Howdy :)

[mal-edgar]

Hi Everyone,
I am glad to have found this forum, having spent too many days devouring YouTube content. Its really nice to see the open and supportive discussions here.

I am getting back into photography after a very long break, and I have a ton to learn. I am looking forward to wildlife, landscape and street photography, having recently purchased a Lumix S9 with the kit 18-40mm lens. The learning curve on this cameras is pretty intimidating at first compared to my recent iPhone experience, but I will purserver.



The next lens on the shopping list is the Lumix 28-200mm, which I hope to take out while walking in southern Queensland. After this I was thinking of getting a Sigma 35mm F2 or Sigma 45mm F2.8 for an daily carry, does anyone have any experiences on these lenses they would like to share. The 35mm sounds like the better lense, but the 45mm is more compact.

Looking forward to participating.

regards Malcolm

 

[Pete_W]

Hi Malcolm, welcome to the forum.

I also have an S9 with the 18-40mm and I have both the Sigma 35mm f/2 and 45mm f/2.8 (and the 24mm f/3.5 and 90mm f/2.8). The Sigma Contemporary lenses really are all very good in my view, very sharp and they produce pleasing images.

I would say that the 35mm is probably a bit more of a versatile focal length for landscape / street / general photography and you can always crop in to get to a 45mm or 50mm field of view. Although you have the 35mm focal length covered already with your 18-40mm so maybe the 45mm would be better.

The 45mm is a bit different to the other Sigma Contemporary lenses in that it was designed with uncorrected spherical aberration to achieve more attractive bokeh when used wide open. However it sharpens up nicely when stopped down and it's quite compact so it matches well with the S9. It's one of my favourite lenses.

You won't go wrong with either of these lenses, so it comes down to what focal length you will likely use the most, and I guess size.

 

[dirk]

Hi Malcom,



It all depends on your use case scenario and what kind of compromise you want to make. Each lens is a compromise, no matter which model or brand.

In my view there are 3 main criteria, which influence each other, you have to be aware of when considering a lens.

• Price
• Size/weight
• image quality

There are obviously also other criterias, i.e. F-stop and focal lenght/zoom range, but the above mentioned criteria are in my view the most important ones, which will significantly influence /restrict all other criterias.

You can not expect the best images quality if you pay the cheapest price among the alternatives. But "best image quality" is very subjective and depends on your use case.

In many situations, you will not be able to see the difference between the best lens on the market for a focal range and aperture and an "only" very good lens.

At the same time not everybody is willing to pay very high prices for the gear, because they have different priorities in life or also other hobbies, which need investments.

The size/weight is the third main driver and will be for you in your current situation the first hurdle. You have the S9. Big and heavy lenses are no fun without an EVF and without a real grip.

The bigger the F-stop (the smaller the number), the bigger and heavier is the lens or zoom. This is physics and you can not avoid it. At least not with the technology we have currently available.

There is a big trend over the last 10 years with computational photography (you know this from your smartphone). Similar technique is used nowadays in modern lens design, to be able to design smaller and lighter lenses with bigger apertures, but some inherent flaws. The firmware of these lenses will correct the design flaws and the MP of the sensors and faster chips in the cameras help to correct this in realtime. That saves not only weight and size for the user, but also more expensive lens design.

Regarding 35/2.0 DG DN vs. the 45/2.8. These have different lens design philosophies. The 35mm is clearly the superior lens regarding image quality. In my personal view, the 45/2.8 is not sharp enough wide open for my taste but others might have better samples than me. Nevertheless the goal of the 45mm is not to be as sharp as the 35mm. See the specific threads and image samples for these lenses in the forum.

But image quality is not everything. Some like the 28mm focal length better than 35mm or 45mm or 50mm. This is an important factor and only you can decide which FL you like the most.

I find the weight/size difference between the 45mm and 35mm on my S9 not big enough to base my decision on that alone. I like the 45mm view better than 35mm and 28mm better than 35mm.

I like the most 43mm. Surprisingly there is a difference in impression between only 2mm FL (45mm vs 43mm). This is all very subjective. Therefore you should look at Flickr etc. for image examples before ordering focal length.

 

[mal-edgar]

Thanks Pete and Dirk for the thoughtful responses. I think I might look at 45mm, people really seem to enjoy this lens.

 

[Travis Butler]

FWIW, I have mixed feelings on the 45mm, using it with the Sigma fp (very similar in size to the S9).

