Good all-round lens for A7 camera

[RoniBurns]

Hi 

 

I am currently about to buy one of the sony A7 series cameras (not decided which one yet) and will need a good all round lens to shoot photos and video on. I used to use a 5Dmrk 2 with 24 -105 for a lot of my work but i have recently broken them both and need to replace them. 

 

I want a lens that is going to be small enough to keep the size of the A7 down to as well as be good for photos and video. Ideally i would like it to be a like for like of what i had before. So it would have auto focus for stills but also be good for manual focus on video. 

 

I am currently looking at getting the 24-70 f4 zeiss lens and then later getting a nice fast 35mm lens at a later date.

 

Or should i just buy a really nice prime 35mm lens and wait to get another prime lens when i can afford one?

 

 

I would really appreciate any suggestions over these two lenses and maybe what way i should go?

 

Many thanks 

[MikeTison]

buy the nice 35mm prime and wait for the 50mm 1.8

[markphoto4u]

I agree. I bought the 35/2.8 with some reservation, and have been pleasantly surprised with how useful it is. And I will tell you what -- if you have to walk around for a couple of ours photographing and scoping out new scenes, you will learn to love this lens in a hurry. I have been surprised at the number of keepers I have been getting with just this lens and no tripod. For example...

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!

 

 

markphoto4u

[JimmyD]

+1 for Mike's suggestion.  I would go for the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/1.4.  It has aperture control ring on the lens which can be "de-clicked" to stay quiet when changing aperture.  Lens is sharp straight from f/1.4 and IQ is very high (although the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 f/4 has good sharpness in center of frame, border and corners not so much).

[JimmyD]

I agree with markphoto4u that the Sony/Zeiss 35mm 2.8 is a great compact lens, it obviously is much slower than the 35mm f/1.4 and, more importantly, the manual focus is nowhere near as nice for video as it is on the 35mm f/1.4. 

[Gilgenberg]

i would also buy a good 35mm but a MF lens like the Minolta MD 35 2.8 first.

 

or a Minolta/Leica 40mm f2 Summicron.

Maybe the Sonnar 55mm 1.8 if you need AF.

If low light is your thing, go for the nokton 35mm 1.2 and Sony A7S

[RoniBurns]

OK so i think I'm going to go for a 35mm prime, but which one?

 

shortlist is:

 

Zeiss Loxia 35mm f2 (pros - small and great with sony a7 range / Cons - In the future i probably wouldn't use it on my Sony FS7 video camera)

 

sigma 35m 1.4 art + metabones (pros - Great lens and will work both on the A7 and the FS7 in the future / Cons - its big and heavy when coupled with the metabones)

 

Voigtlander 35mm 1.4 VM (pros - small and light as well as the cheapest option / Cons - for the future it will be too small to use on the FS7 video camera)

 

Any others to suggest think about?

[florinz]

This one http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=sony+35+1.4&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

[JimmyD]

So florinz and I are in the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 camp, but if that lens is not on your short list (why isn't it?) then I would next suggest the Loxia 355 f/2.0.  I have both of these lenses and go for the Loxia when I don't need the 1.4 speed or I want to travel light.  Size / weight is a big factor, as the 1.4 is a monster compared to the Loxia.  What you'd give up with the Loxia besides the speed are (1) autofocus; (2) a very slight bit of sharpness f/2-2.8, but the lenses are about equal in sharpness from there on; (3) bokeh (the Loxia is a bit more nervous); and (4) rendering (I think most would say ring of the Loxia is a bit more clinical.  Having said all this, there differences I allude to are not huge and they are both fantastic lenses; I think the huge gap lies between these two lenses and all other choices.

[steve of stonehenge]

I have said this over and over but for the record: The best overall first lens is the Sony 55 f1.8.  It is reasonably priced and has great image quality.  For me it is the go to lens over and over.  I have the 25 and 85 Batis and love them both.  But the 55 focal length works so well for people shots.  For landscapes (or a group of people) you can't beat the Sony 35 f2.8.  It is so light and compact.  The Batis 25 is wider and faster but much more expensive.  Another reason to buy the Sony 55 is the availability of used ones on Ebay.

