Short tele lens challenge 1.0

[dirk]

Dirk, you're the only other person I've seen with the I-series 50/2, which I don't think is a popular lens.

I like mine a lot. But I am a dinosaur. I just love the haptic of metal and the aperture ring like in the 80ies.

Recently I’ve acquired the 100 macro and may in fact let the 85 go as it’s too close and 2.8 is fine in fact

The Sigma 100/2.8 DG DN Macro lens is a beast. Very big and very heavy. I did not include it because I thought noone would see it as an alternative to the other short tele lenses?

If you do portraits and want to have eyes and nose in focus, you need F2.8-F5-6 depending on your distance to the person.

F1.4 is cool, if you are further away or if you really want to "nail" the eyes. I have not shot yet with my new 85/1.4, so I can not comment on image quality vs. my Lumix 85/1.8 or 90/2.8. Hopefully next week the weather becomes significantly better...

 

[huwm]

I might try and dig out some examples but they would be on different cameras and separated by as much as 3 years
My GAS which I’ve got under some control means that through put was high without much ‘overlap’
The other fact that is likely to see the 85S moving on is close focusing, or rather lack thereof
my zooms in this range 24-105 and 7-300 both do better

 

[dirk]

If size is what matters most then the Sigma FpL with the Sigma or Leica Aps-c lenses should not be ruled out.

Even with fullframe lenses is the Sigma Fp/FpL a great choice. Unfortunately these are very expensive in Germany. It seems that all the great promotions are only in the US or in the UK. Maybe I find over the time a very cheap second hand body as soon as a new model comes out. I have burned a hole in my pocket with all these lenses and cameras.

I have now to restrict myself more. Sais my wife.

 

[huwm]

My 100 macro is the Lumix and weighs nothing in stark contrast to the ‘beast‘ Sigma 105 which I also owned in the past but moved on for that reason

 

[dirk]

My 100 macro is the Lumix and weighs nothing in stark contrast to the ‘beast‘ Sigma 105 which I also owned in the past but moved on for that reason

oh, that is interesting! Please post some example images in an extra thread made with the Lumix 100 macro!

 

[halfmac]

I have the Lumix S 50, 85 and 100 Macro. It is really cool that the leans are all the same size and approximate weight. I also have the Sigma 45 on one of my studio cameras because I did not use it much. I bought the 85 as it replaced my MFT 42.5 f1.2. The 42.5 was $1600 and the 85 was $599 and weights less. I have to say that the 100 Macro is amazing and f2.8 still has great wide depth of field so I don't know if I will keep the 85.

I have one M-Mount manual lens that is real small, Voigtlander 40mm f1.4. I is pretty heavy for it's size and at 1.4 is soft in a romantic way.

 

[Markuswelder]

I have the Lumix S 50, 85 and 100 Macro. It is really cool that the leans are all the same size and approximate weight. I also have the Sigma 45 on one of my studio cameras because I did not use it much. I bought the 85 as it replaced my MFT 42.5 f1.2. The 42.5 was $1600 and the 85 was $599 and weights less. I have to say that the 100 Macro is amazing and f2.8 still has great wide depth of field so I don't know if I will keep the 85.

I have one M-Mount manual lens that is real small, Voigtlander 40mm f1.4. I is pretty heavy for it's size and at 1.4 is soft in a romantic way.

I ended up making the same decision, except in the 50mm equivalent focal length. I've shot m4/3 for the last 8 or 9 years, but had an itch to try a fast 50 for some time. Ended up with an S5 and Lumix S 50 1.8, as it's lighter, faster, and I got mine at 1/3 the price (new) of the 25mm Olympus f1.2 Pro. It's good enough (the Lumix 50) that Leica puts their own name on it and sells it at quite a premium.
I also have the Lumix 42.5mm f1.7, Olympus 45mm f1.8 and Sigma 56mm f1.4. The Sigma 56 is my favourite as far as sharpness, contrasty and rendering, but find it a tad too long for my typical subject matter. 85mm is more useful more often, for me.
At the moment, I'm just using the 70mm end of my Sigma 28-70mm f2.8, and that seems to be working quite nicely for me.
I had read in reviews that the Sigma was a bit lacking in contrast at the 70mm end, but I've also read that they changed the element coatings at some point, and this is no longer an issue. I've no complaints with mine, it looks excellent to me, I suspect it's the latter version as I had to wait a month for the shop to order it in, and it arrived with the latest firmware.
At some point, I'll possibly get the itch to grab an 85mm, the Lumix probably being first in line here.
So thank you Dirk, for your comparison, even though it may be the catalyst for tempting me into another lens purchase.

