Moving from Nikon to A7RII. Question about lenses...

[EvanWasHere]

Hey guys.  I am excited about the a7RII.  I was planning on purchasing a Nikon D810, but when I saw some of the excitement about the A7RII, I got hooked.

 

Currently, I shoot headshots, portraits, glamour, and jewelry commercial shots on a Nikon D7000 (and sometimes rent a Nikon D800) with primarily the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8G ED lens (the last model, not the VR one that just came out this month).  I shoot with 2 SB900 flashes when outside and use an Einstein and AlienBee 800 for lighting in my studio.

 

Switching over to the Sony will be quite an investment, as I will need to purchase all new lenses, the body, flashes, etc.

 

I know I can get Canon lenses and use the Metabones adapter to make them compatible, but I think I should go with Sony lenses for best compatibility (unless I'm dead wrong?).

 

So I looked at Sony lenses and am seeing some bad reviews for some of them, saying they have different issues with slowness of autofocus, softness on the outside, vignetting, etc.. BUT, then people are saying that the A7RII seems to fix LOTS of issues people originally had with their Sony lenses (and even Canon lenses).

 

So.. my question.. Which lenses should I get for the work that I do, that are comparable to what I currently use?  Are the issues that people had with using them with previous bodies really been fixed?

 

Currently, what I am looking at:  

• Sony FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 OSS Lens
• Sony FE 24-240mm f/3.5-6.3 OSS Lens
• Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 24-70mm f/4 ZA OSS Lens

None of them will match the bokeh I get with f/2.8 on my Nikon, but I think I can live with that.

 

But will they match the quality of the shot and speed of the autofocus that i get with my Nikon.

 

Or should I get the Metabones and Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM Lens?

 

Help!  And thanks!

[Wesley]

No macro lens for jewelry? 

 

I would either upgrade the Nikon camera or go all in with Sony if you can plunk $5k+

If you're looking at those three FE lenses, I'd just stick with Nikon. 

 

FYI, Canon lenses have the wide/tele focal lengths the other way around compared to Nikon/Sony.

So I don't use Canon zooms, this might not matter to you.

[ViRuS X]

There is no need to buy 28-70 and 24-70 together.

 

I suggest

24-70mm f4

55mm f1.8

And if you want a better lens for headshots then go for Zeiss batis 85mm f1.8 or Sony FE 90mm f2.8 macro.

[EvanWasHere]

No macro lens for jewelry? 

 

I would either upgrade the Nikon camera or go all in with Sony if you can plunk $5k+

If you're looking at those three FE lenses, I'd just stick with Nikon. 

 

FYI, Canon lenses have the wide/tele focal lengths the other way around compared to Nikon/Sony.

So I don't use Canon zooms, this might not matter to you.

 

I shoot models wearing jewelry.  Not jewelry by themselves.   so no macro needed

 

 

There is no need to buy 28-70 and 24-70 together.

 

I suggest

24-70mm f4

55mm f1.8

And if you want a better lens for headshots then go for Zeiss batis 85mm f1.8 or Sony FE 90mm f2.8 macro.

 

Sorry.. I meant to say that list of lenses are that the options I was looking at.  Not that I was thinking of buying all of them.

 

I will take a look at those lenses you mention.  Thanks!

[Wesley]

I should tell you that I'm a Nikon & Sony user and shoot mostly models as well.

Nikon D700 with 24-70, 85 1.8G; Sony A7ii with 35 2.8, 55 1.8, 70-200 F4

 

If the 24-70 lens range is a must, keep using the Nikon. Just get a D7200 or better & your on a solid track.

Other than that you can get the a7rii, 55 1.8, and 70-200. You can still use the strobes with Paul Buff or Pocketwizard triggers and Nikon speedlights on optical slave or trigger but no TTL.

 

Here is what I said about the Sony 24-70 F4 in an older thread:

 

"I have tried the FE 24-70 and it has one of the worst distortion I've seen on a modern lens.

24mm - large barrel distortion; only good for the wide, environmental model shots

35-40mm - usable; no deal breakers

45-55mm - large pincushion distortion; don't shoot 3/4 or full body shots (fixing in post still result in distorted limbs); usable for portraits/headshot

55-70mm - most pincushion; I only use for headshots"

[Snowfun]

Nikon user with decent Nikon glass?

I'd be looking for a very persuasive argument to switch to Sony and then I'd decide to upgrade to D8100.

The quality of Sony/Zeiss glass is not an issue. But unless there is a genuine advantage in switching then why not build on your existing investment?

Of course users here can give you several advantages of the Sony system (in my case simply the high ISO video performance of A7s) but only you know whether these justify the switch. Without a doubt the Nikon would also have advantages when assessed against different criteria.

