Current owner of the A7RV along with the 35 gm 1.4 and sigma 85 1.4. I got this combo after using the a7iii and tamron 28-200 for a few years and wanting something more. I got lots of good pictures with my old combo, but lots that left me wanting more (namely image quality). I’ve been using the new a7rv + 35/85 combo for a little while and I’m having mixed thoughts on it. When the focal lengths are right (or things are crop-able) some of the pictures I get are incredible, however it’s often the case that the focal lengths aren’t right or the set up is inconvenient. Often the 35 isn’t wide enough or long enough. The 85 is often too zoomed. I’ve gotten used to switching lenses on the fly, trying to stitch images, etc but it is annoying for those around me and I’ve definitely missed shots as I switch from the 35 back to the 85 or vise versa. I’m starting to wonder if my little prime experiment isn’t working as well as I’d like it to and if I should just use a high quality zoom instead. The main reasons I went for the primes in general were the smaller size (although the f/1.4 aren’t that small), and great image quality. F/1.4 is cool and all but I wonder how much I need it in a day to day shooting situation. Sometimes it adds a lot to shots, but often I find that the f/1.4 just ‘obliterates’ everything that isn’t in focus which can be good, but can also not be ideal for many shots. It’s also great for low light, but 2.8 probably isn’t bad either.
This leads me to thinking about the 24-70 gm ii. From what I’ve read on here and in other places, good copies are very good with most of the focal range (especially the wider end) being close to prime sharpness. I’m wondering for myself if the loss of 1.4 will be made up by the convenience of having all these focal lengths IF the image quality is there. Do I really need 1.4 or is 2.8 more than enough with modern bodies? With the exception of bokeh will anyone be able to tell between the 24-70 gm ii and a prime without extreme (ie inconsequential) pixel peeping?
I realize this is more of a personal question and people value different things. Some would be quite fine with f/8 and others wouldn’t dare use something that wasn’t f/1.2. Maybe a 24 + 50 combo would be better (actually I think it would especially with the r series cropping) but then I’m still left with one moment being right for a lens and then a second later that same lens not being what I need.
I shoot a wide variety of things including landscapes, portraits, Astro, travel, architecture, so I’m really looking for a do it all solution in the truest sense excluding real telephoto stuff or ultra wide
I went through the same thing. I sold my Sigma 85mm, but kept the 35 GM. I bought the 24-70 GM II and 70-200 GM II and they handle just about anything for me. My plan was to sell the 35, but I just can't make myself do it.
Update: I ended up selling the 24-70 GM II and purchased the 50mm f/1.2 GM and 20 G. I kept the 35 GM and 70-200 GM II
If you dont "need" low light, low noise shots, the 24-70 will fit the bill. I have the Sigma ART 24-70 and just got back from Death Valley. A few buddies and I were talking about how tripods may not be essential with all the technology in these lenses/bodies now, and got me wanting to test the performance.
Here is a shot taken with my 70-200mmII and A7rIV - hand held. This has only been resized for web. Pretty impressed!
Also, take a look at the Sigma. I paid like $800 for mine, is very sharp (almost as sharp as the Sigma ART 14-24), and AF is quick. I personally find this range "awkward", so it doesnt get used much at all.
ILCE-7RM4FE 70-200mm F2.8 GM OSS II lens84mmf/2.81/1250s8000 ISO0.0 EV
Really is a personal preference. I much prefer using primes over zooms as the primes put me into a different mode of shooting than a zoom. I typically look for images that fit the prime on my camera and disregard other images.
I don't think there is a single lens solution to your problem. If you're used to 85/1.4, 70/2.8 will not scracth that itch... The closest one for me is 35-150/2-2.8 but that's becasue 35 is wide enough in my usage.
They are different setups, with trade offs to each. No right answer. I suggest you buy used so when you inevitably decide you made the wrong decision, you don’t lose much on selling. Or when you flip back after a few months. Owning both setups both simplifies and complicates the situation - as sometimes you don’t want to carry both and you need to decide what to bring.
