What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

The Standard Zoom Conundrum

Nevyn72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have upped my game in the gym also... :cool:, I can now walk way further, and carry way more Daumenhoch
 
dirk said:
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.
Click to expand...
I use the GR3 with the 35mm crop option a lot, that makes 15mpx resolution (if I am not wrong), more than enough for me... this is the reason I don't consider getting the GR3x, because there is not much difference between 35 and 40mm.

Anyway, I think Lumix should give us, owners of the S5II/X, as a present for our fidelity, the Hybrid zoom feature of the S9. I mean, if you reach 625mm with the 28-200mm lens, even the 20-60mm lens would be a very capable "allrounder" zoom lens.
 
11GTCS said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
When looking for a full frame setup change away from Fujifilm I narrowed it down to Lumix and Nikon. Almost got into Z6ii with that Z24-120 and Z35. The 5ii is much newer and better autofocus, besides the better video capability, but you have to remember that although the 24-120 has a slightly longer reach, you give up on Macro and OIS (VR). Also the bokeh is less nice. weight/size is near identical. The Lumix 35/1.8 is optically the beter lens compared to the Z 35. If the 24-120 had VR the weight / size would have been in favour of the Lumix.
 
xaviergut said:
I use the GR3 with the 35mm crop option a lot, that makes 15mpx resolution (if I am not wrong), more than enough for me... this is the reason I don't consider getting the GR3x, because there is not much difference between 35 and 40mm.

Anyway, I think Lumix should give us, owners of the S5II/X, as a present for our fidelity, the Hybrid zoom feature of the S9. I mean, if you reach 625mm with the 28-200mm lens, even the 20-60mm lens would be a very capable "allrounder" zoom lens.
Click to expand...
true, for my city trip to Berlin I used the 20-60 in day time, and 35/1.8 in the evening. together with GR3. For a pure city trip I might leave the 24-105 at home actually. This year we have 3 weeks summer vacation by car. I just bring everything and make my choice day by day :)
 
RuleOfThirds said:
When looking for a full frame setup change away from Fujifilm I narrowed it down to Lumix and Nikon. Almost got into Z6ii with that Z24-120 and Z35. The 5ii is much newer and better autofocus, besides the better video capability, but you have to remember that although the 24-120 has a slightly longer reach, you give up on Macro and OIS (VR). Also the bokeh is less nice. weight/size is near identical. The Lumix 35/1.8 is optically the beter lens compared to the Z 35. If the 24-120 had VR the weight / size would have been in favour of the Lumix.
Click to expand...
Those are some excellent points. To be fair to the 24-120, its max mag is 0.3, so it’s hardly a slouch, but 0.5 is certainly better. How has the OIS worked for you? It seems to get mixed reviews in some of the early looks that the lens got.
 
dirk said:
I can easily replace with the 28-70 the missing 70-105 range with my feet
Click to expand...
With respect Dirk Daumenhoch I think the replacing with my feet myth is one of the silliest sayings in photography.

You can't walk off cliffs, into the sea, into traffic or last year when I was photograhing Joe Biden I couldn't jump the barrier, get past the police and then have his secret service and SWAT team on top of me and I'd more probably not be writing this if I tried getting closer Z02 Banned1.

For portraits 70mm is too much 'camera in the face' for almost anybody but professional models, 105mm gets you further back and less anxiety for people. For street photography the longer reach makes you a bit more less obvious allowing more opportunities, that is unless you are Dougie Wallace but I and anyone here won't be the madman he is. BTW look him up as he is brilliant at that but a maniac. There was a documentary about him and worth watching, he really is a street/city people photographer but no way could I do that.

In the days of OVF with film and DSLR f2.8 or faster was required for the view and for the AF to work, much less so with mirrorless. There is still speed, light gathering and subject isolation requirements or preferences for those who want it.

Since moving to FF DSLR recently I find f4 as much as I would want for isolation, I'm no fan of obliterated creamy no info backgrounds and bokeh. I choose my background carefully where possible as it as vital to the photograph and the bokeh from the Lumix 24-105 paints it beautifully and the same with the 70-300. I always want to give a sense of where it is and the need for f2.8 or faster is usually never warranted. Saying this 105mm f4 will do this anyway depending on proximity and stopping down is required.

