Sigma BF (Beautiful Foolishness).

Hmmm, that’s tiny! I need to look into the 18-40, but for my limited immediate purposes here the 20-60 should work - plus it was less than half the used price of a 18-40.
 
Ken Ford said:
I also ordered a used Panny 20-60 to use as a family and vacation lens, it’s inexpensive, smallish and seems to be well regarded. Between the 20-60 and 45 I should be good for vacation.
Click to expand...

That's the setup I have. I'm not much of a zoom person, so I'm surprised by how much I like the 20-60. It's a useful range, optically good, and very cheap second-hand. I've seen it happen over and over. People look at what the kit lens costs on its own, and figure they should buy the kit and then make a profit by selling the lens. They do not.

That said, as glad as I am to have it, the 20-60 is bulky on the camera. Not heavy, but wider around than the camera is tall. The 18-40 is an appealing option, but it does cost substantially more used. Since the 45/2.8 is my main lens I don't want to spend more than I really need to on something that I expect to have more of a utility role. So ironically, if I knew how much I'd like the 20-60, I might have considered buying the 18-40 instead. But then, one of the things I like is that it's usefully-longer than the 45, so there's that, too.
 
Last edited:
20250225_133050.jpgAs Shawn mentioned I love this on my Fp, but as I also love the 24/3.5 and 17/4 Sigmas on it. The 20-60 I also have and I use it all the time on my SL, just remember the 18-40mm extends in use and is a lot more money.
Funnily enough I found the UI of the Fp more intuitive than the BF, but thankfully we're all different.
 
I just got back from a morning walk in the humidity with the 45. I do like it, but it's a little long for my stinky alley adventures. I'm looking forward to the 24/3.5 I have on order and a probable future 17/4, and the 20-60 too. The more I use the BF the more I like it.

The pinching is causing right hand pain even with me cradling the lens with my left, I'm definitely looking forward to getting a grip.
 
The 24/3.5 is a very special lens, to the extent that I have two, one in L-mount and another in Sony for my A7s that I leave in the centre console of my daily driver 4wd. I could leave my 24 on the Fp full time and be happy, but it is my favourite focal length. Like the 24, the Sigma 17 is sharp from wide open and tiny, another classic I reckon. The Sigma is so good in low light I don't care about the slow speed of these lenses.
 
The 20-60 is being delivered today, I have hopes that it will meet my need for travel and family. I’m planning on taking it and the 45 on vacation.

Another delivery expected today is a Leica 50/2.8 Summicron-M (the 1990s-2000s lens) which is mostly for my M bodies but something I want to try on the BF, too.
 
They’re here and look good, I want to get the 20-60 out to test it as soon as possible. The ‘cron collapses too deeply for the BF, so I’d either have to be very careful to never collapse it or I’ll have to try a rubber band around the lens barrel for a temporary stop.
 
I’m on vacation with the BF and realize I made a critical error. The prescription eyeglasses I brought are photochromic and they make it harder to see the screen. If I take them off the screen is perfectly visible, just out of focus.
 
Are the polarized? LCDs are polarized and don't work well with polarized glasses. Try turning your head or the camera 90 degrees and see that that helps.
 
Ken Ford said:
I’m on vacation with the BF and realize I made a critical error. The prescription eyeglasses I brought are photochromic and they make it harder to see the screen. If I take them off the screen is perfectly visible, just out of focus.
Click to expand...

use-the-force-luke.png
 
Thank you both for the kind words. I appreciate it very much.

trix4ever said:
Staggered they didn't reuse Fp batteries...
Click to expand...

That would have been way better. I mean, almost anything would be, but reusing a design from a camera that they already make would be so much better than a bespoke one-off. And this isn't just that it's completely unhinged that a two-battery charger and two spare batteries to put in it cost 22% of what the camera does (in Canada) – $640, while Fujifilm charges $300 for its BCW235 and a pair of spares for it, if you wanted to trick out an X-T5 ($2300 CAD).

I get that they want the small form factor, etc, but they also gave the BF an enduring design appeal and built it with an eye to longevity. But five years from now will there be a good supply of fresh batteries to keep them going? How about ten years from now? What about longer than that? I still occasionally use my Ricoh GRDiv, which is fourteen years old; my DP2 and DP3 Merrill use the same battery. I can order cheap generics or manufacturers originals for delivery tomorrow if I want to. Same thing for my circa-2013 Nikon Coolpix A. I doubt that the BF's BP-81 / BC-81 will have that kind of support longevity, but I hope I'm wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom