Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.4 #2 · RF-L or FE-GM (No Trolls, Gatekeepers, or Dismissive Responses) | |
snegron7 wrote:
I agree, definitely Leica will have to be a long term goal for me because of the cost. My sensless economics tells my brain that spending a couple of thousand dollars here and there on one or two lenses or bodies every year is cheaper than dishing out $30,000+ up front for a Leica outfit. Of course, when you add up how much I've spent on gear over the past 10 years it surpasses that initial Leica outfit up front cost (In my OP, I only listed the gear I currently have, not all the gear I've had and sold over the past 10 years. That number is frightning).
One thing for certain is that my A7iv will be the first to be sold as I really don't get along with it. My A7c doesn't take up much space, plus I can use it whenever I travel to sketchy places, so it stays as well. The Tamrons are decent travel lenses for the A7c, although they make the outfit front heavy. They will probably stay with me as part of my "A7c Sketchy Travel Places" outfit.
My R6II will stay with me too because despite its weight and weird AF tracking, it produces nice images. The RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM, RF 24-240mm f4-6.3 will definitely be sold (I really don't like the RF 16-28mm f2.8 STM). My RF tiny primes will stay (temporarily) until I see what the new R8II looks like. It might make for a decent, lightweight travel option with my cheap RF primes. While they are not weather-sealed, they are inexpensive enough to replace them as needed.
My OM-5 will stay because it doesn't really take up much space. Plus, it's like a slightly oversized all weather point and shoot backup camera for when it's raining, especially when I pair it with my Pan/Leica 9mmf1.7.
...Show more →
I haven't responded to this threat, and have kind of watched as it evolved because I think there really is no answer to the zooms vs. primes dilemma and it usually boils down to personal preference for how one likes to shoot. That said, like the OP I build my kit to a large extent around travel. I also shot Sony for about a decade and now shoot Canon.
So here are my preferences for travel. I don't want zooms or primes. My kit often combines both. I think for ultra wide to wide, a zoom can be a great option and covers what would take at least 2 primes and in this way saves weight and space. Both Sony and Canon has some very good ultra wide to wide options depending on how wide you want to go, but I prefer Canon's options. For Canon you have 3 excellent choices all of which are pretty small. If you want to go all the way to 14mm the 14-35 f/4 L is a great option. If 16mm is wide enough the 16-28 f/2.8 IS is also a really good choice and if you can live with 20mm as your widest focal length then the new 20-50 f/4L is a really good choice. Sony also has what I think are two very good options in the 16-35 f/4 PZ and the 16-24 f/2.8 G, but those of course work best if you want 16mm as your widest focal length and I don't think I prefer either over the Canon 16-28 f/2.8 IS, but they are solid options if you go with Sony. I like having one of these ultra wide to wide angle zooms, but at times I want a small 21mm instead for the smallest kit possible. For that I go with the MF Voigtlander 21mm f/3.5. That can work well with either system, but that is my personal preference.
I think supplement the ultra wide to wide zoom or the 21mm lens with a fast 40 or a 50 mm lens. Personally that is usually the Voigtlander 40 f/1.2. That is available on either system, but the OP probably wants and AF lens. On Canon he could pick either the 45 f/1.2 if he likes its flaws/character or the 50 f/1.4L VCM. If he wanted to go really small he could go with the 50 f/1.8, which is an old design but very much a classic double gauss with all that goes with that (a bit soft wide open with less than perfect bokeh, low lateral CA, but a fair amount of axial CA, but excellent stopped down performance across the board) On Sony he likely would want the 50 f/1.4 GM, and if he wants to go small the 40 or 50 f/2.5 G is an excellent choice as are the Viltrox f/1.8 and Sigma f/2. The Canon VCM and Sony f/1.4 GM are very similar lenses or at least they seem to be to me.I ruled out the f/1.2 AF lenses as they are too big for travel in my book.
Finally, I often add to these two lenses a short tele, which I like in travel both for landscapes and portraits. There are a lot of good small choices for each system. If you like MF like I do there is the Voigtlander 75 f/1.5. The Thypoch 75 f/1.4 also adapts well to both systems. If you want AF, then there are several great choices on Sony including the Sony 85 f/1.8, the Zeiss Batis 85 f/1.8, and the Sigma 90 f/2.8 if you want to go really small. On Canon I really like the 85 f/2 Macro IS as an AF option. It is a great a versatile lens and not that big. I also sometimes like to swap out the prime for tele and go with a 100-400 slow zoom. Both systems now have a 100-400 f/5.6-8 and I have th Canon zoom and despite its really slow aperture I like, especially in good light, of course.
Finally, if you like the smaller A7C cameras for Sony, then for Canon you might want to consider the Canon R8 II that is about to be announced. That is basically your R6 II in a smaller body int he same way that the A7C series are the A7 cameras in a smaller body. I think with the Mark II version Canon will finally be providing a more capable body for small camera lovers. Personally that is not me as I find the smaller cameras too small and prefer a medium sized camera, but of course choice is a good thing.
|
