Well ... if you consider that the L Alliance was intentional by design ... then, whether it is a rebadged Sigma / Panny isn't a sign of it NOT working. Rather, it a sign of it WORKING, such that Leica produces the lenses it wants (i.e. Karbe level optics) and farms out some of the others to provide the customer base a range of optical options to fit the consumer's optical / price tolerance.
"Is this working for Leica?"
Very much a question that is half empty vs. half full.
Imo, having the L mount gives the most versatile platform available. Not only does it have the options of optics from the L mount alliance catalog ... but, the SL bodies have the best non-native (i.e. not an M) performing option for M glass.
If you are judging the L against the speed of SoNiCanon, etc. there are certainly faster AF's out there. But, if you try and mount a wider fl M lens on those, there are penalties that arise. If you are judging Leica by their outsourcing to the Alliance as a negative, then you get a different perspective than if you are judging the joint partnership as a whole.
Bottom line, is that the question is rooted in the criteria for which it is being judged by ... the view of what Leica is NOT doing, vs. what the L Alliance platform as designed IS doing, relative to Leica and the SL.
Imo, the SL has always been a moniker of the L mount, but (from Leica's contribution) with Leica S level optics at the pinnacle ... i.e. SL APO Lenses. Never mind that the rebadging offers different tier(s) optical performance options than the SL APO optics. Imo, Karbe has placed Medium Format lenses (size / performance) onto the L mount in the SL APO's. He is allowing the Alliance to fill in below that.
A platform that ranges from M lenses > Medium Format level optics ... and a wide variety of options being supplied by others (inferring Leica doesn't apply as much bandwidth to the middle ground vs. targeting efforts toward exceptionalism in the end points). Recognizing that their ethos is NOT the middle ground, yet understanding that the marketplace does have a need for some middle ground ... delegating (with some influence / oversight) that middle ground to the L Alliance likely (imo) has always been the point of the Alliance.
msadat wrote:
is this working for Leica? the last 4 lenses have been rebadge sigma's?
Isn/t Leica's digital history rebadge of Panasonic going back to digilux/d-lux series? Leica brought their glass design+qa/qc to Panasonic as Zeiss did it for Sony... Usually Leica L cameras are one generation behind Panasonic tech... Panasonic is behind q series... Panasonic/Sigma can easily put an evf and created a Q-L mount, but so far they are holding it... Leica already killed their m43 and apsc mounts, maybe medium format too...
"Behind all five of these categories sits a deeper issue that rarely gets discussed in gear reviews: the L-Mount Alliance is structurally dependent on a company whose primary business interest lies elsewhere. Sigma makes the best and most diverse L-mount lens lineup, but Sigma also makes those lenses for Sony E-mount, and increasingly for Canon RF and Nikon Z. Sigma's camera business, as Hogan observed, accounts for a fraction of its revenue. Panasonic's full frame mirrorless share measured just 7.7% in BCN's full frame mirrorless rankings for April 2025 in Japan, and the company did not noticeably increase its global shipments in 2024 even as Canon pushed past 2 million mirrorless units. Leica's volume is deliberately low. There is no L-mount manufacturer for whom L-mount full frame cameras represent a primary revenue driver.
This does not mean L-mount is doomed. It means L-mount exists because it serves the strategic interests of its three founding members in ways that go beyond unit sales. For Leica, it provides access to a modern lens ecosystem without having to develop one alone. For Sigma, it provides a mount where the company has full parity and influence, unlike the Sony and Canon ecosystems where Sigma is a tolerated guest. For Panasonic, it provides a differentiated position in a market dominated by three giants, with video-forward bodies that attract a loyal if small user base. These interests have aligned for seven years and show no signs of diverging. But alignment of convenience is different from alignment of necessity, and photographers considering a long-term investment in the system should understand the distinction.
