Best Standard Zoom for Landscape with Sony A7r IV

[John Hollenberg]

I have been shooting with Sony A7r II and using Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS lens on metabones adapter for standard zoom.  Planning to buy the Sony A7r IV and want to gradually switch to E mount lenses (don’t own any currently).  I shoot predominantly landscape with some wildlife photography, have Canon 100-400 IS L II which I have been using on Canon 5DSr.  For wide angle zoom I will get Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM as everything I have read rates this lens very highly.  For standard zoom I am not sure whether to get Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM or the Sony 24-105 f/4.  I don't do portrait or action shots.  Suggestions?

[mcbroomf]

I've not tried those lenses but as I wanted a little wider than 16-35 and I think it's rep at 35 is not too high I went for the 14-24 2.8 Sigma when it was released.  When looking for a standard zoom I also ended up with the Sigma, 24-70 2.8 although I had to get an exchange as my 1st copy had a soft corner.  I use the 100-400 Canon for some time but missed may too many shots due to AF stalling, especially with the 1.4x TC and switched to the 100-400 Sony with 1.4 TC.  I'm shooting with an A1 and R4.

Mike

[John Hollenberg]

I've not tried those lenses but as I wanted a little wider than 16-35 and I think it's rep at 35 is not too high I went for the 14-24 2.8 Sigma when it was released.  When looking for a standard zoom I also ended up with the Sigma, 24-70 2.8 although I had to get an exchange as my 1st copy had a soft corner.  I use the 100-400 Canon for some time but missed may too many shots due to AF stalling, especially with the 1.4x TC and switched to the 100-400 Sony with 1.4 TC.  I'm shooting with an A1 and R4.

How is the Sigma 12-24 at 24 mm?  Why did you pick the Sigma 24-70 2.8? Price or other consideration?  Is the Sony 100-400 sharper than the Canon or just works better with AF on a Sony body?  Thanks for input?

[MDL_SD]

I have used the Canon 100-400 with a metabones adapter on my RIV; it is fine, but no comparison to the Sony 100-400 that I now own.  The Canon is sharp enough but the autofocus does not compare to the Sony lens. 

My "standard" lens is the Sony 24-105 that I love and would suggest with no hesitation. 

Good luck; you will enjoy whatever you end up with.

[PeterAit]

I have been shooting with Sony A7r II and using Canon 24-70 f/4 L IS lens on metabones adapter for standard zoom.  Planning to buy the Sony A7r IV and want to gradually switch to E mount lenses (don’t own any currently).  I shoot predominantly landscape with some wildlife photography, have Canon 100-400 IS L II which I have been using on Canon 5DSr.  For wide angle zoom I will get Sony 16-35 f/2.8 GM as everything I have read rates this lens very highly.  For standard zoom I am not sure whether to get Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM or the Sony 24-105 f/4.  I don't do portrait or action shots.  Suggestions?

The 24-70mm GM is a truly terrific lens. Coupled with the 70-200 mm f/4 GM I have a 2-lens kit that travels well. Also the Sigma 100-400mm contemporary is a fine lens, easily the optical match for the Sony G of the same range at less than half the price.

[MDL_SD]

The Sony 70-200 f4 is not a G master lens The Sony 70-200 G Master is f2. and the Sony 100-400 is a G Master, not a G.  Please be careful about the details here so that everything is clear. 

[mcbroomf]

How is the Sigma 12-24 at 24 mm?  Why did you pick the Sigma 24-70 2.8? Price or other consideration?  Is the Sony 100-400 sharper than the Canon or just works better with AF on a Sony body?  Thanks for input?

No complaints about the 14-24 Sigma across it's whole range. I'm not sure if I'd see a difference between the Canon and Sony 100-400 as I didn't own them at the same time.  The Canon never left me wanting for optics, just AF but I was using it in the time of the A7R3, so not as good AF as the R4 or A1 and the Metabones might have improved since as well.  I chose the 24-70 Sigma for slightly better size, lower weight, lower price and slightly better optically if you get a good one.  All lenses these days should be checked though.

[John Hollenberg]

I chose the 24-70 Sigma for slightly better size, lower weight, lower price and slightly better optically if you get a good one.  All lenses these days should be checked though.

