Yesterday I ordered the Sony a7iii camera body. As I was ordering it, several levels of insurance policies were offered, which I did not buy as money is tight. My question is whether I should have bought one of them. First camera, so not sure what is the norm.
I just acquired a couple of months ago the Sony a6000 to start into serious photography (I used to shoot IPhone and even if I love it, I've always looked for better and true stunning photos), I paired it with the Sigma 16mm F1.4 and love the versatility and the results especially the image quality. I've used primarily as an all-round, travel, every day photography even environmental portraits in low light.
I'm very excited since just received the A7III in addition to start in the FF world and I'm just trying to decide the first lens should I buy for, after reading and watching a lot of reviews I narrowed my search to the following candidates:
Sony 24-105mm F4 G, very useful focal length range and super sharp, F4 aperture may be compensated by increasing ISO in low light situations.
Tamron 28-75mm F2.8, standard zoom lens for landscape, portrait and street photography, the F2.8 and apparently good sharpness is something really gets me.
Sony Zeiss 50mm F1.4 / 55mm F1.8 standard primes, the overall performance and good perks of the 55mm are great, but the reviews about the stunning pop ("like magic") of the 50mm image quality really wants me to incline for this lens, is that really good?
Sony 24mm F1.4 G Master, in pre-order right now but I really expect an excellent performance and to be a go-to for landscape photography and overkill the previous experience with the Sigma 16mm 1.4 (APS-C).
I can just afford 1 lens this year (I won't be buying another lens even after savings) and don't mind to be walking in or out to get the perfect composition, I just want to get the best experience and image quality and start building my lens kit after time.
Thank you for the feedback!
I am planning on selling my Canon 6D II and getting an A7III in the coming months and wanted some advice.
I was considering getting the Metabones V but I rather use the native lenses (I will probably add the new Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 once released and if it is good) so I'm thinking the MC-11 may be the better option. The reason for this is, the only lenses I plan to adapt is the 16-35 f/4L and 100L which both are used for static objects and don't require fast AF (long exposures, landscapes and still life) and would rather save money being that Metabones is twice the cost.
I don't really shoot any fast paced action shots, just mostly landscapes, still life and the odd portrait. Does this plan seem logical and like a good idea?