jaybr wrote:
Interesting,
Would you rather have a:
24mm f2.8 prime or 24mm f4 prime?
35mm f2.8 prime or 35mm f4 prime?
50mm f2.8 prime or 50mm f4 prime?
The f2.8 zoom equivalent of those focal lengths doesn’t seem weird to me.
J
For me personally, I explained it above:
I would not have those 3 2.8 primes if it meant not having 20mm or 70mm... and 2.8 is, generally speaking, insufficient. If it's aperture I'm after, I'd like to have at least 1.8... and I usually carry one (at least) with me, which renders the difference between 2.8 and 4 irrelevant.
Or a better question is:
Would you rather have a:
24mm f2.8 prime or 24mm f4 prime + a 20 f4 and a 70 f4 prime?
35mm f2.8 prime or 35mm f4 prime + a 20 f4 and a 70 f4 prime?
50mm f2.8 prime or 50mm f4 prime + a 20 f4 and a 70 f4 prime?
And the answer is clearly no to the 2.8's, for me personally.
nineblade wrote:
For me personally, I explained it above:
I would not have those 3 2.8 primes if it meant not having 20mm or 70mm... and 2.8 is, generally speaking, insufficient. If it's aperture I'm after, I'd like to have at least 1.8... and I usually carry one (at least) with me, which renders the difference between 2.8 and 4 irrelevant.
Or a better question is:
Would you rather have a:
24mm f2.8 prime or 24mm f4 prime + a 20 f4 and a 70 f4 prime?
35mm f2.8 prime or 35mm f4 prime + a 20 f4 and a 70 f4 prime?
50mm f2.8 prime or 50mm f4 prime + a 20 f4 and a 70 f4 prime?
And the answer is clearly no to the 2.8's, for me personally.
I see,
So you would rather extend the focal range from 24mm to 20mm and 50mm to 70mm at the expense of a slower f4 aperture (from f2.8 to f4) for the entire focal range?
If so, then this is where we disagree.
I would never want or buy a 24mm f4 prime, or a 35mm f4 prime, or a 50mm f4 prime.
But I would consider buying f2.8 prime versions of those focal lengths.
Also, if I didn’t have a 20mm f4 prime, but did have 24mm f2.8 prime, I wouldn’t feel I had to get a 20mm f4 prime as well.
And a similar argument could be made about the benefit/gains extending the focal range from 50mm f2.8 to 70mm f4,
I could certainly live without an extra 20mm @ f4
I still happen to own both and they serve completely different purposes in my opinion. The 24-50 fills in that nice general purpose walk around lens where you still get that 24mm and can punch into 50 as needed. It's like a 35mm prime for the person who isn't quite ready to give up 24mm and likes the extra reach.
The 20-70 on the other hand is the ultimate 1 lens solution for getting wide angle shots all the way through short tele shots, which is most useful for hiking and travel. It bridges the gap on focal lengths just far enough that you start to choose to leave other lenses at home.
I find that my 20-70 is on my a7cr the most by far, mainly for hiking/biking/travel scenarios. Usually if I'm just walking around, or taking photos of friends and family I'd prefer my small compact primes over the 24-50, which is why it's going to get sold.
If it's about a zooming light gathering option next to the 20-70mm I would add the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8. For anyone who wants something more suited for traveling it's either f/2.8 only or sacrificing zoomability.
For me, f/2.8 as the brightest option in the bag isn't an option anyway. If you just want one lens, no primes, and f/2.8 is bright enough the 24-50mm is a nice option, and the range is very useful. But as soon as you start considering extra primes for more range (Viltrox 20mm, Samyang 75mm f/1.8, Sigma 90mm f/2.8 DN) the just-one-lens advantage is gone.
I own the 24-50 and have been very pleased with the results it produces. Three pointers from me:
1. f2.8 is better for isolating people etc. not just for low light. I most often shoot at f2.8
2. 24mm is IMHO the widest natural view possible. If I want true WA I want wider than 20 anyway.
3. the weight and balance are better on my A7CR (I also use a wrist strap)
I see,
So you would rather extend the focal range from 24mm to 20mm and 50mm to 70mm at the expense of a slower f4 aperture (from f2.8 to f4) for the entire focal range?
If so, then this is where we disagree.
I would never want or buy a 24mm f4 prime, or a 35mm f4 prime, or a 50mm f4 prime.
But I would consider buying f2.8 prime versions of those focal lengths.
Also, if I didn’t have a 20mm f4 prime, but did have 24mm f2.8 prime, I wouldn’t feel I had to get a 20mm f4 prime as well.
