booked a trip to the dolomites for next month and realized my lumix 24-105 is gonna be a total pain to carry up those trails. its just way too bulky and i need something wider for those massive mountain views.
im trying to stay under $600 and right now im torn between two options:
- sigma 17mm f4 contemporary
- sigma 20mm f2 i-series
the 17mm is super tiny which is a huge plus for my pack but i wonder if f4 is too slow for some occasional astro shots at night... the 20mm is faster but a bit heavier and stretches the budget. which one would you go with for a dedicated hiking setup?
Last year in the Rockies, a super light f4 lens seemed like a great idea until those clouds rolled in. Once the light got flat, keeping shutter speeds up without cranking the ISO was a total nightmare. Honestly, the Sigma 20mm f2 DG DN Contemporary is the more reliable choice for a trip like this. Its built like a tank and that f2 aperture gives you a safety net for evening shots or if you wanna try some astro. That f4 on the Sigma 17mm f4 DG DN Contemporary is just too limiting when things get dark. Moving to the 20mm after my f4 felt too restrictive was a total game changer. Tbh the weight difference is there, but it wont break your back compared to that bulky zoom you are used to carrying. Usually, I just clip it to a Peak Design Capture Clip V3 on my pack strap so its secure and easy to grab. The 17mm is cool for being tiny, but for a once-in-a-lifetime trip, you want something that can handle any situation. Having that extra stop of light is worth the few extra grams every single time if you ask me.
