In humid or dusty settings with really expansive vistas where changing lenses is fraught, the Sigma 14-24/2.8 is my lens of choice that has not disappointed.
However, if any of those criteria are absent, my strong preference is to shoot landscapes with primes, modern AF or vintage MF. In those groups, I favor:
Modern: 24GM, 35GM, 50GM, 135GM
MF: Zeiss 28/2, Konica 28/.28 or 35/2.8, Leica M 50/2 v4, Zeiss 50/2 makro planar, Minolta 58/1.2, Contax 100/2
When I go out to shoot landscapes, it’s the landscape I’m interested in, not the lens I’m using. I love my equipment, but I love the landscape more. Which means I use top quality zoom lenses 99% of the time. I don’t care about the weight unless I’m on an extended backpacking trip, which is extremely rare.
Nobody is right or wrong about this issue. It’s completely personal. I choose top shelf zooms because they always allow me to frame the landscape I choose instead of being restricted to the landscape a particular prime lens’s focal length chooses. Someone who tells you they can see a difference in an image shot with a top zoom or top prime at f8-f16 is fooling you and themselves.
As with most things in life, shoot what makes you happy. Shooting primes makes many people happy. I love my primes for many things, but for landscape, it’s zooms all the way.
You're right there is no right or wrong here, everybody has a preference, maybe it's a mix of manual and AF. I think reading all your replies is where i think i want to rent some Voitlanders and try before i buy to see how i feel using manual focus.
The 17-28 Tamron f2.8 gives me everything i could ever need in landscapes, the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 i have heard is extremely good and would cover all you ever need for portraits.
Thanks for all your input It has been very educational for me, there is no right or wrong way here, it's all personal preference, but making that choice is not easy, so i think renting may be a good option to see how i feel.
akashyap wrote:
My best landscape pictures are usually while backpacking, camping, or hiking with my wife and some friends. I've used MF primes, MF zooms, AF primes, and AF zooms, and the freedom of zooms, especially AF zooms (for environmental portraits), gives me the ability to compose to my minds eye as best as possible (without using a superzoom) and stay with the group / avoid lens changes. But when the prime FL fits, it produces a special image, there's no denying that.
Its almost like choosing quantity vs. quality
I agree.
Sometimes, the lens you have with you is THE RIGHT LENS. AF zoom, MF, or AF, if it isn't wildly inappropriate to the subject, just making a go with it can be great.
As I've said elsewhere, for light woodland or residential jaunts, I most often take two AF bodies with two MF lenses mounted (and maybe a third small lens in the sling bag). I estimate the angles beforehand and then look for those subjects or scenes to fit.
MF primes aren't always the perfect answer, but I find I like the look and malleability of the images better from my MF primes, followed by my AF primes.
Others might not like such a regulated (or lazy) approach.
I'm always interested in how the great pictures posted here are made, so I appreciate the thought and effort of others to show evidence of their choices.
My most recent prime purchases (over the last couple years) seem to provide me with my favorite "look" since getting into mirrorless: MF Loxia 25, AF Batis 18 and 40, AF Sigma 28 Art (also used on my Canon R) and MF CV 35 APO, and slightly older -- MF CV 15E III. Except or the Sigma 28, these are all individually light weight.
akashyap wrote:
My best landscape pictures are usually while backpacking, camping, or hiking with my wife and some friends. I've used MF primes, MF zooms, AF primes, and AF zooms, and the freedom of zooms, especially AF zooms (for environmental portraits), gives me the ability to compose to my minds eye as best as possible (without using a superzoom) and stay with the group / avoid lens changes. But when the prime FL fits, it produces a special image, there's no denying that.
Its almost like choosing quantity vs. quality
That the thing I heard some of these manual focus lenses just have a special rendering that zooms don't have like a certain look.
Certainly no right answer for everyone but if you look at most professional landscape photographers, people that do this for a living...you will find that they use zooms more often than not.
Some ot the landscape photographers that I follow include, Eric Bennett, Alex Noriega, Adam Gibbs, Bill Neil, Erin Babnik and others.
pjmsj21 wrote:
Certainly no right answer for everyone but if you look at most professional landscape photographers, people that do this for a living...you will find that they use zooms more often than not.