I’ve got 24-70 GM ii and 35 GM. I’d be hard pressed to give up the 35. That zoom has really no compromises other than 2.8 but sometimes I’ve got to have a fast 35 or 50. I sold the 50 GM as it was too big and heavy and went with the 35 GM. Pretty easy to carry with the zoom as a two lens somewhat minimal setup.
Another idea: keep your primes and add the 20-70 f4. I liked the 24-70 GM ii for image quality but found it too heavy and f2.8 not enough for low light. I recently added the f4 zoom for daylight uses and I think it’s generally a solid and versatile performer.
darrellc wrote:
They are different setups, with trade offs to each. No right answer. I suggest you buy used so when you inevitably decide you made the wrong decision, you don’t lose much on selling. Or when you flip back after a few months. Owning both setups both simplifies and complicates the situation - as sometimes you don’t want to carry both and you need to decide what to bring.
I’ve got 24-70 GM ii and 35 GM. I’d be hard pressed to give up the 35. That zoom has really no compromises other than 2.8 but sometimes I’ve got to have a fast 35 or 50. I sold the 50 GM as it was too big and heavy and went with the 35 GM. Pretty easy to carry with the zoom as a two lens somewhat minimal setup. ...Show more →
THe 35 1.4 GM is probably my favorite Sony lens. It is just unbeatable. In the past, I had been traveling with the 24 1.4, 35 1.4 and 70-200/f4 and sometimes took the 14mm or 12-24mm. When the 24-70 2.8 II came out --- I was quite impressed. I was in Singapore and Vietnam and ended up taking the 12-24 (which I did not use), 24-70 II, and 70-200 2.8 II. I decided to leave my primes at home to save on space and weight. There were a couple of night shots where having a faster lens would have helped but those were telephoto shots so the 24 or 35 would not have solved that problem. Nonetheless, I was pleased with what I took.
I’m a sucker for 1.2 1.4 glass. Bokeh Bokeh Bokeh. It’s just how I am wired and what gets my creative juices flowing. A distracting background annoys me.
I would add the 24-70 GM II, I’d find it insanely convenient…. but only four times a year. The rest of the time I would be shooting wide open with a prime.
For others, they hate primes. I totally get it!
Maybe 24/50 WOULD be the answer.
I’d suggest selling the 85 if you often feel it’s too long. Add a used 50 GM, many hitting the the market with the the new one coming soon. Try out the 50. 35/50 is a great combo too. 35 indoors. 50 outdoors. 50 is like having a 24-70 when you’re outdoors. You are one step from, 35/85 at all times. 50 is never too long outdoors, and it has enough compression to be excellent for portraits.
If you love the 50, you’ll either. 1. Fall in love with 1.2 and realize it’s not too big or heavy (bc it isn’t). Or 2. Decide to flip it and get the 1.4 version.
From there you just need to decide whether you want to flip the 35 for a 24.
Also, consider the 55 1.8. Tiny, sharp, great focusing prime.
As others have mentioned they are different setups. If you have the means, you could consider keeping both. There are times when I use either the 35GM or 85DN and times when I go for a 24-70/2.8. I have the Sigma DN not the GMii, so I might be missing something, but I don't expect the zoom to be able to give the pop and wow that the primes can. But sometimes I just need the simplicity and flexibility of the zoom. I don't find it too hard to know what the situation will be in advance and choose accordingly. I really love the 35GM and the 85DN. I don't see myself selling the 35GM. If Sony came out with an 85/1.4 GM that beats the DN in size, especially the hood, with better focus accuracy, I could see a trade, but short of that the 85DN is safe as well.
The 24-70GM II is the perfect do-it-all lens and you’ll love it for all the uses you listed. It’s a fantastic lens.
But… if you can, I’d get the 24-70 and KEEP the 35GM and 85/1.4. Use them when you’re not traveling or for special purposes like portraits. There is a big difference between portraits at 70/2.8 and 85/1.4.
jrscls wrote:
I went through the same thing. I sold my Sigma 85mm, but kept the 35 GM. I bought the 24-70 GM II and 70-200 GM II and they handle just about anything for me. My plan was to sell the 35, but I just can't make myself do it.
This is the setup that I want to finish up to except I’m going to keep 50GM along with 35GM. Since I don’t take portraits because kids moved out, 85GM has no utility in my bag.
