Your favourite lenses for 2024 - and why

[Pete_W]

Well you have nice weather all year . Yeah I feel lucky to get this position. Not really planned yet.

Yes, the weather here is generally quite good.

I get 20 days of annual leave per year which is the standard for most people, but I often can't take more than 2 weeks at a time due to work commitments. Finding time for photography on the weekends can be difficult due to family commitments, so I have to plan ahead if I want a whole day out.

 

[dirk]

You see my lens line up in the link in my signature

To pick a favourite lens is really difficult. There are too many LMount lenses that I like. There is almost none that I do not like.

The most impressive lens in 2024 was for me the (Panasonic?)/Leica Apo 43/2.0 lens in the Leica Q3 43. Sharp like hell, but not clinical sharp. Very nice rendering.

Then there is the Sigma 85/1.4 DG DN Art. Very impressive. But it has a very high competition with the Sigma 90/2.8 DG DN, which might be in some circumstances better for portraits. Not so bitingly sharp as the 85/1.4. But this might be also because of the F1.4 vs. F2.8.

The Sigma 35/1.4 DG DN Art is on a similar level. I do not use it that often, because I prefer the 28mm and 43mm focal length.

From the perspective of optical image quality I also like a lot the Sigma 50/2.0 DG DN. But I prefer 43mm vs. 50mm, so I am more biased towards the Leica Q3 43. If I would like the 50mm FL more, I would like to test the new Sigma 50/1.2 DG DN. I could imagine that this is on par with the Leica Q3 43 lens. Especially the rendering.

But favourite does not mean by default best optical image quality only.

It is also convenience with very good or good enough image quality. The Sigma 28-70/2.8 stands out for me in this category. Very, very good image quality, small & light. Perfect, if you only want to take one lens with you.

The Sigma 65/2.0 DG DN is an impressive lens optically, but we do not become friends. I just do not like to take it with me. The size/weight factor turns me off. I can not explain why. I like even bigger lenses more (i.e. the 85/1.4). Really strange.

Oh boy, there are so many great LMount lenses which I like/love, I have to stop here. But except for the Lumix 70-300 telezoom, all are from Sigma. Especially Sigma i series lenses.

Addendum: All lenses used on a 24 MP sensor, except for the Leica Q3 43.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

@dirk How much of a difference would 90/2.8 be vs 24-105@105/4 with subject even sized framed both wide open?

When I was researching ff cameras in 2023 it was a tough choice between Nikon and Panasonic. My original plan was 20-60, 70-300 and sigma 35/2 and 90/2.8
Partly between a huge cashback.

But at that point of time 35/2 was not available new or 2nd hand. Nor the 90. While there still was cashback for 35/1.8 and got a good deal on a 2nd hand 85/1.8

Since getting the 24-105 I didn’t care at all for the 85 or the 20-60, and 1.8 is a much bigger difference with F4.0. And 85 was really good wide open.

But because the 90 is small I think 16-35 + 90 is a nice two lens combo. Or the 65/2 maybe even more….

Damn it. My own thread is gassing me.

 

[dirk]

@RuleOfThirds

It depends on what you are planning to use the lens for. For portraits it depends on whether you do full size or half size portraits (more than head and shoulder) or only heads.

For head and shoulders, the DOF @F2.8 is very shallow. The ears will not be in focus anymore, although not as strong as @F1.8 or @F1.4.

As a result, I use almost always F4.0 with the Sigma 90/2.8 for my portraits.

If you shoot full size body, F2.8 is very good with enough background separation.

The 24-105 has a longer tele @105. My guess is, that this will have at least the same DOF @f4.0 like the 90mm @F2.8.

I never used the 24-105. I can not say anything about image quality for portraits compared to the 90/2.8. As far as I remember Paul mentioned, that the 24-105 is not good at the long end at open aperture.

Therefore even if the zooms gives you comparable DOF, the better image quality might justify the buy of the 90mm FFL.

Did you compare the image quality of the Lunix 85/1.8 vs. the zoom already. If that difference does not bother you, I think the zoom is just fine for you.

 

[dirk]

Or the 65/2 maybe even more….

The 65 is no replacement for a 85 or 90mm. The 65 has an excellent image quality, but it is no portraits lens at all. Neither from the FL, nor from the sharpness. It is too sharp.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

100% crop of my 24-105 @ 105mm-F4.0 Maybe the lens is not sharp enough for a 47mp body, but no halos or artefacts on my 24mp s5ii

 

[dirk]

Looks good to me. So why do you want to change? Is it the size and weight of the zoom?

All my lens experience on LMount is with 24MP too, by the way.

