing, when you are paying more for less resolution and slower AF speed.
TakenWild wrote:
The Lmount alliance 70-200s are all the lowest resolution of the modern 70-200s. That’s disappointing, when you are paying more for less resolution and slower AF speed.
I shot the Sigma versions against Sony and Canon’s latest offerings and I’ll be buggered if I can see any real world differences. I expect the Leica to be the same. I like it better than the Panasonic. Maybe the other two are a hair sharper. Impossible to tell from my short tests but since the Canon doesn’t take TC’s and their cameras have an AA filter I doubt you’re getting any improvement there. The A7R5 on the other hand has EFCS and the lens takes TC’s so I’d say in real world use it’s going to be easier to get the most from the Sony version. I think the Sony’s intelligent AF combined with TC compatibility make it the best current option.
The Sigma’s AF speed is excellent. Really fast. Especially on a Panny body. It has dual motors etc. It’s not speed that’s the issue. It’s intelligent subject recognition that makes the glass lock on and not be distracted in any CAF operation. That’s where Panasonic needs to improve, dramatically. Leica tend to have accurate AF but a bit slower. The SL3 animal recognition is woeful. It says *beta* but it feels less than that.
I also really like the transitions on the Sigma over the Sony. Somewhat like the Canon which I like as well. I don’t have the Nikon’s to compare.
Ultimately, if I wanted IQ over all else then I’d use the 90-280. It’s better than any of the current 70-200’s but the AF is noticeably slower. It’s not a sports lens at all. But the IQ is brilliant. Think Canon 100-300 IQ but for general photography, not action. If you end speed than I like the Sony and that’s what I use for things that move.
Sony, Canon and Nikon are in a race for the fastest camera. Leica’s not bothering to even try. They’re going for UI and user experience plus the APO glass. Different strokes and all that.
TakenWild wrote:
The Lmount alliance 70-200s are all the lowest resolution of the modern 70-200s. That’s disappointing, when you are paying more for less resolution and slower AF speed.
What orifice did you pull that information out of?
highdesertmesa wrote:
What orifice did you pull that information out of?
The L-mount 70-200s are fantastic lenses, but they are the weakest of the major brands. If you think that isn’t true then you haven’t read many reviews. Read LensTip’s review of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or read ephotozine‘s review of the Lecia 70-200 2.8 and compare it with their review of Sony’s 70-200 GM II. Most reviews that test multiple lenses come to the same conclusion.
TakenWild wrote:
The L-mount 70-200s are fantastic lenses, but they are the weakest of the major brands. If you think that isn’t true then you haven’t read many reviews. Read LensTip’s review of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or read ephotozine‘s review of the Lecia 70-200 2.8 and compare it with their review of Sony’s 70-200 GM II. Most reviews that test multiple lenses come to the same conclusion.
I read pretty much all the available reviews. There seems to be two schools of thought. About half universally praise it. The others think the Sony and Tamron are slightly better wide open, especially in the corners and it improves a stop down. My copy seems to be in the first camp. I can’t see any practical difference although I prefer the draw of the Sigma over the Sony GMII. But I also have them on different mounts.
I suspect there’s some copy variation. Unfortunately this is still a thing, especially for Sigma. Leica’s QC tends to be a bit better, but also not perfect (I had a dodgy 100-400 Leica).
Dustin Abbot loved the lens. Peta Pixel thought the Sony was noticeably better. PC Mag lab tests said it’s spectacular. Lens Tip wasn’t as glowing. I think you see where this is going. It can equal the big boys but check your copy. Fortunately mine is epic.
Still I see no reason to buy the Leica. The Sigma version is the cheapest of the possible options from any major brand in any mount. Optics are the same as the Leica. Sealing is the same. AF is the same. Price is half.
TakenWild wrote:
The L-mount 70-200s are fantastic lenses, but they are the weakest of the major brands. If you think that isn’t true then you haven’t read many reviews. Read LensTip’s review of the Sigma 70-200 2.8 or read ephotozine‘s review of the Lecia 70-200 2.8 and compare it with their review of Sony’s 70-200 GM II. Most reviews that test multiple lenses come to the same conclusion.
Well then wake me up when you’ve actually used the Sigma. For rendering wide open (portraits, etc.), my previous Canon RF 70-200 2.8 on the R5 was slightly more pleasing compared to the Sigma. AF speed is similar. Flat field and sharpness across the frame goes easily to the Sigma. I have no experience regarding the Sony.
The real weakness of the L-mount are the AF capabilities of the cameras themselves.
Oct 24, 2024 at 08:17 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
(Auto focus performance aside) I’m not sure all Leica has done to the base Sigma design to improve it, but I have been rigorously testing them side by side (on the Leica SL2) for a week now and so far at both 200mm and at 120mm the Leica clearly has more sheer IQ micro detail/resolution (and on some tests I have noticed slightly better color). Also, in seperate tests, using the pixel shift mode (for both lenses) the IQ micro detail resolution benefits are exaggerated further.
I will be carefully testing both lenses, side by side for 1 more week (or so) and I plan on testing all focal lengths (next will be 70mm) INCLUDING both lenses with their respective 2x extenders! I think that will be very interesting.
My guess so far (if I had to guess) is that the Leica will win for micro detail, resolution at all focal lengths (including all focal lengths with the 2x extenders) and I’ll end up buying it. But we will see… 😊 And I should note that for the price point, the Sigma is exceptional.
At some point I’ll drop some sample images here and more about the testing.
TakenWild wrote:
The Lmount alliance 70-200s are all the lowest resolution of the modern 70-200s. That’s disappointing, when you are paying more for less resolution and slower AF speed.
Personal testing has shown me that the Sony FE 70-200mm f/2.8 GM OSS II lens is excellent. But the new Leica (on the Leica SL2) is amazing! For sheer IQ micro detail/resolution it beats both the Pany and the excellent Sigma (which is a close second in my tests so far). What I have seen throws your comment into doubt.
Mark Metternich wrote:
I’m not sure all Leica has done to the base Sigma design to improve it, but I have been rigorously testing them side by side (on the Leica SL2) for a week now and so far at both 200mm and at 120mm the Leica clearly has more sheer IQ micro detail/resolution (and on some tests I have noticed slightly better color). Also, in seperate tests, using the pixel shift mode (for both lenses) the IQ micro detail resolution benefits are exaggerated further.
I will be carefully testing both lenses, side by side for 1 more week (or so) and I plan on testing all focal lengths (next will be 70mm) INCLUDING both lenses with their respective 2x extenders! I think that will be very interesting. ...Show more →
Curious as to your findings, thinking about buying the Sigma, will pair it with the 1.4X TC? I wonder just how much better the Leica is.
Thanks in advance.
Nov 06, 2024 at 01:38 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
I am still testing them and will get back to this thread when done.
I am testing them at 70mm, 120, 200, then both with their respective 2x extender 140, 240, and 400.
I will be done with the testing in a week or two. So far at 200mm and 70mm the Leica has had more micro detail/resolution, but some people might not notice.
I’m also comparing them to my old Canon f/4… 😊
I do not want to eat my words so I definitely hesitate to predict based on what I’ve seen so far, but for people who want absolute resolution above all else (me) it seems like the Leica may win notably by a small margin. The Sigma a close contender. We will see… 😊 Im also thinking that the Leica will likely separate itself even more from the sigma with the converter on it, but I still don’t know.
Matt Kerby wrote:
Curious as to your findings, thinking about buying the Sigma, will pair it with the 1.4X TC? I wonder just how much better the Leica is.
Thanks in advance.
