Wow, these are amazing! You really make this lens shine!
I think this is one of the most underrated lenses in Sony line up now. It's not sexy as it's only a four, you can read many comments saying it's not sharp enough or does not render enough or the colors don't pop, but it's so versatile (nice magnification ratio as well!) while being so light & compact-ish.
I actually really liked it during brief time I had it (returned due to decentering), I guess I'll start looking for a good offer on it again (would be a nice change of pace from my heavy 35-150 too) .
j4nu wrote:
Wow, these are amazing! You really make this lens shine!
I think this is one of the most underrated lenses in Sony line up now. It's not sexy as it's only a four, you can read many comments saying it's not sharp enough or does not render enough or the colors don't pop, but it's so versatile (nice magnification ratio as well!) while being so light & compact-ish.
I actually really liked it during brief time I had it (returned due to decentering), I guess I'll start looking for a good offer on it again (would be a nice change of pace from my heavy 35-150 too) ....Show more →
Thank you. There is simply no reason to choose another lens over this if you want lightweight combined with a versatile range - the A7CR fits with this lens in the small hyperlite mountain gear camera pod - which is significantly smaller than the large pod - though I strap the hood to the front. My 16-35 and 24-50g stayed in my bag on my most recent trip and I expect they both might go (though I'd probably grab 15 or 17mm prime to replace 16-35). When I'm in a situation that I'm using this lens, traveling, biking, hiking, backpacking, it's when I have no idea what focal range I'm going to need and don't want to deal with lens changes. Bokeh may be it's weakness but based on use case it rarely shows up, it wouldn't be my first choice for portrait or event photos, but 70mm f4 does a decent job and the new adobe blur tool works quite well and will only get better, also I've found this lens benefits from turning down Adobe's built in sharpness and contrast for people pictures.
cxpics wrote:
Thank you. There is simply no reason to choose another lens over this if you want lightweight combined with a versatile range - the A7CR fits with this lens in the small hyperlite mountain gear camera pod - which is significantly smaller than the large pod - though I strap the hood to the front. My 16-35 and 24-50g stayed in my bag on my most recent trip and I expect they both might go (though I'd probably grab 15 or 17mm prime to replace 16-35). When I'm in a situation that I'm using this lens, traveling, biking, hiking, backpacking, it's when I have no idea what focal range I'm going to need and don't want to deal with lens changes. Bokeh may be it's weakness but based on use case it rarely shows up, it wouldn't be my first choice for portrait or event photos, but 70mm f4 does a decent job and the new adobe blur tool works quite well and will only get better, also I've found this lens benefits from turning down Adobe's built in sharpness and contrast for people pictures.
Do you have the 16-35 F4 PZ by chance? Previously I used an A7rv with a 24-70 gm II as my do everything mostly landscape, hiking, travel combo. I wanted to go to a 2 body set up and picked up the A7cr with the 16-35 F4 PZ. Plan was to use the PZ with the A7cr and my 70-200 on my A7rv. I thought that with the A7cr's resolution I could easily crop 2x to fill in the gap between the two lenses. I've had the PZ for a couple days and it's very small, and pretty sharp, but unsure about the zoom range. It feels kind of limited especially when I compare it to my 24-70 gm ii. I was planning on cropping with it, but I need to see how feasible it is and whether it's sharp enough for good 2x crops. I still need to spend more time with it, but I'm considering returning it for the 20-70 f4, but that also feels a little redundant with my 24-70 gm ii (maybe I would sell it), and I also lose out on 16-19 mm. Have you found that to be a problem at all? What about the bigger size and weight of the 20-70 f4?
Yea I tried that approach with the 16-35, but cropping to 52.5 f5.6 isn't very exciting, whereas shooting 70mm f4 can give great subject separation and compression, and cropping to 105 let's you keep your 70-200 in the bag more often too. It could be location dependent too, for example in Yosemite 20-70 gets me 90% of my shots and the 16-35 would only be like 10-15%, whereas at the Grand canyon it might be the opposite.
I think it makes more sense to carry small wide 15/17mm prime when I want a wide with the 20-70.
