Lens buying advice

[RuleOfThirds]

After having two Panasonic lenses fail on me, I now try to buy other brands (esp Sigma) if I possibly can. If you are not aware of my Panasonic lens woes, read on …

I had a 70-200 f4 that just completely died from one use to another (complete electronics failure), and then my 24-105 started making buzzing sounds during which photos were heavily blurred so it was clear the OIS was dying.

Both lenses were outside warranty and since Panasonic offer no spare parts for their lenses, the result was two expensive paperweights sitting on my desk.

Then there are many long threads on DPR and other forums about breakdown of cement within composite elements leading to fungus like fogging in many of their higher end lenses.

My attempts to get Panasonic to offer some goodwill for my lens failures resulted in derisory discounts on full official price. People with the fogging problems also found that Panasonic did nothing to redress the situation.

So all in all, I now have very little trust in Panasonic lenses at all. I still have a number of them (and they perform well), but when they die, if there is a Sigma alternative, then that’s what I’ll replace them with.

Maybe you have the anti-gift of breaking Lumix lenses… I for sure would not let you touch my Lumix lenses
Or you should buy more lenses and rotate their usages frequently, so they will all survive longer.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

Maybe you have the anti-gift of breaking Lumix lenses… I for sure would not let you touch my Lumix lenses
Or you should buy more lenses and rotate their usages frequently, so they will all survive longer.

lol, they are in fact electronic devices, and like computers, they would perform in response to our mental state. Therefore, once the first lens goes, all the rest would be that much more vulnerable.

 

[PJD]

lol, they are in fact electronic devices, and like computers, they would perform in response to our mental state. Therefore, once the first lens goes, all the rest would be that much more vulnerable.

My lens advice: Keep a small hammer in your camera/lens bag. The threat alone may improve your lenses’ behavior and keep them “in line”.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

My lens advice: Keep a small hammer in your camera/lens bag. The threat alone may improve your lenses’ behavior and keep them “in line”.

I find that lens treats work better.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I tested the 24-105 f/4 against my 24-60 f/2.8 and it held up great. I could not really differentiate but I decided to keep the 24-60 because it’s faster.

I have them both too, and I'm thinking of returning to the 24-105, and leaving both the 28-200 and 24-60. It turns out I don't use that 140-200mm part that often, but 60-100 I do use.

The 24-60 is a tad sharper, but I hate the vignetting at 24mm, and it looks too digital to me. But the 24-105 is heavier and flares (but mostly in a nice way) but nicer rendering, and 28-200 is softer, and has unpredictable focus >60mm with further away subjects (at inifintiy) which sometimes causes it to look softer then it actually is. I'm inclined to get a 20-60 again as a lightweight option. That lens really punches above it's weight.

But if I bring a 100/2.8 with my 24-60 or a 16-35 with my 28-200, those combinations are still heavier then 24-105. And the 24-105 let me take pictures at 1 second handheld. The dual-ois is very very good compared to the 28-200.

I'm in the @GeorgeHudetz camp, hate the zooming rotation difference, so no sigma zooms for me. But if you don't mind, @pdk42 likes his 20-200 very much.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

I have them both too, and I'm thinking of returning to the 24-105, and leaving both the 28-200 and 24-60. It turns out I don't use that 140-200mm part that often, but 60-100 I do use.

The 24-60 is a tad sharper, but I hate the vignetting at 24mm, and it looks too digital to me. But the 24-105 is heavier and flares (but mostly in a nice way) but nicer rendering, and 28-200 is softer, and has unpredictable focus >60mm with further away subjects (at inifintiy) which sometimes causes it to look softer then it actually is. I'm inclined to get a 20-60 again as a lightweight option. That lens really punches above it's weight.

But if I bring a 100/2.8 with my 24-60 or a 16-35 with my 28-200, those combinations are still heavier then 24-105. And the 24-105 let me take pictures at 1 second handheld. The dual-ois is very very good compared to the 28-200.

I'm in the @GeorgeHudetz camp, hate the zooming rotation difference, so no sigma zooms for me. But if you don't mind, @pdk42 likes his 20-200 very much.

I should really go back and take a look at the 24 to 60 and the 24 to 105 for that rendering quality you’re talking about.

I sold off my S5ii with the 50 mm F1.8 and the 20 to 60 which I thought was kind of cheap but in hindsight I think it’s a great Lens. For the money, it’s hard to beat.
I paid $850 for my 24 to 60 but I think it is nice to have a 2.8 on hand which is where the 24-105 loses out. However, image stabilization goes a long way to make up for that, unless you’re simply after bokeh balls, whereas a 105 mm F4 may be darn close to a 60 mm at 2.8.

All I know is that I need to lose some gear and quit being attached to all these pretty little shiny pieces.
It’s too easy to fall in love with all of this fantastic equipment. I must confess, I’m a bit of a junkie.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I should really go back and take a look at the 24 to 60 and the 24 to 105 for that rendering quality you’re talking about.

