p.6 #2 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
ramesesthe2nd wrote:
Tamron 35-150. It covers a wide range and is as good as GM lenses.
35 GM would be my choice If I could pick one prime for my full frame. As much as I like 50/1.2, it is just too narrow for everyday usage.
I really do love the 35-150.. it's heavy but it's so versatile. I used it for video recording last Saturday and it captured some beautiful 4k video. Made a lot of people happy as well.
p.6 #3 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
This question got me thinking about how many of my lenses are great for some jobs, but too large and/or heavy for walking around. I mounted my new 20-70 prepping for a walk and immediately realized that it's too big and heavy for walking. I mounted my 24mm f2.8G and walked. All my shots will be cropped. But 61mp is very crop-able.
p.6 #4 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
I'm currently making the move back to Sony and seriously eyeing the Sony 20 1.8 G
Used a Nikon D600 previously and definitely loved the 20 1.8 on that so much. It doesn't offer amazing bokeh but I just love the way that the images feel. Wide but nothing crazy. Different and exciting but not wild and zany. There are probably better ways to explain myself but I'm far from a pro. Lately I've really been needing a good excuse to not be lazy with my smartphone camera and the 20 still does the job for me.
The praise that the Sony 20 1.8 gets also makes me all the more excited to try it out.
p.6 #6 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
nbaronzzi wrote:
Sometimes I think it'd be liberating for me (and my checking account) if I sold my other lenses and just kept the CV 40/1.2.
Another magnificent set. To manual focus f1.2 with that accuracy is amazing. And to choose, in the moment, the right point of focus.
I love how all the pictures seem to be "pre-visualised" at 40mm. IMHO primes often provide a creative pressure which is missing from the flexibility of a zoom.
p.6 #8 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
Since my preferred single lens, Voigt 50 mm f2 APO, is MF only, I may mention Sigma 65 as my preferred AF lens. I admire its sharpness and build quality.
p.6 #9 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
It's really handy having an A7Riv and might consider it, the A7Rv or A7CR as "the one camera," side of the question. For me, where I am, the 28-200/2.8-5.6 Tamron. If I shot more urban, historic cities, exteriors, interiors, etc., maybe the 20-70/4.
Jun 02, 2024 at 02:03 AM
Magnum PI Offline • • [X]
p.6 #10 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
I'd have to go with SONY 12-24mm 2.8 GM. I'm a wide angle guy. I skip 35mm entirely. If it would have to be a prime only, it would be the SONY 14mm 1.8 GM.
p.6 #11 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
philip_pj wrote:
It's the GM 50/1.4, a super lens that does what I look for: versatility (portraits, general through to landscapes), practicality, decent weight (516 grams), excellent colour palette, smooth transition zone, near silent and fast focusing, very fine (almost cinematic) bokeh (enough to impress long term reviewers) that does not mean total blur and good for f5.6 as well, 67mm filters, right-sized hood, case, weather sealing, and affordability. Such a balanced product. I agree with many others that it is the finest 50mm Sony has ever made. The bonus is the superb focal plane that permits wonderful separation.
In the critical 50mm space, Sony is actually competing with itself now. It will hopefully soon be joined by an 85mm of the same general specification and performance. ...Show more →
I believe the GM 50/1.4 is still surpassed by the Sigma 40/1.4 (The latter is arguably one of the top ten lenses ever produced).
So the single lens for an astro / landscape photographer could well be this Sigma.
p.6 #12 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
You are demonstrating why these extraneous factors have a big impact on these choices. At what point does excessive size/weight rule out a lens? We are suffering an overload of choice - freedom of choice can be just as destructive of your photography as freedom from choice.
Probaby more so, because you get to know lenses better over time, it's kind of working with them in a long term relationship, you form a team - you, the camera, and the lens.
And the often overlooked issue of feedback - you learn how to process images from each lens and from that, what it does well enough and what it cannot do, back in the field. And, your interests change over time. So there are many moving parts to this dilemma.
To be honest, it's one of the hardest times to be a photographer with respect to lens choices. Many of us are like those dog videos where the dog has fifty balls to bite, and keeps dropping one to bite another one. I struggle every trip and make changes every single trip.
I know I am not helping much here. But: 'photographer, know thyself'! Beware of extremism - the lightest, sharpest, smallest, best, dearest, cheapest, best reviewed - these are the signs of danger approaching.