And a similar argument could be made about the benefit/gains extending the focal range from 50mm f2.8 to 70mm f4,
I could certainly live without an extra 20mm @ f4
Yeah, obviously to each their own, but I need something wider than 24, and longer than 50. I can accept *one* stop of additional noise (if it came to that), but I cannot accept the limitation to compose something only between 24 and 50.
I still happen to own both and they serve completely different purposes in my opinion. The 24-50 fills in that nice general purpose walk around lens where you still get that 24mm and can punch into 50 as needed. It's like a 35mm prime for the person who isn't quite ready to give up 24mm and likes the extra reach.
The 20-70 on the other hand is the ultimate 1 lens solution for getting wide angle shots all the way through short tele shots, which is most useful for hiking and travel. It bridges the gap on focal lengths just far enough that you start to choose to leave other lenses at home.
I find that my 20-70 is on my a7cr the most by far, mainly for hiking/biking/travel scenarios. Usually if I'm just walking around, or taking photos of friends and family I'd prefer my small compact primes over the 24-50, which is why it's going to get sold. ...Show more →
Pretty much my thoughts exactly.
If you just want one lens, no primes, and f/2.8 is bright enough the 24-50mm is a nice option, and the range is very useful. But as soon as you start considering extra primes for more range (Viltrox 20mm, Samyang 75mm f/1.8, Sigma 90mm f/2.8 DN) the just-one-lens advantage is gone.
Agreed.
If I only get 1 lens, it definitely isn't going to be the 24-50 2.8. It would be the 24-70 2.8. Maybe that Sigma 1.8 zoom.
If I had 2 or 3 lenses, then again, for sure, I'd pick a fast prime and something with a broader zoom range.
I own the 24-50 and have been very pleased with the results it produces. Three pointers from me:
1. f2.8 is better for isolating people etc. not just for low light. I most often shoot at f2.8
2. 24mm is IMHO the widest natural view possible. If I want true WA I want wider than 20 anyway.
3. the weight and balance are better on my A7CR (I also use a wrist strap)
I find that I don't miss the 16-20 range, certainly not enough to carry around an additional lens.
I find that 2.8 is slightly better at isolating people... but 1.4 is WAY better at isolating people. If isolating people were the goal, f4 70mm and f2.8 50 is... about the same. Remember it's easier to get background separation at telephoto. But 1.4 blows both to smithereens.
Fundamentally though, I think the 24-50 was designed to pair with an A7C without making it too clunky.
rob_ww wrote:
I own the 24-50 and have been very pleased with the results it produces. Three pointers from me:
1. f2.8 is better for isolating people etc. not just for low light. I most often shoot at f2.8
That is a good point, however, for isolating people I like the rendering of a (good) prime better anyway. But if you desperately need a zoom, f/2.8 is better for isolating people, and it's nice to have it in a light weight lens.
rob_ww wrote:
2. 24mm is IMHO the widest natural view possible. If I want true WA I want wider than 20 anyway.
For me 24mm is a tricky focal length for composing the shot. I like 28mm better. Maybe I'm a bad photographer, that's entirely possible, but when it gets wider than 28mm I'm feeling the most comfortable with my 12mm fisheye..... I simply dislike the stretched corner look, and it's not so easy to avoid it, at least for me.
But a lot of folks are complaining about the plethora of zooms starting at 28mm, so this one is a nice option for all those photographers.
rob_ww wrote:
3. the weight and balance are better on my A7CR (I also use a wrist strap)
I think the range vs aperture vs weight ratio is nice.
I just ordered a Tamron 28-75 2.8... I'll mess around with it when it arrives, maybe mount it to the A6500 and see if it feels unwieldy, sort of as a stand in for an A7CR.
foto16 wrote:
Basically you cannot have the best of both worlds in such compact lenses. Either f2.8 or the range.
If you have 55 f/1.8 then 20-70 pairs well with it.
Like this combo and I sort of regret no longer having the 55/1.8 specifically for this purpose as the 50/1.4 GM is a bit big for a lightweight option so I just carry the 40/2.5 G instead
Yeah, that's why I started the thread - keep going back and forth between the two 🤷🏽♂️ foto16 wrote:
Basically you cannot have the best of both worlds in such compact lenses. Either f2.8 or the range.
If you have 55 f/1.8 then 20-70 pairs well with it.
I gave my 24-105 to a friend after getting the 20-70. I shoot mostly outdoors, nature, hiking... so the 20-70/4 works well. I found myself using 20mm end more than I expected.