I sold off my S5ii with the 50 mm F1.8 and the 20 to 60 which I thought was kind of cheap but in hindsight I think it’s a great Lens. For the money, it’s hard to beat.
I paid $850 for my 24 to 60 but I think it is nice to have a 2.8 on hand which is where the 24-105 loses out. However, image stabilization goes a long way to make up for that, unless you’re simply after bokeh balls, whereas a 105 mm F4 may be darn close to a 60 mm at 2.8.

All I know is that I need to lose some gear and quit being attached to all these pretty little shiny pieces.
It’s too easy to fall in love with all of this fantastic equipment. I must confess, I’m a bit of a junkie.

Luckily the 20-60 are easy to get cheap 2nd hand from reputable stores. I really like the 24-60 too, but only for 2.8 portrait type shots. But indoors I grab a prime, and outdoors you normally have enough room to move. I don't have to sell, that is why I still have my 24-105 . But I don't want to end up with a bunch of lenses I rarely use either. I actually like a small set of lenses so that I don't get into the stress of choice, what to take with me.


At the wide angle the 16-35 is really much much better then the 20-60, and the 24-105 is better also in the overlapping range with the 20-60 (or 28-200). The thing is, the 20-60 is better than both of those options if you leave it at home because of the bulk, and it's better than the 28-200 as a lightweight option unless you need tele and light.

then again, I've visited a lot of cities with just the 16-35 and it has been perfect (honestly, visited a lot of cities in Spain with a 23/1.4 and 14/2.8 fuji-x primes, and 16-35 covers more).

Probably going to end up with something like,
16-35, 24-105/4, 70-300. And then 100/2.8 and a Sigma 35/1.4 dg dn ii, and maybe 18/1.8.
It helps a lot that I overcame illness and have much less trouble with heavier gear than in the past.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Luckily the 20-60 are easy to get cheap 2nd hand from reputable stores. I really like the 24-60 too, but only for 2.8 portrait type shots. But indoors I grab a prime, and outdoors you normally have enough room to move. I don't have to sell, that is why I still have my 24-105 . But I don't want to end up with a bunch of lenses I rarely use either. I actually like a small set of lenses so that I don't get into the stress of choice, what to take with me.


At the wide angle the 16-35 is really much much better then the 20-60, and the 24-105 is better also in the overlapping range with the 20-60 (or 28-200). The thing is, the 20-60 is better than both of those options if you leave it at home because of the bulk, and it's better than the 28-200 as a lightweight option unless you need tele and light.

then again, I've visited a lot of cities with just the 16-35 and it has been perfect (honestly, visited a lot of cities in Spain with a 23/1.4 and 14/2.8 fuji-x primes, and 16-35 covers more).

Probably going to end up with something like,
16-35, 24-105/4, 70-300. And then 100/2.8 and a Sigma 35/1.4 dg dn ii, and maybe 18/1.8.

The classic combo. Hard to go wrong. And yes, in a city, you can do so much with just an UW zoom.

It helps a lot that I overcame illness and have much less trouble with heavier gear than in the past.

Congrats on that. Health is everything.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

Luckily the 20-60 are easy to get cheap 2nd hand from reputable stores. I really like the 24-60 too, but only for 2.8 portrait type shots. But indoors I grab a prime, and outdoors you normally have enough room to move. I don't have to sell, that is why I still have my 24-105 . But I don't want to end up with a bunch of lenses I rarely use either. I actually like a small set of lenses so that I don't get into the stress of choice, what to take with me.


At the wide angle the 16-35 is really much much better then the 20-60, and the 24-105 is better also in the overlapping range with the 20-60 (or 28-200). The thing is, the 20-60 is better than both of those options if you leave it at home because of the bulk, and it's better than the 28-200 as a lightweight option unless you need tele and light.

then again, I've visited a lot of cities with just the 16-35 and it has been perfect (honestly, visited a lot of cities in Spain with a 23/1.4 and 14/2.8 fuji-x primes, and 16-35 covers more).

Probably going to end up with something like,
16-35, 24-105/4, 70-300. And then 100/2.8 and a Sigma 35/1.4 dg dn ii, and maybe 18/1.8.
It helps a lot that I overcame illness and have much less trouble with heavier gear than in the past.

Congratulations on your recovery. Photography can be very physically demanding.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Congratulations on your recovery. Photography can be very physically demanding.

Thank you. Recovery is already 2,5 years on its way, but this year I was able to up my game in the gym. Now at 55kg row and bench for example, which also strengthened my hand and wrist. That is why weight is much less of an issue.

 

[Travis Butler]

Thank you. Recovery is already 2,5 years on its way, but this year I was able to up my game in the gym. Now at 55kg row and bench for example, which also strengthened my hand and wrist. That is why weight is much less of an issue.

