Sony A7RVI

bwcolor
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.83 #1 · Sony A7RVI

Jul 18, 2026 at 06:43 AM

jayoco
Offline
•
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #2 · Sony A7RVI

Jul 18, 2026 at 09:06 AM

Jack Flesher
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #3 · Sony A7RVI

For me, travel is about weight and size with good enough performance. I�ve got that covered pretty well already and believe Dan does as well with his Fuji X kit.

When I do serious landscape, it�s about the best IQ<>versatility balance and weight is secondary. Which is where I see the 24-70/2.8ii being my main squeeze. The 28-70 is not a viable solution for me because I use the 24-27 range a LOT in my own landscape work and am usually stopped down to at least f5.6, so for my needs the extra stop would be wasted, and I�d never consider traveling with it. The 24-105 is out because of wide end performance being somewhat marginal. My vacillation is the 16-35. If I got the newer f2.8 ii, I know I�d be happy with it, but then I have a couple smaller, light weight wide primes that may be adequate, and I would get the 16/1.8 (or possibly the 14/1.8) for astro anyway, so probably don�t need the wide zoom. Finally, I don�t use the 70-200 range enough in my landscape photography to bother with, so for me I think the 100 macro would cover that gap nicely while serving double duties.

Jul 18, 2026 at 09:48 AM

Ross Martin
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #4 · Sony A7RVI

Jul 18, 2026 at 10:54 AM

gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off

p.83 #5 · Sony A7RVI

Thank ou to those who have replied helpfully. Rather than courting up the thread with a bunch of separate replies, I�ll roll them all into this one post.

Warning: This will be long. Just skip the post if it doesn�t interest you. I�ll be fine. I promise. ;-)

Regardless of how wonderful those f/2 zoom lenses are for many purposes, they are not likely in my future since I�m sure that there are excellent options that aren�t so large and heavy, important factors for me. (Though see at least one more nuanced reaction below.)

Steve Spencer wrote:
I think using your Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS and your 70-200 f/4L iS is a good idea. They are both wonderful lenses, will adapt well, and Sony doesn't really have lenses quite as good that are directly comparable.

As I wrote, that sounds like a reasonable approach with the 16-35 given that I use it much less. I will not go that route with the 70-200 as it is a core lens that I rely on a lot, and I don�t want to use an adapter with such a lens.

Regarding the G versus GM issue, there has long been a similar bias on the Canon side regarding the f/2.8 versus f/4 zooms. Some simply assume that the f/2.8 lenses are better, I think because they cost more and look more impressive.

(This subjective presumption by some that f/2.8 lenses are always better lenses than their f/4 counterparts is a kind of background noise that is difficult to separate out from any actual performance differences.)

It feels to me that Sony has codified this subjective impression by subdividing their high end lenses into the G and GM sub-categories. It also seems to me, based on what some people say, that in reality there is not a clear optical quality difference in general between the two groups.

I�m interested in that question generally, but even more so regarding the specific case of the 70-200mm lenses. If an f/2.8 version is significantly better in real world performance than a f/4 version, I may be willing to such it up and carry a larger, heavier lenses even though I don�t need f/2.8. On the other hand, if optical performance is indistinguishable and both are excellent, I prefer f/4.

Some of the smaller, lighter alternatives that I did not have access to on Canon are interesting, such as a 14-24mm f/4. I would normally avoid the gigantic f/2.8 versions, but here the smaller option could combine well with the other lenses� if the IQ is first-rate. Same for that 16-25, since I�ve long felt that there is an argument against the big overlap between 16-35mm and 24-70mm zooms. (Yes, there is a counter to that argument, too�)

- - -

Andyuk109 wrote:
Choosing between all the excellent options is definitely a first-world problem

Heh. Very true. However (as a few who know me realize) I tend to make careful and slow decisions and then stick with the choices for a long time rather than buying every new thing. (I don�think I�ve purchased a new Canon lens since that 100=400 v.2.)

Also, at least for the near term, I don�t plan to use a Sony system as a travel setup. I have something else that current works extremely well for my needs in that regard. (This is not to say that something built around a A7CRii or or successor might not be in the cards a few years from now.)

- - -

bwcolor wrote:
regret posting. I probably would have realized that you were set on small light zooms should I have read all of your comments more carefully. Sony is careful to make sure that G does not outperform GM, but then again they also make sure that G performs to a pretty high standard. I would be surprised if anyone in this thread is wanting to tell you how to do your photography. Why would someone be vested in such a thing?

