Does it stay or does it go?

[pdk42]

I need help! I bought a Sigma 70-200 f2.8 at the recent big photo show in the UK. There was a deal and I thought "why not?" since as you all know, my Panasonic 70-200 f4 is dead. They didn't have it in stock at the show so it was shipped to me. It arrived last Weds and it's sitting here now in its box, unopened with a returns authorisation form stuck to it. So why is it unopened and awaiting return? I guess to a certain extent it's buyer's remorse syndrome, but there is also some rational analysis going on. Here is my dilemma:

- Looking at my shots in 2025, I see that the breakdown in lens usage is roughly this:

- 24-105 - 41%​

- 70-200 f4 - 18%​

- 35mm f2 - 15%​

- 14-28 - %13%​

- 20-60 - 9%​

- 50mm f1.8 - 4%​

​

So on the face of it, the 70-200 is my second most used lens so getting a replacement makes huge sense. I can also see that 45% of the shots are at 200mm.

But I've now got the Sigma 20-200 so I do have 200mm covered, just that it's at f6.3, not f4, and there's no OIS/Sync IS.

But, if I examine the apertures used with my 70-200 f4, then I get this:

- f8 or f11 - 76%​

- f4 - 23%​

​

Not too surprisingly, the shots at f8 or f11 are all landscape shots. Some will likely be taken with a tripod (but not all). And whilst the IQ of the 20-200 at 200mm isn't quite as crisp as the 70-200, it's actually pretty good. So, there is really no point in a 1.3kg, £1200 lens for my landscape use.

The f4 shots are mostly aircraft in flight (with a smattering of wildlife, but not much). As a result, they are all hand held and most at a high shutter speed. They are all at or very near 200mm and in fact, most of them have had a decent amount of cropping (i.e. I could do with a longer lens for aircraft!).

So, in truth the 20-200 will cover 75% of the things I used the 70-200 for. But it won't make a great lens for aircraft - it's a bit too slow and it lacks OIS (I know that OIS won't help a lot, it will help with viewfinder stabilisation and will deliver a little improvement in camera shake).

So I'm left with the decision:

- Is spending £1200 justified for the relatively little need I have for a fast lens in the 70-200 range?
- Would I be best using the 100-400 that I recently acquired for aircraft and accept the slower aperture?

All the logic tells me that the 70-200 f2.8 really isn't a priority, but OTOH a good fast 70-200 is a sort of invaluable lens in a general purpose kit, so my emotion tells me to keep it. I'm sure I'd find things to photograph for which it's suitable (a variant of "build it and they will come"!).

What are your collective thoughts?

 

[CharlesH]

What are your collective thoughts?

When you had the brouhaha with your 70-200mm f/4 failing my first thought was to sell my copy. After all I had the 70-300mm, and the new 100-500mm with good overall image quality. But I went back and looked at photos from the 70-200 and they were quite good; and a large portion were with a 1.4x extender - still really good. Then I did some comparison shots between the 70-200 and the 70-300, and the 70-200 clearly outperformed the 70-300, even with the 1.4x extender on 70-200. I concluded if I'm going to sell anything it would be the 70-300, and keep the 70-200.

This is a long way of recommending you keep the Sigma 70-200 f/2.8, or at least spend some time shooting with it. And you can use it with a 1.4x extender, and perhaps even with a 2.0x, so it could be three lenses in one. My expectation is you will like it and keep it.

 

[Hythloday]

- 24-105 - 41%

- 70-200 f4 - 18%​

- 35mm f2 - 15%​

- 14-28 - %13%​

- 20-60 - 9%​

- 50mm f1.8 - 4%​

​

So on the face of it, the 70-200 is my second most used lens so getting a replacement makes huge sense. I can also see that 45% of the shots are at 200mm.

