p.1 #1 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
Hi all, apologies if there is a thread where someone has looked at these (my search didn't find anything), but wondering if anyone has tried comparing the new updated Sigma 35's 1.2 and 1.4 vs the Leica APO. I have an SL3 coming in as a travel or more structured session camera and want to avoid the trap I have fallen into with my M-glass where I have more 35's than I know what to do with.
I have watched some videos on the Sigmas but always difficult to trust influencers and their claims. Three Blind Men and An Elephant basically says "Just buy it" (shows brief technical comparison shots but no outdoor side-by-sides showing rendering differences) regarding the 1.2. Then more recently says the 1.4 is indistinguishable from the APO in real world and sets the new benchmark. He even says if he didn't already own the APO he'd buy the 1.4 instead. Unfortunately no shots other than a couple cards comparing those as well.
I know the 35 APO is potentially the greatest 35mm mirrorless lens ever made for a lot of people but I'd like to hear from anyone who has had the experience of it versus the updated Sigmas. The Sigmas obviously have a speed advantage and the new 1.4 II has a size advantage as well, but I have heard the Sigma rendering is cold/clinical vs the Leica have a more organic feel despite being sharper. I'm not sure if the light gathering is worth potentially worse rendering.
I am leaning towards the APO + an adapter for my M lenses for when I want extra character, but I keep thinking of that extra speed 1.4 or 1.2 offer and whether or not I need the APO if I will also be adapting the M lenses.
Any input from those with experience with some of these lenses would be greatly appreciated.
p.1 #2 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
The 35mm APO-SL lens is what peter Karbe says is his best ever work, and probably the best lens ever made for a FF camera system. I find all of the APO-SL lenses to be the best I have ever used in their respective focal length. Reasonably priced on the used market as well, and usually available. These lenses are the reason I own an SL3.
You may find this video useful in understanding the benefits of his designs with the APO-SL lenses including why they render more like a wider aperture MF lens.
The 35mm focal length tends to be my favorite and is the most common FL I use on my M system. However, for my SL system I do not have a 35mm. I opted for a 28mm/50mm/90mm set of APO-SL lenses and crop to the intermediate focal lengths. I can step in or out and/or crop to fill the gaps because with 60mpx the crop is all but meaningless to the final image quality. You can use a 90mm f/2.0 in place of a faster 50mm if subject separation is very important. This plays a role for me primarily when shooting outside. In studio I of course have more control. I rarely shoot in studio with super wide aperture as I most often want more DOF on the subject. I can move the subject further from the background, and/or use a longer FL if I want more separation and have the best of both Worlds.
In the studio the size and weight are pretty much meaningless. Out and about the system is on the big and heavy side. However, if you are out with a multiple lens kit this is mitigated to some extent by the fact that they are all housed in identical bodies. This means that they can share all accessories like filters, hoods and things. This lightens the load and complication considerably when compared to having the same capability in lenses that are not able to share. Still, when size/weight is a primary consideration I am either shooting with a small SL Zoom (Sigma), or using my M system. I have my M and LSM lenses for certain kinds of character rendering when I want that. The great news is that I can shoot these also on the Sl3. I find the SL3 to be the best platform for manually focusing with very narrow DOF and super wide or long focal lengths. Yes, in those circumstances better than any of my M bodies including the new M EV-1.
I am going to London next week and will have a day of shooting location portraits. My SL kit will be my choice for that day. The rest of the week I will be doing more street and the M system will be my kit.
I should also say that when I am out doing street portraits I tend to keep at least some environmental features in the frame and identifiable for context. If your style is to completely blur the backgrounds then faster apertures may be a better fit. For me f/2.0 is enough for my style. If not, Summilux or Noctilux time.
Here are a few samples using the SL-3 and APO-SL lenses at this year's Carnevale di Venezia, Italia. I find that the detail captured by the APO-SL lenses is superb. At the same time the ability to control the out of focus rendering and transitions is excellent.
These images are a mix of the APO-SL 28mm and 50mm to show that using them in place of the 35mm can usually fill that need. If not, I usually also have the 21mm SEM and 35mm Summilux in my pockets.
p.1 #3 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
If your plan is to use M glass for your character / drawing style lenses (I also mix L + M) ... how much diff does it make if the Sigma vs. SL APO are more / less clinical. You've already presented your M glass as the tool of choice for that endeavor. If you are looking for the Karbe falloff rate vs. the Sigma wider aperture as a preference (or color temp rendering) there's that, too, but if the matter is clinical vs. character, the "less clinical" (to your eye) of the SL doesn't hold as much significance ... EXCEPT, when you want to take the M lenses out of the equation, and have ONLY one lens. Then, it might be of more significance.
In that regard, as to the Sigma vs. SL APO ... I think it's just a matter of getting your hands on them and shooting with them (rent / beg / buy / borrow / store demo / etc.). I have no experience with either lens. BUT, I do find that influencers / charts (which can be fun and are great at times as an aid) can only be a starting point. The ending point is how well YOU get along with the optic. The only way to know that ... is for YOU to shoot it.