Some ot the landscape photographers that I follow include, Eric Bennett, Alex Noriega, Adam Gibbs, Bill Neil, Erin Babnik and others.
Yes, the disdain on this forum towards zooms is quite amusing. I think the most likely explanation of that bias is that the IQ gap between primes and zooms used to be a lot larger in days past. Now, in some cases, the performance is very similar (e.g. ultra-wide range -> 14-24DN or 12-24/2.8GM).
As for me, I actually started to appreciate zooms the more I shoot, but of course horses for courses...
chez wrote:
Once stopped down to f8, it would be hard pressed to see much difference between good zooms and primes.
Exactly! Also, past f/5.6 the images start getting softer due to diffraction on 50 - 60 MP cameras.
Regarding the sharpness, much sharpening happens in post, thus it would help to know whether the OP wants SOOC jpegs, or shoots raw?
I use both primes and zooms. I use both manual focus lenses and AF lenses. Different subjects, different situations and different moods suggest different lenses to me. If you are interested in shooting with manual focus lenses, you can choose from among an array of modern primes in the Sony E mount and an even larger array of legacy primes than can be mounted to the A7RII with inexpensive dumb adapters.
With respect to modern manual focus primes, be aware that the E mount lenses from Voigtlander and Zeiss Loxia offer some features missing from many other manual focus lenses, i.e., the ability to electronically communicate data with the camera's IBIS and record Exif data with image files. They also can be set to auto magnify when focusing.
Shooting adapted legacy manual focus lenses is another inexpensive and interesting way to try manual focus lenses on the A7RII. Dumb adapters can be had for less than $50 and many excellent legacy lenses are available for less than $150. I have a cabinet full of Takumars and Minoltas that I enjoy using on my Sony cameras. Some of these ~50 year-old lenses from the film era are still capable of rendering high-quality images with real character. They are also great fun to shoot.
As you begin to work with your A7RII, I would suggest that you not agonize too much over manual vs. AF lenses or primes vs. zooms. You may eventually find that each has its time and place. Perhaps just enjoy experimenting with the diversity of lenses available to you on a mirrorless platform. As far as the glass is concerned, the world is now very much your oyster! Steve
ratherfish wrote:
I use both primes and zooms. I use both manual focus lenses and AF lenses. Different subjects, different situations and different moods suggest different lenses to me. If you are interested in shooting with manual focus lenses, you can choose from among an array of modern primes in the Sony E mount and an even larger array of legacy primes than can be mounted to the A7RII with inexpensive dumb adapters.
With respect to modern manual focus primes, be aware that the E mount lenses from Voigtlander and Zeiss Loxia offer some features missing from many other manual focus lenses, i.e., the ability to electronically communicate data with the camera's IBIS and record Exif data with image files. They also can be set to auto magnify when focusing.
Shooting adapted legacy manual focus lenses is another inexpensive and interesting way to try manual focus lenses on the A7RII. Dumb adapters can be had for less than $50 and many excellent legacy lenses are available for less than $150. I have a cabinet full of Takumars and Minoltas that I enjoy using on my Sony cameras. Some of these ~50 year-old lenses from the film era are still capable of rendering high-quality images with real character. They are also great fun to shoot.
As you begin to work with your A7RII, I would suggest that you not agonize too much over manual vs. AF lenses or primes vs. zooms. You may eventually find that each has its time and place. Perhaps just enjoy experimenting with the diversity of lenses available to you on a mirrorless platform. As far as the glass is concerned, the world is now very much your oyster! Steve ...Show more →
Thank you for that Steve very well said I enjoyed reading that I enjoyed reading everybody's feedback.
I think for now I'm going to enjoy and get familiar with this camera everybody knows the Sony menu systems not the greatest coming from a Canon it's a little confusing. I'm going to check lens rental.com and see if I can rent a few voigtlanders and play around with them see how I like it see how I like the look before I commit to buying any.
