Zoom lens for Landscapes

[sonya7iiman]

Hi all my first post here!   

I've recently got a Sony a7ii body and purchased a Samyang 14mm f2.8 mainly for nightscapes.

I'm now looking for a do all landscape zoom lens on a bit of a budget.

I'm currently looking Canon EF 70-200mm f4 L USM (£525+£50 Fotga adapter) and wondered if there is any other budget high quality options out there?

I don't care much for auto focus, or a fast lens. I'm just looking for the best possible glass and FOV coverage for my money.

Thanks!

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

What type of landscape photography do you do?

 

Did you use any zoom for landscapes before you got the Sony?

[sonya7iiman]

What type of landscape photography do you do?

 

Did you use any zoom for landscapes before you got the Sony?

I really like intimate landscapes, forests, a nice looking barn or an old tree in the country. And I love the compression of a zoom lens on a landscape with lots of rolling hills (which is exactly what the land is like where I live).

I do like the "norm" of a wide lens for landscape, but I prefer the look and feel of a zoom for landscapes like this - https://flic.kr/p/o6aJh7

I haven't used a zoom before as this is my first  "real" camera. I had an old Fuji many years ago & used my mobile for photography until recently when I wanted to take it a bit more serious.

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

A 70-200 lens sounds about right in that case.

 

I have a couple of pointers if you're going for a manual focus adapter. First you'll need to use the magnify function to make sure you're in focus. Focus peaking is unreliable and will pick out contrasting areas such as trees against sky, even if they're not in focus. Using magnify all the time means shooting on a tripod, otherwise it's too fiddly. So you'll have to buy the tripod collar as well, which is $100 or so.

 

If you don't want to spend to get native AF or Adapted AF, I would suggest going the other route which is vintage primes. For instance, Minolta has very good primes at 135mm and 200mm. They cost very little but have excellent IQ. They're also a lot smaller and lighter, i.e. easier to handle than the Canon 70-200.

 

The alternative is to go for the Sony 70-200/4. If you buy it second hand it won't be much more expemsive than the Canon with the adapter and collar. It has good IQ plus AF and OSS, which will make shooting much easier and versatile.

[sonya7iiman]

A 70-200 lens sounds about right in that case.

 

I have a couple of pointers if you're going for a manual focus adapter. First you'll need to use the magnify function to make sure you're in focus. Focus peaking is unreliable and will pick out contrasting areas such as trees against sky, even if they're not in focus. Using magnify all the time means shooting on a tripod, otherwise it's too fiddly. So you'll have to buy the tripod collar as well, which is $100 or so.

 

If you don't want to spend to get native AF or Adapted AF, I would suggest going the other route which is vintage primes. For instance, Minolta has very good primes at 135mm and 200mm. They cost very little but have excellent IQ. They're also a lot smaller and lighter, i.e. easier to handle than the Canon 70-200.

 

The alternative is to go for the Sony 70-200/4. If you buy it second hand it won't be much more expemsive than the Canon with the adapter and collar. It has good IQ plus AF and OSS, which will make shooting much easier and versatile.

Yeah my Samyang was manual and soon learnt that focus peaking isn't very accurate, I don't mind having to manual focus using the magnify function though as I feel it makes me think about the image much more than just clicking to auto focus.

As for Minolta and vintage lenses, they look really great I've seen a lot on philipreeve.net but finding them in decent condition and up for sale is quite tricky, I'm pretty clumsy too so a brand new lens with a warranty is a must if I'm spending upwards of £500. I'll be sure to buy a nice vintage 50mm + macro at some point tho!

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

If you're not using AF, you can go for the manual Minolta lenses (MD/MC). Sometimes they're optically superior to the later AF lenses. They're also built for manual focus, which means they have smoother and more precise focus rings.

 

For instance, you can buy the Minolta MD 200/4 or 135/3.5 for less than $50 each. They're as sharp as nails at f5.6 and have lovely colours.

 

There's also the manual Minolta MD 70-210/4 which is a wonderful lens, superior to the beercan. You can get it for around $50.

 

Also, remember that you'll be holding and operating a long, heavy lens while using magnify on the camera. It's trickier than a short light lens. My prediction is that you would get fed up with operating the large canon 70-200 manually. It will be big and heavy with the adapter. It'll be tough to hold the camera to operate zoom and focus on the lens. You really need a big grip DSLR for that.

 

So, that's my thoughts on the matter. Hope you find something that works, mister.

[steve of stonehenge]

If you're not using AF, you can go for the manual Minolta lenses (MD/MC). Sometimes they're optically superior to the later AF lenses. They're also built for manual focus, which means they have smoother and more precise focus rings.