In reading reviews on B&H the one concern I had is that a number of people complained about dust getting inside the lens for the Sigma.  I didn't see any similar complaints for the Sony GM.

[MDL_SD]

I would encourage you to look at/try the Sony 24-105 f4 G.  It is as close to a GM as you can get without being there and costs substantially less.  I love it and know lots of other folks (professional and non) who use it and swear by it.  It can really help to rent the lens you are thinking about so that you can try it yourself (or try to find someone local who has it and is willing to meet up with you).
Good luck

[mcbroomf]

In reading reviews on B&H the one concern I had is that a number of people complained about dust getting inside the lens for the Sigma.  I didn't see any similar complaints for the Sony GM.

Thanks for the tip, I'll have to watch out for that although not sure what I'd do.  Maybe get it cleaned if I start seeing flare/haze from too much dust.

[mcbroomf]

+1 on renting.  If you are a member of Sony Pro you can get 2 free rentals each year.

The other thing I liked about the Sigma over the Sony if that the MFD is a good bit closer.

[shadowblade]

At the moment, I'd say the 24-105 f/4 G. Just as sharp as the 24-70 GM (sharper at some focal lengths if you're comparing average copies of both) and a quarter lighter.

I use the 24-70/2.8, but bought it before the 24-105 was released and have a good copy. If I were to buy a standard zoom now, it'd be the 24-105.

But rumour has it the 24-70 GM is getting an update later this year (although this may end up being pushed into next year, like delays to many other things). Given that it was the first GM lens released (along with the 85/1.4) this would make sense. If a Mk II were released and turns out to be significantly sharper than the original, this would change the equation.

[John Hollenberg]

Thanks to all for the replies.  I am going to have a serious look at the 24-105 G.

[PeterAit]

The Sony 70-200 f4 is not a G master lens The Sony 70-200 G Master is f2. and the Sony 100-400 is a G Master, not a G.  Please be careful about the details here so that everything is clear.

What's the diff? Either way they are both excellent lenses.

[BernardLanguillier]

I understand the question is about lenses, but personally I would not buy an a7rIV now.

It was released exactly 2 years ago and many a Sony shooter, including Thom Hogan, find the mkIII to be the better camera.

I used to own a mkIV and was never in love with its image quality, nor with its color rendering.

Sony has improved color filtering significantly since the a7sIII and a1. I would expect the a7rV to benefit from this. No idea when I would become available, but I would expect late 2021 early 2022.

Just my 2 cent.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Hollenberg]

I used to own a mkIV and was never in love with its image quality, nor with its color rendering.

Sony has improved color filtering significantly since the a7sIII and a1. I would expect the a7rV to benefit from this. No idea when I would become available, but I would expect late 2021 early 2022.

What do you mean by "color filtering"?  Can you expand on that?  Thanks.

[sbay]

It was released exactly 2 years ago and many a Sony shooter, including Thom Hogan, find the mkIII to be the better camera.

What are the reasons Hogan prefers the mk III? He actually says in his review that he retired the III and kept the mk IV. His main complaint seems to be too many pixels for general usage.

[BernardLanguillier]

What do you mean by "color filtering"?  Can you expand on that?  Thanks.

The color filter part of the sensor to generate the Bayer pattern influences the way the sensor sees colors, especially in difficult light with non uniform distribution.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

What are the reasons Hogan prefers the mk III? He actually says in his review that he retired the III and kept the mk IV. His main complaint seems to be too many pixels for general usage.

He commented several times these past 2 years that he overall prefers the mkIII, noise in images was indeed part of it, but I think there were other reasons that I don't remember in details.

I was not aware he kept the mkIV.

Cheers,
Bernard

[sbay]

He commented several times these past 2 years that he overall prefers the mkIII, noise in images was indeed part of it, but I think there were other reasons that I don't remember in details.

That makes sense. I do feel like it's a little bit noisier than my R2 at high iso even with output size normalization. That's for read noise but other on aspects like hot pixels and fixed pattern noise it seems better. This is my anecdotal experience, I've not done any rigorous testing.

I don't think the R4 is generalist camera and I actually steer people away from it when they ask me for recommendations. Even for landscape shooters unless I know they plan to print big and have the shot discipline to match. Personally I rarely move off base ISO unless I'm doing astro-landscapes.