I do really like the way it handles on a camera that size. But I am somewhat disappointed with the image quality - not the sharpness, but the color and contrast. It feels a bit ‘dull’ to me. But that’s in comparison with the Konica Hexanon 40/1.8 which I adapt on the fp, and which is known for bright, vivid color.

Here’s a few pictures with it: https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/january-2025-image-and-video-thread.760/post-13265

 

[RuleOfThirds]

The 45 was not my cup of the, sold it for the 50/1.8. I’m a 28mm person too, but that is not available for lmount in normal size/price range. 24/3.5 is very small and highly regarded as well. Could be a nice paring with the 45/2.8

For 28 I use my Ricoh GR3

 

[pdk42]

I'm not a fan of the 28-200 (as the other members here will testify). I tried three copies and to varying extents, the performance from all of them towards the long end was woeful. Contrast falls off dramatically and there is a sort of halo effect unless you stop down to f11 or more (at which point you're into diffraction). For me, it's just too compromised from an IQ perspective. It's probably fine for video use, but for critical photo use, I think it's just not good enough optically.

I know some others have different views (it's OK, different opinions are good!), so I'd encourage you to look at one for yourself - but make sure there is a good return policy!

 

[CMS]

Hi,
I am also very happy with my S9. I have the Sigma 45 f2.8 and like it very much. Unlike RuleOfThirds, I sold my Panasonic 50 f1.8 for it. The Panasonic was sharper in my opinion, but I just didn't enjoy it as much.

 

[helix]

I own a 28-200, use it on a S5ii and I am not overwhelmed by its optical performance but (for me) it is useful for everyday shots with its versatile zoom range.
So be at least attentive if you decide to buy one and I agree with pdk42: check the return policy.

 

[mal-edgar]

Just ordered the Sigma 45/2.8 - smile.

Are there good alternatives for the 28-200mm, which are reasonable to go trekking with?

 

[pdk42]

Are there good alternatives for the 28-200mm, which are reasonable to go trekking with?

Not that I've found. I'd love to have the Tamron 28-200 in L-mount, but it's Sony only

The 24-105 is probably the nearest and it's really very good, including excellent OIS that works in conjunction with the IBIS; but it's a bit chunky. I've become accustomed to it and actually it's my most used lens - by a long way. And in truth, it's no bigger or heavier really than other 24-105. designs for FF.

But if you want to get to 200mm, there really aren't too many choices. The combo of 20-60 and 70-300 is one that a lot of people use. I had very mixed results with the 70-300 (focus wander), but when it nailed focus, it delivered optically. The 20-60 is just superb for its price.

 

[dirk]

The 24-105 is probably the nearest and it's really very good, including excellent OIS that works in conjunction with the IBIS; but it's a bit chunky. I've become accustomed to it and actually it's my most used lens - by a long way. And in truth, it's no bigger or heavier really than other 24-105. designs for FF.

These are very good points. I still try to resist and hope for something lighter/smaller. Could also have less zoom range, but with at least same image quality like the 24-105.

Have you ever compared your 24-105 with the Sigma 28-70/2.8 regarding image quality?

 

[pdk42]

These are very good points. I still try to resists and hope for something lighter/smaller. Could also have less zoom range, but with at least same image quality like the 24-105.

Have you ever compared your 24-105 with the Sigma 28-70/2.8 regarding image quality?

I really want something that's 24 at the wide end not 28. I also don't need constant f2.8, so would rather have a longer range zoom with a variable and smaller max aperture. I'm sure the Sigma 28-70 is excellent optically if it's anything like its brother, the 16-28.

 

[Oíche]

Yip, chunky is a term my friend used upon seeing it (the 24-105 that is ).

Any high IQ, constant f4 24-105 with OIS will be this size for FF. The bonus is I've never yet used a tripod with it as the dual stability is insanely good. I really don't want to bring a tripod on hikes again, it's a nuisance but still necessary for dawn/dusk if you want low ISO landscape and obviously for astro or moonscapes.

 

[Travis Butler]

It's only 35mm at the wide end, but if you don't mind adapting, the Minolta 35-105/3.5-4.5 Macro does a pretty decent job. ^^;;


20210905-P1104580 by Travis Butler, on Flickr

• NO-LENS
• 1/800 sec
• Pattern
• ISO 100

A little heavy and not quite up to the IQ of my favorite MD 35-70, which is why I don't use it very much, but it's still a nice lens.

 

[helix]

Just ordered the Sigma 45/2.8 - smile.

Are there good alternatives for the 28-200mm, which are reasonable to go trekking with?

Maybe the Samyang AF 35-150mm F2.0-2.8 could be a choice. Also because you already own the 18-40.