gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.1 #20 · Switching to Sony, need lens recommendations | |
Jack Flesher wrote:
1) I suspect you meant the 16-25/2.8 zoom? By all accounts it's very good, though I have not personally tested one. It is compact and lightweight, and obviously designed to pair well with the 24-70/2.8 as a lighter, cheaper alternative to the 16-35/2.8 when you know you want wider than 24 -- I am sure it's a great choice. (Caveat is, the newer version 16-35 GMii is smaller and lighter and argued to be almost on par optically with the 24-70/2.8 GMii -- for these reasons it's on my longer-term-maybe radar.) For me, given I enjoy playing with ultra-wide perspectives that the 12-16 range offers, the 12-20 Tammy remains small and light enough --and optically excellent enough-- to always make it into my travel bag. Re adapting your Canon L, I think that makes a lot of sense: You know it's great optically, it isn't much bigger than the Sony 16-25 and you already own it. Plus it will allow you to eventually see the light on the missing 12-16 range  . The only other downside is f4 won't really do astro where f2.8 can reasonably be pressed into service. ...Show more →
Thanks for catching my typo on the 16-25mm lens.
2) 24-70/2.8 as long as it's the GMii, a definite YES!
yes, the 24-70 is the GM II. I'd happily use an equally good f/4 version from Sony but it does not seem to exist a this point. But I've been using the equivalent Canon EF f/2.8 version with issues, so why not do the same here?
3)70-200/4 OSSii -- another definite YES!
For me it makes more sense than the f/2.8 GM II
4) 100-400/4.5. If I used that range, for sure. But understand it is quite large and heavy for that range and aperture -- so much so, it's not on my personal radar; it would be a "leave in the car just in case" lens. So I would look elsewhere, probably either the Tamron 50-400 or a confirmed good copy of the older and smaller Sony 100-400, but that's just my size and weight bias.
For me the 100-400 range does (on my current Canon system) and will do (on Sony) double duty. Yes, I'll use it for landscape photography, where the extra bulk isn't such a great thing. But I'll also use it a lot for my winter bird photography, where I think it has some useful advantages.
5) For sure the 1.4x, especially with either of the above tele-zooms. And why not the 2x as well? It's a small enough and relatively inexpensive enough item to have with you for the added flexibility "just in case." :thumb"
The 1.4x clearly performs rally well on the 70-200 and the 100-400. I'm getting the idea that the 2x does well enough, too, though I'll keep looking at that. If so, it would be useful to me in a couple of ways – obviously in extending the 100-400 to 800mm, but also in expanding the use of the 70-200 when I'd rather not bring the 100-400 along.
Are you doing 1 or 2 A7R6 bodies, or possibly some other second body?
As to bodies, initially I'm looking at a single A7r6 body. (I have my Fujifilm setup as a backup, just as I have had with my Canon system.) In the longer term there is a possibility — but far from a certainty — of the A7CR or its eventual replacement to augment the Sony system and, possibly in some cases, fill in for the Fujifilm setup.)
|