Overall Grade: B
The L-Mount Alliance is the most interesting camera ecosystem in the industry. It is not the largest, the safest, or the most convenient. But it offers something none of the big three can match: genuine multi-manufacturer interoperability, a lens selection that punches absurdly above its market share, and cameras that range from Leica's handcrafted luxury to Sigma's avant-garde experimentalism to Panasonic's spec-sheet aggression. If you know what you want from a camera system and what L-mount offers aligns with that vision, there is no reason to hesitate. The glass is superb. The bodies are competitive. The autofocus works.
The risk is not that the system will collapse. It is that it will plateau. Without an entry-level on-ramp, without a clear answer to the market share question, and with structural dependency on a lens maker whose best products are available everywhere, L-mount's ceiling may be lower than its quality deserves. That is the tension the next few years will resolve: whether an ecosystem built on openness and quality can grow, or whether it will remain a brilliantly stocked boutique in a market that rewards scale."
msadat wrote:
What I should have said, I want Leica ‘Leica’ lenses for the l mount; designed and built by Leica
All Leica zooms are very old and the 50 1.4 is too big
I guess it's how you look at it. !
My two Leica SL APO zooms, the 24-90 and the 90-280 are some of my newest lenses out of the roughly 40 lenses I have. And man are they good! Best zooms I've ever used for sure. In fact earlier this week I test shot the 24-90 against some of my primes I've cherished for years. Primes that I bought and tested against the best zooms of the day years ago. These same primes were beaten by the Leica Zoom according to what my eye saw.
These two zooms kick butt over quite a range so why should Leica see a need to create new ones?
Curious, are you looking for some specific need that isn't currently met or just something new for the sake of being new?
msadat wrote:
What I should have said, I want Leica ‘Leica’ lenses for the l mount; designed and built by Leica
All Leica zooms are very old and the 50 1.4 is too big
Ummm, the thing about Leica optics is often that they were "first to the table" to be as good as they are. That, and when they are "that good" ... they tend to remain current for a very long time. This is true of many Leica lenses. Kinda like how Medium Format lens mfr's aren't changing optical formulas nearly as often as smaller formats.
Point being ... if Leica ethos for drawing / rendering style is "exactly where they want it", when they designed it years ago, they don't feel a strong compulsion to reinvent the wheel.
At the end of the day, the level of optical performance that Karbe aspires to ... requires a lot of glass. He's made the decision to "go big" to get the performance he wants. The nice thing about the L mount is the options for Siggy / Panny ... BUT, ALSO ... the option for stellar M lenses where folks find the L mount glass "too big".
When it comes to optics "very old" isn't really part of the equation. I mean, if I buy such a stellar optic and pay good money for it today ... I EXPECT it to remain a stellar optic for decades to come. If the optic is going to be updated every few years, then it likely wasn't as stellar to begin with. When Leica designs their optics ... they have a goal / ethos they desire to achieve. Once they've achieved it ... at what cost do you want them to revise their goal, and for what gain.
That said, which Leica SL zooms have you shot so far, that you didn't like? And, what was it about them that you didn't like?
1bwana1 wrote:
Even the next Leica branded L mount body will be a rebadged Panasonic.
Things that make you say hmmmmmmm...
I think the entire SL body line is basically rebadged Panasonic tech from the SL2 onward. However, I do think after owning the SL3-S (candidly I think it is a rebadged and up-leveled S5II but it's a very nice camera), I've concluded i'm willing to pay the premium for the Leica version for the better experience and better compatibility with M and SL APO lenses even if it's 80% Panasonic. I also decided that I probably would not ever buy a 100% Panasonic version - the industrial design and controls (from my exp with the S9) are bad enough that I think I would just go Nikon or Sony first. I think a Leica SL3/SL4 rebadged S1RII would be very nice but I'm going to try to probably skip it until they introduce stacked sensor tech.
As for lenses, I tried the Leica 28-70mm - it's nice and versatile but I think it lacked the wow factor from the SL APOs and I could not get over the fact that it's a Sigma rebadge. The SL APOs have beautiful output but are outrageously expensive even used however I want them. I do not understand why anyone buys the rebadges vs just pick the Sigma versions up.
!