bmike-vt wrote:
Everyone remember there is only one right way to make images and if you don’t do it the right way you are doing it wrong.
OP it’s an interesting lens - not for me at the moment but I doubt I’d bring anything else if I had that for a trip.
When we were in Switzerland on our trip, the 28-200 never came off my camera. Of course, that's a part of the mix of itinerary, opportunities,travel methods, carry-on limitations and all that. I did miss the previously mentioned 200-600 on our trip up and down Mt. Pilatus by the cogwheel railway (my wife won't ride any sort of cableway) and a steinbock was sunning himself out of decent 200mm range. OTOH, driving trips in the western US, it's often along with the 28-200 (or 20-200 if that's what I could have at the time).
Craig Gillette wrote:
When we were in Switzerland on our trip, the 28-200 never came off my camera. Of course, that's a part of the mix of itinerary, opportunities,travel methods, carry-on limitations and all that. I did miss the previously mentioned 200-600 on our trip up and down Mt. Pilatus by the cogwheel railway (my wife won't ride any sort of cableway) and a steinbock was sunning himself out of decent 200mm range. OTOH, driving trips in the western US, it's often along with the 28-200 (or 20-200 if that's what I could have at the time).
I carried a 70-200 and the 14-24 Art around Florence, with a studio RRS tripod... so, yeah, I get it - it was easier when we lived in the states to lug gear around - kit often only had to move out of the backseat if I had a passenger or kids with me - but having a car is a game changer for the big stuff.
If I walk up the hill (and then another, to the village above ours) from where we live I can see Pilatus and Rigi...
chez wrote:
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....Show more →
Chez, I too am able to use a prime of a given focal length, and am able to "code switch" to finding subjects for that given focal length.
However not everyone seems to be able to do this. I suppose one would have to shoot with primes for long enough to train this skill.
aCuria wrote:
Chez, I too am able to use a prime of a given focal length, and am able to "code switch" to finding subjects for that given focal length.
However not everyone seems to be able to do this. I suppose one would have to shoot with primes for long enough to train this skill.
I don't think it ultimately comes down to skill or knowledge, just a different set of trade-offs.
With zooms, you often end giving up some IQ and/or convenience (size/weight).
With primes, you give up some (unexpected) photo opportunities.
j4nu wrote:
I don't think it ultimately comes down to skill or knowledge, just a different set of trade-offs.
With zooms, you often end giving up some IQ and/or convenience (size/weight).
With primes, you give up some (unexpected) photo opportunities.
I think shooting with a prime is totally different than shooting with a zoom. I know I approach my photography differently if I have a zoom or prime lens. I know if I’m shooting street / documentary with a prime like a 25mm, I am looking to get close to the subject to give the image a feel of being right there. When I take out my 85mm, I look at isolating the subject by both distance and out of focus background.
bmike-vt wrote:
I carried a 70-200 and the 14-24 Art around Florence, with a studio RRS tripod... so, yeah, I get it - it was easier when we lived in the states to lug gear around - kit often only had to move out of the backseat if I had a passenger or kids with me - but having a car is a game changer for the big stuff.
If I walk up the hill (and then another, to the village above ours) from where we live I can see Pilatus and Rigi...
bmike-vt wrote:
I carried a 70-200 and the 14-24 Art around Florence, with a studio RRS tripod... so, yeah, I get it - it was easier when we lived in the states to lug gear around - kit often only had to move out of the backseat if I had a passenger or kids with me - but having a car is a game changer for the big stuff.
If I walk up the hill (and then another, to the village above ours) from where we live I can see Pilatus and Rigi...
Ahhh. First saw these on my phone. Much nicer on the desktop monitor.
We might be visiting the general area again next late summer/fall. One of my son-in-law's extended family in Thonon Les Bains (sp?) Fr, close to Geneva has a wedding coming up. Still in planning stages. Airline pricing oddness, it's considerably cheaper to fly from L.A. to Geneva via Zurich with a short hop as opposed to direct to Zurich, but thinking Zurich to Geneva by train being more interesting and scenic than an hour flight. My crystal ball suggests, again, the 200-600 won't be coming on this trip, either.
Geneva and Basel seem weird the few times I’ve priced flights. Zürich is always cheaper… although I live 1 hour from the airport by train so it’s also easier.
Zürich airport to Geneva is a little over 3 hours on the train… and if you are smart about tickets you can get them at a discount (but you are locked to specific trains / routes). Or you can buy Saver Day passes and take any trains you want.
I have to fly to the US in November, I’m already dreading it. I’d much rather be taking trains…
Craig Gillette wrote:
Ahhh. First saw these on my phone. Much nicer on the desktop monitor.
