Buying A7III What lens(s) will be best for ME?

[jawnw]

So, I am planning on buying an A7 III very soon. After doing a lot of research I think it's the best camera for me. With that said, I am not sure what lens(s) to start with. I've narrowed it down to a three options, but first I'll provide a little information on what I'll be using the camera for and my photo experience. 

I started shooting photos a while back using an Olympus E-520. I still have that camera and use it here and there, but it's so out of date that accessories for it are non-existent or hard to come by, and the camera it self is not in great condition. I have a 14-42mm and a 40-150mm lens for that camera which both came with the kit. The f-stop on both lenses isn't great, and I always had a hard time getting great bokeh with them. However they were sufficient for what I used them for. I always wished I could have had more range than the 150 but it did the trick.

I shoot mostly outdoor lifestyle, landscape, and action, with some portrait photography tossed in, mostly your typical family photos. The most important aspects to me are landscape and action photos. I am an avid whitewater kayaker and rafter and plan to shoot a lot on the river. This is where the zoom comes in, the 150mm on my Olympus was sufficient for reaching subjects in the water from a vantage point on shore most of the time. Anything less than that, would not have done it in many situations.

Another important note is that being outside most of the time, I want to be conscious of my gears durability and weather resistance.

If I had the money right now I think my ideal set up would be the A7III, the FE 24-105 f/4 G OSS, The FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS, and the new FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS.

Unfortunately I don't have 7k to drop right now. My budget is $3500. So the three options I have thought up are;

1. Sony A7III W/Kit 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 OSS, and the FE 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G OSS

- This gives me the best range, but I've read that the 70-300 has some quality issues when zoomed all the way in, and people overall don't seem to like that lens compared to other sony zoom lenses.

2. Sony A7III W/Kit 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 OSS, and the FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS

- This wouldn't give me as much zoom range as I would like, but it's a lens I know I would eventually want to buy. I also really like that the 70-200 is internal zoom so I don't have to worry as much about dust & grime getting into the lens barrel. I also know I can shoot in aps-c mode on that lens and achieve a 300mm zoom equivalent at around 10mp, which I think would be fine for now.

3. Sony A7III body only, and the FE 24-105 f/4 G OSS

- This doesn't give me any decent zoom for the time being, but gives me a nice lens for all around shooting. I do think the kit 28-70 will be fine for me, I am just a little concerned about it not being weather sealed. 

 

I'm split between my first and second choices, but leaning toward the second... 

Any advice, ideas or opinions are very appreciated!

Thanks,

John

[DrJohn]

For wildlife, I sometimes use the 100-400 mm lens and sometimes with 1.4x or 2x. But, if I don't want to carry that much weight while hiking, I will use the 70-300.

If it helps attached is a photo taken with the 70-300. No post processing. Only file size reduction for the internet.

John

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!

Edited August 17, 2019 by DrJohn

[Donald Mackie]

On 8/15/2019 at 3:38 PM, jawnw said:

So, I am planning on buying an A7 III very soon. After doing a lot of research I think it's the best camera for me. With that said, I am not sure what lens(s) to start with. I've narrowed it down to a three options, but first I'll provide a little information on what I'll be using the camera for and my photo experience. 

I started shooting photos a while back using an Olympus E-520. I still have that camera and use it here and there, but it's so out of date that accessories for it are non-existent or hard to come by, and the camera it self is not in great condition. I have a 14-42mm and a 40-150mm lens for that camera which both came with the kit. The f-stop on both lenses isn't great, and I always had a hard time getting great bokeh with them. However they were sufficient for what I used them for. I always wished I could have had more range than the 150 but it did the trick.

I shoot mostly outdoor lifestyle, landscape, and action, with some portrait photography tossed in, mostly your typical family photos. The most important aspects to me are landscape and action photos. I am an avid whitewater kayaker and rafter and plan to shoot a lot on the river. This is where the zoom comes in, the 150mm on my Olympus was sufficient for reaching subjects in the water from a vantage point on shore most of the time. Anything less than that, would not have done it in many situations.

Another important note is that being outside most of the time, I want to be conscious of my gears durability and weather resistance.

If I had the money right now I think my ideal set up would be the A7III, the FE 24-105 f/4 G OSS, The FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS, and the new FE 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 G OSS.