No regrets necessary. :-)

Your wording around the G/GM issue is interesting: � Sony is careful to make sure that G does not outperform GM, but then again they also make sure that G performs to a pretty high standard.�

I would not expect the G lenses to �outperformed� the G lenses, but if things are as they are in CanonWorld, at least some of them might perform equally well in optical terms aside from the smaller maximum aperture. That�s my baic question.

A friend who is a pretty well regarded (and exhibited) photographer and I talked a bit about this question, and his POV was that several of the G lenses have performance that is indistinguishable from the performance of their GM cousins. But that�s just one data point.

As to someone telling me how to do my photography, it could happen as a sort of innocent mistake by someone who reasonably assumes that everyone asking �which lens questions does so because they are new photographers. We�ve all perhaps made that mistake from time to time. I have. ;-)

- - -

jayoco wrote:
I shot Canon for 25 years. EF and RF. I switched to Sony (Leica is my love child) about 2 years ago. First, some of the Canon EF Lenses are simply spectacular. I know you're a zoom guy but my 35 prime was stunning. Probably better than my current Sony 35 GM although I give that a damn near perfect score. I tried the Sony 20-70. Meh. Caveat: I was using a well used sample at a Sony event. I think the 24-105 f4 is pretty darn good. Same with the 24-50 2.8. I own neither but have tried them....Show more →

I�ll look into the weight comparison (and size comparison) between my EF 24-70mm f/2.8L and the Sony 28-70mm f/2. Assuming that I keep 16-35 as my wide zoom, the focal length ranges make sense. Ihave been using that one f/2.8 on the Canon side, so I�m not necessarily dead set against a similarly large lens in that range� even though I really don�t need f/2, and it would be optical performance in the f/4 and smaller range that would be interesting to me.

The weight/bulk issue is one that I�ve worked on for years, decades actually. I�ve done a lot of wilderness photography, carrying gear on my back into the high country, sometimes for long periods of time. (I�ve also done a bunch of pack-train supported trips that were even longer, though weight/bulk are still issues there, too.)

But you are also right that age eventually catches up with all of us, which makes me even more inclined toward smaller and lighter options that perform at a high level. I would not say that lightness is my primary concern, just that I won�t carry unnecessary extra weight if it can be avoided.

- - -

Jack Flesher wrote:
For me, travel is about weight and size with good enough performance. I�ve got that covered pretty well already and believe Dan does as well with his Fuji X kit.

When I do serious landscape, it�s about the best IQ<>versatility balance and weight is secondary. Which is where I see the 24-70/2.8ii being my main squeeze. The 28-70 is not a viable solution for me because I use the 24-27 range a LOT in my own landscape work and am usually stopped down to at least f5.6, so for my needs the extra stop would be wasted, and I�d never...Show more →

Since we both are active in the Fujifilm forum, Jack clearly gets my current practice with �travel photography,� and why I�m not looking for a �travel kit� from Sony at this point.

As to the 70-200mm range, your comment about not using it much for landscape illustrates that there�s no one �right� way to do landscape or much of any other photographic genre. I know a lot of folks think of wide angle lenses as their basic lenses for landscape, but I hardly ever go wider than 24mm. I carry the 16-35 and it is critical for a few shots� but they are a very small minority of my output.

On the other hand, the 70-200 may possibly be the lens I use most for landscape photography!

Years ago I used primes for my landscape photography, often carrying a bunch of them. Things got even worse when I was transitioning from primes-only to zooms-(almost)-only ��I was carting around a full set of both, when meant more lenses than I even want to think about today. The primes versus zooms thing is another one of those personal preference issues� and for my photography I eventually came down firmly on the zoom side.

- - -

Ross Martin wrote:
Dan, you�re getting many good suggestions from folks here. I have written a quite long response detailing my thoughts and the lenses I�ve used based on your needs, but I�ve decided not to post it due to that one know-it-all member I shall not name with his soon-to-come bullet points list of why I�m wrong (especially his insistence that no one produces pleasing landscapes with telephoto focal lengths).

PM sent.

EDIT: Dan, I just want to add that I�m really excited to soon have you posting images from an A7R6. Your fine-art landscape work is wonderful, with great insight, sensitivity, subtlety,...Show more →

Thanks, Ross.

Thank you very much for that PM! There�s a huge amount of very useful information there, and it is too bad that you don�t feel you can share it in the FM forum, where it would be helpful to quite a few people. In fact, it could be the start of a really useful thread here on FM.

(Another option might be to share it or a revision as a guest article at my photography website or as a sort of open conversation between us there.)

