Jump to content

Lens kit choices

DGC

By DGC,
in Sony Alpha Full Frame Lenses

 Share

Recommended Posts

DGC Newbie

DGC

Posted
Posted

Would like a little feedback on this please. I am shooting with the Sony A7RV body, currently have the 16-35, 24-70, 100-400 Sony lenses. Just ordered the 70-200 2.8 GM2 to replace the 100-400 because I rarely use 200-400 range, only if I need to see something in the distance, rarely for a useable image. I shoot mostly landscapes, mountain imagery. I can always get an extender if I need to go beyond 200 on the 70-200. So the next thing I am considering is selling the 24-70 2.8 GM original or version 1. I was thinking of getting either the 50 or 55mm prime instead and having a much sharper lens vs the 24-70. I usually shoot the 24-70 at 40-70 range. Has anyone done this with any of the 61 mp bodies and felt no need for the 24-70 in favor of a 50? My thought is 70 is covered with the 70-200, 24-35 is covered with the 16-35, so why not? What do you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pieter Mentor

Pieter

Posted
Posted (edited)

As a landscape photographer you'll have plenty of time to swap lenses so kinda makes sense. The 61Mp sensor also allows for some cropping if you can't get the framing right with a prime. For any other purpose I wouldn't want to miss a general purpose zoom in the 24-70 range.

If by 55mm you mean the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 55mm f/1.8, it's been much acclaimed in the past but do bear in mind those reviews are 10 years old. By today standards it's mediocre at best and it's even being outperformed by the new generation of zoom lenses. One thing I personally hate about this lens is the dreadful amount of LoCa. If your budget allows I'd much rather get the new 50mm f/1.4 GM. Even the Sigma 50mm f/2 is a much better (and cheaper) option.

Edited by Pieter
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
Go to topic listing

  • Posts

    • XKAES
      JPEG options?

      By XKAES · Posted

      I'd suggest you start by running a simple test.  Take pictures of a typical scene/subject and each of the JPEG settings your camera offers.  Then compare them in the output that you normally produce.  You may or may not see a difference.  I normally shoot at the highest JPEG level and save that file -- but make a smaller file (lower resolution) for normal/typical use. There's plenty of editing that you can do with JPEGs on your computer -- depending on your software -- and there are features in your camera that can help out, as well.  That depends on your camera.  Put them together, and it might meet your needs.  For example, your camera probably has several bracketing features that will take the same shot with different settings with one press of the button.  Then you can select the best JPEG to work with on your computer.  I frequently use this feature to control contrast.
    • Cameratose
      JPEG options?

      By Cameratose · Posted

      If you set up some basic presets in your processing software and use batch processing, you don't need jpeg at all. I shoot RAW only, use (free) Faststone Image Viewer which will view any type of image file to cull my shots, and batch process in Darktable. I can start with 2000-3000 shots and in a matter of a few hours have them culled, processed, and posted. A handful of shots, say a couple hundred from a photo walk, are done in minutes.  This saves card space, computer space, and upload time.  The results are very good for posting online. When someone wants to buy one or I decide to print it, I can then return to the RAW file and process it individually for optimum results.  I never delete a RAW file. Sometimes I'll return to an old shot I processed several years ago and reprocess it. I have been very surprised how much better they look as my processing skills improved.  
    • Pieter
      JPEG options?

      By Pieter · Posted

      If you're only publishing small-sized photo's or viewing on a phone / computer screen, 12-ish MP should be more than enough for your needs. Since with JPEG, the ability to 'fix' stuff on the computer is very limited anyway, you're not giving up much except the ability to crop/recompose after taking the shot. If you tend to crop often or might print large, shoot fine quality instead as JPEGs don't take up a lot of space anyway. I tend to shoot RAW+JPEG. After a trip/shoot, I download my photos to my computer and quickly scan through my JPEGs to select my keepers. The JPEGs are fine for 90% of my needs but at times there are one or two 'WOW'-shots that I might one day print large. I'll edit the RAW of these photos to my hearts content, generate a JPEG, then delete all RAWs to clear up space.

  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...