Which do-it-all zoom lens?

[Markuswelder]

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again - the best image quality in the world doesn’t mean anything if the lens sits in your bag because it’s heavier than you want to schlep around.

For sure. That's why I'm not interested in purchasing the Lumix 24-105. I actually still have the Canon 24-105 L from my Canon days. Thought it was a great idea, but just too big and bulky to bring with me most of the time. Lucky if I took a couple of hundred photos with it. Tried it out on my L to EF mount adaptor to see if I might have changed my opinion, the answer is no

 

[xaviergut]

Lumix 20-60mm weight: 350 grams
Lumix 24-105mm: weight 680 grams

 

[Babylonia]

I find the Lumix 25-105mm f4 and the Sigma 24-70 f2.8 ii the best 2 lenses of that group, but Jan was been more precise: "On a hike or a day out with the family", and on a hike every gram counts... this is the reason I defend the 20-60mm as the best option for this case.

I do understand the question very well. Everyone has a different opinion about it.
Why else would someone want to start a poll about it?
How serious does someone want to be about photography?

For me, the question is whether you would even want to take a system camera with you at all "on a family hike" ?
If every gram counts when practising photography. You better consider buying another system. Or buying a small camera "extra" to take with you.
There are plenty alternatives. Taking pictures with a smartphone, or using a more small compact zoom.
But that was not the question of this topic.

If you take a system camera with you as mentioned here. (Panasonic S1Rii).
That is my starting point in the choice of lenses that you take with you.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I do understand the question very well. Everyone has a different opinion about it.
Why else would someone want to start a poll about it?
How serious does someone want to be about photography?

For me, the question is whether you would even want to take a system camera with you at all "on a family hike" ?
If every gram counts when practising photography. You better consider buying another system. Or buying a small camera "extra" to take with you.
There are plenty alternatives. Taking pictures with a smartphone, or using a more small compact zoom.
But that was not the question of this topic.

If you take a system camera with you as mentioned here. (Panasonic S1Rii).
That is my starting point in the choice of lenses that you take with you.

That is for me the reason to have a Ricoh GR3. I don’t like the smartphone camera look and photo taking experience. If you want small and light buy a small system.

If you want the best performance for a highres sensor then 28-200 I guess will fail 90mm+?. 20-60 will be good if opened up to 5.6 at wide angle and F8 for 40mm up.

Only 28-70/2.8 is small and has enough resolution for the sensor. 24-70/2.8 and 24-105 as well. Do it all leaves the 24-105 as the best.

I find the 24-105 perfectly fine for a hike or all day. Done that multiple times. But if weight is a deciding factor the 28-70 will be good for the sensor. 24-70 is heavier then the 24-105. Or take a prime. Light and good, but that wasn’t asked.

It was one of the reasons for me to leave Fuji. The 40mp X-T5 would not work that well with the zoom lenses they had up to that point. It will exaggerate the difference between sharpness in the center and corner. That is the drawback of a high resolution sensor. You need good glass or F8 with decent glass. Probably not visible if you resize back to 24mp. But then there is no real reason to upgrade to a high-res sensor anyway. Only burn more megabytes.

 

[xaviergut]

I do understand the question very well. Everyone has a different opinion about it.
Why else would someone want to start a poll about it?
How serious does someone want to be about photography?

For me, the question is whether you would even want to take a system camera with you at all "on a family hike" ?
If every gram counts when practising photography. You better consider buying another system. Or buying a small camera "extra" to take with you.
There are plenty alternatives. Taking pictures with a smartphone, or using a more small compact zoom.
But that was not the question of this topic.

If you take a system camera with you as mentioned here. (Panasonic S1Rii).
That is my starting point in the choice of lenses that you take with you.