 

For instance, you can buy the Minolta MD 200/4 or 135/3.5 for less than $50 each. They're as sharp as nails at f5.6 and have lovely colours.

 

There's also the manual Minolta MD 70-210/4 which is a wonderful lens, superior to the beercan. You can get it for around $50.

 

Also, remember that you'll be holding and operating a long, heavy lens while using magnify on the camera. It's trickier than a short light lens. My prediction is that you would get fed up with operating the large canon 70-200 manually. It will be big and heavy with the adapter. It'll be tough to hold the camera to operate zoom and focus on the lens. You really need a big grip DSLR for that.

 

So, that's my thoughts on the matter. Hope you find something that works, mister.

 

 

Jaf is right about the weight of the Canon 70-200 f4 hand held.  It is heavy.  However, it works very well on the A7 ii with a Metabones IV adapter.  Focus peaking works well in Manual mode as does the magnification feature when in Manual mode on the A7.  It works much better on the tripod.  And if it looks hard to hand hold the 70-200, try the 100-400 which is 50% heavier.  Quite a beast.  Here is a 100-400 hand held shot with the A7 ii:

 

1/125 second, 153mm, ISO 100, f4.5

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[markfireblade]

Does the A7ii have IBIS?

[Guest Jaf-Photo]

True. The OP intended to use an mf adapter to save costs. A metabones adapter is quite expensive, so if you buy it new with a new Canon f4 lens, that's basically the same cost as buying the native Sony f4, which is preferable in several ways.

 

Jaf is right about the weight of the Canon 70-200 f4 hand held.  It is heavy.  However, it works very well on the A7 ii with a Metabones IV adapter.  Focus peaking works well in Manual mode as does the magnification feature when in Manual mode on the A7.  It works much better on the tripod.  And if it looks hard to hand hold the 70-200, try the 100-400 which is 50% heavier.  Quite a beast.  Here is a 100-400 hand held shot with the A7 ii:

 

1/125 second, 153mm, ISO 100, f4.5

[holmes4]

Does the A7ii have IBIS?

Yes.

[jstevensphoto]

Since you don't need AF, you might look at the Rokinon 12mm F2.8.   I use it for landscape and architecture.  I use a little cheap program called Fisheye-Hemi from Imadio Software.   ($32 with tax on-line.) The program takes out a lot of the fisheye look, but you still maintain the full 180 degree view.     I just set the aperture manually at 5.6 or 8 and set the focus ring to 2ft. to infinity and the camera is basically a pt. and shoot.   Pretty sharp  little lens for $350.   

[Chrissie]

Since you don't need AF, you might look at the Rokinon 12mm F2.8.   I use it for landscape and architecture.  I use a little cheap program called Fisheye-Hemi from Imadio Software.   ($32 with tax on-line.) The program takes out a lot of the fisheye look, but you still maintain the full 180 degree view. 

 

 

I myself am also torn between the Samyang 12mm f2.8 (which is said to be equivalent to the Rokinon), and a recently dug-out Venus Laowa 12mm, which claims a near "distortion free" image. Of course, nobody can defy the laws of physics, and the lens does seem to do a remarkable job at keeping straight lines straight. Which would make it very well suited for architectural application. But, at a price. See this report for details on the downsides. (Scroll down until you come to the greenhouse series of shots.)

 

The Venus Laowa keeps straight lines straight, but stretches horizontally more than vertically. Not too much of an issue in architectural photography, but once people become involved, it will be. In Landscape photography, distortions shouldn't be too much of an issue with both lenses.

 

An then again, the Venus Laowa comes at almost double the price of the Samyang/Rokinon ...

[jstevensphoto]

I myself am also torn between the Samyang 12mm f2.8 (which is said to be equivalent to the Rokinon), and a recently dug-out Venus Laowa 12mm, which claims a near "distortion free" image. Of course, nobody can defy the laws of physics, and the lens does seem to do a remarkable job at keeping straight lines straight. Which would make it very well suited for architectural application. But, at a price. See this report for details on the downsides. (Scroll down until you come to the greenhouse series of shots.)

 

The Venus Laowa keeps straight lines straight, but stretches horizontally more than vertically. Not too much of an issue in architectural photography, but once people become involved, it will be. In Landscape photography, distortions shouldn't be too much of an issue with both lenses.

 

An then again, the Venus Laowa comes at almost double the price of the Samyang/Rokinon ...

 

Actually, I got the Samyang/Roikinon for $350, no tax or shipping from B&H.    But those images from the Venus were close to distortion free.