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I don't want to change I was thinking about an extra prime to have together with my 16-35 and smaller/lighter then the 24-105, not to exchange it. And I wondered how the 90/2.8 will do against 105@f4

The 50/1.8 I have is quite close to the 35 part of my 16-35, and was thinking that the 90/2.8 would be nice to have along. But a little put off by 2.8 part, but that makes it small and light. But 65 is also an option. But it is just GAS not what I actually need

 

[dirk]

Then just buy the 90/2.8. You will not regret it

 

[xaviergut]

The 65 is no replacement for a 85 or 90mm. The 65 has an excellent image quality, but it is no portraits lens at all. Neither from the FL, nor from the sharpness. It is too sharp.

Dirk, I have used the Sigma 65mm f2 for portraits of families, also 3 or 4 people juxtaposed, and the results were great.

And for animal portrait is not a problem if it is very sharp:

• Panasonic - DC-S5
• 65mm F2 DG DN | Contemporary 020
• 65.0 mm
• ƒ/5
• 1/800 sec
• Pattern
• Auto exposure
• ISO 100

 

[dirk]

Dirk, I have used the Sigma 65mm f2 for portraits of families, also 3 or 4 people juxtaposed, and the results were great.

Of course you can do that. But you have to get a lot closer with 65mm to the subject for the same framing.

Many People are not comfortable, if you are too close and this will show in the face expression and/or how they sit/stand in front of you.

This is why I prefer for portraits of people, who I do not know, FL between 85mm and 200mm and with familiar faces I can go down to 28mm, depending on how the person is used to be photographed.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

It's hard to pin down a favourite because all the L-mount lenses I have are just so good. My Sigma I-series 35/2 and 50/2 are my go-to lenses for most situations but I continue to be impressed with what the 24/2 is capable of, it's just fantastic, so maybe I'd go for that.

 

[Nomad Nate]

I just old my canon 70-200 f4L IS and think i'll trade in my em5mkii and 17mm 1.8 which will net me about $900 which is burning a hole in my pocket

Right now I'm thinking of maybe getting the 50 1.8 used for like $250 and a certified refurbed sigma 85mm 1.4 I saw on ebay for $650. I was also looking at the sigma 50mm's the 1.2 and 1.4. The 1.4 would be in-budget but the 1.2 would be dipping into some fun money for. I think my main thing was wanting a walk around prime (bonus if smaller/lighter than my 24-105). The Lumix 1.4 is out because it's a behemoth.

I suppose I could just get the 50 1.8 and some other goodies like a drone or off-camera strobe or wireless mic setup or battery grip. I'm mainly doing documentary/travel type stuff, but eventually want to get more into photo essay type stuff as well as doing our usual family portraits, so the 85 1.4 stood out as a gorgeous lens (as well as most of the sigmas - I like the warmer rendering they tend to have). The Lumix lenses are all great but definitely tend to be more of a neutral/clinical rendering.

Any thoughts?

 

[RuleOfThirds]

I just old my canon 70-200 f4L IS and think i'll trade in my em5mkii and 17mm 1.8 which will net me about $900 which is burning a hole in my pocket

Right now I'm thinking of maybe getting the 50 1.8 used for like $250 and a certified refurbed sigma 85mm 1.4 I saw on ebay for $650. I was also looking at the sigma 50mm's the 1.2 and 1.4. The 1.4 would be in-budget but the 1.2 would be dipping into some fun money for. I think my main thing was wanting a walk around prime (bonus if smaller/lighter than my 24-105). The Lumix 1.4 is out because it's a behemoth.

I suppose I could just get the 50 1.8 and some other goodies like a drone or off-camera strobe or wireless mic setup or battery grip. I'm mainly doing documentary/travel type stuff, but eventually want to get more into photo essay type stuff as well as doing our usual family portraits, so the 85 1.4 stood out as a gorgeous lens (as well as most of the sigmas - I like the warmer rendering they tend to have). The Lumix lenses are all great but definitely tend to be more of a neutral/clinical rendering.

Any thoughts?

I had the S 85 and Sigma 45/2.8, and together with the 20-60 traded it in for the 16-35 Pro and the 50/1.8 (both used)

Together with my other lenses it was the best thing for me to do. Sometimes in very specific situations I do miss a low light short tele.
But for me to extend my kit I would rather buy the 18/1.8 then the 85 again. Where/when would you use a specific portrait lens and how often…

I like to work with 2 lenses/combo’s
35/1.8 + 70-300 ( or the just the s5ii+ tele + Ricoh GR3)
16-35 + 50/1.8
18/1.8 + 24-105 would also be a killer combo for me.

When searching for a wide angle had I hard time to decide between 16-35, 14-28 and 18/1.8

 

[Nomad Nate]

I had the S 85 and Sigma 45/2.8, and together with the 20-60 traded it in for the 16-35 Pro and the 50/1.8 (both used)

Together with my other lenses it was the best thing for me to do. Sometimes in very specific situations I do miss a low light short tele.
But for me to extend my kit I would rather buy the 18/1.8 then the 85 again. Where/when would you use a specific portrait lens and how often…

I like to work with 2 lenses/combo’s
35/1.8 + 70-300 ( or the just the s5ii+ tele + Ricoh GR3)
16-35 + 50/1.8
18/1.8 + 24-105 would also be a killer combo for me.