You don't use UWA and tele very much. When I look at the use of your lenses, the range 24-105mm is used for 60%. (24-105mm, 35mm and 50mm). The other three lenses (70-200mm, 14-28mm and 20-60mm are used for 40%, 8% used at 200mm. Now that you have the Sigma 20-200mm, you will probably use the Sigma 70-200mm for some 3 or 4% of your shots. If so few shots are worth the money you pay for the lens, is up to you.

 

[Pete_W]

Hi Paul,

I think this is the key point:

So, in truth the 20-200 will cover 75% of the things I used the 70-200 for. But it won't make a great lens for aircraft - it's a bit too slow and it lacks OIS (I know that OIS won't help a lot, it will help with viewfinder stabilisation and will deliver a little improvement in camera shake).

So...

- Is spending £1200 justified for the relatively little need I have for a fast lens in the 70-200 range?

No.

- Would I be best using the 100-400 that I recently acquired for aircraft and accept the slower aperture?

Yes. The 100-400 will provide you with a much better focal range for aircraft photos and it has OIS with a mode designed for panning.

All the logic tells me that the 70-200 f2.8 really isn't a priority, but OTOH a good fast 70-200 is a sort of invaluable lens in a general purpose kit

But perhaps not invaluable if most of your shots are F8 or higher F number. F2.8 telephoto lenses are heavy and bulky so if you're rarely shooting at wide apertures then it's probably not worth spending the money on the 70-200 in my view.

Another possible point to consider is what combination of lenses you take out when shooting. I am guessing that you would never go out with both the 20-200 and 70-200? So in what shooting scenario would you decide to take out one and not the other? And then what other lens would you take to compliment either the 20-200 or the 70-200?

For my rail photography I have found that I only need two lenses - the 24-105 and the 70-300. These maximise focal range and both give me excellent dual-IS. I used to also pack the 14-28 and a fast prime but almost never used them so now they stay home and I regard them as "specialty lenses", i.e. for specific purposes.

 

[pdk42]

Hi Paul,

I think this is the key point:


So...

No.


Yes. The 100-400 will provide you with a much better focal range for aircraft photos and it has OIS with a mode designed for panning.


But perhaps not invaluable if most of your shots are F8 or higher F number. F2.8 telephoto lenses are heavy and bulky so if you're rarely shooting at wide apertures then it's probably not worth spending the money on the 70-200 in my view.

Another possible point to consider is what combination of lenses you take out when shooting. I am guessing that you would never go out with both the 20-200 and 70-200? So in what shooting scenario would you decide to take out one and not the other? And then what other lens would you take to compliment either the 20-200 or the 70-200?

For my rail photography I have found that I only need two lenses - the 24-105 and the 70-300. These maximise focal range and both give me excellent dual-IS. I used to also pack the 14-28 and a fast prime but almost never used them so now they stay home and I regard them as "specialty lenses", i.e. for specific purposes.

Thanks Pete. That's aligning with my thinking too.

 

[Nomad Nate]

I think 100-400 sounds a lot more practical.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

LOL every time I see one of these threads I want to croon “Only You” by The Platters:



Seriously, though, the 70-200 is like a race car. You don’t bring it out very often but when you do nothing can touch it. In terms of the 70-200, the AF & IQ will be noticeably better than the 100-400. Sure it’s heavy - like the steering & clutch of a good performance car - but that just reminds you of it’s purpose. TCs won’t be a problem. Etc.

But yes, at F8 and for landscapes, well, the “race car” isn’t really doing much for you. Airplanes? Sure, but the reach is a little limited there.

I’m super happy I eventually bought my S-Pro 70-200 F2.8, but then as you know I am inspired by (what I consider to be) great gear. Somebody designed and created this amazing instrument - this race car - what can I do with it? Of course one can be inspired by the opposite - this humble little lens packs so much into such a small package - what can I do with it? Equally valid.

I think the most pragmatic question you could ask your self is - will you carry it? Will you ever leave the 20-200 at home and go back to a multi-lens kit? If the answer is “no” or “rarely” then send it back.