Jul 18, 2026 at 11:26 AM

adventure_photo
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #6 · Sony A7RVI

gdanmitchell wrote:
I appreciate those who have shared their experience with various Sony lenses in response to my post earlier on this page. For anyone else who may want to share, first, thanks in advance. Second, let me lay out af ewe things that are pretty much non-negotiable regarding the lenses I�ll get.

- With very few possible exceptions (perhaps only one, see below) I�m only interested in zoom lenses. That�s what I�ve used for my landscape (and wildlife) photography for the past couple of decades, and it works well for me.

- As wonderful as some of the new f/2 zooms (from various manufacturers) are, they aren�t for me. I�m sure that they are attractive to many photographers, but having an f/2 maximum aperture in a zoom isn�t something I desire.

- Optical quality of the lens is very high on my list of important factors � perhaps most important. But that doesn�t necessarily mean the lens that ranks �the best� in various technical tests, as long as a lens is excellent.

- Weight an bulk are not unimportant for me. (That�s one reason that I�m not personally interested int eh f/2 zooms.) If a lens with a maximum aperture of f/4 is an excellent optical performer, then I prefer that over a lens with a larger f/2.8 or f/2 zoom. (I�ve owned those in the past and traded them in for f/4 lenses, with the current exception of the 24-70 f/2.8.) If the only way to get sufficient optical quality and /or functionality is to get a f/2.8 lens, I�ll do it, but it is not my goal.

- Unless someone can convince me otherwise, I�ll likely get the new 100-400 f/4.5. I�ve happily used a f/4.50f/5.6 Canon 100-400, and I like its optical quality and the fact that it is smaller in the pack� but I�d love to hear more about it in comparison to the new f/4.5 zoom.

- The only prime I am likely to (eventually) consider would be the 100mm macro, which I�ve heard is very good. On the other hand I have the excellent Canon eF 100mm f/2.8 macro, and I may simply decide to use it with a converter unless I hear a good argument against that.

- The one other oddball thing I�d like to be able to do is to bring along my Pentax medium format 80-160mm zoom that I use with the Mirex TS adapter. I think I could do that by attaching the lens to the Mirex and the Mirex to a Canon EF to Sony adapter, but that�s starting to sound a big kludgy�

I know some well-meaning folks may be tempted to tell me �the best way to do my photography,� but I�m generally pretty confident at this point about what works for me, what I�ve tried and moved on from, and so forth. :-)

Again, thanks. I much appreciate your input.

(If you�d rather PM me than post here, that�s fine, too.)...Show more →

Hi Dan,

Here's my two cents based on your current gear, following your style of photography and your listed needs. If you want the no compromises (image quality wise) option, then that's easy, 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II, 24-70 f/2.8 GMII, and 70-200 f/2.8 GM II. I own all three and can attest to the image quality, versatility and relative compactness for what these lenses are. Since you like one prime being a macro around 100-105mm focal length then it's easily the 100 f/2.8 GM that was recently released. I also now own that one (having upgraded from the 90) and it's a fantastic lens with no faults that I can find. As far as adapting your current EF lenses, you can do that as stopgap until you fully switch over, but I think you'll find adapters are annoying and cumbersome to use and there are compromises, eventually going full native mount glass. I would say just bite the bullet and fully switch over and avoid those. One thing I also want to mention is as good as your Canon EF lenses are, they are fairly old designs, I think you will find even a newer Sony G lens is sharper since lens designs have gotten better, lighter, and more corrected in the last few years.

But, since you prefer f/4 zooms, for your case I think I would recommend the 16-35 f/4 PZ. I don't own it, but Sony did send it to me to test out and I really liked it and compared it to my 16-35 GM. I found it to be nearly as sharp, especially stopped down to landscape photography apertures. I have also tested the Sony 16-25 f/2.8 G, and I was honestly very impressed. It's very small and lightweight but just lacks that 26-35mm if that's important to you to have - so also a consideration. Then for mid focal length zooms, I think you could consider the 20-70 f/4 G, and if you re used to an f/2.8, the the 24-70 GM II is hard to beat. There is also the 24-50 f/2.8 G which I've also tested, and it has great sharpness and image quality and is a great companion to the 16-25 f/2.8 G, but I found it less useful than the 20-70 f/4 or 24-70 f/2.8 GM II, missing that range from 51-70mm. That 20-70 f/4 lens should not be overlooked and is a really great lightweight powerhouse for hiking-oriented landscape photography and I am very pleased with its image quality. Having 20mm on the wide end makes a big difference too and eliminates a lot of lens changes for wider compositions. I would avoid the 24-105 f/4 - I found it to be heavy with severe vignetting at 24mm. Okay image quality but compromised sharpness in the corners at 24mm. Now onto tele zoom, I have tested the 70-200 f/4 G II macro and I can wholeheartedly recommend that lens. It's very sharp, compact, well built and having that macro 1:2 capability eliminates having to use a dedicated macro lens for most close-up photography unless needing 1:1 magnification.