I did take out my Tamron 28 to 75 2.8 G2 last night over to a local area where there's a bunch of bars and restaurants took a few photos that's a fantastic lens it's a little soft on the 75 mm end but the rest of it is fantastic and I'm loving the Sony air II.
So you have to be a paying member to upload photos on here correct?
The adaptall-2 17/3.5 used to be popular on here around 2010. More retro, might not have perfect corners, but a lot of this old Tamron stuff is good optically. Pick up adapters on ebay or something <$20, here's more information:
I only pull out my AF lens when capturing running grandkids or wildlife...for everything else I use MF lenses.
There is a adaptive curve with MF lenses though. They've taught me that I need to slow down and be more deliberate in my compositions. I've also learned to use my tripod about 100% of the time...and in general my IQ has improved and I'm having a bit more fun!
I think some of the best MF lenses available are the Voigtlander APO-Lanthars. My 35mm, 65mm and 110mm are three of the best I've ever used. Their Nokton line is also worth considering for the beautiful renditions in their images.
After looking at enough images from these lenses it just pushed me over the edge the Tamron did look good but it don't look near as good as the voice the Voitlanders got that certain look they got the pop.
This will be the first of I'm sure many more to come.
I scored one off of eBay new for $636 which is a good deal it'll be here tomorrow.
So i took out my Tamron 28-75 and put the camera in manual mode to see how hard its going to be to focus, i zoomed into 12.5 x and nailed focus everytime. Seems very easy with the zoom to nail focus.
We're not going to definitively answer the zoom vs prime nor the AF-MF question here. Perhaps the marketplace will or has already partially answered it. I have no data so my opinion can easily be dismissed but I'd be willing to make a small wager (usually a nickel), that zooms outsell primes and AF outsells MF by a fair margin. It's simply the convenience factor.
In my own personal use case, zooms work extremely well in most situations, especially in the landscape where a tripod and stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 is the norm. For hand held events in dark spaces, I recently photographed a friend's party, my fast prime was the way to go. If depth of field control is critical, fast primes also are my choice. I agree with whomever said that by f/5.6 or f/8 almost all modern lenses are more than adequate. With all the new software and AI applications, some of these issues may evaporate.
Another factor in the manual vs autofocus debate is the new (to Sony at least) ability to do automated focus stacking which is impossible with manual focus lenses, prime or zoom. That's why my lovely Voightlander 110 APO is for sale and why it was replaced by a superb Sigma 105 macro.
Each of us should use what we want. It's no one's job to be critical of another's choices. I do find it challenging though to see differences between properly used high quality lenses even though some insist they are there.
I've been photographing for over 60 years and in all that time almost no one, even fellow photographers, has asked about what lens I used except as a matter of information. They look at the image, composition, content, artistry (if there is any :-)).
doc4x5 wrote:
We're not going to definitively answer the zoom vs prime nor the AF-MF question here. Perhaps the marketplace will or has already partially answered it. I have no data so my opinion can easily be dismissed but I'd be willing to make a small wager (usually a nickel), that zooms outsell primes and AF outsells MF by a fair margin. It's simply the convenience factor.
In my own personal use case, zooms work extremely well in most situations, especially in the landscape where a tripod and stopping down to f/5.6 or f/8 is the norm. For hand held events in dark spaces, I recently photographed a friend's party, my fast prime was the way to go. If depth of field control is critical, fast primes also are my choice. I agree with whomever said that by f/5.6 or f/8 almost all modern lenses are more than adequate. With all the new software and AI applications, some of these issues may evaporate.
Another factor in the manual vs autofocus debate is the new (to Sony at least) ability to do automated focus stacking which is impossible with manual focus lenses, prime or zoom. That's why my lovely Voightlander 110 APO is for sale and why it was replaced by a superb Sigma 105 macro.
Each of us should use what we want. It's no one's job to be critical of another's choices. I do find it challenging though to see differences between properly used high-quality lenses even though some insist they are there.
I've been photographing for over 60 years and in all that time almost no one, even fellow photographers, has asked about what lens I used except as a matter of information. They look at the image, composition, content, artistry (if there is any :-)).