Yes, I see your point. I just was remembering a hike that I made two years ago in the Ordesa National Park (Pyrenees, Spain) with the Panasonic S1R (1 kg) and the Leica 24-70 f2.8 (900 gramm) and after some hours walking you don't enjoy and want to finish as soon as possible. One year later I took with me on a similar hike the Lumix S5iix and the Lumix 20-60mm (that combo weights a bit more than 1 kg) and the experience was much more pleasing. And the final Image quality was very similar, I must say...

 

[Babylonia]

As it comes to weight and long trips to carry.
My daughter has started a journey and stay of several months in Central America (for her study).
She loves to use my old „analogue“ Nikon camera. And was intending to take that camera with her.

I advised against taking it. Not just because of the weight of the camera and a few lenses.
But also the bulk of films she should have to taken with her. Given the temperatures and humidity there,
and the risk by softening film emulsions, loosing or damaging films. etc. - a bad idea.

Better 3000 digital images to much, than 30 "film" made images to less, with an already small „analogue“ choice.
And results only can be seen afterwards, when the trip is over. Without the images being assessed in between.

Now she has taken her 24 MP APS-C Canon M50, I gave her several years ago - 388 gram
Including a Canon 22mm/F2.0 „pancake“ lens - 105 gram !!
Small (but relative heavy) - manual 7Artisan 35mm/F1.4 - 228 gram
And a Canon 50mm F/1.8 II / Nifty fifty / plastic fantastic lens - 160 gram
including electronic adapter - about 100 gram

Totally about - 1 kg

All private luggage and camera gear within a backpack and special bags and hollow belts around her body.
Backpack about 10 kg - the special bags and hollow belts about 2 kg

As for „back-up“ and risk of loosing digital data. (NO laptop taken).
Give her my old Android Smartphone and integrated that by the use of a < small USB card-reader > for SD-cards,
as well USB memory stick (Samsung FIT 256 GB), and making two extra SD-back-ups (+ USB-stick itself).
Kept separately within her luggage.

If the WiFi conditions are reasonable, she can transfer data to a NAS device at home. (The Netherlands).
But till now, she made her back-ups to the SD-cards only.

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

That is for me the reason to have a Ricoh GR3. I don’t like the smartphone camera look and photo taking experience. If you want small and light buy a small system.

If you want the best performance for a highres sensor then 28-200 I guess will fail 90mm+?.

Bad guess. It's more like 170mm+, and it's hardly a "fail." Like the 20-60, if you stop it down to F11 most of it's optical imperfections are minimized.

20-60 will be good if opened up to 5.6 at wide angle and F8 for 40mm up.

As long as you don't mind the effects of substantial field curvature. But, again, stop it down to F11 and focus at or near infinity and it does fine.

Only 28-70/2.8 is small and has enough resolution for the sensor. 24-70/2.8 and 24-105 as well. Do it all leaves the 24-105 as the best.

I find the 24-105 perfectly fine for a hike or all day. Done that multiple times. But if weight is a deciding factor the 28-70 will be good for the sensor. 24-70 is heavier then the 24-105. Or take a prime. Light and good, but that wasn’t asked.

It was one of the reasons for me to leave Fuji. The 40mp X-T5 would not work that well with the zoom lenses they had up to that point. It will exaggerate the difference between sharpness in the center and corner. That is the drawback of a high resolution sensor. You need good glass or F8 with decent glass. Probably not visible if you resize back to 24mp. But then there is no real reason to upgrade to a high-res sensor anyway. Only burn more megabytes.

 

[Babylonia]

Stopping down to F11, optical imperfections could be minimised.
But using F11 diffraction already has a very noticeable extend within the high resolution camera's S1R / S1R m2
And can be a reason to, that optical imperfections will simply be less noticeable?

Me myself didn't buy a high-res camera (S1R), only to be used by small aperture values, to overcome less noticeable optical imperfections.
(I seldom make use of an aperture value of F11 at all).
I typically do want the possibilities of subject isolation and to a reasonable extend, also low-light capabilities.
So lenses that do have a full wide starting opening somewhere within the zoom range of above F4.0 (5.6 - 6.3 - 7.1) I don't buy at all.

