The Standard Zoom Conundrum

[11GTCS]

So I picked up a few lenses with my new S5 II, but none of them are a standard zoom. I’ve got a 14-24 for wide landscape and interior travel work and 35 1.8 with 85 1.8 for low light/general work. I was looking at snagging a general purpose zoom to round out the package in the short term. The new Sigma 24-70 2.8 II looks to be awesome, but I wasn’t sure if anyone had any comparison experience of it vs the 24-105. I don’t shoot interior/event work very often, and I’ve got the 35 and 85, but the Sigma is actually cheaper new than the Panasonic, so it’s a bit of a hard sell.

I’d be using it for general purpose outdoor and landscape along with some very occasional studio portrait work where wide aperture wasn’t a requirement. I do occasionally shoot available light indoors, but that isn’t a big requirement. Part of me says the 24-105 is the obvious choice, but the sigma seems like such a win.

I appreciate any feedback!

 

[dirk]

If you do not need 24mm, you should take a look at the Sigma 28-70/2.8 DG DN. It is significant lighter and smaller than all 24-70/2.8 zooms. It has a very good image quality.

If I travel with fullframe and need to have a package as small as possible, but at the same time as flexible as possible this is the one I take with me.

 

[11GTCS]

If you do not need 24mm, you should take a look at the Sigma 28-70/2.8 DG DN. It is significant lighter and smaller than all 24-70/2.8 zooms. It has a very good image quality.

If I travel with fullframe and need to have a package as small as possible, but at the same time as flexible as possible this is the one I take with me.

That’s fair! I have a G9 with 12-60 and 50-200 I use when I need compact setups so compactness isn’t my primary consideration, but I’ve certainly heard good things about the 28-70! Certainly worth considering.

 

[dirk]

To give you an example. We are planning to travel to Japan in a few weeks. It will be very hot there. So I am thinking back and forth what I shall take with me. MFT, Fuji X or L-Mount. I need focal ranges between 28-50 or 70mm and a tele zoom.

My L-Mount lens list for this vacation would be probably the Sigma 28-70/2.8 and the Sigma 100-400 DG DN. I still hesitate because of the weight of the 100-400 telezoom (1.5kg). I guess I sold my Lumix 70-300 too early.

But the image quality of the 28-70/2.8 is so good, that I would not really miss my primes in that summer heat. And I would not like to carry a 24-70 or 24-105 in that heat all day long.

 

[dirk]

I have a G9 with 12-60 and 50-200 I use when I need compact setups

I have a similar setup. G9, Lumix 12-35/2.8 and Lumix 35-100/2.8.

Bear in mind that even the old G9 is as big as the S5ii. In my view the G9 makes sense for sport etc, but not for travel. The G9 eliminates the MFT advantage for travelling small and light. Then you can take also the S5ii.

The image quality of both mentioned F2.8 Lumix zooms is in my view not good enough (the Sigma 28-70/2.8 is better) and the G9 has not the same dynamic range like the S5ii. That could be in Tokyo a critical point at night and during daylight.

Normally I do not care that much, but for a trip which you do not do every week, I want to be prepared for less perfect situations.

I was in Lissabon/Portugal 10 days ago with the G9, a few primes and the Oly 40-150/2.8 Pro. The tele zoom is top notch, but heavy to carry around all day. It was hot there too.

Because of the heat, you try to avoid changing lenses all the time (I used a backpack), because it takes too much time if your walk with your family.

There is no free lunch. The difficult part is to decide with which compromise you can live the best for your specific use case.

 

[Mister Sloane]

I have experience of the original Sigma and the 24-105mm. Although the new Sigma does have improvements, from what I’ve seen from reviews, most owners of the first model wouldn’t have enough reason to upgrade - based on that, I feel it really boils down to how much someone needs the extra reach and/or what aperture they need.

Personally, it’s not an either/or decision for me, as both are good travel zooms for me for different reasons. However, these days, I find the 2.8 a big plus and can live without the extra 35mm on a lot of trips.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

To give you an example. We are planning to travel to Japan in a few weeks. It will be very hot there. So I am thinking back and forth what I shall take with me. MFT, Fuji X or L-Mount. I need focal ranges between 28-50 or 70mm and a tele zoom.

My L-Mount lens list for this vacation would be probably the Sigma 28-70/2.8 and the Sigma 100-400 DG DN. I still hesitate because of the weight of the 100-400 telezoom (1.5kg). I guess I sold my Lumix 70-300 too early.

But the image quality of the 28-70/2.8 is so good, that I would not really miss my primes in that summer heat. And I would not like to carry a 24-70 or 24-105 in that heat all day long.