Which leads to the end game of ...
If you like it, shoot the snot out of it.
But, only YOU (Smokey Bear) ... can answer that for you.
p.1 #4 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
To me the new set of Sigma are amazing. I do have the 50 1.2 and the 50 APO. the Leica APO have a quicker contrast and fall off, but they still don't look like a 1.4 or 1.2 Lens.
I was looking to get the Sigma 34 1.4II myself. the 35 APO is nice, but they are all heavy, especially when you have more than 1.
p.1 #5 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
endergemini wrote:
Hi all, apologies if there is a thread where someone has looked at these (my search didn't find anything), but wondering if anyone has tried comparing the new updated Sigma 35's 1.2 and 1.4 vs the Leica APO. I have an SL3 coming in as a travel or more structured session camera and want to avoid the trap I have fallen into with my M-glass where I have more 35's than I know what to do with.
I have watched some videos on the Sigmas but always difficult to trust influencers and their claims. Three Blind Men and An Elephant basically says "Just buy it" (shows brief technical comparison shots but no outdoor side-by-sides showing rendering differences) regarding the 1.2. Then more recently says the 1.4 is indistinguishable from the APO in real world and sets the new benchmark. He even says if he didn't already own the APO he'd buy the 1.4 instead. Unfortunately no shots other than a couple cards comparing those as well.
I know the 35 APO is potentially the greatest 35mm mirrorless lens ever made for a lot of people but I'd like to hear from anyone who has had the experience of it versus the updated Sigmas. The Sigmas obviously have a speed advantage and the new 1.4 II has a size advantage as well, but I have heard the Sigma rendering is cold/clinical vs the Leica have a more organic feel despite being sharper. I'm not sure if the light gathering is worth potentially worse rendering.
I am leaning towards the APO + an adapter for my M lenses for when I want extra character, but I keep thinking of that extra speed 1.4 or 1.2 offer and whether or not I need the APO if I will also be adapting the M lenses.
Any input from those with experience with some of these lenses would be greatly appreciated.
"I am leaning towards the APO + an adapter for my M lenses" This has been my approach for some time now. Best of both worlds IMO.
As a fast lens aficionado no apologies ( I own several), I am very happy with the SL APO F2 Prime technology at F2. However, if I want even faster, I adapt one of my fast Leica M lenses.
IMO for those that own a high resolution SL2 or SL3 they owe it to themselves to own at least one SL APO Prime even if just for a time.
I've never used a Sigma lens on any of my SL cameras but from what I read, you probably can't go wrong with either Sigma L-Mount 35's 1.2 or 1.4, particularly from a budget perspective compared to the SL APO Prime price point.
p.1 #6 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
Thank you everyone for your well articulated thoughts and opinions as well as some amazing shots from the APO family of lenses, it really does help out a lot.
Right now I think I am torn between the APO and the new Sigma 1.4 II, with the APO being an image quality monster and the Sigma offering great IQ + speed in a smaller package.
I do have a trip to Taiwan coming up and need the weather sealing so most likely won't be using my M-lenses on that trip due to the amount of rain that is expected. The Sigma 1.4 would be great to have a smaller travel lens for the trip, but there's that little voice in the back of my head that says the APO needs to be experienced. If I can find the time before the trip I will see if Camera West has anything I can try out to sway me in either direction.
I am very happy to hear that adapting M-lenses works well and that further pushes me in the direction that F2 on the APO will be okay for the majority of my shooting situations and i can use my faster glass adapted when weather permits.
p.1 #7 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
@endergemini this one is easy. The Sigma has an aperture ring and therefore can be mounted onto a camera and used to take images! The Leica does not have an aperture ring and therefore can only be used as a dumbell.
p.1 #8 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
Just got back into the Leica system and I tried the Sigma, thinking the brighter aperture and faster focusing would offset any rendering advantages the Leica has. I was wrong. It's the prime example of test charts not being everything. I'm returning it.
I am not impressed with its rendering, the focus to out of focus transition is very rough. The APO renders like nothing else. Will probably save up money to buy the 35 APO again.
p.1 #9 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
Go with the 35mm apo sl if you can afford it. It’s a much better lens than the sigma. I’m also not sure why you would take all the downsides of owning the sl3 and then go with a sigma lens to not maximize the SL3s potential.
Also as fyi, except for the 35mm, none of the m apo lenses are as good as the sl apos so I wouldn’t consider adapting them to be equivalent.
p.1 #10 · Leica APO Summicron SL 35mm vs Sigma 35mm 1.2 / 1.4 Art II on SL3
i think both lenses leica 35mm apo and (either of the sigma 35mm ii 1.2/1.4) can coexist together. for me night shots without flash demands a faster lens.