There is always a mixed bag of qualities, bulk, size, weight, from which you make a choice, to come to a compromise.
These compromises can be different from one person to another.
-

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

Stopping down to F11, optical imperfections could be minimised.
But using F11 diffraction already has a very noticeable extend within the high resolution camera's S1R / S1R m2
And can be a reason to, that optical imperfections will simply be less noticeable?

Yes, 100% correct. However, I do find that the diffraction correction in Capture One makes the F11 shot (for the 28-200 @ 170mm+) better than the F8 shot. But, neither compete with my S-Pro 70-200 @ F5.6.

Me myself didn't buy a high-res camera (S1R), only to be used by small aperture values, to overcome less noticeable optical imperfections.
(I seldom make use of an aperture value of F11 at all).

Yes, I agree, up to a point. But I don't want to carry the heavier lenses all the time, so I find the 28-200 to be perfect for when I don't care that much about pixel-level IQ (such as casual hikes or strolls).

I typically do want the possibilities of subject isolation and to a reasonable extend, also low-light capabilities.
So lenses that do have a full wide starting opening somewhere within the zoom range of above F4.0 (5.6 - 6.3 - 7.1) I don't buy at all.

There is always a mixed bag of qualities, bulk, size, weight, from which you make a choice, to come to a compromise.
These compromises can be different from one person to another.

Yes, exactly. I have both the 28-200 and the S-Pro 70-200 F2.8. Different horses for different courses.

-

 

[GeorgeHudetz]

I'll throw in a wild-card for the "light is right" crowd:

The Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 DC DN.

$549, 290 grams, 55mm filter thread.

Sure, it's a crop lens, but that gives a resolution (on the S1RII) similar to a m43 camera. 27-75mm equivalent focal length.

And, no, I'd never suggest that as the only lens somebody buy for the S1RII. But for "ULW" carry, it's worth considering. Especially when coupled with their 10-18.

I wish Sigma would make a 16-100 crop lens. That would be an incredible travel lens on a 44 MP sensor. Their 16-300 is interesting, but I don't need 450mm when traveling and would prefer something smaller and lighter.

 

[Jan.Wedekind]

For me, the question is whether you would even want to take a system camera with you at all "on a family hike" ?

Simply put because I prefer taking pictures with a camera and if there is one thing I learned since having children then it is that I cherish all the great pictures I have off them taken with the nicer camera and regret the ones where all I had was phone camera. That said: same does usually NOT apply for video but that's mostly because video is more of a hassle in many ways.

If every gram counts when practising photography. You better consider buying another system. Or buying a small camera "extra" to take with you.

I do keep my m43 and the G9ii + PL12-60 is in fact the more sensible choice in many respects... But there is a little longing to simplify. That said: I have a VW bus and when we go somewhere, I can easily throw in two bags and take both systems with a couple of lenses and choose on the spot. Even have the same batteries now.

There are plenty alternatives. Taking pictures with a smartphone, or using a more small compact zoom.
But that was not the question of this topic.

Yes, and phones get better obviously every year too. Have to admit too that I don't "get" wide angle and so so rarely want to take a really wide framing that I just resort to the (admittedly very mediocre) iPhone wide angle lens. I had the PL8-118 for M43 for a while and ended up using it so rarely that I sold it again. That's really just on me, I struggle to figure out interesting compositions with such wide angles.

That is for me the reason to have a Ricoh GR3. I don’t like the smartphone camera look and photo taking experience. If you want small and light buy a small system.

I keep M43. Heck, if Panasonic released a new GX (or at least a G100 with PDAF), I'd buy it in a heartbeat. I like the OM-3 but it's way too expensive just as an extra fun walk-around body.

 

[Jan.Wedekind]

Thanks so much all, this has super interesting to read! I find it always quite helpful to see how others think about something like this. It's not about "right" or "wrong", just considering options.