I'm glad you're feeling better!

Sadly, any kind of permanent fix for my condition is currently impossible, so size/weight will be a major concern for me for the foreseeable future.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

And yes, in a city, you can do so much with just an UW zoom

That was the primary reason to go for 16-35 instead of 14-28. While 14 is much wider, 16-35 is much more versatile on it's own. I think an 17-50/4 Pro would be too much to resist, and make me sell the 16-35.

That is why I am considering the S18/1.8, to combine it with 24-105. Not to replace 16-35 it self.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

That was the primary reason to go for 16-35 instead of 14-28. While 14 is much wider, 16-35 is much more versatile on it's own. I think an 17-50/4 Pro would be too much to resist, and make me sell the 16-35.

That is why I am considering the S18/1.8, to combine it with 24-105. Not to replace 16-35 it self.

I have the 14-28 (good deal I couldn’t resist) and the 16-35. When it comes to lens selection I kind of hang out in the extremes. If I shoot the 16-35 I’m likely using it as a 16-24 at the most, then I’ll skip over 35 and grab a 50.
I don’t know why, but I tend to find 35 mm boring, and maybe it has something to do with my being sort of an extreme personality; that it’s either super wide or Tele photo, but 35 seems to be in that mundane area that I never really touch on much even though I have 2-35mm primes.

So I’m considering getting rid of the 16 to 35 and keeping the 14th to 28 except I tend to love the focus clutch on the provinces and it keeps me hanging on.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

I have the 14-28 (good deal I couldn’t resist) and the 16-35. When it comes to lens selection I kind of hang out in the extremes. If I shoot the 16-35 I’m likely using it as a 16-24 at the most, then I’ll skip over 35 and grab a 50.
I don’t know why, but I tend to find 35 mm boring, and maybe it has something to do with my being sort of an extreme personality; that it’s either super wide or Tele photo, but 35 seems to be in that mundane area that I never really touch on much even though I have 2-35mm primes.

So I’m considering getting rid of the 16 to 35 and keeping the 14th to 28 except I tend to love the focus clutch on the provinces and it keeps me hanging on.

Oh, then there’s the macro ability!

 

[xaviergut]

According to L-rumors a new Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-f/4 is coming soon:

New Sigma 85mm f/1.2 and 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 will be announced on September 8 - L mount system camera rumors and news

https://youtu.be/pNUMHoeHemA Trusted sources (thanks!) have now confirmed that Sigma will announce these two new lenses on September 8: 85mm f/1.2 L (already listed at B&H Photo). 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 The third lens might be EPIC: Back in April, reliable leaker How2Fly said this: So far, however...

www.l-rumors.com

I am just curious about the price, size and weight...

 

[Justa]

It's nice to know how announcing a new lens makes them so great, and before anyone even uses one? I chose the 14-28 over the 16-35, price was factor and for me it's more convenient to have 14mm than not period. I know what's important to me, if something is not important to me then what I can assure anyone is, I know nothing about it. Why would I waste time studying things not important, unless they actually are? My theory is people who say things aren't important are not being truthful because they made it important enough to say it wasn't important. In other words be careful which word users you choose? I didn't bring up 28mm because it's not important to me, a Sigma 28 1.4 would be, if I needed or wanted to use 28mm? I also don't think 14mm is for just anyone either, I'm saying you love 14mm or you don't and it's a unique focal length where ultra wide leave no doubt in a viewers mind. There's no middle ground there or "it's ok on occasion" because 14mm is a personality and truthfully, 16mm is not a character of it's own focal length, because it's a playing it safe ultra wide in reality

 

[RuleOfThirds]

It's nice to know how announcing a new lens makes them so great, and before anyone even uses one? I chose the 14-28 over the 16-35, price was factor and for me it's more convenient to have 14mm than not period. I know what's important to me, if something is not important to me then what I can assure anyone is, I know nothing about it. Why would I waste time studying things not important, unless they actually are? My theory is people who say things aren't important are not being truthful because they made it important enough to say it wasn't important. In other words be careful which word users you choose? I didn't bring up 28mm because it's not important to me, a Sigma 28 1.4 would be, if I needed or wanted to use 28mm? I also don't think 14mm is for just anyone either, I'm saying you love 14mm or you don't and it's a unique focal length where ultra wide leave no doubt in a viewers mind. There's no middle ground there or "it's ok on occasion" because 14mm is a personality and truthfully, 16mm is not a character of it's own focal length, because it's a playing it safe ultra wide in reality

Everybody responds from their own perspective. There is no right or wrong. Yes some parts of a lens are quantifiable or objectively measured. But those numbers are subjective to each and everybodies perspective on what is important to them. However if someone asks an opinion on what they choose and why, and don't see anything bad at that. I do not exactly understand what you mean actually.. Every choice as a trade-off. And everybody chooses what they think is best for them. I would never "disapprove" somebodies choice. Why would I? I can only explain the reasons why I choose the stuff I have. And, yes, even for the right reasons you can end up with stuff you in practice dislike or in afterthought would have chosen different.