Also to me the size difference is not worth thinking about as neither lens makes the camera compact. I think the 20-70 is worth owning alongside 24-70gm because I see them as nearly completely different use cases.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
Do you have the 16-35 F4 PZ by chance? Previously I used an A7rv with a 24-70 gm II as my do everything mostly landscape, hiking, travel combo. I wanted to go to a 2 body set up and picked up the A7cr with the 16-35 F4 PZ. Plan was to use the PZ with the A7cr and my 70-200 on my A7rv. I thought that with the A7cr's resolution I could easily crop 2x to fill in the gap between the two lenses. I've had the PZ for a couple days and it's very small, and pretty sharp, but unsure about the zoom range. It feels kind of limited especially when I compare it to my 24-70 gm ii. I was planning on cropping with it, but I need to see how feasible it is and whether it's sharp enough for good 2x crops. I still need to spend more time with it, but I'm considering returning it for the 20-70 f4, but that also feels a little redundant with my 24-70 gm ii (maybe I would sell it), and I also lose out on 16-19 mm. Have you found that to be a problem at all? What about the bigger size and weight of the 20-70 f4? ...Show more →
Thanks for you reply! Yeah I agree. I can crop to 70mm but then it’s at f8 best case scenario. I’m also finding that 16mm is often way too wide even for the grandest of landscapes. It often just makes them seem kind of small and unimpressive. It really seems to be a niche use case, but I need to spend more time in that range as I’m not used to it. I think it would be perfect for the Grand Canyon though.
What are your thoughts on the 24-50 2.8? It seems to get great reviews and renders very nicely from what I’ve seen. It’s basically a small 24-70 gm ii missing the long end. When compared to the 20-70 you lose out on 50-70mm but that shouldn’t be a problem with cropping (it seems to be very sharp), but the 4mm on the wide end is a bigger deal.
cxpics wrote:
Yea I tried that approach with the 16-35, but cropping to 52.5 f5.6 isn't very exciting, whereas shooting 70mm f4 can give great subject separation and compression, and cropping to 105 let's you keep your 70-200 in the bag more often too. It could be location dependent too, for example in Yosemite 20-70 gets me 90% of my shots and the 16-35 would only be like 10-15%, whereas at the Grand canyon it might be the opposite.
I think it makes more sense to carry small wide 15/17mm prime when I want a wide with the 20-70.
Also to me the size difference is not worth thinking about as neither lens makes the camera compact. I think the 20-70 is worth owning alongside 24-70gm because I see them as nearly completely different use cases.
The limited range still results in more lens changes or camera swaps. Hard to replicate going from 20mm to short tele range in 1 lens. I don't like to plan for crops to bridge gaps. Again depends on your use case, ymmv.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
Thanks for you reply! Yeah I agree. I can crop to 70mm but then it’s at f8 best case scenario. I’m also finding that 16mm is often way too wide even for the grandest of landscapes. It often just makes them seem kind of small and unimpressive. It really seems to be a niche use case, but I need to spend more time in that range as I’m not used to it. I think it would be perfect for the Grand Canyon though.
What are your thoughts on the 24-50 2.8? It seems to get great reviews and renders very nicely from what I’ve seen. It’s basically a small 24-70 gm ii missing the long end. When compared to the 20-70 you lose out on 50-70mm but that shouldn’t be a problem with cropping (it seems to be very sharp), but the 4mm on the wide end is a bigger deal.
I'm enjoying seeing results with this lens. I'm a 28-200 user with the 17-28/2.8 for "28mm isn't wide enough" times. I think the choices for the wider lens will be pretty individual. I'm usually in the western US and more outdoors than urban. I'm torn about choosing between the 20-70/4 and a 16-35 of some sort for another "big trip" with old cities, etc. A trip isn't imminent and replacing the 17-28 isn't really necessary. I did "walk around" with the 17-28 on some "old city" shore excursions off a river cruise. Either a 16-35 or 20-70 might have been more suitable at times.
It will vary with location and opportunities, but stitching is also an option at times, as is cropping. I use an a7Riv so might approach cropping differently compared to a lower res body.
I've been to the Grand Canyon a couple of times recently. I didn't use the 17-28 that I recall. I did some stitching for panorama type shots. The Canyon can lend itself to some very wide horizontal shots but it's very "deep," too so I'd suggest being careful with a wide angle.
.
