scrappydog Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
p.1 #11 · Considering a move to Sony, would appreciate advice | |
Jack Flesher wrote:
Long photo background, short version — I have owned virtually every digital camera brand mirrorless except Canon, though did own several Canon D series. My last Sony was their first mirrorless, so it’s been a long time. My main use will be landscape and travel, and I do a lot of night and street shooting when I travel.
For the camera I am pretty well set on the A7rv, but open to suggestions/comments on A1ii.
So on to lenses. I prefer smaller sizes for travel, and I don’t need optical speed for landscape. So first question is are the f4 G 16-35 and 24-105 zooms decent enough performers at f5.6-8 on the 60mp sensor? Are they at least decent wide open?
How are the Sony 50’s, 1.8 vs 1.4, primarily size vs f2 or f2.8 performance, as my night/street lens? Any 3rd party options worth considering instead?
I might want a versatile long zoom for occasional bird and wildlife, is the 200-600 a good option?
Finally I occasionally do astro, so contemplating the Sony 14 vs the Sigma 14 art?
Thanks in advance!...Show more →
I own the 50mm f/1.8, but not the 50mm f/1.4. I will echo Joshua's comments and say the 50/1.8 is a small, light, decent performer. It's also reasonably priced compared to some other Sony options. You may want to take a look at the Sigma options too. I tested the Sigma 50mm f/1.4 and Sigma 50mm f/1.2 II briefly and they are nice lenses.
I own the 24-105. It's a decent, workhorse lens for me. It's sharp and reliable. I have noticed that it does not fully resolve at times and this is on sensors up to 50MP (the A1), but that has only been evident a few times. Mostly it performs well.
If you want a smaller versatile bird/wildlife lens, the Sony 100-400 is a good option. It performs well in most facets - sharp, IS works fine, fast focusing - and is the size of a 70-200/2.8. You can use the Sony 1.4x extender on it, but the 2x is not recommended. The 200-600 is a step up from the 100-400 in size. It's sharp, but the focus is not as dialed in as the 100-400 at times. You can use the 1.4x and 2x extenders on the 200-600, but I would limit it to 1.4x. My spouse has 400-600 - it's bigger than the 200-600 and it's harder to hand hold than the 200-600. The IQ is roughly equivalent to the 200-600, but a little better on the long end than the 200-600 with an extender. If you are open to additional options, the Sony 300mm f/2.8 has mostly replaced all three of the zooms for me. I use it with the 1.4x and 2x extenders with almost no penalty, so you get 300, 420, and 600mm with that combo. The 300 with and without the extenders outresolves the 100-400, 200-600, and 400-800, and the focus is substantially faster and more accurate.
As for astro lenses, my spouse owns the Sony 14mm f/1.8 and I own the Sigma 14mm f/1.4. That's a long discussion and there is another thread on the boards where I discuss how I use the Sigma. In brief, the Sony is much smaller and lighter, but not as sharp as the Sigma. Of the two, I think the Sony is the more versatile lens for stuff other than astro. The Sigma has killer astro features in it - it is purpose-built for astro. Neither lens is flat field so you have to work them to get the results you want and if you want sharp across the entire frame, you will need to stop both down. The key point is that if you learn how to use the Sigma, you can get round stars at f/1.4 in the extreme periphery at 100%, which is amazing. The only other lens that can do that is the Sigma 15mm f/1.4 fisheye, which gets even more pinpoint stars at f/1.4, but you have to work around the limitations of it being a fisheye.
I have posted a lot of shots from a few lenses mentioned in my post. You can see them here:
24-105: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68498746@N08/albums/72157712520174923/
100-400: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68498746@N08/albums/72157695536839521/
200-600: https://www.flickr.com/photos/68498746@N08/albums/72157710297553562
Edited on Jan 09, 2026 at 09:24 AM · View previous versions
|