p.1 #1 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
Hello,
Thinking about going on a couple of upcoming trips that focus on landscape but there might be a little wildlife around as well. Got an S1R and a couple of S1 bodies. Lenses are 24-90, 28-200, 20-60 and an adapted Leica APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4. (Also have the Sigma 35/1.2 and 65/2 but those aren't part of this equation)
Since I don't really use anything wider than 24 ever I figured the 24-90 is a shoo-in as the optical performance is absolutely astounding and I love the S1R files I get out of that combo. But that leaves the longer focal lengths. I could bring the 28-200 which is not a poor performer and that would give me at least 200mm as well as a backup if something happens to the 24-90. But I am thinking a little more focal length might be good. Maybe the Sigma 60-600? Or is that just a bit too much? Sigma 100-400?
Obviously the Leica 90-280 would be a killer option but even the used prices on those is a bit more than I'd like to spend.
p.1 #2 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
pingflood wrote:
Hello,
Thinking about going on a couple of upcoming trips that focus on landscape but there might be a little wildlife around as well. Got an S1R and a couple of S1 bodies. Lenses are 24-90, 28-200, 20-60 and an adapted Leica APO-Telyt-R 180/3.4. (Also have the Sigma 35/1.2 and 65/2 but those aren't part of this equation)
Since I don't really use anything wider than 24 ever I figured the 24-90 is a shoo-in as the optical performance is absolutely astounding and I love the S1R files I get out of that combo. But that leaves the longer focal lengths. I could bring the 28-200 which is not a poor performer and that would give me at least 200mm as well as a backup if something happens to the 24-90. But I am thinking a little more focal length might be good. Maybe the Sigma 60-600? Or is that just a bit too much? Sigma 100-400?
Obviously the Leica 90-280 would be a killer option but even the used prices on those is a bit more than I'd like to spend.
Yeah, the 24-90 is the obvious 1st choice if you're okay with the weight. For the 2nd choice, I guess depends how focused you are on image quality...maybe consider the Leica 100-400?
p.1 #3 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
I've got the Siggy 500/5.6 and the M 135/3.4 APO for my "long" glass with my SL2-S.
If your 24-90 is spoken for, your 180/3.4 APO and a Siggy 500/5.6 with it, would make for a nice kit, imo. I tested the 60-600 and it's a beast, with slower AF, compared to the 500/5.6. Glad I chose to wait for the 500/5.6. I was an early adopter for it ... and it has worked well for me.
p.1 #4 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
Rod.smith7 wrote:
Yeah, the 24-90 is the obvious 1st choice if you're okay with the weight. For the 2nd choice, I guess depends how focused you are on image quality...maybe consider the Leica 100-400?
Isn't the Sigma 100-400 the same lens except in a plastic housing instead of metal, but at a much lower price point?
Anyway, I made a spreadsheet of options yesterday and it's become apparent to me the 60-600 while highly flexible is just a LOT bigger than the 100-400 so as this is a long landscape lens primarily with the option to capture some wildlife (deer and moose and such, not small birds) it feels like a 100-400 or even 70-300 would make more sense.
At this point the Siggy 100-400 feels like the most attractive option though, as long as I don't need anything fast. I figure that if I have to shoot it in low light the S1 body does handle high ISO very well.
p.1 #5 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
RustyBug wrote:
I've got the Siggy 500/5.6 and the M 135/3.4 APO for my "long" glass with my SL2-S.
If your 24-90 is spoken for, your 180/3.4 APO and a Siggy 500/5.6 with it, would make for a nice kit, imo. I tested the 60-600 and it's a beast, with slower AF, compared to the 500/5.6. Glad I chose to wait for the 500/5.6. I was an early adopter for it ... and it has worked well for me.
I am sure the 500 is great but it feels like a very wildlife focused option and I really want a zoom for framing flexibility. But yeah, if I can live with fixed focal lengths the 180 and that one would likely provide some killer IQ.
p.1 #6 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
If you can take two lenses, then I would take 14-28 and 28-200mm, although I would hardly use the latter because of my criteria for focal length for landscapes. If one is 20-60mm.
p.1 #9 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
Tariq Gibran wrote:
For weight - and cost- savings, how about the Panasonic Lumix S PRO 70-200mm f/4 O.I.S.? It has a great reputation.
Will have to take a look at that one if it works with a teleconverter. I did not look too closely at the Panasonic Pro options though since testing a couple of 24-70 that both had significant lens barrel play and seeing how many 24-105s had issues with the coating…
p.1 #10 · L mount two lens kit? (Landscape + a little wildlife)
pingflood wrote:
I am sure the 500 is great but it feels like a very wildlife focused option and I really want a zoom for framing flexibility. But yeah, if I can live with fixed focal lengths the 180 and that one would likely provide some killer IQ.
I think it really depends on what kind of "wild life" you are expecting. Last summer I go to Grand Teton, Yellowstone with sigma 500 5.6 and 16-35, 100 macro, and I like the setup very much. To be honest recent cellphone cameras are already good enough for casual photography usage like social media post, but it is very difficult to use cellphone for what the 500mm can do. So the 500mm stay on my camera for about 90% of time, and only change lens what it is "really" needed, otherwise I mostly use cellphone for pictures in 28-50mm range. 500 is much more versatile than I would imagine before I buy it. Now I use it for birds, some distant large animals like bison/deer/bear, or frogs and larger insects (dragonfly/butterfly). Some corpping may needed, but not too bad with high MP cameras.
