shadow9d9 wrote:
Travel is when you should be bringing your best gear, not low quality ultrazooms. Why keep your best gear for only around your home?
Exactly. Don’t understand someone would buy the best gear just to take photos in their backyard and then buy something of less quality when they travel to some amazing places.
I'm pretty excited about this lens, it'll likely be a great travel option. And Sigma's Contemporary lenses usually had poor weather sealing with only a gasket at the mount, but that seems to be changing recently like with the Sigma 12mm F1.4 including more seals in the body. Just hope the IQ isn't too compromised, but still optimistic - I've always felt that Sigma is generally a cut above other 3rd parties like Tamron.
Why? Because I'm not going to carry 10lbs of camera gear and deal with lens changes as I hike 30 miles along the coast this weekend. This is where the super zoom shines, particularly as IQ on them seems to get better and better. I'm excited to see what sigma can do here. Paired with a 14 or 16 1.8 could be an excellent backpacking lens combo.
chez wrote:
Exactly. Don’t understand someone would buy the best gear just to take photos in their backyard and then buy something of less quality when they travel to some amazing places.
cxpics wrote:
Why? Because I'm not going to carry 10lbs of camera gear and deal with lens changes as I hike 30 miles along the coast this weekend. This is where the super zoom shines, particularly as IQ on them seems to get better and better. I'm excited to see what sigma can do here. Paired with a 14 or 16 1.8 could be an excellent backpacking lens combo.
My landscape kit comes in about 5 lbs not including the tripod. No problems hiking through the Rockies or Hawaii with it.
My travel kit comes in around 3 lbs which again I have no issues carrying everyday.
Both my kits don’t sacrifice image quality for convenience. Many places I hike or travel to, I’ll never do again. I want to take my best kit to capture images of these once in a lifetime places. I can’t justify leaving my best equipment at home and sacrificing my photography during travels. YMMV.
I don't think you can compare shooting with primes vs zooms. They are just to different from each other. Some people will prefer the smaller size and lighter weight in-hand, but others won't give up the flexibility (esp. 20-200 ) of a zoom...
I love my fast 35s but can't picture travelling without my big and heavy 35-150...
Sigma is expecting plenty of potential users wanting a "smallish" (we'll see when it gets here) convenient, perhaps "single lens" answer, that isn't, "I'll use my phone."
It's like those who just can't fathom why some might choose an A7CR instead of an A7Rv. Sony likes selling both.
Anecdotal snapshot. Just under two years ago, we took a trip. A fair number of "real" photographers around Gornergrat and Zermat, with the Matterhorn. On the river cruise, I think there were two other folks with dslrs or mirrorless cameras.
We took our first trip to Paris in May of this year. I brought five lenses: CV 10/5.6, Sony 20/1.8G, Thypoch Simera 28/1.4, Sony 50/1.4GM, and the Sigma 90/2.8i. In Paris we walked about 6-8 miles a day. I carried my A7R5 with one lens and an additional lens in a small sling bag every day. I’d switch which two lenses I would carry for the day based on what our plan was.
My point? This setup worked very well for ME. These beautiful little lenses were of the highest quality and inspired me to use them. I would not have enjoyed using a super zoom with a small maximum aperture.
I can see the interest in this 20-200 lens for hiking, especially for backpacking on a multi day hike. It might work well for many. But even on hikes it wouldn’t work for me because I’d still rather have a couple of excellent primes or one really good zoom (Sony 24-70GMii). This 20-200 won’t weigh much less than the 24-70GMII. But if this super zoom is your cup of tea, more power to you!👍
For me, this lens would be for instances where I need a wide zoom range, can't easily change lenses, and will be shooting in good light so I can stop down for IQ. I'm just not sure this use case comes up enough for me to justify this, even if the IQ is there. Otherwise like others I want something smaller.
It's why I've, at times, paid a premium for well-centered & tested high-IQ small lenses...traveling is when I'm most likely to shoot something that ends up on the wall, so I want the image quality there, but also like to travel light. Based on the good copies they'd in theory be the toughest lenses to replace if something happened to them, especially something like my CV15 with high variances in quality, but that's not going to keep me from taking them with me.
The thing is that the gap in IQ between the best and the very good gets smaller and smaller as the time goes on. Well, at least at regular viewing sizes / distances .
If the IQ is good throughout the zoom range at f6.3 maybe even f8 I may consider one. The ability not to have to swap lenses to get wider than 24mm or longer than 105mm would be very convenient at times.
Back in the DSLR days, super zooms were very compromised, but some of the mirrorless ones can be worth it if you find yourself in situations where you're missing photos due to changing lenses or leaving lenses at home due to weight. The Nikon 28-400mm f8 really changed my opinion on this. It's not a perfect lens, but I find the IQ at f8 is acceptable for most subjects, and it definitely allows me to get photos I would otherwise miss.
Some lenses you buy to get the best IQ possible, and some lenses you buy just to get photos you would otherwise not have at all.
DWOfPaul wrote:
If the IQ is good throughout the zoom range at f6.3 maybe even f8 I may consider one. The ability not to have to swap lenses to get wider than 24mm or longer than 105mm would be very convenient at times.
