2 Lens Kit For fp L

[Scottelly]

I've been thinking about getting an fp L. I'm pretty sure I'll want to get the 20-60 as an all-around walk-around lens, and now I'm thinking a 70-300 might make a good second lens. Of course I can use all my Art lenses on the fp L, and I have a 100-400, so I probably don't need a 70-300, but I would think a 70-300 might be a good choice to go with the 20-60 for making a two-lens kit. What do you think?

Yes, this is probably just mental masturbation.

--
Scott Barton Kennelly
https://www.bigprintphotos.com
https://www.sigmaphotopro.com
https://www.sigmacamerapro.com

 

[Johan Borg]

Well, as a prime shooter I think I'd keep that 100-400mm and add one of the f/2 i-series lenses to take advantage of the small size and digital crop features of the fp L.

I have the 50mm F2 which can easily double as a 100mm F4 equivalent at 2x crop.

 

[Scottelly]

Well, as a prime shooter I think I'd keep that 100-400mm and add one of the f/2 i-series lenses to take advantage of the small size and digital crop features of the fp L.

I have the 50mm F2 which can easily double as a 100mm F4 equivalent at 2x crop.

Hmmm . . . I did originally think that the 65mm f2 i lens would make a good portrait lens, and would compliment the 20-60. With those two lenses and the 100-400 on an adapter, I guess that would make a pretty nice three lens kit, and I wouldn't need to buy anything else, because I could always mount my 40mm f1.4 Art on that camera for wider stuff, my 135mm f1.8 Art on there for tighter portraits with a wider aperture, my 50mm f1.4 Art for a slightly tighter view than the 40 and a wider view than the 65, and if I really want to go wide I can put my 14-24 Art on there. I guess I need to get the fp L and 20-60 first, so I won't annoy anyone here with more speculation.

 

[Ceistinne]

Well, as a prime shooter I think I'd keep that 100-400mm and add one of the f/2 i-series lenses to take advantage of the small size and digital crop features of the fp L.

I have the 50mm F2 which can easily double as a 100mm F4 equivalent at 2x crop.

Hmmm . . . I did originally think that the 65mm f2 i lens would make a good portrait lens, and would compliment the 20-60. With those two lenses and the 100-400 on an adapter, I guess that would make a pretty nice three lens kit, and I wouldn't need to buy anything else, because I could always mount my 40mm f1.4 Art on that camera for wider stuff, my 135mm f1.8 Art on there for tighter portraits with a wider aperture, my 50mm f1.4 Art for a slightly tighter view than the 40 and a wider view than the 65, and if I really want to go wide I can put my 14-24 Art on there. I guess I need to get the fp L and 20-60 first, so I won't annoy anyone here with more speculation.

Scott,

Before I'd consider buying an fp L I would like to have some assurance that Sigma is not close to offering a full frame Bayer CFA sensor camera with built in EVF in other words a standard mirrorless camera. My preference would be to wait for the FF X3 but from the latest interview with Kazuto Yamaki it would appear that no great progress has been made with that after about ten years working on it. I, like many others, am getting tired of being strung along about that and as far as the fp, fp L & BF are concerned I have never considered buying them because of their lack of a EVF.

S

 

[mike earussi]

Having used both the 100-400 and the 70-300 I prefer the latter due to its lighter weight and its 1/2 life size magnification.

I also use the 24 f2 for astrophotography as it can be used wide open with no coma on the edges. It is an excellent lens.

 

[Winnie19]

(This was meant as a response to the OP's original post) sorry

I don't have the experience with different systems, lenses, etc. of most members here, having just gotten into digital ILC's about two years ago, but the Panasonic 28-200 macro has been great for me; very compact, stabilized & .5 macro. With that sensor you can crop in a ridiculous amount and still have great looking pics. The Sigma 45mm & 90mm 2.8's both are really nice on the fp, but I like the zoom enough that I never use them. Maybe one of the wide f/2.0's would complement the zoom well...

I needed the EVF, because of eyesight issues. It bulks up the package, but the tilting feature is awesome. Without the EVF option I probably would've gone with a Sony A7C II, and definitely would've gone that route if buying new: I got my fpL with the EVF from MAP for $1800. It was described as "very good" condition, but in reality it was "as-new, in box"; there were no signs that any of the package had ever been opened, handled or used. They're a great "used" resource and tend to underrate most items...

 

[Ceistinne]

Having used both the 100-400 and the 70-300 I prefer the latter due to its lighter weight and its 1/2 life size magnification.

I also use the 24 f2 for astrophotography as it can be used wide open with no coma on the edges. It is an excellent lens.

Mike,

I use both of them also, the 100-400 is a very fine lens and the 70-300 is a nice light lens.

S.