We might be visiting the general area again next late summer/fall. One of my son-in-law's extended family in Thonon Les Bains (sp?) Fr, close to Geneva has a wedding coming up. Still in planning stages. Airline pricing oddness, it's considerably cheaper to fly from L.A. to Geneva via Zurich with a short hop as opposed to direct to Zurich, but thinking Zurich to Geneva by train being more interesting and scenic than an hour flight. My crystal ball suggests, again, the 200-600 won't be coming on this trip, either. ...Show more →
Drifting off topic (of course) but I was thinking some of the slower or more scenic routes, maybe make a day of it, go via Lucerne and Interlaken to get some of the lakes and views, etc. My wife and I had time in Switzerland, the kids haven't ,so an opportunity for them if interested. OTOH, one has only so many days available and too much to see/do. With even the direct flight over 11 hours, adding layovers, dealing with security boarding and customs and immigration at some point, that travel day is really long so simpler may be better for the first day anyways.
Im looking at this lens to replace my 20-70 and 50-300 - although I am not sold on it yet and will also look at the Tamron 25-200. If I get it I would likely pair it with either the Sony 16/1.8G or VIltrox 14 on one side, and perhaps the VIltrox 50/2. I would include a wildlife lens when wildlife are in the mix.
Sony 16/1.6G or Viltrox 14
Viltrox 50/2 or walk around lens of your choice (35/40/45/50/75/85/90 etc)
Sony 200-600G when appropriate.
It's so sharp and so practical! And on a high resolution camera you can crop the image without problems and still have plenty of megapixels - so you can use it, so to say, as a "zoom from 14 to 19mm".
And then a prime with bright aperture for low light situations - the Sigma is a dark lens. I would choose a 35mm f1.4, that's a very versatile focal length, especially with the cropability.
Most of my photography lately has been casual travel. If I had the 20-200 I’d pair it with either the 35 1.4 for low light or a Q2.
I came to the same conclusion. After trying a number of lens combinations, I have settled on the featherweight Viltrox 14mm and Sigma 35mm f1.4 II; however, on my next trip I think I will replace the 35mm f1.4 with my Q3 and see how it goes. Its always nice to have a backup.
Craig Gillette wrote:
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?
As others have said, only you know your needs and wants.
Were it me, I would scrap the 20-200 idea and use your 20-70, add the Tamron 12-20 for the wide end and your existing 28-200 as the long or combo all-around. Albeit a 3 lens kit, but you now have 12mm through 200mm well covered and nicely overlapped for when you might want just one or two lenses depending on outing... Finally, I'd probably sell the 17-28 to help fund the 12-20 if needed.
Jack Flesher wrote:
As others have said, only you know your needs and wants.
Were it me, I would scrap the 20-200 idea and use your 20-70, add the Tamron 12-20 for the wide end and your existing 28-200 as the long or combo all-around. Albeit a 3 lens kit, but you now have 12mm through 200mm well covered and nicely overlapped for when you might want just one or two lenses depending on outing... Finally, I'd probably sell the 17-28 to help fund the 12-20 if needed.
Likely, sound advice.
For me, personally, there are two distinctive type of travel photography: (1) Without wife. (2) With wife
When w/o wife, I like your suggestion. My wife becomes highly annoyed when I stop to change lenses. On my last major trip to Europe, last December, I took my GM 16-35mm f2.8 II, GM 24mm f1.4 and Sigma 20-200mm. For efficiency, I just used the 20-200mm for 90% of my shots and was quite pleased with my shots (I stitched a few to get wider).
I am going to order the 12-20mm lens and might try that lens with the 20-200mm, for future trips.
For me, personally, there are two distinctive type of travel photography: (1) Without wife. (2) With wife
When w/o wife, I like your suggestion. My wife becomes highly annoyed when I stop to change lenses. On my last major trip to Europe, last December, I took my GM 16-35mm f2.8 II, GM 24mm f1.4 and Sigma 20-200mm. For efficiency, I just used the 20-200mm for 90% of my shots and was quite pleased with my shots (I stitched a few to get wider).
I am going to order the 12-20mm lens and might try that lens with the 20-200mm, for future trips. ...Show more →
I think that’s an issue many of us face, and why I travel with a main “does most well” zoom. The other trick I’ve learned is to get up early and go shoot am light, and bring her back a coffee and a pastry around 7:30 or 8:00 On our evenings out is when I generally put a smaller prime on the camera and leave the bag behind, unless there’s something specific I know I want.
On our evenings out is when I generally put a smaller prime on the camera and leave the bag behind, unless there’s something specific I know I want.