I have the 28-200, 17-28/2.8 and recently added the 20-70/4 so pretty well covered. Should I want a "fast prime," I have the Samyang 24/1.8. Which work well for me on an A7Riv. Some suggest these "superzooms" may not be wide enough (depending on which picked) or not "fast enough" so some might pair up a faster lens. I might consider swapping out the A7riv or adding either an A7RC or A7Rv before another lens change.
What might you consider a good pairing with the new 20-200 for a two lens kit, or is one enough?
Only you know this answer for the type of photography that you do. Do you shoot much wider than 20? Do you ever use your fast lens wide open?
For me, the zoom is too slow especially on the long end. F4 would be my limit for a walk around lens. I rarely shoot wider than 20 during travels so the zoom would be ok at the wide range.
chez wrote:
Only you know this answer for the type of photography that you do. Do you shoot much wider than 20? Do you ever use your fast lens wide open?
For me, the zoom is too slow especially on the long end. F4 would be my limit for a walk around lens. I rarely shoot wider than 20 during travels so the zoom would be ok at the wide range.
I'm in the same camp and agree that only you know the answer. I created another post, a couple days ago, where I rated the 20-200mm and commented that it is an outstanding superzoom. Having said that, I will pair it with the GM 16-35mm f2.8 II and Viltrox 50mm f2 Air on my next trip. I expect to mainly use the Sigma zoom from 35mm up, in the daytime, when the light is good and I am looking for greater reach. I doubt that I would ever consider it a standalone lens, for my personal use, due to its slow speed. We'll see.
I didn't ask for suggestions of what I should do. I pointed out my position up front. As some of the threads and posts suggest, it may not be a one lens answer for some. I suppose one could answer they aren't interested in the 20-200 at all, but if one is considering it what might they use with it.
If I owned and was traveling with a 20-200, I'd assume to be using it most of the time due to its convenience, and to keep packing light. So at most I'd add maybe the CV15 for UWA, and a 24G for faster speed/size.
But- the reality is for the traveling I typically do, and shots I want, I don't need the zoom range very often. My slow zoom travel lens is the 28-60, sharp and tiny, and pairs well with my other AF travel zoom, the 16-25 2.8G.
Craig Gillette wrote:
What might you consider a good pairing with the new 20-200 for a two lens kit, or is one enough?
Nothing. 20-200 doesn't need pairing because it's a useless lens. Leave it at home. Take any two primes instead. I mean it: literally any prime of any FOV from any manufacturer will produce better results than a superzoom.
Sorry if I'm pissing you off, but you've asked a bunch of strangers on the Internet for our honest opinions. I shared mine. It's backed by academia, with plenty of studies suggesting that a human brain fails under the pressure of having too many choices. A 20-200 superzoom requires a superhuman to operate, with skills & talent for "seeing" in half a dozen of different FOVs at the same time. I am not aware of anyone ever developing such ability in their lifetime.
Your 2-lens choices are:
1. 24 and 40
2. 28 and 50
3. 35 and 85
Takes about one lifetime to get good at one of these options.
Going to have to disagree. I don’t need to and prefer not to see in a specific focal length. I find subjects and choose the appropriate focal length for the subject. Sometimes that’s 28 and sometimes that’s 200. It seems in your method you choose the focal length and find subjects to fit. Seems backwards to me.
old-gregg wrote:
Nothing. 20-200 doesn't need pairing because it's a useless lens. Leave it at home. Take any two primes instead. I mean it: literally any prime of any FOV from any manufacturer will produce better results than a superzoom.
Sorry if I'm pissing you off, but you've asked a bunch of strangers on the Internet for our honest opinions. I shared mine. It's backed by academia, with plenty of studies suggesting that a human brain fails under the pressure of having too many choices. A 20-200 superzoom requires a superhuman to operate, with skills & talent for "seeing" in half a dozen of different FOVs at the same time. I am not aware of anyone ever developing such ability in their lifetime.
Your 2-lens choices are:
1. 24 and 40
2. 28 and 50
3. 35 and 85
Takes about one lifetime to get good at one of these options....Show more →
BS.