I guess you shouldn’t pack a lens at all… you forgot it… for the first hour the phone will suffice, and you head to the camera shop, and buy whatever you need but something that would complement what you forgot at home ofcourse…just don’t forget my shopping list

 

[dirk]

Unforunately what I would love to buy still does not exist.

• Sigma 28/2.0 DG DN (<300g)
• Sigma 70-200/4.0-5.6 DG DN (<500g)
• Lumix GX10 (MFT, <500g)
• Lumix S9x (with an EVF, <550g)

 

[RuleOfThirds]

So I picked up a few lenses with my new S5 II, but none of them are a standard zoom. I’ve got a 14-24 for wide landscape and interior travel work and 35 1.8 with 85 1.8 for low light/general work. I was looking at snagging a general purpose zoom to round out the package in the short term. The new Sigma 24-70 2.8 II looks to be awesome, but I wasn’t sure if anyone had any comparison experience of it vs the 24-105. I don’t shoot interior/event work very often, and I’ve got the 35 and 85, but the Sigma is actually cheaper new than the Panasonic, so it’s a bit of a hard sell.

I’d be using it for general purpose outdoor and landscape along with some very occasional studio portrait work where wide aperture wasn’t a requirement. I do occasionally shoot available light indoors, but that isn’t a big requirement. Part of me says the 24-105 is the obvious choice, but the sigma seems like such a win.

I appreciate any feedback!

I got the 24-105 as one lens walk around solution. Contemplated long about it, but then bought it used from a forum member. But I do like the 20-60 as well. No experience with Sigma 24-70/2.8 (any version). I thought that 105/4 gives about some dof as 70/2.8 if you keep subject size the same. 24-105 also has OIS and close focus (macro). Like on the 70-300 the OIS works really wel. Got sharp pictures hand hold (elbows resting) of one second.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Unforunately what I would love to buy still does not exist.

• Sigma 28/2.0 DG DN
• Sigma 70-200/4.0-5.6 DG DN
• Lumix GX10 (MFT)
• Lumix S9x (with an EVF)

Hmm but if you leave the 100-400 home, and get a 28-200 over there? (With S9 attached of course). Do you have a specific day trip that need 400mm? Just curious.

The 28-200 is seriously though. With kids around an no lens swapping…

 

[dirk]

Hmm but if you leave the 100-400 home, and get a 28-200 over there? (With S9 attached of course). Do you have a specific day trip that need 400mm? Just curious.

I do not know exactly, but my guess is that I only need up to 300mmm for city photos. Currently I only have the 100-400 telezoom.

The aperture of the 28-200 is not big enough for my taste.

The S9 is very cheap in Japan. But I am not sure yet, whether I should rather wait for an EVF version.

At the moment it looks more like I would take my XT5 with Sigma 10-18/2.8, Sigma 18-50/2.8 and Fuji 70-300/4-5.6. The XT5 is smaller and lighter than my G9. Same for the lenses if I want to achieve similar DOF. Unfortunately I do not have my GX9 anymore and the GM5 is not good enough for that trip (the sensor compared to the others).

I will test tomorrow the OM System 40-150/4.0 Pro though. That one is a lot smaller and lighter than the F2.8 version of it.

 

[Pete_W]

I got the 24-105 as one lens walk around solution. Contemplated long about it, but then bought it used from a forum member. But I do like the 20-60 as well. No experience with Sigma 24-70/2.8 (any version). I thought that 105/4 gives about some dof as 70/2.8 if you keep subject size the same. 24-105 also has OIS and close focus (macro). Like on the 70-300 the OIS works really wel. Got sharp pictures hand hold (elbows resting) of one second.

This is a good point. For me, the 24-105 is a great focal range and covers a lot of what I want. But it is heavy. I also have the 20-60 so there is a substantial overlap with the 24-105 but for me, the 20-60 works as my light-weight "walk-around" lens. If I need the reach, then the 24-105 is in the bag.

When I get the S9, the 20-60 will be a great pairing with it if I want to go out with a zoom. The 24-105 will always be paired with the S5II.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Last year I took Fuji X-T4 + XF16-80, XF18/1.4, XF23/2 with me, and a GR3x. for a 5 week trip to Peru. I actually bought that 16-80 specifically for that trip 2 months before the trip to not have to change lenses. I bought it 2 months ahead to practice and check.