As an approach that hasn't been mentioned yet: consider streamlining how you carry and swap your prime lenses. Take the edge off of that downside of them, make it faster and easier to switch quickly and with low fiddle-factor, on demand.
I'm thinking of something like a Trilens. It gives you three focal lengths ready to hand, quick to swap. It's impractical with larger lenses but maybe it suits the not-too-big lenses you use.
It won't completely remove that "missed the shot/moment because I had the wrong lens on the camera" thing with prime lenses - to some extent, that's always going to be inherent to using primes - but it will help a bit, and remove some of the hassle factor and stress involved in the switchover, because you can switch lenses on the go, and quickly, without having to find a surface to put a lens down onto, or opening a backpack, or needing an extra hand. I find mine to be a help in various contexts.
tzhang4284 wrote:
Another idea: keep your primes and add the 20-70 f4. I liked the 24-70 GM ii for image quality but found it too heavy and f2.8 not enough for low light. I recently added the f4 zoom for daylight uses and I think it’s generally a solid and versatile performer.
I’ve been too busy to closely review the images, but I rented the 20-70/4 for a recent long weekend trip. Must say I had a ton of fun with that lens, and I usually hate zooms. I had my 35/1.4 GM with me but never ended up using it. So, at least in terms of handling, I was extremely happy with it. I was surprised considering it’s f4. However, I don’t think Capture One has a profile for this lens yet.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote: [...]Do I really need 1.4 or is 2.8 more than enough with modern bodies?[...]
I'm commenting on that that single line in your original post.
I would say "Yes" - for the vast majority of images and in my experience. I really am a sucker for fast primes and I hesitated for some time before buying the PZ 16-35/4. But to me a zoom makes sense at the extreme ends of all focal lengths so i decided to try it.
I have been able to take images inside churches, at dark evenings, at venues and so on with the lens "wide" open without finding my images to become too noisy. But that's me, YMMV as it's said. In general though I don't think one should hesitate much for increasing the ISO.
With image stabilisation, low noise / high ISO bodies, and modern noise reduction software I no longer worry about lens speed for low light indoor architectural shots.
sandycrane wrote:
With image stabilisation, low noise / high ISO bodies, and modern noise reduction software I no longer worry about lens speed for low light indoor architectural shots.
I've been in situations where I needed ISO 12,800 shooting at f1.8 just to get a shutter speed that worked for the situation. I would rather have the speed and only use it occasionally than not be able to get a usable image.
I find 2.8 zooms in no man's land as they are not fast enough for many situations yet are heavy and bulky. I'd rather have a slow zoom ( f4 ) for good light and some smaller faster primes for when you need the speed.
Your question scratches the surface of the eternal zoom-prime conundrum. The comments in this thread so far do a good job summarizing this conundrum. They cover lens switching, image quality, composition, lens speed, costs, and weight. I grew up in the film era and for my 4x5 and 6x6 cameras there were no zoom options so zooms initially were a new world to me.
Personally, my main struggles, as a mostly landscape/nature photographer have been composition and image quality. I want to be precise in my landscape compositions with primes but often cannot because the focal length is fixed, so I often go a bit wider with a prime. I know all about "zooming with one's feet," but there are times and places where that's not possible. With 61MP that small bit of cropping essentially never effects the final print.
Historically, I've had an ingrained belief that good primes beat good zooms. I'm fortunate to own almost all GM primes, but also have some GM zooms and a while back figured out that no one but pixel peepers care that much about critical sharpness and/or "bokeh." When doing print reviews with serious photographer friends, no one seems to care about which lens I used; they want to know about the image, not the technical points.
Logically I should be perfectly happy with today's high quality zoom lenses but when going out for just photographing, not travel with the family, I still tend to take primes. Perhaps it is the process of feeling like I'm going to get the absolute best technical image, for example with the reference quality Voightlander 50mm f/2 APO-Lanthar. However, it's pretty hard to tell the difference between images made with it and my new 24-70 f/2.8 GM II at f/4 and smaller apertures.
My answer has been to keep both my too big collection of primes, and my zooms and to perpetually agonize over which to use. First world problem of the first order.