As an experienced photographer, you see a scene and decide which FL will be appropriate for it. Whether you then decide between a bunch of primes or just turn the ring of a zoom makes no difference for that, it's just more convenient with the zoom because you don't have to change lenses and have less to schlep. The only advantages of primes are sharper IQ and bigger aperture for bokeh or low light.
And bad photographers will produce bad photos, regardless of whether they use GM primes or mediocre superzooms.
I just got mine today with a view to replacing the Tamron 28-200 which I've always had a soft spot for. The versatility and acceptable quality always just clicked for me. Will try it out on an upcoming trip to Asia and pair it with the Sony 40mm f2.5.
Complementary lenses to the 20-200 would be something with a faster aperture or even wider than 20mm. I'd probably use my CV 40/1.2 and possibly CV15 on occasion. Seems like a great travel/hiking setup.
It really depends on what subjects you enjoy photographing.
If you enjoy wildlife photography, you might want something longer, like a 200-600, if you enjoy landscape photography, you might want something wider, like a 12-24mm, and if you enjoy low light photography, you might want something brighter, like a 35mm f1.4.
old-gregg wrote:
Nothing. 20-200 doesn't need pairing because it's a useless lens. Leave it at home. Take any two primes instead. I mean it: literally any prime of any FOV from any manufacturer will produce better results than a superzoom.
Sorry if I'm pissing you off, but you've asked a bunch of strangers on the Internet for our honest opinions. I shared mine. It's backed by academia, with plenty of studies suggesting that a human brain fails under the pressure of having too many choices. A 20-200 superzoom requires a superhuman to operate, with skills & talent for "seeing" in half a dozen of different FOVs at the same time. I am not aware of anyone ever developing such ability in their lifetime.
Your 2-lens choices are:
1. 24 and 40
2. 28 and 50
3. 35 and 85
Takes about one lifetime to get good at one of these options....Show more →
Gonna disagree with this one. My preferred pairing is 35mm and 65mm, not 85mm. This is backed by experience. 85mm is generally too long for most of my shooting when I would bring a 2-lens prime kit.
To the Op's question, Yes, I would bring a fast prime for a 2-lens kit. For me, it would be a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2. I'm eyeballing the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II for this exact reason.
As an experienced photographer, you see a scene and decide which FL will be appropriate for it. Whether you then decide between a bunch of primes or just turn the ring of a zoom makes no difference for that, it's just more convenient with the zoom because you don't have to change lenses and have less to schlep. The only advantages of primes are sharper IQ and bigger aperture for bokeh or low light.
And bad photographers will produce bad photos, regardless of whether they use GM primes or mediocre superzooms.
How you approach finding subjects has zero to do with “experienced photographer”. It’s just a preference. You see something then decide how best to photograph it. I on the other hand look for subjects that fits the prime I have on the camera. I’m also out with a vision of what story I want to tell with my images.
So your preference is to wander around looking for something nice to take a photo of and then decide what focal length to use, I have pre decided the focal length to use, which determines how and what subjects to shoot and I go about looking for specific subjects that meet my vision.
The only advantage of a big zoom is convenience. You give up sharpness…most zooms have a weak spot, you give up flexibility in low lighting, you give up the ability to isolate subjects using large apertures, you add bulk and weight with a zoom.
scrappydog wrote:
Gonna disagree with this one. My preferred pairing is 35mm and 65mm, not 85mm. This is backed by experience. 85mm is generally too long for most of my shooting when I would bring a 2-lens prime kit.
To the Op's question, Yes, I would bring a fast prime for a 2-lens kit. For me, it would be a 35/1.4 or 35/1.2. I'm eyeballing the Sigma 35mm f/1.2 II for this exact reason.
My 3 lens kit is 25, 40 and 85. Covers what I shoot during travels very nicely. There is no right or wrong when it comes to favourite focal lengths…
blnmen57 wrote:
For me personally, the new “Viltrox AF 14/4.0 Air FE” would be my first choice.
This came up in another thread, but I think the 14 and 20-200 could be my perfect lightweight hiking setup. I like to should ultrawide when appropriate, but also sometimes pick out mountain peaks, and this would let me do both. My previous ultralight kit was the Tamron 28-200 and Samyang 18, but this would likely be a much better setup.