 

[Pete_W]

I also have the Sigma 45 on one of my studio cameras because I did not use it much.

I have been interested in the Sigma 45mm and also the 65mm. Is focal length the reason you don't use it much, or some other reason?

 

[Babylonia]

Nowadays you really have to look very close and compare your individual preferred focal lenght/ zoom range,
think about whether you really need more than 24 MP and then analyse, how big the system will become if you invest in it with the best optical performance.

In general today, I think most users are quite happy in using 24 MP, and really don't need more.
Me myself, having the 47 MP Lumix S1R - also for most pictures don't need those big MP image files either. (Only need it for some projects).

This big size have its disadvantages, as it takes huge disk space. Specially processed as "first" step from RAW images,
into "base archive" 48 bits RGB TIFF files. (From there you can process further, and end-up more small files for print etc.)

The choice to go into 47 MP has more to do by my previous imaging era still in my "blood", when I had my job in analogue film photography,
using 6x7 roll-film - 4x5 inch and sometimes 8x10 inch sheet film. You didn't take those big size sheet film, for taking "family" shots.
However, I like the extra "spare" of all those today's large digital images in a "handful" device package.
compared to "suitcases" and station wagon full of carrying materials. (And three inguinal hernias over the years of lugging it around.)

In meanwhile my age is going further, taking pictures less.

 

[pdk42]

In general today, I think most users are quite happy in using 24 MP, and really don't need more.
Me myself, having the 47 MP Lumix S1R - also for most pictures don't need those big MP image files either. (Only need it for some projects).

This big size have its disadvantages, as it takes huge disk space. Specially processed as "first" step from RAW images,
into "base archive" 48 bits RGB TIFF files. (From there you can process further, and end-up more small files for print etc.)

The choice to go into 47 MP has more to do by my previous imaging era still in my "blood", when I had my job in analogue film photography,
using 6x7 roll-film - 4x5 inch and sometimes 8x10 inch sheet film. You didn't take those big size sheet film, for taking "family" shots.
However, I like the extra "spare" of all those today's large digital images in a "handful" device package.
compared to "suitcases" and station wagon full of carrying materials. (And three inguinal hernias over the years of lugging it around.)

In meanwhile my age is going further, taking pictures less.

I know it's irrational, but I like to grab as many Mp as I can in order to give myself the best chance of "future proofing" the images. You can never go back and capture a scene again so it sort of makes some sense to capture as much data as you can.

 

[Babylonia]

For me, depends by subject. To "grab as many Mp" I also use the HR mode, getting 187 MP images.

 

[Nomad Nate]

I have been interested in the Sigma 45mm and also the 65mm. Is focal length the reason you don't use it much, or some other reason?

I'm also really interested in that 65. It seems like it's built to be almost a mini 85 1.4 in that it has some similar characteristics. A little warmer rendering, super sharp center frame, but a little bit of corner fall off in sharpness and light. I'd hoped pre ordering the s5ii day of launch, I'd get the 45mm like they did for the launch of the s5 but c'est la vie. Love my 24-105 but the idea of a little sharp fast prime like that 65 with the nice build seems fun. I know I'd probably be more versatile with the 50 1.8 and save money but the look of the 65 just strikes me as being a little unique

 

[LingoDingo]

I shoot a fair bit of video so my top choice is the Lumix S lenses because they are roughly the same size and weight, and have very little focus breathing. ( I also have a bunch of Nikon AI-S lenses in mint condition and some day may test them against the Lumix S lenses )

 

[Pete_W]

I'm also really interested in that 65. It seems like it's built to be almost a mini 85 1.4 in that it has some similar characteristics. A little warmer rendering, super sharp center frame, but a little bit of corner fall off in sharpness and light. I'd hoped pre ordering the s5ii day of launch, I'd get the 45mm like they did for the launch of the s5 but c'est la vie. Love my 24-105 but the idea of a little sharp fast prime like that 65 with the nice build seems fun. I know I'd probably be more versatile with the 50 1.8 and save money but the look of the 65 just strikes me as being a little unique

