Sigma 20mm and 90mm vs Lumix 18mm vs 100mm primes

[petereprice]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Trying to decide between these two combinations.

Panasonic 18mm f1.8 and 100mm f2.8 Macro 
vs
Sigma 20mm f2 and 90mm f2.8

I like the compact size of the Sigma primes as well as their exterior design, but I also like the Lumix primes for their weather sealing, slightly more accurate AF and weight and it also would complete my other Lumix primes I already own (24, 35 (Leica), 50 (Leica), 85)

Any thoughts?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[Olaf_ZG]

I would choose Panasonic, as you have already some of them. It will give you equal results throughout the range.

[huwm]

Stick with Lumix

[Malabito]

I own the Panasonic 24mm and 35mm sl apo and owned the Sigma 45mm and 90mm. I would go for the Panasonic.

The 90mm is a great lens, sharp, small, and beautifully built, but I somehow found all the images dull. There was absolutely nothing wrong with the lens; I just felt the end results were missing something, perhaps it was the focal length.

[FlashGordonPhotography]

When building a kit, I know I like 20/21, 45/50 and 90/100. So, for L mount I have the Sigma 20mm and 50 and the Panasonic 100mm to make the spread a bit wider and have the additional utility of a macro lens. If Sigma's 45mm was an f2, I would have gotten that plus the 90. I have the Sigma 20, 50 and 90 in Sony and so I knew I was wanting the extra 10mm. I also have the non APO Leica 50/2 but I prefer the feel of the Sigma's, somehow so I use it when the conditions are poor.

I used to build a 24, 50 90/100 kit. Did so for decades but my preferences have shifted to like a 21 and 45, if good ones are available. I've actually gotten so fussy about this that knowing that my M50 Summilux is actually a bit longer than 50 (around 52.4mm) really bugs me. Especially as my preferences have gotten slightly closer to the true standard (43-44mm) in small format.

I also have the APO 21, 28, 50 and 90. I'd like an APO 100 or 105 instead of the 90 but it is what it is.

Building a kit of primes is about knowing what your favourite focal length is, managing how wide the spread is and, to me, having as few options as needed. Otherwise, I'll just carry a zoom. I know people with a wide kit (21, 35, 75) or a long kit (35, 75, 135) or a mid kit (28, 50, 90) or some other variation but few who carry more than three primes at a time and few who *see* more than a couple of main focal lengths. You seem to already have a lot of choices and I'm wondering if you actually use them all.

I'm not against acquiring gear.  I just suggest you work out what you need the extra lenses for and that'll tell you what they should be. To me the difference between 18 and 20 is enough that I'd just know which suited me.

Gordon

[o2mpx]

The other thing to consider is the subject matter being shot.

I struggle with whether to reduce SL2 kit weight/bulk by acquiring lighter weight primes (21/35 or 45/75 or 90) for travel trips instead of the Leica 16-35 and 24-90 zooms; very much on the fence given landscapes are 90% of what's being taken, having zooms actually provided more framing flexibility and reduce cropping.

My fear is if switched over to primes, likelihood might be higher needing to crop since there might not be opportunity to zoom with feet on location with landscapes.

But traveling with a SL2 plus the 2 zooms in the bag walking the better part of day always leave tired and aching shoulders end of day.