 

[xaviergut]

Looking at my shots in 2025, I see that the breakdown in lens usage is roughly this:

- 24-105 - 41%
- 70-200 f4 - 18%

I think it seems a good idea (to me) to change your two most used lenses for two new and really good Sigma lenses.

Bearing in mind that you are not very happy about the Lumix lenses, I think that replacing your old 24-105mm f/4 for the Sigma 20-200mm is a decision that you already made and you are happy about it, right?

And replacing a broken Lumix 70-200mm f/4 for a new and outstanding Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is just the way to go.

For me the question is more regarding what happens now with the Sigma 100-400mm... Which one would you use more: the 100-400mm of the new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8?

I always prefer the new lenses with warranty, etc.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

For me the 70-200/2.8 would be a great lens, especially useful for when my daughters have events on at school or when they're skating in the park. But that's me.

For the type of photography you do I'm sure the 70-200 would bring better image quality than the 20-200 at 200mm and there's no denying the advantage of f/2.8 vs f/6.3, but I imagine you're mostly at f/8 to f/11 and using a tripod anyway. £1200 is a great price for this lens and you likely won't find that again any time soon if you regret sending it back - I've seen used copies of this lens at that price.

A 70-200/2.8 is a workhorse lens for many people, especially professionals, but it's not something I would think is necessary for you. Don't get drawn into thinking that every photographer NEEDS a fast 70-200mm.

And there is a third option - open it, give it a try for a while and if you don't like it then sell it. As long as Sigma don't have it on offer you won't lose much and you'll have learned if that kind of lens is for you or not.

 

[pdk42]

And there is a third option - open it, give it a try for a while and if you don't like it then sell it. As long as Sigma don't have it on offer you won't lose much and you'll have learned if that kind of lens is for you or not.

I just checked MPB and they will offer me £950 for one in mint condition. So, it's an option for sure.

 

[pdk42]

LOL every time I see one of these threads I want to croon “Only You” by The Platters:



Seriously, though, the 70-200 is like a race car. You don’t bring it out very often but when you do nothing can touch it. In terms of the 70-200, the AF & IQ will be noticeably better than the 100-400. Sure it’s heavy - like the steering & clutch of a good performance car - but that just reminds you of it’s purpose. TCs won’t be a problem. Etc.

But yes, at F8 and for landscapes, well, the “race car” isn’t really doing much for you. Airplanes? Sure, but the reach is a little limited there.

I’m super happy I eventually bought my S-Pro 70-200 F2.8, but then as you know I am inspired by (what I consider to be) great gear. Somebody designed and created this amazing instrument - this race car - what can I do with it? Of course one can be inspired by the opposite - this humble little lens packs so much into such a small package - what can I do with it? Equally valid.

I think the most pragmatic question you could ask your self is - will you carry it? Will you ever leave the 20-200 at home and go back to a multi-lens kit? If the answer is “no” or “rarely” then send it back.

Thanks George. All very sensible.

 

[pdk42]

I think it seems a good idea (to me) to change your two most used lenses for two new and really good Sigma lenses.

Bearing in mind that you are not very happy about the Lumix lenses, I think that replacing your old 24-105mm f/4 for the Sigma 20-200mm is a decision that you already made and you are happy about it, right?

And replacing a broken Lumix 70-200mm f/4 for a new and outstanding Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8 is just the way to go.

For me the question is more regarding what happens now with the Sigma 100-400mm... Which one would you use more: the 100-400mm of the new Sigma 70-200mm f/2.8?

I always prefer the new lenses with warranty, etc.

Thanks Xavier. I think you're right about the 20-200 effectively replacing the 24-105. Sure it goes to 200mm, but a 200 f6.3 lens with no OIS does have a much more limited utility than a fast, stabilised 70-200 f2.8. But the problem of course is that for a lot of what I do, that's not super important. But although landscapes are my main interest, there are times when the 20-200 won't cut it. That's why I'm into all this indecision!