Yes to each his own, but i will say some of the manual focus lenses the photos i have seen have a unique look to them versus a standard zoom lens. I get it though it's not for everyone, i like the idea it slows me down, way down, and it's much more enjoyable to me than just firing off shots.
There are very fine zooms for sure, and yes you have to pixel peep to see small differences for sure. I think in the end i shot film for so many years and never really liked digital, but now you can get a very very close film look with Nik software, Dxo Film pack, so shooting film to me makes no sense anymore.
I think i like the whole process of manual focusing and it works for landscapes and portraits, and i don't focus stack, Focus stacking didn't exist years ago and i never had any issues so that is a non issue for me.
There is of course no right answer to zoom vs prime for landscape.
But there is one very decidedly WRONG answer. "Zoom with your feet" is absolutely not a thing and anyone who claims as such doesn't really understand composition and perspective.
Now, "zoom with a crop" is absolutely a thing, which is exactly what landscape photographers did before there were quality zoom lenses and when they were shooting on large emulsions.
I suspect a large fraction of people understand this and just use "zoom with your feet" as a common short hand, but it really isn't correct. Especially in landscape where perspective is often hugely important in the arrangement of elements in the scene. For a portrait photographer there is much more flexibility and "zoom with your feet" isn't as big a compromise.
Prime lenses leave one with two compromise choices - crop the image or compromise the composition by changing perspective. Of course every so often the stars align and the prime focal length is exactly the one needed. And in some cases the compromise of changing the composition and perspective is so minimal that the zoom would offer little advantage. Or the required crop is very modest.
Zoom lenses allow one to maximize both sensor and lens resolution for a given composition and perspective with no compromises besides potentially the slightly lower resolution of the zoom compared to the prime. That is you never have to crop a zoom and you don't need to change composition/perspective to fill the frame. Of course if you crop the prime much that advantage disappears. But given a sharp prime and a high resolution sensor one might be able to crop a fair bit and still have acceptable output.
Creating a composition is a creative process of the individual photographer, and as such the personal preferences of work flow are a large factor that can rank higher than technical minutiae. So sure, a zoom has a clear advantage in producing the highest resolution output across all "optimal" compositions of scenes one might encounter. That said, if using a zoom does not jive with one's creative process the likely outcome is the dreaded "sharp image of a fuzzy concept."
Taking focus stacking by itself, I'm sure many here would like to see excellent examples of the technique, for non-macro / closeup imagery - using say, 50-100mm lenses. Quite surprisingly, the vendors seem to feature many photos of spiders, shot with macro lenses (you know, those ugly hairy blob-covered creatures only a female of the species could be interested in). Is focus stacking the current age's HDR fad?
Nor could I find anything on this site in the way of 'focus stacking image thread' or the like - other than chat about using this widely championed method of improving one's landscapes. Members should not be shy about posting their work using this terrific innovation, if indeed this is what it is. The online video crews simply want to demonstrate the technique rather than provide copious evidence (image comparisons) it is actually worth doing.
I have serious reservations on the matter, as the viewing eye quite naturally expects to see resolution fade with increasing distance, and our better lenses deliver very fine focus fade which complements those areas close enough to the focal plane to be considered 'in-focus'. One could counter-argue that taut rendition of fade character is more appealing in many images than an overload of relentless acutance.
The all-in-focus notion also risks inessential content competing, and stealing the attention from the major subject of each image, and burying it in a welter of subject clutter - the 'major subject' is generally the reason why you decided to take it in the first place, unless you enjoy vast spaces of sand grains, or perhaps blades of grass. And you may often not want that pipe in the foreground to be super sharp.
I imagine issues also arise often, regarding: field curvature (which changes with focal distance), outer frame fall-off (a zoom specialty), subject movement/mismatches (especially water in streams etc.), increased chroma errors, atmospheric haze/dust/mirage, in addition to the sheer lack of natural appearance about such images.
Some pretty sad zoom lens outer frame fall-off examples below, these look far from ideal f8 options, being designed for super central (and often outer frame!) zones, wide open :
