tsdevine
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 DG DN Art Prime Comparison / Image Thread | |
I have a lot of lenses.......so it's dangerous asking me questions about having a lens or not. 
Honestly, other than longer telephoto....I almost always grab my primes, and I tend to take a lot of them. There are times when the flexibility of a zoom would be advantageous. Maybe a place I'm not familiar with, or where time pressures make it inconvenient to change lenses....or maybe the weather is less than ideal. Some of my favorite small lenses aren't weather sealed.
I have been shooting my 20-70/4 G a bit...but I have other zooms in the 20'ish to 105'ish range that just don't get used much. I always grab my primes. Now the 100-400 and 200-600 serve purposes for me that make them advantageous. I don't shoot enough at those FLs to invest in primes, and often the flexibility of a zoom and longer FLs is an advantage that's hard to ignore.
Similar with the 14-24, I find UWA it's often nice to have the flexibility of a zoom. Plus the 14-24 is close, or better, in performance to all my UWA primes, that in effect, when I want the utmost quality...I have no qualms about using it. I think I have a near perfect copy.
I often shoot in the <50mm range. So in my head, taking the 14-24 and 28-45 (and maybe throw in the 105 macro) gives me super flexibility. Granted f/1.8 isn't the fastest, but it's closer to f/1.4 than f/2.8. They are not super small or light, actually the 28-45 does make the 14-24 seem smallish though. And the 105/2.8 macro is probably the sharpest, or close to the sharpest, lens I own.
But I like trying lenses, and I usually find some redeeming quality in shooting one lens vs shooting another. I think since I've picked up the 100-400 and 200-600, my idea of what a big/heavy lens is has changed. I wish the 28-45 was a tad shorter, but the weight doesn't bother me all too much.
So to boil it down, I guess it serves the purpose of when I want the flexibility of a zoom (granted with limited range, but a range I often shoot) and the performance of my best primes.
Everyone has their own style, preferences, etc. So I can understand people who have no interest in this lens (or the 14-24 for that matter). I do value small and light though as well. I have the Sigma i17, Loxia 21, Loxia 25, CV 35 APO, CV 50 APO, Loxia 85 (not super light)....granted they aren't "Leica small/light", but relatively small and light and are generally great performers.
So don't let this tempt you if you're trying to go in the opposite direction.
j4nu wrote:
Great comparison, much thanks! I know that it takes significant effort (and time) to do properly.
As a side question, which I'm still trying to figure out myself, could you tell me what's your intended use case for the Sigma?
Lately, I've been trying to downsize my lens collection, so that I keep only those that I actually use, and I still can't make up my mind on this one  ...
|