In the end I used the 16-80 for about 90% of my pictures. 5% with XF18 and 5% with GR3x. Which I also bought for that trip, about a week after 16-80. The GR3x was a mistake. The 40mm was to narrow for my taste, especially indoors. Exchanged it for the GR3 I have now which I should have bought in the first place. Wanted to challenge myself with the GR3x and because I had the XF18 already. Wrong challenge…

With my current gear I would bring GR3, 24-105, 35, 70-300 maybe. That would be a burden and the tele would go with me to just a few day trips. Peru gets dark early all year round, sun in the north of Peru is 6am-6pm, with only 15 minutes of dusk/dawn.

 

[Oíche]

The Lumix 24-105 f4 sounds like what you want. I bought mine with the camera as a kit for about 1/3rd the price it costs separately... £1099 in UK

24-70 lenses are too short for me and Sigma has no O.I.S, no need for f2.8 on FF and the reach to 105mm is essential. I actually have a handy duality crossover of 70-105 with my other Lumix 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 as it saves lens swaps.

Bokeh from both is beautiful as is the 0.5x macro which the Sigma 24-70/28-70 also does not possess. 0.5x macro is all I need so it saved me buying a macro lens and I have it at all times with either lens. Anyway those are several reasons for it and a reminder for me to do some close up photography outside.

Have a look at the June thread and previous for 24-105 f4 images, Paul, Pete and myself regularly use and post with the 24-105, these are from last week...

https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/june-2024-image-and-video-thread.547/page-6

I've even seen excellent Milky Way photos using 24-105 f4 on flickr, 24mm f4 and ISO 6400 captures a good deal of light so it really is a master of versatility. Oh BTW portraits at 85-105mm f4 are great, I need to do more of this also.

To do list: Close ups/macro and portraits

 

[RuleOfThirds]

The Lumix 24-105 f4 sounds like what you want. I bought mine with the camera as a kit for about 1/3rd the price it costs separately... £1099 in UK

24-70 lenses are too short for me and Sigma has no O.I.S, no need for f2.8 on FF and the reach to 105mm is essential. I actually have a handy duality crossover of 70-105 with my other Lumix 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 as it saves lens swaps.

Bokeh from both is beautiful as is the 0.5x macro which the Sigma 24-70/28-70 also does not possess. 0.5x macro is all I need so it saved me buying a macro lens and I have it at all times with either lens. Anyway those are several reasons for it and a reminder for me to do some close up photography outside.

Have a look at the June thread and previous for 24-105 f4 images, Paul, Pete and myself regularly use and post with the 24-105, these are from last week...

https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/june-2024-image-and-video-thread.547/page-6

I've even seen excellent Milky Way photos using 24-105 f4 on flickr, 24mm f4 and ISO 6400 captures a good deal of light so it really is a master of versatility. Oh BTW portraits at 85-105mm f4 are great, I need to do more of this also.

To do list: Close ups/macro and portraits

You should go into sales

 

[Oíche]

You should go into sales

I never worked in sales and maybe I was always in the wrong job.

I don't like a lot of marketing with lies, deceipt, or any kind of exploitation but it's a different story if you have a solid product which delivers!

 

[dirk]

@11GTCS

as you can see, no matter what brand people use, the difficulty to choose the right lens/focal range is a very personal decision and is influenced by many different factors which depend on where you want to use the lens. But it is always a compromise. Only you will know which compromise is the best for yourself.

Some prefer F2.8 and are willing to give up the reach from 70-105 for this. Some prefere compact and light and are willing to give up i.e. the 24mm on the short end and the reach on the long end.

As far as I understood it, you want to have a convenient all around zoom, that you really take with you without hesitation for the situations you do not want to carry a lot with you. And it should be only one lens.

Weight, size and flexibility would be then very high on my priority list. Otherwise you risk not to take it with you. I can easily replace with the 28-70 the missing 70-105 range with my feet. The difference will not be significant. With 24mm vs 28mm this is more difficult. For me, the size and weight advantage would be more important than the 24mm on the wide end. I know that I would leave the 24-105 at home, because of its size and weight. Same was true for my 70-300 tele zoom and my behaviour in other systems.

Do not underestimate F2.8 in fullframe. You gain a lot of flexibility for lower ISO and DOF control.

But there is no "right" solution. We have many positive examples for all kind of zoom lenses as we can see in this thread. Even with a Ricoh GR3 or GR3x, which I love too by the way.

So, to make it even more confusing, if I would be allowed to just take only one camera and one lens with me as an "allrounder", it would be the GR3 or GR3x. These cameras are the most flexible I have ever used. A joy to use, fast, small, efficient, high image quality and you do not feel like a tourist.

Just food for thoughts...

 

[dirk]

In the end I used the 16-80 for about 90% of my pictures. 5% with XF18 and 5% with GR3x.