Tim

[EvanWasHere]

I should tell you that I'm a Nikon & Sony user and shoot mostly models as well.

Nikon D700 with 24-70, 85 1.8G; Sony A7ii with 35 2.8, 55 1.8, 70-200 F4

 

If the 24-70 lens range is a must, keep using the Nikon. Just get a D7200 or better & your on a solid track.

Other than that you can get the a7rii, 55 1.8, and 70-200. You can still use the strobes with Paul Buff or Pocketwizard triggers and Nikon speedlights on optical slave or trigger but no TTL.

 

Here is what I said about the Sony 24-70 F4 in an older thread:

 

"I have tried the FE 24-70 and it has one of the worst distortion I've seen on a modern lens.

24mm - large barrel distortion; only good for the wide, environmental model shots

35-40mm - usable; no deal breakers

45-55mm - large pincushion distortion; don't shoot 3/4 or full body shots (fixing in post still result in distorted limbs); usable for portraits/headshot

55-70mm - most pincushion; I only use for headshots"

 

Sorry.. Are you saying that if I use Nikon lights I won't have TTL (which I wasnt planning on doing anyways)?  Or that i won't have TTL with any gear?  I have a Cyber Commander for the Paul Buff lighting and was looking at getting two Nissin Di7000A (which I see has ADI/P-TTL) with the Air 1 Commander or the Sony HVL-F60M (and upgrading the firmware which supposedly fixes the overheating issue) which is also ADI/P-TTL.  I actually had to look up what ADI and P-TTL are.  Is it better or worse or the same as TTL for shooting models?  Oh.. and I also use a Gary Fong LightSphere.

 

As for the FE 24-70, I thought the distortion is fixed with the A7RII?  I spent an hour googling for the review I found a few days ago that said that, but can't find it now.

 

What if I went with the Canon 24-700mm with the Metabones?  Or the Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 ZA SSM II Vario-Sonnar T* Lens and the A to EF Sony LAEA4 adapter?

 

The reason I think I want the A7RII over the D810, is because of all the technological benefits I feel it has over the Nikon.  Such as a high megapixel (so I can shoot at a lower mm, yet able to crop as much as I like later), the eye AF (so I dont have to keep my eye planted to the camera to chase after a model's eye with my focus point), the smaller size and weight (for when I need to travel), the 4K video (for when and if I ever need to do some behind the scenes video), the 5 axis stabilization (cause I'm not buying another $2k lens to get that with my Nikon), the phase detect autofocus (to catch my models who decide to dance during their shoots), the integrated wifi tether to my phone and tablet (I have the CamRanger for my Nikon and it is essentially useless in the studio), etc etc

[Wesley]

Don't know about the Nissin and Air Commander. No TTL with the Nikon speedlight of course.

 

I'm baffled on how a sensor can fix the distortion. It's now "BSI" but I think it only helps with ISO. 

 

The Sony 24-70 2.8 with the LAEA3 adapter instead can work. Don't need the #4 with the new AF system.

 

Too early to tell if the eye AF and focusing is good enough in a dim studio with moving models. 

[ShadowPanda]

SNIP

 

Don't forget about A Mount lenses, if you get the LE-A3 adapter, you can get some A Mount lenses

 

For example you could get the Tamron 24-70 F2.8 VC or Sonys 24-70 F2.8 Vario Sonnar T* - the A mount ones are much cheaper than FE, with not too much trade off

 

For example I have the Original A7, I am using a Tamron 28-75 f2,8, Minolta 50 f1.7 prime, Minolta 70-200 f4 Beercan  - all work great on the A7

 

So yes, don't forget about A mount options

 

Also for flash, check out the new Di700 Air Commander flash from nissin (i40 is great as a portable walk around flash too if you want something light)

[Singingsnapper]

I've just ordered an LAEA4 and a Tamron 24 - 70 2.8....will see how the two compare, since Amazon are pretty friendly when it comes to returns...  Have heard good things of the Tamron...

[spaceman]

The FE 24-240 will give you shallower DoF and better subject isolation (and more likely "better bokeh") from 135mm and onwards right uo to 240mm than your Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

 

The, FE 35mm 1.4, FE 55mm 1.8 and Batis FE 85mm 1.8 will all give you "better bokeh", the two latter ones will give you much better subject isolation than the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The same will the FE 24-240 and FE 70-200 f/4.

[Singingsnapper]

The FE 24-240 will give you shallower DoF and better subject isolation (and more likely "better bokeh") from 135mm and onwards right uo to 240mm than your Nikon 24-70 f/2.8.