Unfortunately I don't have 7k to drop right now. My budget is $3500. So the three options I have thought up are;

1. Sony A7III W/Kit 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 OSS, and the FE 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 G OSS

- This gives me the best range, but I've read that the 70-300 has some quality issues when zoomed all the way in, and people overall don't seem to like that lens compared to other sony zoom lenses.

2. Sony A7III W/Kit 28-70 f/3.5-5.6 OSS, and the FE 70-200 f/4 G OSS

- This wouldn't give me as much zoom range as I would like, but it's a lens I know I would eventually want to buy. I also really like that the 70-200 is internal zoom so I don't have to worry as much about dust & grime getting into the lens barrel. I also know I can shoot in aps-c mode on that lens and achieve a 300mm zoom equivalent at around 10mp, which I think would be fine for now.

3. Sony A7III body only, and the FE 24-105 f/4 G OSS

- This doesn't give me any decent zoom for the time being, but gives me a nice lens for all around shooting. I do think the kit 28-70 will be fine for me, I am just a little concerned about it not being weather sealed. 

 

I'm split between my first and second choices, but leaning toward the second... 

Any advice, ideas or opinions are very appreciated!

Thanks,

John

Well.... from my perspective I own and still on occasion use the 28-70 kit lens and the 24-105 f4. Ironically I rented the 70-300 just this week thanks to a suggestion here on the forum. Unfortunately I have no experience whatsoever with the 70-200. I should mention that I’m not a diehard pixel peeper although tack sharp is always my primary goal after, content of course (I’d guess however that’s probably all of us). 

Here is my take. The 28-70 is a much better lens than any kit lens I’ve ever experienced. In virtually ever situation, except perhaps challenging low light scenarios, it consistently produces wonderful shots. Because it’s light it’s actually replaced my Sony 50mm 1.8 (which has turned out to be a bit of a dud) for my quick and easy walk around lens. Great color, very light, very little distortion and what little anomalies there are Lightroom fixes it immediately. Very sharp. The focus is fast, accurate and effortless. For me the 28-70 is a real bargain. It suffers from the “kit lens” perceptions but I do think it’s much better than many would imagine.

All of that aside I’d submit my 24-105 is a titanic leap ahead of the kit. Unless I’m in a lens specific situation (ultra wide or extreme low light) it’s on my camera 90% of the time. I love the colors of this lens, it focuses flawlessly, consistently tack sharp and works equally as well in casual and critical scenarios. I can’t say enough about the IQ this lens produces especially considering the focal range. I did a comparison at 35mm between the 24-105 and my Sigma Art 35 prime and although the Sigma was sharper the difference was surprisingly narrow with the only first glance difference being the 24-105 had some noticeable pin cushioning. Again easily correctable in Lightroom. This is on almost every level a fantastic lens.

I’ve only had the 70-300 for a week so my experience is limited but my initial impressions are that it’s very, very similar to the 24-105. I’ll know more this weekend but the colors appear to be very similar, I actually think the focus may be a tad quicker and what little backyard/neighborhood shots I’ve taken are equally as tack sharp even out at the far end of its reach.

This is only my take on things and for my particular needs but if it were me I’d probably build my lens collection around the 24-105, I have absolutely no hesitation. From there if you were looking to go telephoto long and still keep a sane budget I’d look towards the Sigma 100-400 with a MC-11 adaptor. I saw that lens on sale at Best Buy for $600.00. Sigma has been updating the MC-11 and as of the last firmware release it brings the performance of non-native lenses right up close to the Sony stuff. I use the MC-11 on an old Sigma 18-300 and focusing is absolutely great. 

I can’t say for sure just yet (this weekend will tell) but my gut reaction is if the budget allowed I’d still opt for the Sony 70-300 over the Sigma 100-400 but admittedly some of those tendencies have to do with my suspicions that the 70-300 is very, very similar to the 24-105. That’s more than enough for me to tip the scales.

The 24-105 and 70-300 would give you great reach and versatility, great IQ, focus and color. I guess the singular knock would be the f4 limit but honestly low light (particularly with how good higher iso levels look) has never proven to be much of a problem.

My 2 cents

 

 

 

 

 

[jawnw]

25 minutes ago, Donald Mackie said:

Well.... from my perspective I own and still on occasion use the 28-70 kit lens and the 24-105 f4. Ironically I rented the 70-300 just this week thanks to a suggestion here on the forum. Unfortunately I have no experience whatsoever with the 70-200. I should mention that I’m not a diehard pixel peeper although tack sharp is always my primary goal after, content of course (I’d guess however that’s probably all of us). 