For me, close focus is a prime consideration. 20-70 is 0.39 and 24-50 0.3AF 0.33MF, so 0.39x vs 0.3x beats F4 vs F2.8.
My view is that F2.8 is more for bokeh than light gathering. With today's cameras and iso invariance, I just use -1EV. If I really want bokeh, primes have F2.8 beat. I think F2.8 is more useful in the 70-200 range.
wzok wrote:
If I really want bokeh, primes have F2.8 beat. I think F2.8 is more useful in the 70-200 range.
Makes sense.
That's what I like about the Tamron 35-150mm: the aperture is larger where you need it. But if you want a small walk around / travel lens a prime is what you need.
when it comes to image separation and bokeh for portraits I see little difference between the two as you would need to put the 24-50 into crop mode given you an equivalent 75mm f4 which is basically the same as the 20-70 at 70mm
Viramati wrote:
when it comes to image separation and bokeh for portraits I see little difference between the two as you would need to put the 24-50 into crop mode given you an equivalent 75mm f4 which is basically the same as the 20-70 at 70mm
While true, the f/2.8 lens can do it (and a little better actually) at the full frame 50mm field of view, which is more flexible.
nineblade wrote:
I just ordered a Tamron 28-75 2.8... I'll mess around with it when it arrives, maybe mount it to the A6500 and see if it feels unwieldy, sort of as a stand in for an A7CR.
If I recall correctly, the 28-75/2.8 is very similar in size to the 28-200. I've put my 28-200 on my A6400 or A6700 a couple of times. A bit mixed feelings. Clunkier when compared to using the 18-135. But I'm fine with the 70-350 on those bodies. When I use the 28-200 on my A7Riv, it's smaller and lighter than my Nikon aps-c dslr gear but that was using the D200 and then D7200. I guess, for me, it's a bit unwieldy on the A6xxxs so might be on an A7CR, too.
Thinking back to my first dslr, it was an aps-c and my mid-range Minolta "film" lens was the 28-105. (I had the 28-70/2.8 G for a while and it was a real beast.) The "crop factor" takes it to 42mm angle of view in ff terms so it may work for checking handling but it wasn't a really useful range for me.
Craig Gillette wrote:
If I recall correctly, the 28-75/2.8 is very similar in size to the 28-200. I've put my 28-200 on my A6400 or A6700 a couple of times. A bit mixed feelings. Clunkier when compared to using the 18-135. But I'm fine with the 70-350 on those bodies. When I use the 28-200 on my A7Riv, it's smaller and lighter than my Nikon aps-c dslr gear but that was using the D200 and then D7200. I guess, for me, it's a bit unwieldy on the A6xxxs so might be on an A7CR, too.
Thinking back to my first dslr, it was an aps-c and my mid-range Minolta "film" lens was the 28-105. (I had the 28-70/2.8 G for a while and it was a real beast.) The "crop factor" takes it to 42mm angle of view in ff terms so it may work for checking handling but it wasn't a really useful range for me....Show more →
Yeah, I think that's my general disillusionment with the A7C's. Conceptually, they seem amazing, but when I pick them up, I don't feel like they are such a huge weight/space savings over regular A7 cameras, but at the same time to justify the reduced profile, you sort of write off a bunch of lenses that you would other wise use.
Previously, I really wanted an A7CII for travel but the more I think about what 'kit' I would travel with, I just personally don't feel like forking over the $'s for it. If I had the extra cash, it would make a cool second camera though.
nineblade wrote:
Yeah, I think that's my general disillusionment with the A7C's. Conceptually, they seem amazing, but when I pick them up, I don't feel like they are such a huge weight/space savings over regular A7 cameras, but at the same time to justify the reduced profile, you sort of write off a bunch of lenses that you would other wise use.
Previously, I really wanted an A7CII for travel but the more I think about what 'kit' I would travel with, I just personally don't feel like forking over the $'s for it. If I had the extra cash, it would make a cool second camera though.
...Show more →
This is a very good point. The idea behind these small bodies is to pair them with small capable lenses of a size smaller than your GM lenses. Otherwise, stay with the larger bodies with better EVF/LCD and better able to balance your larger and likely faster lenses.
That said, others have suggested the use of the Small Rig and the Peak Design CL-3 Clutch Camera Hand Strap when using larger/heavier lenses. To my surprise, this really helped out with my Sony 20-70mm f/4.0. The Small Rig has attachment points that the included A7CR base doesn’t have. This makes the use of the Clutch ergonomically superior to the bare camera, or the camera and Small Rig alone..without the clutch.