 

The, FE 35mm 1.4, FE 55mm 1.8 and Batis FE 85mm 1.8 will all give you "better bokeh", the two latter ones will give you much better subject isolation than the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8. The same will the FE 24-240 and FE 70-200 f/4.

The 24 - 240 lens looks like a handy lens to have if you only want to carry one camera and one lens, but (I haven't tried the lens myself) I suspect it would not be n the same class as any of the other lenses in the list.  

 

Has anyone tried it with the A7R or A7RII?

[tizeye]

I also and making the Nikon (D610) to Sony (a7II or a7rII) switch. While I don't have the 24-70 f2.8, I have used a manual adapter with Nikon glass which is a pain. My primary lens is the 16-35 f4 which I will sell and have the FE 16-35 f4 "in the mail". You may be able to keep the Nikkor glass. Commlite makes adapters, and current on Ebay are only manual, however, as noted in SonyAlpphaRumors they have a prototype electronic version for Nikon with anticipated August/Sept production http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/?s=nikon+adapter. That will be an industry first and probably prod others to develop the product.

 

Flash - will be selling my SB600, 900, 910 and Pocket Wizard tt1/tt5/ac3 as well as Camranger. What are you triggering your strobes with...optical or radio trigger? The majority of my flash is manual so switched to the Yongnuo TX560 (on camera transmitter) and YN560 IV flashes (internal receiver - and transmitter) plus a set of RF603 triggers which can receiver the signal from the TX560. That is a very inexpensive system. The RF603 could trigger your strobes just as they trigger my SB910, HOWEVER, power levels must be adjusted at the flash unit, not on camera like the 560s will do. FYI - I got the Nikon version of the Yongnuo as they don't make a Sony version, but being manual, it is just the firing pin. Works fine. For fast action TTL on camera work, I got a Sony HVL-F60M. The Nissin Air provides TTL is very new, well received, but very limited. They released it without the separate receiver to attach other flashes/strobes but the "promise" that coming in the future. Essentially, it is the commander unit on camera that will only talk to one specific model of Nissin flashes. For me, too handicapped at introduction and don't want to rely on the corporate promise that may never materialize.

[premiumbokeh]

The 24 - 240 lens looks like a handy lens to have if you only want to carry one camera and one lens, but (I haven't tried the lens myself) I suspect it would not be n the same class as any of the other lenses in the list.  

 

Has anyone tried it with the A7R or A7RII?

 

Here is a review using the a7r: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1EFpCKQUN0

 

I am interested to see what you decide as I am considering that combination (a7rii and 24-240).

[Zé De Boni]

The main point is going mirrorless, getting rid of the mirror. That's the new approach, everything else may be attained with any camera. In my view, the mirror is obsolete. That is my feeling from using the new generation of cameras with permanent life view. The list of advantages is too large to write here. Anyway, that is just my opinion. If you still have any doubt, you should not make a radical change immediately. Make the move progressively. At one time I had Nikon D3X and the Sony A900, both full frame, 3 to 4 lenses for each. When the A77 was released I noticed that the moving mirror had its days counted. Actually, I always used the mirror up setting even on tripods. But what got me was the permanent life view and all its possibilities. I sold all my Nikon stuff and today I have 2 A99 and keep the A900.  I hardly use the later, despite the quality of the image. The translucent mirror was just a step forward, the new line of A7 must be the standard from now on. I am ready to move.

My suggestion is that you rent the A7R II for your next job instead of the D800 and make an extensive test. So you will have your own impression about the quality of the equipment. Make the move progressively, buying the body with lenses that you don't have for Nikon.

The zoom lenses that you mention have flaws that can be noticed in 24 Mpix, with 42 you will be enlarging the defects (which means that you have a limited size of enlargement, maybe the same size of your output with the D7000). For video they may be OK, moreover when corrected by the camera. But if you will buy a zoom lens with video in mind I would bet in the 28-135 ($$$), which I am still waiting to see any test of its performance in still.

[Singingsnapper]

The main point is going mirrorless, getting rid of the mirror. That's the new approach, everything else may be attained with any camera. In my view, the mirror is obsolete. That is my feeling from using the new generation of cameras with permanent life view. The list of advantages is too large to write here. Anyway, that is just my opinion. If you still have any doubt, you should not make a radical change immediately. Make the move progressively. At one time I had Nikon D3X and the Sony A900, both full frame, 3 to 4 lenses for each. When the A77 was released I noticed that the moving mirror had its days counted. Actually, I always used the mirror up setting even on tripods. But what got me was the permanent life view and all its possibilities. I sold all my Nikon stuff and today I have 2 A99 and keep the A900.  I hardly use the later, despite the quality of the image. The translucent mirror was just a step forward, the new line of A7 must be the standard from now on. I am ready to move.

