p.5 #2 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
As seems typical in online forum conversations, some people mention their preference and others take it personal because they don't share the preference.
The truth of the matter is the 24-105 f/4 is an excellent lens - particularly for a zoom. It offers all that people say it does - convenience, light weight, a camera at the ready with this lens attached, ability to exactly nail one's ideal composition. It also offers some of the disadvantages mentioned - it doesn't have the micro contrast and color that are captured by primes, and it's not _quite_ so sharp as some of the better primes.
The truth of the matter is, you can make excellent images no matter which route you choose to take - primes or 24-105. Unless you're looking at the images side by side or really know the lenses, you're likely to not be able to see much of a difference. Sure, you can do things in post to make the contrast and colors more equal, but then you're spending more time in post on things that you don't necessarily have to do.
I have the 24-105 and love it. I use it when I travel, backpack or am with people where photography isn't my primary purpose. When it is, I use primes: Loxia 21, CV 40, CV 65 and Batis 135 because I prefer them and because I often photograph more intimate details in nature and I find f/4 to be too slow. I notice a difference in the images from both, but have printed and sold images using both the 24-105 and my primes. Heck, I've sold prints using my old Nikon crop-based sensor and zoom lenses on that camera. For me, the added weight of the primes is worth it. I actually like taking the time to change lenses because I get to think more about the image I'm about to make. I've never in my year+ of having my a7rIII and swapping out my primes, had issues with crud on my sensor that isn't easily removed. (opening against body with back to wind, sensor down when putting lens on, clean function often and rocket blower before every trip if not multiple times/trip) I've only once "missed" an image because of a lens change, but that was only after I'd already gotten the image with another composition. Missing images is not being prepared more so than changing lenses for landscape - wildlife is another story. I don't care about a bunch of youtubers who do landscape photography using zooms - most of them are not what I'd consider to be the great landscape photographers of our time. And besides, what other people carry and shoot with has no bearing on my thought processes when making images.
Long story short - only you can make the proper decision. A 24-105 and a wide prime (the Batis 18 would be perfect IMO) would be a fantastic start and you'll make bunches of images of as high of quality as you as a photographer can make - potentially print-worthy, sales-worthy, certainly impress-the-friends-worthy. Perhaps you'll find in time you'd rather shoot primes, that you'd like something longer, or you want better depth of field control. At that point, branch out as you see fit.
p.5 #3 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
one of the reasons I like hiking with the 24-105 is a sequence like this taken 30 seconds apart. With lots of people coming up the trail, I may not have had time to swap lens and still get the wildlife. I could carry two bodies w/ a wide and a tele and I had a full range of AF and MF lenses and two bodies but never had any interest in lugging all that stuff. For me, hiking is the priority. Photography is not the reason I hike but is a fun thing to do while hiking.
I always have my CV15 in the pack since that is used for static landscapes.
p.5 #4 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
This is some of the best advice I’ve seen in general in a while. These lenses and camera bodies nowadays will never be your limiting factor as an artist. Because of that, I almost always prioritize convenience such as using zooms in the field.
liftedspirit wrote:
As seems typical in online forum conversations, some people mention their preference and others take it personal because they don't share the preference.
The truth of the matter is the 24-105 f/4 is an excellent lens - particularly for a zoom. It offers all that people say it does - convenience, light weight, a camera at the ready with this lens attached, ability to exactly nail one's ideal composition. It also offers some of the disadvantages mentioned - it doesn't have the micro contrast and color that are captured by primes, and it's not _quite_ so sharp as some of the better primes.
The truth of the matter is, you can make excellent images no matter which route you choose to take - primes or 24-105. Unless you're looking at the images side by side or really know the lenses, you're likely to not be able to see much of a difference. Sure, you can do things in post to make the contrast and colors more equal, but then you're spending more time in post on things that you don't necessarily have to do.
