Leica Vario-Elmar-SL 100-400mm f/5-6.3 vs Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8

AlanF

AlanF

Desperately seeking birds
Canon Rumors Premium
Aug 16, 2012
13,212
25,274
#1
ePhotozine has just reviewed the Leica 100-400mm https://www.ephotozine.com/article/leica-vario-elmar-sl-100-400mm-f-5-6-3-lens-review-36495 and I thought it would be interesting to compare it with their review of the RF 100-400mm https://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-rf-100-400mm-f-5-6-8-is-usm-lens-review-36026
Price in the UK: Leica 3x (£1970 vs £645).
Weight: Leica 2.5x (1.620 kg vs 635g, more than the RF 100-500mm).
MTF 400mm f/8: Leica circa 0.5x - see my replots of the ePhotozine data. The Leica is on the 24 Mpx SL2-S, and the Canon on the 20 Mpx R6.
The Leica has high water resistance, but is totally killed by the Canon for resolution, price and weight. It is even described as being clumsy to use because of its weight, and will break the lens or your tiles if dropped! I can't believe they rate it 4 stars and recommended.

LeicavsCanon100-400mm.jpeg
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: 2 users
#4
Kit. said:
Isn't that "Leica" actually rebadged facelifted Sigma?
Click to expand...
They are both 16 groups and 22 elements so it would appear that they have remounted the glass in an aluminium block, doubled the weight and the price. The Sigma lens appears to be much better, however, both on the TDP site charts and in opticallimits tests https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1131-sigma100400f563dn so what has Leica done to it to make it so pathetic?
 
Upvote 0
#7
When in the past, Leica reused Sigma or Minolta lenses, the usually succeded in improving them quite visibly. A much better mount (also the case here), and narrower tolerances in installing the lenses, sometimes even using different glass types.
What happened here, I do not know. The result is not convincing at all. Whether the Leigma is indeed worse than the Sigma, I have my doubts. What I know, is that I'd never ever buy this lens.
In Leica SL times, you still could adapt a wonderful 100-400 using a Novoflex adapter, I mean of course the EF II L... You only lost OS. With SL2 or SLs, it has become impossible (no working electronic transmission). So, you cannot even use canon's TSE lenses...No TS lenses in the L lens range.
The SL2 is a nice camera, nicer than the R5? I'd say no, despite being a longtime Leica user. But the real Leica SL lenses (Apo!) are absolutely great. Are they worth their price???
Edit: according to some users, it seems you can use the TS-E lenses on the SL 2, using the specific (EF-L) Sigma adapter.
Most EF AF lenses yet, perform quite erratically on the SL 2.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#9
Other reviews come to a different conclusion.
According to them, the Leica 100-400 has been visibly improved, compared to the Sigma original.
It's always better not to rely on one single review...
Anyway, I didn't buy Leicas to fit them with Sigmas...
You don't buy Leica for the SLs, EOS Rs are far more advanced. You buy Leica for the lenses.
As much as I liked using the Leicaflex SLs, the only real SLs, I quit the system for the Canon SLRs. More interesting and affordable lenses, and better digital bodies.
But stayed with the Leica M, for the lenses AND the bodies.
If only Canon made a camera with "M" mount...
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#11
Del Paso said:
Other reviews come to a different conclusion.
According to them, the Leica 100-400 has been visibly improved, compared to the Sigma original.
It's always better not to rely on one single review...
Anyway, I didn't buy Leicas to fit them with Sigmas...
You don't buy Leica for the SLs, EOS Rs are far more advanced. You buy Leica for the lenses.
As much as I liked using the Leicaflex SLs, the only real SLs, I quit the system for the Canon SLRs. More interesting and affordable lenses, and better digital bodies.
But stayed with the Leica M, for the lenses AND the bodies.
If only Canon made a camera with "M" mount...
Click to expand...
Nice last sentence
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
#12
EricN said:
Nice last sentence
Click to expand...
I wrote it because I'm convinced Leica M cameras have reached an insane level of pricing, no longer matched by an equal reliability.
If I spend about $9000 on an M11 naked body, I expect the reliability of an M3 :love:single or doublestroke.
The M11, despite being a fantastic instrument, is miles away from it. If you read the complaints about the (sometimes!) need to carry a pocket knife to lift the ISO wheel so you can change the value, that's where the fun ends. I could also mention the freezing issues, the more than lame repair department (4 months), its legendary bills etc...
So, I believe that a Canon body might be less glamorous for the collectors, but certainly represent a better value and, hopefully, better reliability. And the fabulous M lenses could still be used.
PS: The Leica Q3 is a great camera and, in my opinion, priced adequately.
PPS: What I wrote about reliability isn't valid for the Leica M240. Not a single issue in 8 years, and I used and abused it...
PPPS: Canon, if you don't produce an M lens compatible camera, I might, perhaps, someday, if I find the time, jump ship.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Canon Rumors
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM Review
Replies
55
Views
16K
AlanF
AlanF
neuroanatomist
RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Replies
19
Views
4K
Click
Click
Canon Rumors
Here are the Canon RF 24mm f/1.8 Macro IS STM and Canon RF 15-30mm f/4.5-6.3 IS STM
Replies
165
Views
37K
AJ
A
AlanF
Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM: First Impressions
Replies
65
Views
32K
PCM-madison
PCM-madison
Canon Rumors
Here is the Canon RF 100-400mm f/5.6-8 IS USM
Replies
337
Views
74K
Jethro
Jethro
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Media
Menu