My suggestion is that you rent the A7R II for your next job instead of the D800 and make an extensive test. So you will have your own impression about the quality of the equipment. Make the move progressively, buying the body with lenses that you don't have for Nikon.

The zoom lenses that you mention have flaws that can be noticed in 24 Mpix, with 42 you will be enlarging the defects (which means that you have a limited size of enlargement, maybe the same size of your output with the D7000). For video they may be OK, moreover when corrected by the camera. But if you will buy a zoom lens with video in mind I would bet in the 28-135 ($$$), which I am still waiting to see any test of its performance in still.

you're suggesting that if the OP used the 16 - 35 and the 24 - 70 that he'd only got 16 useful megapixels?  Really?  Are you a gear head or a photographer?  A photographer would know that the size of a print changes the ideal viewing distance.  The larger the print, the greater the viewing distance.  Pixel Peeping is pointless.  It's like getting in a fast car and deciding you will just sit in it with bonnet up and the engine running instead of driving it.  Yes you might see the faults if you stand with your nose to the print.  But pictures are about taking a step back to enjoy the whole thing.  Go to the national gallery in London and look at Da Vinci's brushstrokes as closely as that and you will be  thrown out! By all means get the best lenses you can afford (and I wouldn't recommend getting the superzoom for a higher resolution camera) but saying that the 16 - 35 is only good for downsampling to 16 mp is quite honestly silly.  

[Singingsnapper]

Here is a review using the a7r: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1EFpCKQUN0

 

I am interested to see what you decide as I am considering that combination (a7rii and 24-240).

To be clear, I'm not considering the 24 - 240 at all.  

[Vetsky]

To be clear, I'm not considering the 24 - 240 at all.  

 

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I bought the FE 24-70 for both the a7ii and the a7rii.  I returned it and will just use 24-240.  My copy of the 24-70 was horribly soft.  I find the 24-240 to be very good.  

 

For the type of photography you mentioned in the initial post, I would go for the 70-200, and the 55.

 

My whole kit now is only 5 lenses.  The only lens I feel that I'm missing is a fisheye.

 

FE 55 1.8 

FE 16-35

FE 24-240

FE 90 macro.

FE 70-200

 

Good luck!

[alastc]

I went from Canon 5Dm3 with a 24-70/2.8 almost permanently attached (plus several other zooms) to the A7S, and it really changed my setup.

 

I got the 24-70/F4, and it is a good lens (I missed the extra stop, but for landscapes etc it was fine).

 

Now I use primes a lot more, and have two setups, lightweight day bag :

20mm voigtlander (canon fit plus adapter, manual focus)

35/2.8 FE

85/1.8 Batis (when it arrives, 55 FE in the meantime)

 

With the 35mm on, the camera will fit in some pockets! The space my 5Dm3 and one 24-70 lens used to take up now has that collection of lenses and camera. I'm pretty sure the whole lot is lighter as well

 

Then my heavy setup for trips:

16-35/F4 FE

551.8 FE

135/f2 samyang (manual focus)

 

The heavy setup is great quality, I'm not to keen on the 20mm, really hoping for an 18/20/21 loxia in future. I would also like a native >200mm prime, I'm still using canon for sports.

[EvanWasHere]

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I bought the FE 24-70 for both the a7ii and the a7rii.  I returned it and will just use 24-240.  My copy of the 24-70 was horribly soft.  I find the 24-240 to be very good.  

 

For the type of photography you mentioned in the initial post, I would go for the 70-200, and the 55.

 

My whole kit now is only 5 lenses.  The only lens I feel that I'm missing is a fisheye.

 

FE 55 1.8 

FE 16-35

FE 24-240

FE 90 macro.

FE 70-200

 

Good luck!

 

Op is back!

 

I have been doing a ton of research.. Watching lens videos, A7RII videos, reading reviews, etc.

 

I had also talked to B and h Photo (I live in NYC) and they recommended pairing the A7RII with the Canon 24-70mm, as that lens is the only lens comparable to my Nikon 24-70mm.  But then.. disaster.. Eye AF Lock.. one of the biggest things I want, does NOT work with the Metabones IV adapter.   This MAY be changed in the future, as Metabones devs won't even start working on their A7RII compatible firmware update till next week.  http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1379624/0  But I want to purchase something now.

 

After many reviews, I am giving up on the Sony 24-70mm.  It just has a bad rep.  BUT, I may revisit when Sony comes out with an update which SonyAlphaRumors mentioned will come in a few months.