Back in the DSLR days, super zooms were very compromised, but some of the mirrorless ones can be worth it if you find yourself in situations where you're missing photos due to changing lenses or leaving lenses at home due to weight. The Nikon 28-400mm f8 really changed my opinion on this. It's not a perfect lens, but I find the IQ at f8 is acceptable for most subjects, and it definitely allows me to get photos I would otherwise miss.
Some lenses you buy to get the best IQ possible, and some lenses you buy just to get photos you would otherwise not have at all....Show more →
It’s not only about iq, but the apertures of these huge range zooms really limits their abilities. I don’t need f1.2 or even f1.4 lenses, but I sure need better than f3.5 let alone f6.3. You definitely need good light if you want to shoot with these zooms.
Sigma is known to rely heavily on digital distortion correction - and that's the only way the lens could be any good (especially at the small size/weight). Most probably the uncorrected image looks almost like a fisheye at the 20mm end. This way they COULD actually pull it off to beat the Tamron 28-200.
Two separate comments:
I understand that some people when traveling want to take a few primes and limit which ones go on which days. It seems that when traveling that's when you don't know what FL you will need, as a major point of travel is to experience something unknown or at least unfamiliar. That's when a wide zoom length can be most desirable. You often don't know what photo opportunity lies ahead.
Second I think we spend too much time trying to get the last nth of IQ from our photographs. With today's lenses and today's processing programs it seems to be chasing the wind to achieve a goal so miniscule that the difference can only be noticed when two identical images are side by side, and even then only by superclose observation. I say this from experience; I once spent too much time doing exactly that.
Michael Everet wrote:
Two separate comments:
I understand that some people when traveling want to take a few primes and limit which ones go on which days. It seems that when traveling that's when you don't know what FL you will need, as a major point of travel is to experience something unknown or at least unfamiliar. That's when a wide zoom length can be most desirable. You often don't know what photo opportunity lies ahead.
Second I think we spend too much time trying to get the last nth of IQ from our photographs. With today's lenses and today's processing programs it seems to be chasing the wind to achieve a goal so miniscule that the difference can only be noticed when two identical images are side by side, and even then only by superclose observation. I say this from experience; I once spent too much time doing exactly that....Show more →
I’ll comment on the first as the second point is really depending on one’s standards and what they do with their images.
Addressing the first comment…sometimes having more is less. Having a huge focal range at your disposal does not guarantee you will get great images. It just means you’ll get a splattering of images from different focal lengths. Having a single focal length can help you focus on images that shine at that focal length…leaving other images to another time when you are out with a different focal length…or just ignoring those images. I personally find I get much stronger images if I focus my efforts to view the scenes through a single focal length and I spend my time looking for those images. With a zoom, my vision is all over the map looking for just documenting what I see whereas with a prime I look at creating images with my camera.
Obviously different people approach photography in their own way. This is just my take on how I use lenses during travel photography which obviously differs from others.
chez wrote:
Chez I agree that we all work differently, and there's nothing wrong with that. Chacon a son gout. It's just when I am in a new place I am looking for potential images no matter what the focal length, that is let the situation dictate the focal length. That's especially true when I am in a place I may not have an opportunity to return to.
Michael Everet wrote:
Two separate comments:
I understand that some people when traveling want to take a few primes and limit which ones go on which days. It seems that when traveling that's when you don't know what FL you will need, as a major point of travel is to experience something unknown or at least unfamiliar. That's when a wide zoom length can be most desirable. You often don't know what photo opportunity lies ahead.
Second I think we spend too much time trying to get the last nth of IQ from our photographs. With today's lenses and today's processing programs it seems to be chasing the wind to achieve a goal so miniscule that the difference can only be noticed when two identical images are side by side, and even then only by superclose observation. I say this from experience; I once spent too much time doing exactly that....Show more →
I agree with most of what you said, but you forgot to add that there are some lenses that really excite you and make you want to use them. Are there a couple or three lenses that you just love to use because of one reason or another? I find I get my best photographs from the lenses I love to use. Most of them happen to be fast primes, but the Sony 70-200GM II is also one of these for me. Super zooms give me zero joy. Yes, they cover lot of focal lengths, but like Chez, I don’t care. My experience with super zooms has taught me they aren’t for me. But like I said before, if they work for some then they should use them.
chez wrote:
Chez I agree that we all work differently, and there's nothing wrong with that. Chacon a son gout. It's just when I am in a new place I am looking for potential images no matter what the focal length, that is let the situation dictate the focal length. That's especially true when I am in a place I may not have an opportunity to return to.
mudlake wrote:
I agree with most of what you said, but you forgot to add that there are some lenses that really excite you and make you want to use them. Are there a couple or three lenses that you just love to use because of one reason or another? I find I get my best photographs from the lenses I love to use. Most of them happen to be fast primes, but the Sony 70-200GM II is also one of these for me. Super zooms give me zero joy. Yes, they cover lot of focal lengths, but like Chez, I don’t care. My experience with super zooms has taught me they aren’t for me. But like I said before, if they work for some then they should use them. ...Show more →
The Tamron 50-400 is a superzoom which (to my real surprise after I got it and went out with it a couple of times) actually gives me joy. Shot so many favorites with it already.
) of a zoom...
.