I have the 24-105 and love it. I use it when I travel, backpack or am with people where photography isn't my primary purpose. When it is, I use primes: Loxia 21, CV 40, CV 65 and Batis 135 because I prefer them and because I often photograph more intimate details in nature and I find f/4 to be too slow. I notice a difference in the images from both, but have printed and sold images using both the 24-105 and my primes. Heck, I've sold prints using my old Nikon crop-based sensor and zoom lenses on that camera. For me, the added weight of the primes is worth it. I actually like taking the time to change lenses because I get to think more about the image I'm about to make. I've never in my year+ of having my a7rIII and swapping out my primes, had issues with crud on my sensor that isn't easily removed. (opening against body with back to wind, sensor down when putting lens on, clean function often and rocket blower before every trip if not multiple times/trip) I've only once "missed" an image because of a lens change, but that was only after I'd already gotten the image with another composition. Missing images is not being prepared more so than changing lenses for landscape - wildlife is another story. I don't care about a bunch of youtubers who do landscape photography using zooms - most of them are not what I'd consider to be the great landscape photographers of our time. And besides, what other people carry and shoot with has no bearing on my thought processes when making images.
Long story short - only you can make the proper decision. A 24-105 and a wide prime (the Batis 18 would be perfect IMO) would be a fantastic start and you'll make bunches of images of as high of quality as you as a photographer can make - potentially print-worthy, sales-worthy, certainly impress-the-friends-worthy. Perhaps you'll find in time you'd rather shoot primes, that you'd like something longer, or you want better depth of field control. At that point, branch out as you see fit....Show more →
p.5 #5 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
The whole primes vs zooms debate is one I have a lot too when traveling and hiking. On Maui in November I took the CV 15, 24 GM, and Tamron 28-75, switching around as it made sense based on where we were going.
Going forward, I've got another option I'm in the process of acquiring. A used A7R to supplement my A7R3, had an A7 for my underwater housing, luckily the A7R will fit it as well so I'm making the switch. The A7R is still a plenty capable camera, especially when AF speed isn't a priority. Going forward I plan to carry either 2 primes or a zoom & prime on the 2 cameras. They'll fit fine in my mindshift ultralight, and like others I often find switching lenses a pain when out in nature.
I mention it because the A7R has gotten to be such a bargain IMO for hiking and landscapes, it might make sense for others who are looking for lens-switching solutions at reasonable costs.
p.5 #8 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
offtraildog wrote:
I just bought the 16-35GM to supplement my 24-105. I still have my faster AF primes
I hiked all over Bavaria for my honeymoon and this was the perfect combo. There were times I wish I had a 70-200 with me too but in general these two zooms had me covered.
p.5 #9 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
If I think I’ll need more reach ex. hiking in Glacier and getting a Grizzly /big horn etc. I take my 135GM and can get 200mm equivalent in APS-C more. While the file size is smaller I think the IQ is still better than the 70-200 ( I had the f4 and GM versions)
p.5 #10 · Sony 24-105 and a wide prime for Landscape work?
It's not just an abstract zoom versus prime debate; it's the 24-105 versus whatever primes, and the camera itself cannot be ignored. I have found the 24-105 to be a very fine zoom, and I have tried many, including the Tamron 28-75 and the Contax 35-70. When attached to one of the newer A7 models, for instance, and when using good pp software, the quality possible is not just adequate, it can be exceptionally fine. So some micro-contrast needs to be added. If you are shooting raw, which I imagine almost everyone that worries about the zoom/prime distinction is, some pp'ing is probably going to happen anyway. Those micro-contrast sliders are not going to be too onerous or an extra burden. I personally find the instant availability of 81mm of fl's, the opportunity to frame precisely, and not having to worry about dust and other elements, plus the relative simplicity of the kit, makes the zoom very attractive.
The most important thing, I do not believe I am losing anything artistically with this zoom, with one exception, a faster lens. I add to this kit two small primes, an 18mm and 45mm Samyang. The 18 for something wider, which I seldom use, so it's IQ is not that big a problem, and the 45, which is a fine lens, and most important gives me 1.8
That's my preference and reasoning. I do understand YMMV.