 

You mentioned the 70-200mm.. But 70mm will still be to close up for what I need in my line of shots, especially in my small studio here in the city.  I won't link to my site as I am not using this forum for publicity, but here is a sample of my work so you can see what I am looking to do with my new Sony: http://imgur.com/a/W6TFZ

 

And the 55 1.8 sounds awesome, and something I will get, but I am already breaking the bank on the Nikon to Sony migration.

 

So.. What I am thinking.. Is to purchase the FE 24-240mm for now, as that is only a $1k cost.  And then get the Canon if Metabones gets eye AF working or the new Sony 24-70mm, if they fix their issues.  Hopefully, I am stopping by B and H with a model on Friday before they close and trying the camera and lens combo out.  I am buying everything from B&H, but here is my current shopping list on Amazon https://amzn.com/w/16WP5G7H1Q2AE  This migration will cost me $5k just to start playing.

 

Vetsky (or anyone else with the same combo): How is the 24-240mm shooting portraits (models)?  How about in a studio with only model lights?  Some reviews said there were focusing issues with older model cameras.  Has that been fixed with the A7RII?

 

Guys.. thanks soo much for all the help.  This thread really took off.  Got a lot of great info here.

[Wesley]

Mind as well get the FE 24-70 if you're thinking of the 24-240. Same distortion characteristic. They both have a lot of pincushion starting at 50mm+. The 24-240 has a bit less though. 

 

I think you would be set with the 55 and 35 judging by your picture link.

Or try out the A mount 24-70 with the Sony adapter at the store?

[Vetsky]

 

Vetsky (or anyone else with the same combo): How is the 24-240mm shooting portraits (models)?  How about in a studio with only model lights?  Some reviews said there were focusing issues with older model cameras.  Has that been fixed with the A7RII?

 

 

Truth is I don't know.  I mainly shoot landscapes.  For portraits I use the 55, the 90 and the 70-200.  Although it is usually natural light.  I get that in NYC your limited with your shooting space.  Like Wesley said above a 35 and 55 sounds like what you need. 

 

As for the focusing question. I usually shoot in the DMF mode, and have never had a problem.  I do use the 24-240 to do a lot of run and gun shots of my kids.  I use AF-C and it works very well.  No focus issues at all.

 

BTW did you know that with the A7rii you can use eye AF while in AF-C?

[EvanWasHere]

Argh.. you guys are killing me (and my wallet) 

 

Are you suggesting the FE 35 f/2.8 or the FE 35 f/1.4?  There is a thousand dollar difference!

 

The issue with me getting 2 lenses is that i would have to keep swapping lenses for shots.  I used to do this with my Nikon 24-70mm all the time, until I got a piece of dust (while on my roof) INSIDE the base glass of my lens.  That's why I am looking for an all you can eat kind of lens.  Less wear and tear as well as less time consuming.

 

I obviously shoot in RAW.. And when using Adobe Lightroom or Bridge, I always enable Lens Profile Correction on EVERY single photo I take, which fixes any lens distortion I have with my Nikon.  Does this not work with the Sony lens distortion problem?  Is there a profile for all the sony lenses?

 

And yes, Vetsky I did.  I also like the peaking option for when I will do group shots 

[Singingsnapper]

Argh.. you guys are killing me (and my wallet) 

 

Are you suggesting the FE 35 f/2.8 or the FE 35 f/1.4?  There is a thousand dollar difference!

 

The issue with me getting 2 lenses is that i would have to keep swapping lenses for shots.  I used to do this with my Nikon 24-70mm all the time, until I got a piece of dust (while on my roof) INSIDE the base glass of my lens.  That's why I am looking for an all you can eat kind of lens.  Less wear and tear as well as less time consuming.

 

I obviously shoot in RAW.. And when using Adobe Lightroom or Bridge, I always enable Lens Profile Correction on EVERY single photo I take, which fixes any lens distortion I have with my Nikon.  Does this not work with the Sony lens distortion problem?  Is there a profile for all the sony lenses?

 

And yes, Vetsky I did.  I also like the peaking option for when I will do group shots 

The lens correction tool in Lightroom will deal with most distortion, but it has its limits.  

[Wesley]

The 35 2.8 will be plenty good.

 

I would suggest trying out the Canon and Sony 24-70 2.8 with adapter at the store if zoom is on your agenda. 

 

Correcting distortion stretches pixels resulting in sharpness & clarity loss.

The trade off is good or negligible if the distortion was little to begin with but as I said with the FE 24-70...there was too much to correct that the stretched pixels created disproportion limbs as well.