Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Mirrorless Cameras => Topic started by: patjoja on May 09, 2018, 09:48:02 am
-
Hi Gang,
I just bit the bullet and ordered the Sony A7rIII! Yeah! The wife's new camera is my old Sony A7II with 24-70 f4.
Needless to say I need a couple of lenses for the new camera. I do mostly landscape work and occasionally get called into shooting local horse events for my wife.
Right now I'm leaning towards the Sony 16-35 f2.8 for land and city scapes and the Sony 85mm f1.4 (f1.8?)for shooting 4H kids on horses (and land/city scapes), as well as general portraiture.
Whichever lenses I choose they need to have very good IQ, color, and bokeh.
Are there other lenses I should be considering? What would be your favorite 2 lens suggestions?
Thanks very much,
Patrick
-
Hi Gang,
I just bit the bullet and ordered the Sony A7rIII! Yeah! The wife's new camera is my old Sony A7II with 24-70 f4.
Needless to say I need a couple of lenses for the new camera. I do mostly landscape work and occasionally get called into shooting local horse events for my wife.
A lot depends on your personal preferences. Back when I shot full-frame my favorite kit was a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. Sony makes lenses of these focal lengths, but they are bloody expensive. I have had excellent results from the Sigma Art series, which are much more reasonable.
-
A lot depends on your personal preferences. Back when I shot full-frame my favorite kit was a 24-70mm and a 70-200mm. Sony makes lenses of these focal lengths, but they are bloody expensive. I have had excellent results from the Sigma Art series, which are much more reasonable.
Hi Peter. Thanks for your response.
Yes, expense is a concern, of course. The Sigma Art lenses for Sony are close to being released (pre-order at this time). I could possibly get the 16-35 now and then wait for the 85mm Art lens.
I have the 24-70 focal length on my A7II which I like reasonably well, but I think I prefer the slightly wider 16-35 for landscape work. As far as the 70-200, I rarely use a long focal length lens, so the top end on that lens would be wasted most of the time, although the 70 to 120 mm range could be useful.
I think the question is coming down to which portrait/medium telephoto lens will work best for me?
Patrick
-
If you don't want to go too heavy both the 55/1.8 and 85/1.8 are very good (especially the 55), the 50/1.4 and 85/1.4 are supposed to be even better but more heavy and more expensive.
-
I would go with the Zeiss 25mm f1.8 and 85mm f1.8.
Those are the 2 lenses I would buy myself if Sony were to release an a9r. ;)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Zeiss 25mm f1.8
Which lens do you mean? There is a Zeiss Batis 25/2 (indeed excellent) but I couldn't find a f 1.8 version.
-
If you prefer zooms:
16-35 f4 plus 70-200 f4 for landscapes.
If you prefer primes:
Loxia 21 and Loxia 85 (or Batis 135) for landscapes.
Any combination of the above will work both for landscapes and horse events.
I suggest the above lenses, as they will "honour" the high res sensor.
-
Which lens do you mean? There is a Zeiss Batis 25/2 (indeed excellent) but I couldn't find a f 1.8 version.
Yes, sorry, that's the one I meant.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
and occasionally get called into shooting local horse events for my wife.
You shoot horses, do you?
-
You shoot horses, do you?
Uhhh....yes.. Even with people on them... :-)
Here's where I'm at right now on this decision: Spend the majority of my funds on the Sony 16-38 f2.8 GM, then buy the value Sony FE 85mm f1.8. This is based on reading many reviews and watching various peoples opinions and comments.
The 16-35mm f2.8 is a very well regarded lens, and the range is one I use a lot for my landscape work. The FE 85mm f1.8 is nearly 98% of the 85mm f1.4 at 1/3 the cost, and at least equal with the Zeiss Batus in performance and 1/2 the price. It was mentioned in several reviews that the bokeh and background on the 85 f/1.4 is better than the f 1.8, but that it's a personal choice. So, that's worth a try to see if I'm happy with the IQ, and save some money.
I'm hoping I like the 85mm focal length. It's not a focal length that I've shot at, other then on the way from 24mm to 105mm. I'm hoping the 85mm will be good enough that I can take it as a carry around lens. Maybe I should be looking at a 50mm lens too?
FYI, just because I order something doesn't mean it's final....at least for 30 days. :-)
Kind regards,
Patrick
-
Yes, sorry, that's the one I meant.
Cheers,
Bernard
Bernard,
It's an interesting suggestion. The 25 is about midpoint on the 16-35. In the end, I think I'd prefer a short zoom in that range to help frame shots a little easier.
At the higher end, it's less of a concern. My only other concern is whether or not I'll need a 135mm lens.
Patrick
-
Personally for what you are shooting, i’d get the 16-35 f4 rather than the GM lens. I don’t see you utilizing 2.8 with what you are after.
-
Personally for what you are shooting, i’d get the 16-35 f4 rather than the GM lens. I don’t see you utilizing 2.8 with what you are after.
I shoot nightscapes sometimes too, so having the extra aperture will be nice. Technically though I guess a fast prime might be best for that. Maybe later.
Regards,
Patrick
-
just a note of thanks for helping me think through this decision.
As of now, I've opted for all native glass, the Sony 16-35 f2.8, and the Sony 85 f1.4 GM lens. I tried all my Canon glass (16-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4, and 100-400 f4.5-5.6) with a Metabones adapter, but the adapter was not working well with my backup camera, the A7ii. It would flash in the EVF during every shot. On the A7riii the adapter seemed to work pretty well, but in the end I decided to sell all my Canon gear to help fund the new toys.
Thanks again Gents!
Patrick
-
I bought the 16-35 f/4 because that was all that was available when I switched. It's a great lens but weak around 30-35mm. I believe the f/2.8 is a bit better and can double as an astro lens (i think it is also weak at the long end).
Today for shooting landscapes I would probably consider the 12-24 f/4 as a primary lens. But most of my landscapes are below 24mm and I typically don't use much in the way of filters. The 55mm is great too for stitching. I also picked up at 25mm f/2 batis for astro.
-
just a note of thanks for helping me think through this decision.
As of now, I've opted for all native glass, the Sony 16-35 f2.8, and the Sony 85 f1.4 GM lens. I tried all my Canon glass (16-35 f/4, 24-105 f/4, and 100-400 f4.5-5.6) with a Metabones adapter, but the adapter was not working well with my backup camera, the A7ii. It would flash in the EVF during every shot. On the A7riii the adapter seemed to work pretty well, but in the end I decided to sell all my Canon gear to help fund the new toys.
Thanks again Gents!
Patrick
I really like the 85 1.8 for a light kit but there's something about the 1.4 that makes the images sing. The bokeh and rendering make for beautiful images.
-
I have an A7rII and A7rIII and have the 16-35 f/2.8 on the II and the 70-200 f/2.8 0n the III.
The combination is great. The 70-200 for the horses might come in handy. A $5,000 dollar bill for the two but they are superb.
-
I have an A7rII and A7rIII and have the 16-35 f/2.8 on the II and the 70-200 f/2.8 0n the III.
The combination is great. The 70-200 for the horses might come in handy. A $5,000 dollar bill for the two but they are superb.
The 70-200 is certainly a strong contender.
Patrick