You mentioned that the 100-400 f/4.5 GM is almost a certainty. That's a great lens but it's big and heavy for only a bit more brightness. I would argue the 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 GM is a better option for your needs. It's far more portable and has great image quality, takes teleconverters, has a 77mm vs 95mm filter thread, and to me only degrades slightly in image quality from about 375-400mm range, which I just tend to avoid. Not bad but just slightly less sharp.

So I think my final recommendation for you to start would be Sony A7RVI camera with 16-35 f/4 PZ G, 20-70 f/4 G and 70-200 f/4 G II. That would get you started in a similar way you are used to shooting. Then you can decide if you want to get the dedicated 100mm macro or invest in any f/2.8 zooms. I think it's time though to make the switch to Sony, I don't think you will be disappointed and will be impressed with the image quality, dynamic range, autofocus, quality of lenses, variety of lenses, and customizability of the cameras to be set up to get out of your way so you can focus on capturing great images!

Jul 18, 2026 at 11:40 AM

Ross Martin
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #7 · Sony A7RVI

Dan, several of us are mentioning the Sony 16-35/4 PZ and so I wanted to clarify that you don�t have to use the power zoom rocker switch if you don�t like that method - there is also an electronic zoom ring. The difference is there are no focal length markings on the lens, but you can view the focal length in the viewfinder in real time as you zoom.

Jul 18, 2026 at 12:00 PM

Donzo98
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #8 · Sony A7RVI

Ross Martin wrote:
RRS has their L-bracket for the A7R6 up for preorder for $215. They have made an interesting design choice: the place where your pinky tip would naturally rest has no metal, it�s open. This is their way of enabling battery access, as opposed to the other L-bracket makers like Smallrig and Leophoto who build in a lever to open/close for battery access and those designs maintain a full plate wraparound at bottom of grip for your finger.

I used to be a diehard RRS guy, but it just makes no sense to pay $215.00 when you can buy Leofoto for so much less. Leo isn�t out yet, but shouldn�t be too long until it ships.

Jul 18, 2026 at 12:53 PM

rd4tile
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #9 · Sony A7RVI

Pictures anyone? A few from my grandson's game yesterday. The 100-400 was a little tight from where I was shooting so later went to the 50-150. A little bat distortion but nothing serious IMHO. Shot with RAW compressed, 15 fps. AF was good all day - very sticky. 100% crop on the outfield shot.

ILCE-7RM6 FE 100-400mm F4.5 GM OSS lens 100mm f/4.5 1/1250s 125 ISO 0.0 EV

ILCE-7RM6 FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens 50mm f/2.8 1/2000s 125 ISO +0.3 EV

ILCE-7RM6 FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens 150mm f/2.5 1/2000s 125 ISO 0.0 EV

Jul 18, 2026 at 01:15 PM

Jack Flesher
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On

p.83 #10 · Sony A7RVI

rd4tile wrote:
Pictures anyone? A few from my grandson's game yesterday. The 100-400 was a little tight from where I was shooting so later went to the 50-150. A little bat distortion but nothing serious IMHO. Shot with RAW compressed, 15 fps. AF was good all day - very sticky. 100% crop on the outfield shot.

Thanks for sharing these, I was leaning towards the A1ii and this makes me give the A7R6 more consideration. This is the kind of real world sports shooting I would do, basically my grandkids doing their sports. I notice the bending bat and elongated ball as you do and likely several others here, but most of my regular viewers won�t and won�t care if they do. I also do occasional wildlife which includes BIF; and also the occasional racing event, thus shutter and AF tracking are key considerations; and now I�m hearing that the A7R6 tracking AF is actually stickier than the A1ii�s, which is a surprise and balances out or possibly surpasses the shutter roll issue for me. The majority of what I shoot is landscape including astro, so AF is less critical but noise a bit more, so hope to see some real world noise comps soon. I no longer print large so the resolution difference isn�t a big issue either way. When I factor in cost and can add a good GM zoom for the difference, the A7R6 is definitely gaining ground. Hmmm�

Jul 18, 2026 at 03:00 PM

1 2 3 … 82 83 end
FM Forums \| Sony Forum \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 82 83 end