 

[xaviergut]

According to L-rumors a new Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-f/4 is coming soon:

New Sigma 85mm f/1.2 and 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 will be announced on September 8 - L mount system camera rumors and news

https://youtu.be/pNUMHoeHemA Trusted sources (thanks!) have now confirmed that Sigma will announce these two new lenses on September 8: 85mm f/1.2 L (already listed at B&H Photo). 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 The third lens might be EPIC: Back in April, reliable leaker How2Fly said this: So far, however...

www.l-rumors.com

I am just curious about the price, size and weight...

It seems that the new Sigma is smaller than the Lumix one:

Leaked: Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Specs and Images - L mount system camera rumors and news

Here are the first images and specs of the Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0. 15 elements in 13 groups Diameter: 67mm Minimum Focusing Distance: 20cm (wide-angle) / 25cm (telephoto) (up to 15.8cm at 28mm) Maximum Magnification: 1:5.7 (wide-angle) / 1:2.9 (telephoto) Dimensions: 72.2 x 86mm; Maximum...

www.l-rumors.com

Plus, it’s a faster lens... I really like the focal length; 20mm is the sweet spot for 65:24 panoramic shots (X-Pan style), although I usually stitch two photos together to create panoramas. However, 20mm is very useful for video, and the 60mm f/4 is an excellent starting point for portraits—especially considering that the hybrid zoom gives you a 90mm focal length without much loss of resolution, and even less so when using the S1Rii’s 44MP sensor. It’s going to be a fantastic upgrade over the Lumix lens... I might just buy it this coming Black Friday...

 

[RuleOfThirds]

It seems that the new Sigma is smaller than the Lumix one:

Leaked: Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Specs and Images - L mount system camera rumors and news

Here are the first images and specs of the Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0. 15 elements in 13 groups Diameter: 67mm Minimum Focusing Distance: 20cm (wide-angle) / 25cm (telephoto) (up to 15.8cm at 28mm) Maximum Magnification: 1:5.7 (wide-angle) / 1:2.9 (telephoto) Dimensions: 72.2 x 86mm; Maximum...

www.l-rumors.com

Plus, it’s a faster lens... I really like the focal length; 20mm is the sweet spot for 65:24 panoramic shots (X-Pan style), although I usually stitch two photos together to create panoramas. However, 20mm is very useful for video, and the 60mm f/4 is an excellent starting point for portraits—especially considering that the hybrid zoom gives you a 90mm focal length without much loss of resolution, and even less so when using the S1Rii’s 44MP sensor. It’s going to be a fantastic upgrade over the Lumix lens... I might just buy it this coming Black Friday...

I certainly agree that It is an extremely useful range. Would love to see some pictures taken with it. I hate that it is turning the wrong way… but I could live with that if it compensates with some good other stuff. Then I change my opinion about rotating wrong to super annoying but bearable.

 

[Mmichaelhh1234]

It seems that the new Sigma is smaller than the Lumix one:

Leaked: Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0 Specs and Images - L mount system camera rumors and news

Here are the first images and specs of the Sigma 20-60mm f/2.8-4.0. 15 elements in 13 groups Diameter: 67mm Minimum Focusing Distance: 20cm (wide-angle) / 25cm (telephoto) (up to 15.8cm at 28mm) Maximum Magnification: 1:5.7 (wide-angle) / 1:2.9 (telephoto) Dimensions: 72.2 x 86mm; Maximum...

www.l-rumors.com

Plus, it’s a faster lens... I really like the focal length; 20mm is the sweet spot for 65:24 panoramic shots (X-Pan style), although I usually stitch two photos together to create panoramas. However, 20mm is very useful for video, and the 60mm f/4 is an excellent starting point for portraits—especially considering that the hybrid zoom gives you a 90mm focal length without much loss of resolution, and even less so when using the S1Rii’s 44MP sensor. It’s going to be a fantastic upgrade over the Lumix lens... I might just buy it this coming Black Friday...

I’m curious, isn’t the lumix 24-60 a great option especially considering its constant aperture?
I started adapting old Nikon lenses and it’s mainly the primes. The 85mm 1.4 I picked up mint almost for 350 out the door. The 135mm 2.8 ai-s is super sharp. The 180 2.8 both d and ai-s, the 105 2.5, the 60 2.8 micro is excellent as is my 55 2.8 ai-s micro. I mean, for portrait work it seems like manual focus is acceptable and possibly preferred. Obviously for video you would either stay at 20 or stick to a fixed aperture zoom, but it’s easy enough to swap lenses or work another body.