Pick one (just one) lens for a short trip

[elrey]

Hello, I am new here and just switched to a A7 system. I am currently using some F mount and M42 lenses (so manual focus), because until this point I didn't want to invest heavily on E-mount lenses. My only problem with that solution is that the whole system is huge (big lenses + adapter) and I am not getting the aperture information on the EXIF of my pictures. In the same way, if I have any hope to apear on the pictures, I will need an autofocus lens (to lend the camera to my gf for example).

 

After reading a lot of reviews I have two favorites: Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar 24-70 mm (with mixed opinions) and the Carl Zeiss Batis 25mm. I like the idea of flexibility that the 24-70 will deliver, but the Batis appears to be just amazing. I mostly shoot landscapes, buildings and family/friends in groups (I seldom shoot portraits). Yes, I am totally partial to Zeiss lenses, I still have (and sometimes use) a +35-years-old one that my father bought.

 

Saying that I have a question:

If you are going to stay in a city for 2 days with your mirrorless camera, which (E-mount) lens would you bring? (http://goo.gl/b7TALD)

 

All comments / feedback is appreciated.

thanks!

[Guest all8]

Batis 25mm, because you want photos of friends (plural).

[maximum]

You shouldn't forget the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar 16-35. It would be my first choice for landscapes and buildings and would also do very well for family/friends in groups.

The Batis is smaller, lighter and of course faster, but less flexible.

[addicted2light]

In a city (I assume walking quite a bit) two days? The Sony 28/2: small, light and quite probably you will be hard pressed to see any difference with the Batis hand-helding the shots without IBIS. Besides, not that much fine detail that you care of in a city (not so in a natural landscape), IMHO.

 

Spend the price difference in a gift for your gf and I can assure you'll have a much nicer vacation

[Gilgenberg]

I second the Sony 28mm F2

[elrey]

You shouldn't forget the Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar 16-35. It would be my first choice for landscapes and buildings and would also do very well for family/friends in groups.

The Batis is smaller, lighter and of course faster, but less flexible.

I haven't use it, but I didn't "like the idea" mostly because the 16-35 doesn't appear to perform that well at 35mm

[steve of stonehenge]

Here are two shots taken recently on a trip to Idyllwild in Southern California. 

 

1.  My first choice would be the 55mm f1.8.  This is a great rating lens, small, light and not too expensive.  (Check used ones on Ebay.)

 

FE 55mm at f8, 1/800, ISO 100

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!

 

 

 

2.  My Second choice would be the 35mm f2.8.  It is also light, small and not too expensive.

 

FE 35mm f22, 1/250, ISO 100

[tinplater]

I would just add that, having both the 55mm 1.8 and the 35mm 2.8 (Zeiss) I would take both!  They are stellar producing images of exceptional sharpness, clarity, and "pop".  If I were to choose just one it would be the little 35mm...it is almost non existent it is so small and lightweight.  By cropping I can achieve high quality images the equivalent of short telephoto with a lesser lens.

[Golem]

Whatever closely approximates a 35/2.0.

 

I don't know [nor care] what the native lens

line includes, but 35/2.0 is not usually huge,

has enuf DOF for P&S use, and enuf speed

for nights or indoor stuff.

 

I've never had a problem handing a non-AF

rig to a non-user. I just pre-focus it. I've had

enuf problems handing an AF to a non-user

[often targets wrong distance] that I learned

I hadda use manual pre-focus instead of AF.

 

Thus my A7M2 managed for 3 weeks away

from home with just an old AI Nikkor 35/2.0.

 

EDIT: I just noticed the illustrated post that

recommends the native 35/2.8. If it's priced

favorably, I might even get one. Same goes

for you ... Get one ! 2.8 is close enuf to 2.0,

especially if it results in a very compact lens.

[azradiohead]

I have the 24-70 and while it's not my sharpest lens, it's the one that get's the most use.  I came from a Canon system a year and a half ago and kept a 24-105 F4 on my camera most of the time.  I really like the sharpness and faster apertures that prime lenses offer but the trade off is you don't always have room to zoom with your feet.  The few times I wanted something wider out of my 24-70, I just held steady and shot several panning shots and stitched them in Lightroom, Photoshop, Hugin, or whatever I felt was right for the job.  The new Lightroom Panorama Stitcher is really cool and outputs DNG files so you still have all your RAW editing capabilities that you would with a single image.  For me if I was traveling and could only take one lens it would be the 24-70.  You could always rent one if you want it for traveling but aren't sure about owning it.  The edges are my only real issue with it and on my copy it's usually only if I pixel peep that it bugs me, prints have always turned out fine.

 

Another thing to consider is if you want or need Image Stabilization.  You didn't say which A7 you have, if it's a A7II or A7RII with IBIS.  The Batis and 28,35,55 primes don't have OSS but the 24-70 does.  I wasn't paying attention to my shutter speed over the weekend during the blood moon and I shot a two second exposure with my A7Rii and 24-70 of a building at the observatory.  It has some movement when zoomed in, but it actually looks good as my desktop wallpaper.  My point is that with non moving objects, IBIS and OSS really make a difference.