PS Maybe we need weight classes, like boxing. Best lens under 300 grams, 500g, 750g etc. I want the Oleksandr Usyk lens.
p.6 #13 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
philip_pj wrote:
PS Maybe we need weight classes, like boxing. Best lens under 300 grams, 500g, 750g etc. I want the Oleksandr Usyk lens.
Firstly we need agreement on what best is…without agreement all else is futile.
Jun 02, 2024 at 08:03 PM
Magnum PI Offline • • [X]
p.6 #14 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
philip_pj wrote:
PS Maybe we need weight classes, like boxing. Best lens under 300 grams, 500g, 750g etc. I want the Oleksandr Usyk lens.
I never considered a higher weight a factor. Actually, I wouldn't want a plasticky feeling lens. My Batis lenses always bugged me with that.
Its the same with my dive watch collection. So many collectors find an issue with weight. I haven't owned a watch that was too heavy. 120 grams, 140, 180... who cares. Some of my titanium watches feel too light.
p.6 #15 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
chez wrote:
Firstly we need agreement on what best is…without agreement all else is futile.
I know you say this humorously. Fortunately, what's best in photography is still decided by the most primitive and politically incorrect method of all .... while judging by looking. I believe that at this decisive moment all other considerations, the IQ (aka pixel-peeping) and the lens "rendering" become secondary factors, perhaps with the exception of bird photography where the IQ is a prerequisite to an award winning photo.
p.6 #16 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
It depends which Sony camera. My a9II I’d choose the 100-400 GM.
My a7Rc, I’d choose the 20-70 G.
Jun 02, 2024 at 10:01 PM
foto16 Offline • • [X]
p.6 #17 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
TO ME, 24-105/4. Very useful focal range. Waiting for the lighter next generation. I actually don't have this lens, since I'm not restricted to using only one lens
p.6 #18 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
'never considered a higher weight a factor.'
I envy your luck. Weight (above water) is a huge discriminator for wilderness and backcountry travel and landscapes - my two areas of interest. The more rugged the envionment, the more it matters. Galen Rowell used to use Nikon's second string E lenses for just this reason. They were crapola!
I don't be making his mistake. As say chez would agree, ask a light aircraft flight manager if you can just take your four Otuses and a couple of the big Sigmas primes, along with two bodies, tripod, filter sets, batteries, etc. - only a mere 15kg, see what they say!
It's why we often talk lens weight here. It's part of the 'travel light, travel far' philosophy. If you get around under your own steam, having energy left when you get where you are going really matters, it's just physics.
Mainstream makers have finally got the message after trying to shoehorn us into massive lenses in the last decade, hence all the weight reduction in their latest releases. Except one, the dear departed: Zeiss - the only ones of the biggies I ever really wanted in a usable size/weight.
Jun 02, 2024 at 10:57 PM
Magnum PI Offline • • [X]
p.6 #19 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
philip_pj wrote:
'never considered a higher weight a factor.'
I envy your luck. Weight (above water) is a huge discriminator for wilderness and backcountry travel and landscapes - my two areas of interest. The more rugged the envionment, the more it matters. Galen Rowell used to use Nikon's second string E lenses for just this reason. They were crapola!
I don't be making his mistake. As say chez would agree, ask a light aircraft flight manager if you can just take your four Otuses and a couple of the big Sigmas primes, along with two bodies, tripod, filter sets, batteries, etc. - only a mere 15kg, see what they say!
It's why we often talk lens weight here. It's part of the 'travel light, travel far' philosophy. If you get around under your own steam, having energy left when you get where you are going really matters, it's just physics.
Mainstream makers have finally got the message after trying to shoehorn us into massive lenses in the last decade, hence all the weight reduction in their latest releases. Except one, the dear departed: Zeiss - the only ones of the biggies I ever really wanted in a usable size/weight. ...Show more →
Granted, once you figure in hiking to distant locations or physical limitations / age, it does make sense, especially when you bring a whole bag of gear. That being said, when I'm in death valley or alike, I only bring one body and one lens, plus a carbon travel tripod.
p.6 #20 · If you could only have one lens for your Sony...
I find weight of a lens a less of an issue if I’m trekking to a landscape location. My gear is on my back and weight is quite a bitter easier to handle when on my back. Where lens weight becomes more of an issue is when I’m carrying the camera around my wrist for days ( weeks ) at a time during travels. Every ounce is felt at the end of the day.