[jstevensphoto]

I like the little 35 F2.8 for strolling around town, but my fav. has to be my 24-70 F2.8 GM.   Yeah, its big and heavy, but the IQ is outstanding.

[Gilgenberg]

like said the minolta MD 35 2.8 is very good, better than the Voigtländer 35mm 1.4

 

the loxia has 2.0 and a very good focus system but is much more expensive 10x more than the minolta

 

i think the sonnar is much to expensive but if you have the money i would go for the Loxia, i fyou want to spare some money go for the minolta it is excellent IMOH

[Golem]

i would also buy a good 35mm but a MF lens like the Minolta MD 35 2.8 first.

...........

Yeah. It's cheap, so you can open it up and disable the auto-iris

and get rid of the clicker spring on the aperture selector ring. 

  

You could do the same to an AI Nikkor 35/2.0, but it costs a bit

more to purchase one, altho you do get something extra for the

extra cost ... actually two somethings: Obviously it's a faster lens

but the second something won't be obvious til you use it. Images  

from this lens are just eye-popping. Beats me how it rates in any

"Objective Lab Tests". I judge a lens by its real world results. 

  

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!

  

  

   

   

   

   

There you have it, hard cross light, backlight, dusk light, real world

...... or at least as "real" as things get in the summer haunts of the

rich and famous :-) These are a7II images, pretty much the whole

frame. ISO 640 for the bright cross lit shot, ISO 1000 for the others. 

 

The mid-day shots are at absurdly fast shutter speeds so what you

see is whatever the lens delivers. The dusk shot is at 1/60 so quite

likely all that spastic dancing has caused some subject-motion blur.

And it's a deep scene with insufficient DOF, yet the rendering looks

crisp enuf, despite lacking contrasty lighting. There's not one single

detail in there that's absolutely sharp but the scene looks very real.

That's what I mean about loving the real world imaging of this lens.

[slobanet]

I agree. I bought the 35/2.8 with some reservation, and have been pleasantly surprised with how useful it is. And I will tell you what -- if you have to walk around for a couple of ours photographing and scoping out new scenes, you will learn to love this lens in a hurry. I have been surprised at the number of keepers I have been getting with just this lens and no tripod. For example...Image1461108158.331753.jpgImage1461108185.504260.jpg

 

 

markphoto4u

Zeiss 35mm F2.8 is great, great lens. 

[IamJF]

I also have the Seiss 35/2,8 and it IS great :-) But sometimes would wish for less DOF - so I would also suggest the 55/1.8 as great allround lens. Combined with 1635/4 for landscape and video and 90/2.8 for close ups and headshots this would be a nice set.

 

If you want to go manual look after Contax/Zeiss lenses! You get the Zeiss look with a little less contrast and more flare then the most modern Zeiss lenses - but for sure better then Minolta etc.. Belnds good into the new Seiss lenses (my setup: 1635, 35/2.8 and 90mm Seiss, 50//1.7, 135/2.8, 200/3.5 Contax/Zeiss)

[Batis]

I would vote in order:

 

Sony 16-35/4

Batis 25 (may be a bit too wide for some)

Sony 35/2.8 (I also have the Sony 35/1.4 and no way I would choose the 1.4 over the 2.8 for most occasions)

[Berek]

I have said this over and over but for the record: The best overall first lens is the Sony 55 f1.8.

 

Funny, it was the first lens I bought for the A7 and I've used it maybe 2 or 3 times since. Never been on my A7RII yet. It really depends on what you shoot but the first lens should always be something more versatile.

[duncanfoxphoto]

I actually have a completely different take on this than everyone else. If you're specifically buying an a7, not an a7ii, not an a7s/r/etc, and you're shooting video, you're going to appreciate a lens with image stabilization more than a fixed focal length with a fast aperture. For my choice, I'd suggest the humble 28-70 kit lens, which actually tests better in sharpness than the Zeiss f/4 variant at the wide end, and boasts IS. It's a plastic beast, so it's lightweight and versatile, and you can get it bundled with the a7 for not-so-much-money.