I haven't done any astro yet with S5ii but try and get your brain around this... 24mm f4 captures more light than my Samyang 14mm f2.8. Hint google 'astro open aperture'. I did loads of astro, astro landscapes, moonscapes and Milky Way with my Pentax APS-C and now have at least a stop extra ISO available, 6400 should be good and just 3mm less focal length with 24-105 compared to 21mm equivalent Samyang 14mm on APS-C.

Sorry for this long blurb. I might get 1/2 decent astro landscapes wikd camping in the west coast of Ireland in August even if total darkness doesn't arrive until 23rd August, besides Scotland you can get nearly the darkest skies without light pollution in Western Europe, Bortle scale 2 or so.
 
There are certainly plenty of scenarios when I’m walking in Wales or Scotland where it would be hazardous to my health to try and zoom with my feet it’s true there isn’t always a ton in it with 70 vs 105, but it does provide some nice overlap to avoid rapid lens changes whenever I get a 70-xxx or 100-400.
 
Oíche said:
You can't walk off cliffs, into the sea, into traffic
Click to expand...

You have still the option to crop. There is not that much difference from 70mm to 105mm.

Oíche said:
For portraits 70mm is too much 'camera in the face' for almost anybody but professional models, 105mm gets you further back and less anxiety for people.
Click to expand...

I made different experiences. The size of lens and camera made people more "freezing" than the proximity of maximum 70cm closer. Yes, the difference in distance to the model is only 70cm between focal range of 70mm and 105mm.

Of course you need to relax unexperienced people with small talk before taking a portrait picture. No matter which lens you use.

But I do not want to convince anybody. This is a personal preference and everybody has different opinions about it. I just try to explain why I prefer for my use cases the 28-70/2.8 over the 24-105/4.0. It is subjective and only one opinion among many others as always.
 
Nevyn72 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I now understand the 'going Alpine' meaning as least weight as possible. Before Covid I was hiking a 10-12kg backpack for 25km mountain treks, I'm aiming at getting back to that but last week I just took the S5ii and 24-105 in my photography backpack for the first time before Covid to the same mountains.

I'm probably now 12kg fatter myself which is no good and I'll have to stop eating the massive calorie pasta dishes I ate years ago as a racing cyclist when I needed it.

This is why BTW I find it odd people find the 24-105 heavy, that backpack had a Pentax DSLR, film camera, maybe 7 lenses, a full size Manfrotto tripod, mini tripod, 3 kg of water including 1L hot flask, food including a gas stove, survival gear and a few bricks for weight. All madness when you can bring S5ii, 24-105 and 70-300 or just one of them.
 
11GTCS said:
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.
Click to expand...
My 28-200mm is a very nice copy. There is a separate thread about this lens on this forum where I have included a link where you can download all kind of raws trough the focus lengths.
 
Personally, I think the main crux of it all boils down to whether you enjoy shooting wider, or longer. Make up your mind which. Myself, I can travel OS for a couple of months, with nothing longer than a 50mm lens. But I really really miss not having something in the 16-20mm range. Badly.
So, I recently picked up the Lumix 14-28mm. Magnificent little lens. Now, my only concern is if I feel zoom lazy, in which case I gram the previously mentioned Sigma 28-70mm f2.8 (another brilliant lens) or my Lumix 50 & 85mm f1.8's. Or just the 50mm.
If I'm feeling really really lazy, then I'll just grab the Lumix 20-60mm, & be done with it. Small, light, sharp, that's a little gem that punches well above its weight. Easily. And maybe slip the 50mm into the Wife's handbag when she's not looking :)
 
dirk said:
You have still the option to crop. There is not that much difference from 70mm to 105mm
Click to expand...
Yip, I expected the crop argument or possibility. I use it when I have to myself but planning to crop for lack of reach is not ideal. If you can compose the image you want in real time it is better.

105 vs 70 is pretty big, it's 50%, then there is resolution loss which for 24MP is 1.5^2 meaning a 10.7 MP image with S5ii.

