freaklikeme wrote:
One nice thing about going with the Leica-branded 100-400 is that it shares filter size with your 24-70/2.8.
Otherwise, I think all the advantages are in the Sigma-branded. Yes, you have to buy the foot and ring assembly, which is small, but effective and dove-tailed, and weighs less than the removable foot on the Leica. And I feel like the foot on the Leica branded is a huge design miss. It's way too close to the bloated body to be at all comfortable if you use the focus ring for anything. Yes, it is better built than the Sigma. I don't think it justifies the bloat. And having finished a tour of Oslo, Svalbard, and Belfast where the rain and wind just seemed to follow us, I will never again question the heartiness of my Sigma C's. Tiny, lightweight champions, every single one.
So, just to clarify, you brought the Sigma branded 100-400 on your trip, am I correct? I do not object to saving some money on this lens, as it will be shot at f/8 to f/16 for landscape work. My application of it for wildlife would be opportunistic, as I have other gear relegated to that purpose.
I think it the Sport 70-200 f2.8 had an 82mm filter thread, that would be a slam dunk, as it would be compatible with the 24-70 that I use. The Leica 100-400 is appealing for its 82mm thread and integrated tripod ring, as these tend to lock down better and be far smoother when rotating between horizontal and vertical positions.
I'd love to see some sample pictures you made w/ your lens during your travels.
regards,
bruce
May 13, 2024 at 08:53 AM
Previous versions of OwlsEyes's message #16545753 « Tele-zoom for Landscapes, Leica SL gear »