Here is my take. The 28-70 is a much better lens than any kit lens I’ve ever experienced. In virtually ever situation, except perhaps challenging low light scenarios, it consistently produces wonderful shots. Because it’s light it’s actually replaced my Sony 50mm 1.8 (which has turned out to be a bit of a dud) for my quick and easy walk around lens. Great color, very light, very little distortion and what little anomalies there are Lightroom fixes it immediately. Very sharp. The focus is fast, accurate and effortless. For me the 28-70 is a real bargain. It suffers from the “kit lens” perceptions but I do think it’s much better than many would imagine.

All of that aside I’d submit my 24-105 is a titanic leap ahead of the kit. Unless I’m in a lens specific situation (ultra wide or extreme low light) it’s on my camera 90% of the time. I love the colors of this lens, it focuses flawlessly, consistently tack sharp and works equally as well in casual and critical scenarios. I can’t say enough about the IQ this lens produces especially considering the focal range. I did a comparison at 35mm between the 24-105 and my Sigma Art 35 prime and although the Sigma was sharper the difference was surprisingly narrow with the only first glance difference being the 24-105 had some noticeable pin cushioning. Again easily correctable in Lightroom. This is on almost every level a fantastic lens.

I’ve only had the 70-300 for a week so my experience is limited but my initial impressions are that it’s very, very similar to the 24-105. I’ll know more this weekend but the colors appear to be very similar, I actually think the focus may be a tad quicker and what little backyard/neighborhood shots I’ve taken are equally as tack sharp even out at the far end of its reach.

This is only my take on things and for my particular needs but if it were me I’d probably build my lens collection around the 24-105, I have absolutely no hesitation. From there if you were looking to go telephoto long and still keep a sane budget I’d look towards the Sigma 100-400 with a MC-11 adaptor. I saw that lens on sale at Best Buy for $600.00. Sigma has been updating the MC-11 and as of the last firmware release it brings the performance of non-native lenses right up close to the Sony stuff. I use the MC-11 on an old Sigma 18-300 and focusing is absolutely great. 

I can’t say for sure just yet (this weekend will tell) but my gut reaction is if the budget allowed I’d still opt for the Sony 70-300 over the Sigma 100-400 but admittedly some of those tendencies have to do with my suspicions that the 70-300 is very, very similar to the 24-105. That’s more than enough for me to tip the scales.

The 24-105 and 70-300 would give you great reach and versatility, great IQ, focus and color. I guess the singular knock would be the f4 limit but honestly low light (particularly with how good higher iso levels look) has never proven to be much of a problem.

My 2 cents

 

 

 

Thanks! I ended up going with the kit 28-70 and the 70-200. After hearing a lot of thoughts similar to what you said about the kit lens I'm sold on it being a killer lens for the price. I went for the 70-200 primarily because of the internal zoom. I think my next lens after saving some more $$ will be the 24-105 though.

 

 

[Toby97]

Hi

i bought the A7iii with the 28-70 kit lens a while ago, intending to upgrade to the 24-105 when funding allowed. I use Nikon MF lenses which take me back to the time when I started photography in the 1970s.

However,  I  initially regarded the Sony kit lens as likely to be barely average, but having used it to take advantage of the face recognition I am very impressed with the quality of the images that it produces, particularly at 5.6 and 8.

Doing further research and talking to Sony reps , it is widely viewed  as being as good as the Sony Zeiss 24-70 in many aspects as regards iq.

It  is also my understanding that it is weather sealed.

 

 

[photohack]

Hi

I understand that you have made your decision.  I am new here and just saw the thread.  For anyone who views this thread, I have an alternate opinion.  I chose a Sony RX10IV, which is a crop sensor and has the equivalent of a 28x600 mm lens.  It is truly a remarkable camera and I use it strictly for nature and wildlife shooting.  I recently purchased an A7RIII, with a 55mm f/1.8 ZA lens and a 16x35mm f2.8 G lens for travel, street and night photos.  Total cost of cameras and lenses was about $4,400.  However, the real benefit was that every time I went out to shoot, I did not feel like I had to carry around a dumbbell.  I sold my Nikon D500 and D850 plus 6 lenses including a 200-500mm long lens.  When attached to my D500, weight was more than 8lbs.  Got to old for that kind of workout.  the Rx10iv weighs about 2.5 lbs and the images are every bit as good as the d500 with the 200-500.  Just an alternative that works for me.

John