So 10.7MP vs 24MP is a fairly significant difference for that extra reach plus the planned need for planned cropping? Not for me versus having f2.8 but each to their own and this is why I chose the 24-105 f4, others have different needs and need 24-70 f2.8.

All of this info for the OP, we are all in love here unlike dpreview which can't happen here
 
FWIW, I'm just finishing up a week-long trip to Washington DC, with the temperatures around 37-38 degrees C. I use almost exclusively adapted lenses on the L-Mount Sigma fp, so not sure how applicable this will be, but here goes.

I did about half my shooting with two small primes - a 28mm (Vivitar 28/2.5 made by Kiron) and 40mm (Konica Hexanon 40/1.8). The rest were done with a relatively compact 35-70 zoom (Minolta MD 35-70/3.5 Macro). Everything fit into a small shoulder-strapped bag, which was a godsend in that heat/humidity. I also brought along small 24mm and 100mm primes, but they've sat unused in the bag; the situations where they'd be useful weren't often enough to warrant taking them out and changing lenses in the heat. Same is true for the 70-210 zoom I brought along, which has sat in the suitcase all trip.

The types of pics I've shot have been mostly either architecture/close landscape or museum interiors. The 40 was good for many of the architecture shots and some of the museum interior; the 28 handled the rest of the museum and some of the architecture (interior of the Library of Congress, for example). The 35-70 was a great all-around lens for the outdoor shots, and was also good for the interior shots at the National Air & Space Museum.

Still working through the pics, but if you want to get an idea for the kind of situations, what I've processed is up at https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjBvJm4 for your perusal.

To sum up: My general philosophy for a long time has been, one or two fast primes for when low light and/or max IQ is important, always a wide and sometimes adding a normal; a good mid-range zoom for flexibility; and some kind of longer tele for the rare situations when I use one. (As I said, the 70-210's sat unused in my bag all trip... might try taking it out to shoot the Vader gargoyle on the Washington National Cathedral across the street before I leave.)
 
RuleOfThirds said:
I have upped my game in the gym also... :cool:, I can now walk way further, and carry way more Daumenhoch
Click to expand...
And some of us don't have that option. :p I've got myasthenia gravis, and while it's in remission at the moment, it's not like I can walk into a gym and exercise it away. x.x
 
11GTCS said:
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!
Click to expand...
Sounds like you want the 20-60mm. It’s the most general purpose zoom lens in the system and also one of the best performers. The only downside for you might be studio portraits, clearly there are better lenses for that.
 
Lsake said:
Sounds like you want the 20-60mm. It’s the most general purpose zoom lens in the system and also one of the best performers. The only downside for you might be studio portraits, clearly there are better lenses for that.
Click to expand...
Ironically that’s the one I actually don’t want. I shoot more long than wide, and since I already have the 14-24 I’d definitely rather prioritize the longer end over the wide. If the Tamron 35-150/2-2.8 was available in L Mount (the Samyang one seems to not have the IQ chops), that’d probably be my dream second lens.
 
11GTCS said:
Those are some excellent points. To be fair to the 24-120, its max mag is 0.3, so it’s hardly a slouch, but 0.5 is certainly better. How has the OIS worked for you? It seems to get mixed reviews in some of the early looks that the lens got.
Click to expand...
Let the meta info speak for it self... hand held, with my elbows resting on the table.
PANA0880.jpg
  • Panasonic - DC-S5M2
  • LUMIX S 24-105/F4
  • 105.0 mm
  • ƒ/5
  • 1/1 sec
  • Pattern
  • Auto exposure
  • ISO 100
 
Travis Butler said:
And some of us don't have that option. :p I've got myasthenia gravis, and while it's in remission at the moment, it's not like I can walk into a gym and exercise it away. x.x
Click to expand...
It's not that I want to... but have to. But it paid off for me. Now 3+ months off diabetic medicine because of changing my life style (work-out and food). Got a very very hard wake-up call in December. Took me 3.5 months to get it under control. But feel healthier now then I have felt in a long time. Many thanks to my colleague who acted for/to me as a personal trainer, together in the gym a 6:30am before work at 8:00am. One of the benefits when working in a military base... free gym (i'm not a soldier).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top