Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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!
Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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!

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

`

Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

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
  • Posts

    • From my records, Minolta made about 8500 85mm F 1.7 lenses bearing the MD badge. The MC-X version was slightly double that. So these are not that rare. I just saw an ad for a Limited Rare MD 45mm F2 lens ( Minolta made over a million of these) so the word rare is often used in a bizarre way. Seeing that the OP has a MD ROKKOR-X version and that he appears to have bought it from Europe is kind of unusual since the ROKKOR-X versions were to be sold exclusively in America. So in Europe, this lens naming was rare.  I think the confusion about a reworked version may come from the fact that during the MC-X era (1972-76), Minolta made numerous changes to their lens line-up. First they changed the lens Mount Index dot which was initially painted like their previous series of lenses but after about 1 year, they replaced this with a slightly larger diameter plastic bead. This change happened around the introduction of the X-1, XM, XK bodies. Then they removed the small Stop Down Levers that were on most lenses up to now around 1975 since their SR T and XK/XE bodies were now boasting a Stop down mechanism. Then a little later Minolta even removed the lens formula (in this case PG) designation from the lens markings. This may have caused people to believe there was some kind of modification to the lens when it was only a marking  change. Also around 1973-74 they decided to provide a different marking for lenses sold in America ( at least USA and Canada) to identify lenses sold on the grey market that was often cause for confusion with consumers buying a great deal they could not get repaired under warranty. Same applies to Bodies starting in the same era where  X-1 was for Asian market, XK for American market and X-M for rest of the world, then SR T 102 in America, SR T Super in Asia and SR T 303 in rest of the world. So you could find all of the following with their respective front markings: - MC-II: MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with SDL) This type has the hills and valleys metal focusing ring -MC-X: MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with SDL and Painted Lens mount index changed around 1973-74) -MC-X: MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with SDL and Plastic Bead Lens mount index changed around 1973-74) -MC-X: MC ROKKOR-PG 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with No SDL and Plastic Bead Lens mount index ) -MC-X: MC ROKKOR 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with No SDL and Plastic Bead Lens mount index and no more PG lens formula index) -MC-X: MC ROKKOR-X PG 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with SDL and Plastic Bead Lens mount index, Orange colored ROKKOR-X marking for the American market) -MC-X: MC ROKKOR-X PG 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with No SDL and Plastic Bead Lens mount index, Orange colored ROKKOR-X ) -MC-X: MC ROKKOR 1:1.7 f=85mm ( with No SDL and Plastic Bead Lens mount index and no more PG lens formula index, Orange colored ROKKOR-X) -MD-II: MD ROKKOR 85mm 1:1.7 ø55mm -MD-II: MD ROKKOR-X 85mm 1:1.7 ø55mm (Orange colored ROKKOR-X again for the American market) -MD-II: MD ROKKOR-X 85mm 1:1.7 ø55mm (White colored ROKKOR-X ( iguess orange paint was getting too expensive) ) It was then replaced with the MD-II MD ROKKOR (X) 85mm F 2 There was no MD-I version of this lens and the same with a few lenses with large apertures ( 35mm F 1.8, 58mm F 1.2, 300mm F 4.5) since they had issues with the speed of the aperture mechanisms closing down for what was  a last minute check on XD/XD-7 and XD-11 bodies requiring stopping the lens down just prior to the shutter opening to ensure accurate exposure. Some late MC-X lenses may have had the modified aperture mechanism causing the confusion that there was an updated version but the optical formula seems to indicate there was no change.

      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!

    • It could probably be used directly on the A7R ( or any other body using the Sony MIS shoe) in manual mode provided it can be positioned properly in spite of the zillion contacts Sony placed on these bodies at the front of the shoe which may prevent the shoe from making proper contact at the center. If proper central contact is not achieved, using a ADP-MAA adapter topped by a Minolta FS-1100 will do the trick. Tried it with older flashes like 360PX and a few others and it works. The issue with using it in Manual Mode is that due to the very short distances involved, calculating the proper aperture for correct exposure is a challenge. Add to this that the assist lights will not operate the way they were designed if at all.
    • I've found some great lenses that way too -- like a Tokina 24-200mm AF zoom on a Maxxum 5 for $20.  I sold the camera for $40 and kept the lens.
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...