My thinking after reading all the feedback:

• The 24-105 is obviously the best jack of all trades. But, and I experienced it again this weekend, it's a tad bit too bulky and heavy. But it's a GREAT option when I know we are not walking around a lot/long time.
• The 28-200 seems the best alternative for me: it's a LOT lighter and smaller too. I tend to shoot more at longer focal ranges too. My only issue is price. I think I will eventually get one used
• I've been staring at "like new" 20-60 for ~200€ for a week now, but I just think it's too short at 60 and, as said above, I don't shoot wide nearly often enough for 20 vs 24 or 28mm mattering a lot to me in practice. There are (rare) situations (especially indoors) in which I'd love to have wider than 24mm, but I'll stick to just taking the phone in those "emergencies".
• Still lukewarm on the 28-70. It's "ni fu ni fa" as the Catalans would say, neither fish nor fowl. To be honest, when out and about in daylight, I find f4 usually plenty enough. And if max IQ is my concern, I just take primes anyway.

In practice though, the most sensible for me personally is:

• Just choose the G9ii + 12-60 when weight really matters most.
• Get the 28-200 someday when it has a nice offer or used.
• Or just take the 35mm f2 and/or 50mm f1.8 primes I have with the S1Rii in the meantime. With crop zoom, this is quite flexible now too

Spoiled for good choices really!

Thanks all!!

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

I have the Sigma 24-70/2.8 for my "do everything" and travel lens. I know it's big and heavy for a lot of people but it's the only lens that ticks all the boxes for me: 24mm at the wide end, constant f/2.8, weather resistant, excellent image quality. For when it's too big or heavy, or I know I'll need a little wider, I fall back on the 20-60mm which is optically excellent but slow. For the price and what it can do there's no reason not to own one if you use and L-mount camera.

Regardless of what you decide between these options, I would wait to see what Panasonic announce this month. Rumours say that their new fast standard zoom will be released after a long time on the lens roadmap and I think it's likely to be a 28-70/2.8 but as it's Panasonic it will probably cost about as much as the Sigma 24-70/2.8, so for me there would be very little reason to buy it - get the Sigma 24-70 for the same price or save some cash and get the Sigma 28-70.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I updated my findings with a new 28-70 in the 28-70 thread. Think it is a very nice walk around lens if you do not need a really wide angle.

 

[Markuswelder]

How serious does someone want to be about photography?

For me, the question is whether you would even want to take a system camera with you at all "on a family hike" ?
If every gram counts when practising photography. You better consider buying another system. Or buying a small camera "extra" to take with you.
There are plenty alternatives. Taking pictures with a smartphone, or using a more small compact zoom.

Well, I'm not serious about photography at all. But I still take my S5 with me pretty much everywhere. With a lens or two to suit what I guess I might come across. Hiking, Mountain biking, travel, to work every day, and so on.
So I have been trying out a few different lenses myself, to try & figure out what works best for general purpose type scenarios. I'm on overseas holidays at the moment, & I've taken my Sigma 28-70mm F2.8 with me. It's a pretty good lens I've found. Really good in fact. I've also brought along my Lumix S 18mm F1.8. And used that a lot more than the Sigma I think.
I honestly don't think that for me, there's one lens that would do it all. I went to NZ over Xmas/New Year, took the Sigma 28-70mm with me as well as my Lumix S 14-28mm. That was a really good combination too. Possibly better than the 18mm & 28-70mm combo. I used the 14-28mm far more than the Sigma. I'm starting to think that for holidaying, I might be better off right where I started. With the Lumix S 20-60mm. Great focal range, great image quality, reasonably small, compact and lightweight. Any real lowlight situations might be best tackled with running the files through PureRAW, rather than heavier, faster lenses. And possibly a compact flash, for indoor stuff with family.
It's all good fun anyway. If it wasn't, I wouldn't be carrying my S5 around with me.