I have the Sigma 35mm f/2 and really love it which has led me to look at the other Sigma primes. I've often thought that I would eventually get the Lumix 85mm f/1.8 but I've been thinking that the Sigma 65mm might be better for me. DPR has a gallery of shots from the Sigma 65mm taken with the S1R: https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_65_2_dg_dn/overview

I also like the look of the photos taken Sigma 45mm f/2.8. One of the DPR writers nominated it as gear of the year in 2019:

Gear of the Year 2019 - Carey's choice: Sigma 45mm F2.8

Over months of using Sigma's 45mm F2.8 Contemporary lens, Reviews Editor Carey Rose rediscovers that there's so much more to a lens than speed and sharpness.

www.dpreview.com

 

[Jayneboo]

I have the Sigma 35mm f/2 and really love it which has led me to look at the other Sigma primes. I've often thought that I would eventually get the Lumix 85mm f/1.8 but I've been thinking that the Sigma 65mm might be better for me. DPR has a gallery of shots from the Sigma 65mm taken with the S1R: https://www.dpreview.com/products/sigma/lenses/sigma_65_2_dg_dn/overview

I also like the look of the photos taken Sigma 45mm f/2.8. One of the DPR writers nominated it as gear of the year in 2019:

Gear of the Year 2019 - Carey's choice: Sigma 45mm F2.8

Over months of using Sigma's 45mm F2.8 Contemporary lens, Reviews Editor Carey Rose rediscovers that there's so much more to a lens than speed and sharpness.

www.dpreview.com

I really like the Sig 65mm, I feel the files have a slightly different look to the other contemporary lenses from Sigma. I mistakenly sold mine when Sigma bought out the 50mm f/2 as I thought that would be the more useful lens for me, fifty always being my favourite focal length. Every time I looked back through my 65mm shots I missed it, so had to buy it again.

 

[Pete_W]

I really like the Sig 65mm, I feel the files have a slightly different look to the other contemporary lenses from Sigma. I mistakenly sold mine when Sigma bought out the 50mm f/2 as I thought that would be the more useful lens for me, fifty always being my favourite focal length. Every time I looked back through my 65mm shots I missed it, so had to buy it again.

Thanks Jayne. I might have to get myself this lens. It does seem to render very nicely.

 

[Nomad Nate]

Just curious how does that 65mm feel on-body compared to the 85 or 50? I know it's 100g heavier but since they're shorter does it affect balance at all?

 

[dirk]

• Google - Pixel 8 Pro
• Pixel 8 Pro back camera 6.9mm f/1.68
• 6.9 mm
• ƒ/1.68
• 1/1000000 sec
• Center-Weighted Average
• Auto exposure
• ISO 30

It depends on which camera body you use, the size of your hands and your personal preferences.

The bigger the body, the smaller the lens feels.

The differences between 50/65/85 (Lumix) are not huge, but I feel them. Sometimes small difference make big differences.

For me the 50mm is the size I feel most comfortable with. The 50mm feels small/better on my S5ii. Although the 65 is not way bigger, but strangely, I do not like it that much on my S5 and now S5ii compared to the 50.

The Lumix 85 is hard to compare. It is even bigger although not really heavier, but the feeling is totally different. Plastik (not bad at all) and no aperture ring. It does not invite you to use manual focus.

 

[Jayneboo]

Just curious how does that 65mm feel on-body compared to the 85 or 50? I know it's 100g heavier but since they're shorter does it affect balance at all?

If you are talking about a Panasonic Body (S5 etc) if it feels any different then It's not something I personally have noticed, the Panasonic bodies are chunky enough for this weight/size of lens easily. I do understand people's desire for smaller lenses and I use a lot of manual lenses on my bodies but to me the Sigma contemporary primes are all very manageable.

Having just read Dirk's comments above, I note we have opposite thoughts on the 50 and 65, I could easily live without the 50 f/2. That could be because I have several lovely M mount 50's that I just prefer the images from.

 

[dirk]

That could be because I have several lovely M mount 50's that I just prefer the images from.

Unfortunately, I do not have these alternatives. The M lenses are probably way smaller than the Sigma 50/2.0, which will be something I would probably like too.

As you said, it is very subjective. I was only talking about the "feel", which is hard to describe and will be different for everybody.