When searching for a wide angle had I hard time to decide between 16-35, 14-28 and 18/1.8

Thanks for the reply! Fair question, for portraits, that would likely just be at the house for milestone photos of my kids, family, and for friends and their families. I have an idea for a portrait series I'd like to do in the country where I normally reside, but that would take getting off my butt and committing to it and might take some work to build up to (essentially, I'd like to create a series of this minority people group that I'm getting to know who are considered "gypsies" of our country who are often misunderstood). However, that project could also be done with a 50mm.

The 18/24-105 would be a nice combo, but that seems like fairly niche thing to bring the 18 for the chance I run into a wider composition. I used to run a 16-35 2.8, 50 1.4, and 70-200 f4 on canon.

Having something like a smaller, lighter prime to run around with for low-light and street photography would be nice. I could just skip the small/light part and go for a sigma 50mm 1.4 or even 1.2 if the IQ is considered to be worth it over the 1.8 which would cover portraits, low light photo/video, and general photography purposes all in one lens.

For a two lens combo the obvious choice would be the 24-105 and 100-400, but I feel the 100-400 is a pretty bulky lens and I'd realistically only use it here and there for the occasional special event or ultra telephoto landscapes that probably won't turn out anyways because of air quality around where I live.

Another option I've thought of recently is grabbing an osmo 3 for family videos and a highly portable video option to go with whatever less-expensive prime I go with. I've been trying to edit together videos of all our family trips and events document the kids' lives just because I wish I had more video of my childhood (and the photos of my childhood are all physical copies stored in boxes somewhere hard to find at my parent's house).

Anyways - appreciate you reading my external processing and advice thanks

 

[RuleOfThirds]

Thanks for the reply! Fair question, for portraits, that would likely just be at the house for milestone photos of my kids, family, and for friends and their families. I have an idea for a portrait series I'd like to do in the country where I normally reside, but that would take getting off my butt and committing to it and might take some work to build up to (essentially, I'd like to create a series of this minority people group that I'm getting to know who are considered "gypsies" of our country who are often misunderstood). However, that project could also be done with a 50mm.

The 18/24-105 would be a nice combo, but that seems like fairly niche thing to bring the 18 for the chance I run into a wider composition. I used to run a 16-35 2.8, 50 1.4, and 70-200 f4 on canon.

Having something like a smaller, lighter prime to run around with for low-light and street photography would be nice. I could just skip the small/light part and go for a sigma 50mm 1.4 or even 1.2 if the IQ is considered to be worth it over the 1.8 which would cover portraits, low light photo/video, and general photography purposes all in one lens.

For a two lens combo the obvious choice would be the 24-105 and 100-400, but I feel the 100-400 is a pretty bulky lens and I'd realistically only use it here and there for the occasional special event or ultra telephoto landscapes that probably won't turn out anyways because of air quality around where I live.

Another option I've thought of recently is grabbing an osmo 3 for family videos and a highly portable video option to go with whatever less-expensive prime I go with. I've been trying to edit together videos of all our family trips and events document the kids' lives just because I wish I had more video of my childhood (and the photos of my childhood are all physical copies stored in boxes somewhere hard to find at my parent's house).

Anyways - appreciate you reading my external processing and advice thanks

so, two things… Money to burn and an idea where a 85mm could be used

You do not actually have to use a 1.4 or 1.2. A lot of portraits are taken with smaller aperture cause you don’t want just the eyeball in focus. Especially when it involves a group. For sure the 85 at the same f4 as your 24-105 wide open is sharper and bit better bokeh… but not a game changer. However for what I’ve heard the sigma 85 dg dn is nice.

I think it will be just fine with what you have and maybe you are even better of using 105 and even a bit more distance.

I really like the 50 I have, mine is nice and sharp even wide open, as is my 24-105. The panny is really good for walk around and portraits. Just get that one first and use it before committing to a 85.

In the past I really liked a 90/2 on Fuji, which is about a 135/2.8 full frame. Sigma does have a 135/1.8 which is regularly on the 2nd hand market. But is a big prime….I hope they will ever make a 135/2.8 like the 100/2.8 macro.

 

[Jonathan-Mac]

@dirk When I was researching ff cameras in 2023 it was a tough choice between Nikon and Panasonic. My original plan was 20-60, 70-300 and sigma 35/2 and 90/2.8
Partly between a huge cashback.

But at that point of time 35/2 was not available new or 2nd hand.

The Sigma 35/2 was released at the end of 2020.

The 65 is no replacement for a 85 or 90mm. The 65 has an excellent image quality, but it is no portraits lens at all. Neither from the FL, nor from the sharpness. It is too sharp.

There's no such thing as too sharp for portraits.