Oh, and as far as a smaller format system, this is where a FF system shines for travel situations, as you can take slower lenses with greater focal range, and take advantage of the better high ISO that FF affords. Don't get me wrong, I used to take my m4/3 gear with me everywhere too -a GX8 to start, then a G9, and lastly a G100. But I think the S5 does it easier and better.

 

[Markuswelder]

I just made another discovery, that makes me really happy I jumped over to FF, and even happier to use slower lenses at higher ISO's.
I've been running a few S5 files through DxO PureRAW, the very first version I bought for use with my m4/3 cameras, and the results are astonishing. Absolutely astounding to my eye. Even on my little NUC, it processes a full DeepPrime image in 35-40 seconds. Anyway, I was inadvertently hovering over one of the files, and the file properties popped up. 55MB for a DxO processed file. So I had a look at a few more. Anywhere between 50-60 MB. That's amazing, as one of the reasons I jumped over to FF was the file size of DxO processed m4/3 files. They were all around the 100MB mark, which p!$$ed me off no end as at that size, I may have well been shooting with a 50-100MP Medium Format system. 55MB average is way more palatable to me. Storage is not a huge concern as I have a NAS that's really only used for photo storage, but it just makes things quicker & easier when transferring stuff around etc. Another win
I might post up a couple of images that I've run through PureRAW, to show you the results obtainable even on pretty modest gear.

 

[Markuswelder]

Okay, I'm back. I love standing on the side of the road in strange Cities, and shooting whatever takes my eye as it zooms past. Now this is a bit of operator error, as I generally shoot Ultrawide to standard, and Multi Metering generally works pretty well. Well, not here. The bright shopfront lights tripped it up, & I ended up going to Center Weighted Average. This is one of the mistakes, first is out of camera jpeg, the second is after a quick trip through PureRAW version 1.6. I think it's astounding. Nothing fancy in the least as far as Computer Horsepower, or Editing programs. Just my tiny little NUC and then a run through an older version of Adobe Elements.

Oh, & not too much wrong with the S5's AFC and a Sigma lens

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/320 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 640

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 28.0-70.0 mm f/2.8
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/320 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 640

 

[Markuswelder]

I think this is utterly astonishing. ISO12800

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 28.0-70.0 mm f/2.8
• 70.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/320 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• -0.7
• ISO 12800

 

[Babylonia]

Now this is a bit of operator error, as I generally shoot Ultrawide to standard, and Multi Metering generally works pretty well.
Well, not here. The bright shopfront lights tripped it up, & I ended up going to Center Weighted Average. This is one of the mistakes,......

View attachment 11611

What I do notice, if you do get such dark "base" result.
Why are you using a "fixed" exposure correction of -0.7 EV ??
The EXIF info of all your pictures do show an exposure correction of -0.7 EV
Under such lighting conditions, due to extreme contrast and light/dark areas.
You can't avoid playing with exposure settings.
Maybe it is a better idea in using fully manual exposure settings, and check by histogram and / or zebra pattern ??

But yes it's astounding that such dark image can be corrected so well as shown in the follow up image.

View attachment 11612

-

 

[Markuswelder]

What I do notice, if you do get such dark "base" result.
Why are you using a "fixed" exposure correction of -0.7 EV ??
The EXIF info of all your pictures do show an exposure correction of -0.7 EV

Even in daylight I generally shoot 1/3-2/3 stop under exposed, just to protect the highlights a bit (I generally shoot Aperture mode with Exposure comp). Keep the detail in the sky & clouds. I personally hate big patches of blown out white in my photo's, modern FF sensors are way more than capable of lifting exposure in shadows by 2/3 of a stop, easily, without any penalty at all in noise, or colour shifts. Easily. Childs play.

Another reason, it was night time, and cameras seem to try and expose like it's daytime light levels. So I was trying to capture the reality, rather than something from a night vision camera setup. Like I wrote, it was a metering issue, not an exposure issue, which a change in metering mode solved. Have a look inside the shop windows in the first image. You can still easily see the details on the walls etc. Pretty damn good if you ask me