 

Good luck with whatever you choose, I hope you have a great trip and make some memorable images.

 

Cheers!

[elrey]

I have the 24-70 and while it's not my sharpest lens, it's the one that get's the most use.  I came from a Canon system a year and a half ago and kept a 24-105 F4 on my camera most of the time.  I really like the sharpness and faster apertures that prime lenses offer but the trade off is you don't always have room to zoom with your feet.  The few times I wanted something wider out of my 24-70, I just held steady and shot several panning shots and stitched them in Lightroom, Photoshop, Hugin, or whatever I felt was right for the job.  The new Lightroom Panorama Stitcher is really cool and outputs DNG files so you still have all your RAW editing capabilities that you would with a single image.  For me if I was traveling and could only take one lens it would be the 24-70.  You could always rent one if you want it for traveling but aren't sure about owning it.  The edges are my only real issue with it and on my copy it's usually only if I pixel peep that it bugs me, prints have always turned out fine.

 

Another thing to consider is if you want or need Image Stabilization.  You didn't say which A7 you have, if it's a A7II or A7RII with IBIS.  The Batis and 28,35,55 primes don't have OSS but the 24-70 does.  I wasn't paying attention to my shutter speed over the weekend during the blood moon and I shot a two second exposure with my A7Rii and 24-70 of a building at the observatory.  It has some movement when zoomed in, but it actually looks good as my desktop wallpaper.  My point is that with non moving objects, IBIS and OSS really make a difference.

 

Good luck with whatever you choose, I hope you have a great trip and make some memorable images.

 

Cheers!

 

Hello and thanks for your post.

I have a 7s... I know, probably I shouldn't care that much because its "only" 12 MP, but I want a lens that can outlive the camera body (specially if I am going in the $1K range). Also, I was thinking about spending a few $$ to test the 24-70 for a weekend.

[yali]

I'd recommend the 16-35 as well. For buildings and landscape the wider focal lengths are better and get you more interesting pictures.

[seb]

landscape: 16-35. it's a great lens with a little back at 35 but otherwise great.

street: 35/1.4 > 35/2.8 > 28/2 > 55/1.8 > 25/2

(the batis is at the end, because (for me) 25 is too much for street fotography).

 

Actually you can't go wrong with any ot these lenses. They are all great. Choose the focal length you prefer and go with it.

[elrey]

Additional Question, I want to try the Sony/Zeiss 24-70, anyone can recommend me a place to rent it? (I was checking lensrentals.com, is it a good place?)

[holmes4]

I'm leaving tomorrow for Greece - am taking both the 16-35 and 24-70. I have been very happy with the 24-70, the 16-35 hasn't gotten much of a workout so far.

[Alexi]

I just got the Batis 25, walked around whit it test-shooting yesterday, it doesn't feel that heavy or big.

[elrey]

I just got the Batis 25, walked around whit it test-shooting yesterday, it doesn't feel that heavy or big.

 

 

When did you order it? My guess is that I will have to wait at least 2 moths

[tedbahas]

Good choice!

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Golem]

Since first encountering this thread, I have been

overly conscious of my singular lens choice. I still

find 35/2.0 a great choice, but I realized I just

love carrying a single lens and letting my "camera

mind" see everythig as suitable for the lens on hand

as long as that lens is:

 

1. Anywhere from 24 to 50mm [for 24x36mm]

2. F/2.8 or faster

 

On my APS and 24x36 Canons I've grown waaaay

fond of the 24 and 40mm f/2.8 pancakes.

 

 

`

[foto-fanatic]

@golem,

I can understand the single lens philosophy you refer to Golem, it forces one to make the very best use out the limits imposed, it requires more thought to achieve artistic integrity.

Challenges one to think harder about the shot and how to make it work, i got 3 lenses in my kit atm and often limit myself to one of them when shooting outside without any particular theme involved, and rotate them around like that.

i often come back to the zoom tho for its flexability.

Growing to love the couple of old nikkors i use, they are not the sharpest but the colours and spatial integrity is superb. I think its easy to get hung up on sharpness, now i shoot soft deliberately sometimes because it has its own look and feel.

 

So for me its the zoom if i had only 1 lens to choose from, the 70-200f4.

 

@steves landscape=very creative with the rock and the sun, i like.

[joshinthecity]

Easiest question ever.

 

RX1R.

 

:-)

 

j.

[holmes4]

I just returned from 2.5 weeks in Greece with my A7ii. I took the Sony 16-35 and 24-70. Most of the time I used the 16-35 as I needed the wider angle, but there were a couple of days where the 24-70 was better. I could have lived without the 24-70 if necessary. I did also have an RX100ii which did fine when I used it.

 

Earlier I went to Ireland with just the 24-70 (didn't have the 16-35 yet) and it was fine, though there were times I wanted a wider view.

 

I am very happy with both the 16-35 and 24-70 lenses.

[delewin]

Have you considered the FE 24-240?

 

Fors:

1. A travel lens for all occasions.

2. No need to change lenses all the time to "get that shot".

 

Cons:

1. Not consistently sharp across the lens plane.

2. Not as fast as other lenses.

3. If you want wider than 24 mm, you would need to take multiple images and stitch together.