Good point. To my surprise I used in Lissabon ca. 85% the Olympus 40-150/2.8 Pro (it was very crowded) and for the rest the Ricoh GR3. Maybe 0,2% the FFL. This is why I want to take a tele zoom with me for Japan too. The GR3 or GR3x is always with me anyway.

 

[Nevyn72]

For me the 24-105 F4 was to heavy as travel lens, I'm the member who sold it to @RuleOfThirds.

For me the Sigma 16-28mm F2.8 paired with the Lumix 28-200 is the (almost) ideal travel combo. Light, easy to carry and for 90% I do all with the 28-200. The lumix is only for some landscape and indoors like cathedrals (that's why I prefer the Sigma wide-angle before the Lumix, more light).

But I do mostly video though. The only nible i have that I would have loved the filter tread to he 67mm, just like most Lumix lenses.

 

[11GTCS]

The Lumix 24-105 f4 sounds like what you want. I bought mine with the camera as a kit for about 1/3rd the price it costs separately... £1099 in UK

24-70 lenses are too short for me and Sigma has no O.I.S, no need for f2.8 on FF and the reach to 105mm is essential. I actually have a handy duality crossover of 70-105 with my other Lumix 70-300 f4.5-f5.6 as it saves lens swaps.

Bokeh from both is beautiful as is the 0.5x macro which the Sigma 24-70/28-70 also does not possess. 0.5x macro is all I need so it saved me buying a macro lens and I have it at all times with either lens. Anyway those are several reasons for it and a reminder for me to do some close up photography outside.

Have a look at the June thread and previous for 24-105 f4 images, Paul, Pete and myself regularly use and post with the 24-105, these are from last week...

https://l-mount-forum.com/community/threads/june-2024-image-and-video-thread.547/page-6

I've even seen excellent Milky Way photos using 24-105 f4 on flickr, 24mm f4 and ISO 6400 captures a good deal of light so it really is a master of versatility. Oh BTW portraits at 85-105mm f4 are great, I need to do more of this also.

To do list: Close ups/macro and portraits

You’re almost certainly right. The only downsides to me are the larger size compared to similar 24-1xx f/4 lenses and the allure of a brighter max aperture. If I’m honest, that’s more of a siren song than a genuine requirement. My standard when using Nikon Z was 24-120/4 and 35/1.8 for a minimum kit, so it’s not like much capability is lost in this setup.

@11GTCS

as you can see, no matter what brand people use, the difficulty to choose the right lens/focal range is a very personal decision and is influenced by many different factors which depend on where you want to use the lens. But it is always a compromise. Only you will know which compromise is the best for yourself.

Some prefer F2.8 and are willing to give up the reach from 70-105 for this. Some prefere compact and light and are willing to give up i.e. the 24mm on the short end and the reach on the long end.

As far as I understood it, you want to have a convenient all around zoom, that you really take with you without hesitation for the situations you do not want to carry a lot with you. And it should be only one lens.

Weight, size and flexibility would be then very high on my priority list. Otherwise you risk not to take it with you. I can easily replace with the 28-70 the missing 70-105 range with my feet. The difference will not be significant. With 24mm vs 28mm this is more difficult. For me, the size and weight advantage would be more important than the 24mm on the wide end. I know that I would leave the 24-105 at home, because of its size and weight. Same was true for my 70-300 tele zoom and my behaviour in other systems.

Do not underestimate F2.8 in fullframe. You gain a lot of flexibility for lower ISO and DOF control.

But there is no "right" solution. We have many positive examples for all kind of zoom lenses as we can see in this thread. Even with a Ricoh GR3 or GR3x, which I love too by the way.

So, to make it even more confusing, if I would be allowed to just take only one camera and one lens with me as an "allrounder", it would be the GR3 or GR3x. These cameras are the most flexible I have ever used. A joy to use, fast, small, efficient, high image quality and you do not feel like a tourist.

Just food for thoughts...

I’ve had a GR3x actually, and I loved that camera. I’m sure I’ll own another eventually. As you say, 2.8 is great for depth of field control, but it’s rare I travel without at least one prime, so the zoom aperture would be more important in fringe cases for me. That’s not to say I wouldn’t enjoy a 28-70/2.8, but the excellent close focus on 24-105/4 mentioned above is another thing which works well for my typical travel focus of semi-closeup.

The 28-200 was my original choice actually, but it seems to be getting mixed reviews on the long end of the range, which negates a lot of the point of the slow aperture to me. Small slow and sharp is great, small slow and still not that sharp on long end isn’t for my use cases.