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Thanks Xavier. I think you're right about the 20-200 effectively replacing the 24-105. Sure it goes to 200mm, but a 200 f6.3 lens with no OIS does have a much more limited utility than a fast, stabilised 70-200 f2.8. But the problem of course is that for a lot of what I do, that's not super important. But although landscapes are my main interest, there are times when the 20-200 won't cut it. That's why I'm into all this indecision!

Sounds like you need to keep the race car in the garage for when you need it.

I will say that I find my fast zooms very useful when shooting blue-hour landscapes. Sure, you need to be thoughtful with regard to DOF when composing at F2.8, but the reduction in noise is real - particularly if said zoom is also stabilized - and noise becomes more problematic in my eyes when you are capturing those beautiful & subtle graduated colors present in blue-hour skies.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

What I miss in your story is the reasons you bought it for at the moment you filled it in the webform and pulled out your creditcard. In that moment/point in time you were certain enough to pay 1200 gbp for the 70-200/2.8 and had ideas how and when to use it.
- If you keep it, you can use it with a 1.4x extender
- you use it in low(er) light/higher shutter speed when iso doesn't cut it.
- you use it when speed with focus accuracy is paramount, icm with 2.8, very little room for misfocus because DoF is very small at 200/2.8

If those situations never apply to you then just send it back and get your full refund. I actually think that the 70-300 @ 200mm was not that much of a difference in as the 70-200/4 @ 200mm. Probably with the S1Rii the focus would/could have been better then on the older S1R.

From the outside it looks more that the 24-120 is redundant, because the 70-200 is a workhorse portrait and sports lens, and the 20-200 covers the 24-120 for landscape. Don't know if you like the quality of the 20-200 enough compared to the 24-120. If the 20-200 doesn't have image stabilisation I would keep the 24-120 also. I would not take the 70-200 out for a f8-f11 architecture shot. Sure It will be nice and sharp, but so will most lenses.

 

[Jayneboo]

I think Paul bought it, (and I would probably have done the same at that price) because he could use it for a little while, see how it goes, if not useful pop it on flebay for very little if any financial loss! Apologies, I can now see someone else had similar thoughts!!

 

[pdk42]

I think Paul bought it, (and I would probably have done the same at that price) because he could use it for a little while, see how it goes, if not useful pop it on flebay for very little if any financial loss! Apologies, I can now see someone else had similar thoughts!!

There is that consideration Jayne, but I bought it after a very quick decision process at The Photography Show because it was on a good deal. And in my mind were two thoughts - (a) my 70-200 f4 had died; and (b) when I got the 70-200 f4 I took a good look at the Sigma 70-200 and was very impressed.

So it seemed a sensible thing to do, but I guess I hadn’t really thought enough about whether the little 20-200 I’ve acquired could actually replace a fast 70-200. That’s my dilemma.

I’m leaning towards keeping it, but I’ve just done my shoulder in so all my mental effort is on the pain management!

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I’m leaning towards keeping it, but I’ve just done my shoulder in so all my mental effort is on the pain management!

Ugh. Never fun.

 

[CharlesH]

About the loss of the Panasonic 70-200mm f/4

 

[Jayneboo]

There is that consideration Jayne, but I bought it after a very quick decision process at The Photography Show because it was on a good deal. And in my mind were two thoughts - (a) my 70-200 f4 had died; and (b) when I got the 70-200 f4 I took a good look at the Sigma 70-200 and was very impressed.

So it seemed a sensible thing to do, but I guess I hadn’t really thought enough about whether the little 20-200 I’ve acquired could actually replace a fast 70-200. That’s my dilemma.

I’m leaning towards keeping it, but I’ve just done my shoulder in so all my mental effort is on the pain management!

Urgh... take care and hope pain passes soon.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I’m leaning towards keeping it, but I’ve just done my shoulder in so all my mental effort is on the pain management!

I hope that wasn't from lifting the 70-200...