Topic: Sony A7R II and Landscape Lens (Read 7841 times)

tonyrom · « **on:** November 05, 2016, 04:49:17 pm »

I am researching on adding a high end mirror less camera to my workflow and considering using a Sony A7R II. Primary use is for landscape and my research keeps pointing me to pick the Zeiss Batis 18mm. I would love to hear opinions from others on this lens and other possible choices. Anyone would like to share their findings?

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #1 on:** November 05, 2016, 05:12:42 pm »

Hi,

Just to say, I am using anything from fisheye to 400 mm and beyond for landscape. So for me, there is no landscape lens…

But, for ultrawide I am using the Canon 16-35/4L, it is an amazingly good lens. Now, I have a special reason to use Canon lenses and that is that I can use them with my HCam TS Master II tilt and shift adapter. That is not possible with FE-lenses.

If it 18 mm you need the Batis is with all probability a very good lens. It may be that I get one, or the Loxia 21. But, so far, my experience has been that I tend to use zooms over primes.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: tonyrom on November 05, 2016, 04:49:17 pm

I am researching on adding a high end mirror less camera to my workflow and considering using a Sony A7R II. Primary use is for landscape and my research keeps pointing me to pick the Zeiss Batis 18mm. I would love to hear opinions from others on this lens and other possible choices. Anyone would like to share their findings?

E.J. Peiker · « **Reply #2 on:** November 05, 2016, 08:49:52 pm »

I own the lens (Batis 18mm) and have done quite a bit of nightime Aurora photography with it which means shooting wide open. I am very pleased with the lens.

chez · « **Reply #3 on:** November 06, 2016, 08:26:41 am »

If the camera is to be used for landscapes, I'd get a used A7R and save some money...especially if you shoot off a tripod. The 16-35 lens is excellent at the wide end, especially stopped down. I'd recommend this lens until you have experience shooting landscapes and know what focal lengths are most used by your style...then possibly add some primes.

tonyrom · « **Reply #4 on:** November 07, 2016, 01:21:05 am »

I'm not new to Landscape shooting. I am just new to Sony and the lens choices. I've done a bit of research and I just want to get some feedback from others as to what they have chosen.

Last year in Yosemite, I used a 20 mm on my Nikon 98% of the time. This year in Eastern Sierra's, I used a 24-70 and a 20 mm evenly distributed. I think what will happen is I will get both and use one or the other based on my mood.

So, the Zeiss 18mm Batis looks really nice. What is the opinion on using an adapter with the Canon lens?

Paulo Bizarro · « **Reply #5 on:** November 07, 2016, 04:42:01 am »

Another option is the Loxia 21.

Phil Indeblanc · « **Reply #6 on:** November 07, 2016, 01:31:54 pm »

nice stuff. I can also recommend the Rokinon 12mm/2.8 sharp lens, and while super wide, it does give a great perspective, and corrects pretty nicely in post. There is a new corrected, Zero distortion, forget what label it is under, but take a look.

Are none of the Sigma older DN lenes not so adaptable to FF FE? I see them for lower prices, but not sure about them.

tonyrom · « **Reply #7 on:** November 07, 2016, 03:38:45 pm »

ty and I will look at those lens as well! Thank you for the reference.

Tony Jay · « **Reply #8 on:** November 07, 2016, 05:04:38 pm »

Quote from: tonyrom on November 07, 2016, 01:21:05 am

I'm not new to Landscape shooting. I am just new to Sony and the lens choices. I've done a bit of research and I just want to get some feedback from others as to what they have chosen.
.... What is the opinion on using an adapter with the Canon lens?

I use a Metabones adaptor on the Sony A7R and A7RII.
With up-to-date firmware updates the experience is almost as good as a Canon body - Canon lens combination. However the autofocus abilities are not that crucial for landscape work.

Battery life is another potential con, but not really an issue for landscape work. If you need to - buy a battery grip and have at least four batteries (two to use and two to charge).

Frankly, if the Canon lens is a good one then the IQ is extraordinary. Like Eric, I use anything from ultra wide to 400mm for landscape work. I do have two very good Sony lenses but most of my lens line-up is Canon. All lenses are used interchangeably according to need.

I love shooting in low light, and or, high contrast situations and the A7R and A7RII absolutely shine in these scenarios. Obviously, tripods and remote releases really allow one to maximise IQ.

In summary, using the A7R or A7RII mated with Canon lenses via a Metabones adaptor can deliver images, as good, if not better, than any other imagine system available.

Tony Jay

Farmer · « **Reply #9 on:** November 07, 2016, 05:08:43 pm »

I'm reading all of this with great interest as a wide landscape lens for my A7Rii is the next thing on my list (I have the G Master 24-70 and 70-200 lenses in FE already). I have the metabones adapter and I'm considering (very seriously) the Canon 24mm T/S, but all these other options are really helping - so thanks for asking the question, Tony, and thanks for everyone's responses.

ErikKaffehr · « **Reply #10 on:** November 07, 2016, 05:17:06 pm »

Hi,

I am using Canon lenses on the A7rII with the Metabones IV-T adapter. The main reason for me using Canon may be a bit exotic, I can do tilt & shift work with them. I have the 24/3.5 TSE LII, 16-35/4L and the 24-105/4L. I have seen some reports that the 16-35/4L doesn't work really well with the A7rII, but it beats all lenses I have at 24 mm.

I had two Metabones IV adapters. The first one started to fail after a few weeks, the second one works well, but I have a few hickups. If you shoot professionally, avoid the adapters. For reliability and speed Nikon or Canon may be the first option.

That said, the Metabones IV-T I use now works excellent 99.9% of the time. But if you need a system that is 99.999 percent reliable you may go Nikon/Canon.

