Driftwood Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
genji wrote:
Partly because you specified hiking and travel but also because the FE 50/1.4 didn't even occur to me. Why? Personal prejudice. Size and weight are prime factors for me so I have a strong preference for small and light lenses. When I say small I'm primarily talking about girth so filter size is a good guide. I can accept small and heavy (so I have the Loxia 85/2.4: 594g and 52mm filters) and I can accept large and light (so I also have the FE 85/1.8: 371g, 67mm filters). But, despite its being superb, I would never in a million years consider the FE 85/1.4 GM which is both large and heavy (820g, 77mm filters). The Zony FE 50/1.4 (778g, 72mm filters) also falls into the large and heavy category. So thanks but no thanks.
As for the Zony FE 55/1.8, it's small and light (281g, 49mm filters), its faults are not significant for me, and I've been consistently delighted with the results it yields....Show more →
I enjoy reading about the thought process and reasoning behind everyone's lens purchases. Thanks for sharing some of your insights! Really appreciate it.
---------------------------------------------
Gunzorro wrote:
Hi Driftwood! Welcome to the FM Sony forum!
Back in olden days, long before AF was common, 35-70, and later 35-105, were common zoom lenses. These were complemented by 17-35 ultra wide angle zooms. Sadly, today we have wonderful 16-35 zooms, but no great zooms starting at 35, leading to your dilemma.
This lead me to jump on the 12-24/4G and pair it with either a 24-70 or 24-105 zoom, or manual focus Loxia 35 or 50 lens.
I don't see any problem getting the Sony 50/1.4, despite it being somewhat large and heavy. Image quality is where it's at! If you are only carrying two lenses, you can afford to let them be a little bulky or heavy. Carrying a bag full of lenses on short hikes can be heavy and awkward, but two lenses of moderate size should be fine.
Personally, I don't like to change lenses when making short hikes along woodland trails or brush. My choice is a second camera body (inexpensive used a7R) and leave the lenses alone, or rarely changed if carrying a third lens in a belt pouch in dry conditions. I frequently mount my 24-70/4 OSS (same as you have) on the a7R and utilize its built-in image stabilization, while using a non-stabilized lens on the a7R2 with its IBIS. Call me crazy, but the 24-70/4 looks considerably better to me on the a7R than the a7R2! And it's not the small increase in MP making the difference. Beside looking sharper, color and contrast of the f/4 look better, so I prefer spending on that second body over buying the newer 24-70/2.8GM, for the moment anyway -- leap-frogging strategy.
I like the IQ, size and controls of the Loxia lenses, but in your case a nice AF 50 could be your best choice. The little Sony 50 Macro actually gets good reviews on imaging, not so sure about build quality or durabiltiy, but it's cheap!
Having said all that, the 24-70/2.8GM is a great stand alone lens and makes the best for general shooting. So, it's hard to go wrong owning it, just not the best pairing with the 16-35 range.
Hope this helps your decision process.
Looking forward to seeing some of you shots.
...Show more →
Lately I've been thinking more and more about picking up a used a6000/6300/6500 for when I want to bring something more compact, and your post is really selling me on the idea on getting a second camera. Thanks for your warm welcome and helpful post. Adding two more lenses to try when I visit my local camera store as well (Loxia 30 & 50). I may be thankful but my wallet won't like you very much!
---------------------------------------------
frezeiss wrote:
Since you dont mind weight, and want bokeh.. Sony Zeiss 50 1.4
Of the 50's everyone has suggested, the 1.4 is one of the ones I'm most excited to try. Do you own this lens or have personal experience with it?
|