Jump to content

24-105 or 20 mm Lens?


Recommended Posts

My main shooting is wildlife, but occasionally landscape. My primary shooting lens is the Sony 70-300 mm. For the occasional landscape shots should I stick with the Sony 24-105 mm or get the Sony 20 mm prime? Weight is very very important. I no longer carry the 100-400 or 200-600 mm lenses because of back issues.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

To save weight, a prime would be the way to go, but landscapes can vary so much, a zoom might be warranted.  I'm happy with my Minolta 17-35mm.  There were a few versions over time, but they are pretty much the same.  There are similar zooms, such as 20-50mm.  You'll need to decide what weight works for you, but the 17-35mm covers most of the landscapes I see.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi John

It seems to me that weight increases with lower f stop numbers, so - as a general observation- an f/4 lens will be significantly lighter than the equivalent lens which is f/2.8 which in turn is lighter than an f/1.4.

So if you are happy to compromise low light performance and quality of bokeh for lightness this is worth considering using your 16-35 for this purpose.

It also looks like Sony are developing more lenses of a compact and therefore lighter design.

I probably don't need to tell you this, but.... the other thing to consider is , how you carry your camera/kit.

I have found my Peak Design "slide" a lot easier on my back than a normal length strap, there are also designs with extra weight distribution Eg: Black Edge "Curve" but I haven't tried them.

My Lowepro  "Fastpack" back pack is much better on my back than my messenger bag, but can be awkward twisting to get one arm out to swing the bag round to get at the camera compartment - I like the look of the Lowepro "slingshot" as a good compromise, distributing the weight nicely on the back whilst allowing relatively easy access.

I'm no physio or anything but I have worked outdoors in manual work for over 40 years and find careful choice of kit design and making good handling and movement habitual is usually more important than just looking at weight.

Link to post
Share on other sites

20mm G can be great for landscape.  You can even try for the 14mm but it is very wide.  Great for interior and exterior of buildings w/o much room.

If you have the 16-35 /f4 it doesn't really make much sense to get the 20mm G f/1.8 unless you want to include astro w/ the scenery.

If you are in an area with an incredible light polluted sky, it's not worth it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I went out shooting yesterday carrying the 24-105 and the 70-300 mm. My shoulder still hurts. It was ok in the woods. When I went to the beach, I had the 24-105 mm lens on the camera. The flying seagulls came out too small at 105 mm. I didn't dare change lens at the beach because it is against the law - Murphy's law.

I'm still thinking about the 24-240 mm lens. I normally shoot manual, 1/100 to 1/200 for landscape and 1/500 to 1/4000 for wildlife and flying birds. I shoot f/8 and auto iso.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just keep repeating myself: try an RX10iv. Sounds to me like the perfect answer to all your troubles. 24-600mm F/6.3-F/11 fullframe equivalent, all in a fairly portable package. No lens swapping ever again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pieter said:

I'll just keep repeating myself: try an RX10iv. Sounds to me like the perfect answer to all your troubles. 24-600mm F/6.3-F/11 fullframe equivalent, all in a fairly portable package. No lens swapping ever again.

I've been spell bound by the full frame fairy.

John

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand that, but I'm quite confident the 24-240 will not be satisfactory in your case. Fullframe is mostly about maximizing image quality at the cost of portability (and funds). The 24-240 gives neither great image quality nor great portability. Arguably the images from the RX10iv will be on par with a fullframe camera with the 24-240, while giving a lot more reach in a more portable package. You seem to care a lot about portability and versatility without the hassle of lens swapping, which makes the RX10 a sensible option in your case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When I need real portability, I grab my Konica Minolta A2 -- the great grandfather of the Sony RX10iv -- with a 28-200mm lens.  I got mine used for $10 -- with all the fixin's.  VERY portable, and VERY cheap.

Let me repeat -- when I need real portability,

Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks as though you're moving towards carrying one superzoom.

If the smaller range is acceptable, it might be worth considering the Tamron 28-200mm as it weighs 575g rather than 780g for the Sony 24-240mm.

I haven't tried either but the Tamron has wider aperture and reviews suggest it has better definition at the edges.

When I am using my longer lenses, I usually take my monopod. When in the area for wildlife I find it easy to move about with the camera over my shoulder (strap attached for security!!!) or otherwise I can use the monopod as a walking stick. - Howls of anguish and derision from some... but it works for me. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I found the combination of 70-300 and 24-105 on the A7C to be ideal for me. The next step is to get a case that will enable me to carry it easier. I found the Tenba Solstice 12L Backpack (2 pounds) works fine.

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 by DrJohn
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...