Best regards
Erik

Quote from: tonyrom on November 07, 2016, 01:21:05 am

I'm not new to Landscape shooting. I am just new to Sony and the lens choices. I've done a bit of research and I just want to get some feedback from others as to what they have chosen.

Last year in Yosemite, I used a 20 mm on my Nikon 98% of the time. This year in Eastern Sierra's, I used a 24-70 and a 20 mm evenly distributed. I think what will happen is I will get both and use one or the other based on my mood.

So, the Zeiss 18mm Batis looks really nice. What is the opinion on using an adapter with the Canon lens?

BradSmith · « **Reply #11 on:** November 07, 2016, 07:45:04 pm »

Not a comment on that specific lens, but rather on the focal length......For the way I see/shoot landscapes, 18mm on a full frame sensor is VERY wide and although I cover that angle of view with a 7-14 (14-28 equivalent) on my Olympus micro 4/3, I very seldom shoot with that lens. My 12-40 (24-80) covers over 80% of my shots and my 40-150 (80-300 equiv) the rest. In fact, I think I've taken more test shots with my 7-14 than I have "real" shots.
Brad

HSakols · « **Reply #12 on:** November 07, 2016, 08:00:46 pm »

Brad,
I also have a good friend who has spent years photographing Yosemite. He once complained to me that he never used his Nikon 17-35 and wondered why he ever bought it. I agree that my most used landscape full frame zooms are the 24-70 and the 70-200. I also use a macro lens quite often.

jhemp · « **Reply #13 on:** November 07, 2016, 08:51:45 pm »

I use three lenses for my backpacking/hiking mirrorless A7RII setup. I use the Loxia 21,35 and 50mm lenses. I like the manual focus action of these lenses. The loxia 21 is phenomenal even wide open, and the 50mm is pretty good wide open and only gets better as you stop down. The 35mm is the weakest of them all and doesn't get really good til F8. Another thing about the loxia lenses is I notice diffraction is less apparent at f11 than other lenses. Most lenses I get a little worried about stopping down past f8 but not so much with the Loxia glass.

I also use the 16-35 F4 sony/zeiss a fair amount but my version gets soft in the corners and edges(Compared to the Loxia) from about 24mm-16mm but the centers are always sharp at all focal lengths. These deficiencies are MUCH less noticeable on the A7II and A7SII. I guess if you are not hypercritical then the 16-35 is a solid choice. Good contrast and pop! Sometimes I have to tell myself to stop being such pixel peeper, and then I take out the 16-35.

I also use the 24mm Batis and its a nice lens. I would say it's as good as the Loxia, but I find myself liking to work with the Loxia more in the landscape and just use the Batis for work where I need autofocus.

Also the Loxia line of lenses are very solid feeling, where the Batis line feels less solid and more plastic.

You can see a bunch of my samples from different lenses for the Sony A series cameras here: https://www.flickr.com/photos/jhemp_00/albums

Jay

tonyrom · « **Reply #14 on:** November 08, 2016, 02:21:48 am »

Jay, the 16-35 photos look terrific. The only negative is F4 for night shots. I guess you need to have both the 16-35 and the 18mm Batis for night sky shots.

-tony

E.J. Peiker · « **Reply #15 on:** November 08, 2016, 08:57:25 am »

If you compare corner detail rendering between the 16-35 and Batis 18 at any aperture you will be stunned by the difference. Centers are the same but there is a big difference in the corners. Same with the Loxia 21, Batis 25 and just about any 35mm prime. I use the 16-35 a lot for convenience but when I really am shooting something where I want critical detail rendering out to the corners, the primes are significantly better which, I guess, shouldn't be that big of a surprise.

Phil Indeblanc · « **Reply #16 on:** November 08, 2016, 11:39:09 am »

Why not have a look at this....
http://www.lenstip.com/187.4-Lens_review-Sony_Carl_Zeiss_Vario_Sonnar_16-35_mm_f_2.8_T*_SSM_Image_resolution.html

For landscape, speed is no issue, so I would surely use the Metabones IV(I guess T?Not sure how to tell) adapter with the Canon lenses, regardless if you have Canon body or not. I think the Sony lenses maybe great, but over priced. But perhaps they out perform significantly, I don't know. Check that link?

I have also used a Tamron 17-35, and is a very good lens for $400-500.

Look at the link. After selecting the lens, scroll down to #4. and see the sweet spots.

jhemp · « **Reply #17 on:** November 09, 2016, 12:17:59 am »

Tony,

Yes the 16-35 is a wonderful lens, and it sure is handy to have when shooting in foul weather so you don't have a swap lenses! It is well built and light. But as others have pointed out that it gets a little soft at the edges if you compare it to the primes. I find my copy of the 16-35mm is just as sharp as any prime from 28mm-35mm but wider than 28mm and things can't hold up to the primes. In my opinion none of these negatives matter if you are not wanting to print bigger than 24x36in.

When I go hiking with my family/kids/friends I bring the 16-35 because it's way more convenient, or if I know the weather is going to suck. If I'm out by myself and I can take my time I'll bring the primes because I enjoy the more meditative approach with manual focus primes.
Jay

Phil Indeblanc · « **Reply #18 on:** November 09, 2016, 01:37:23 am »

I can always use more meditative shooting, that's for sure.

Dave Gurtcheff · « **Reply #19 on:** November 19, 2016, 11:51:13 am »

The Zeiss 16-35mm f4 is almost always on my A7RII. I find is sharper at the 16-24mm end than the 35mm end. I routinely make 20"x30" prints. I do seascapes.
Dave in NJ

http://www.modernpictorials.com/bay%20images/BAY/D653%20framed.jpg

Author Topic: Sony A7R II and Landscape Lens (Read 7841 times)