 

However, if you're looking to directly replace your previous lens, my other (much more expensive) choice would be the PZ 28-135 f/4. It would do everything that the kit would do, everything that your previous lens would do, and also has variable speed power zoom, which is wonderful for video. IS included, fixed max aperture, and longer at the wide end for some impressive closeups or distance action.

[jstevensphoto]

I actually have a completely different take on this than everyone else. If you're specifically buying an a7, not an a7ii, not an a7s/r/etc, and you're shooting video, you're going to appreciate a lens with image stabilization more than a fixed focal length with a fast aperture. For my choice, I'd suggest the humble 28-70 kit lens, which actually tests better in sharpness than the Zeiss f/4 variant at the wide end, and boasts IS. It's a plastic beast, so it's lightweight and versatile, and you can get it bundled with the a7 for not-so-much-money.

 

However, if you're looking to directly replace your previous lens, my other (much more expensive) choice would be the PZ 28-135 f/4. It would do everything that the kit would do, everything that your previous lens would do, and also has variable speed power zoom, which is wonderful for video. IS included, fixed max aperture, and longer at the wide end for some impressive closeups or distance action.

 

 

Couldn't agree more.   My wife shoots an A7r (not an a7rii) and she either uses the "humble" 28-70 or the 16-35 f4 because they are both stabilized in the lens.  The little 28-70 is lightweight, stabilized and not that bad for a kit lens.  I sometimes put it on my a7rii when I get tired of carrying my 24-70 F2.8 G.   

[dcisive]

+ on the 35mm f2.8 Zeiss Sonnar. One of those gem of a lens items available to be sure. So small and light but man what amazingly sharp, contrast filled and colorful output. 35mm is one of the most ideal walk around focal lengths as well.

[Batis]

A great all around lens probably is best summarized with a zoom. I would go with the 24-70/4. It takes a lot of heat on the internet (rightly so in a lot of cases) but I have found my copy to be quite good and for video, it has image stabilization built right in. Works with my a7 great.

 

If I were to buy one prime to get me started, it would be the 35/2.8 or 55/1.8. I would lean toward the 35/2.8 since I would rather be wider but that is my personal preference. 

 

I have a few of the 24-70/4 lens on my Youtube channel. I own all the lenses I mentioned above. Can't go wrong. It's nice having so many lenses to choose from. 

[jstevensphoto]

A great all around lens probably is best summarized with a zoom. I would go with the 24-70/4. It takes a lot of heat on the internet (rightly so in a lot of cases) but I have found my copy to be quite good and for video, it has image stabilization built right in. Works with my a7 great.

 

If I were to buy one prime to get me started, it would be the 35/2.8 or 55/1.8. I would lean toward the 35/2.8 since I would rather be wider but that is my personal preference. 

 

I have a few of the 24-70/4 lens on my Youtube channel. I own all the lenses I mentioned above. Can't go wrong. It's nice having so many lenses to choose from. 

 

 

I have the new 24-70 G on my A7rii and I think it is the best walk-around I have ever had.   Big and heavy, but the quality is just amazing.   Thought about getting the 24-70 F4 for my wife's A7r, but she likes the little 28-70 and it has stabilization.   What I really want is for the Vello adapter that was supposed to come out in May to ship and hopefully work.   Be nice to use some of my old Nikon lenses.   B and H keeps pushing back the ship date.   If it actually works, I'm probably done buying lenses.

[beartheben]

Much of this question is answered by if you value image quality or versatility. I'd imagine professionals lean on the iq side, hobbyists(like me) go for versatility.

 

I was in a similar situation when I purchased my a7ii about a year ago. I went with the 35 f2.8, for its small size, the main reason I moved to mirrorless. I had tried the 28-70 and didn't like it too much, as well as read the iffy reviews about the 24-70 f4, and the 35 cost less. The 35 has been quite the jack of all trades. I didn't purchase any more lenses until recently, so it's actually served me so well for all types of photography the past year, that I wasn't sure what lens I wanted next. Some shots from the 35: https://www.flickr.com/photos/131675814@N07/shares/21h8Q5

 

Ended up settling with the 24-70 f4 and the 85 batis, tried the 24-70 gm, it was too large despite godlike image quality. Despite not the best reviews the 24-70 f4 is quite sharp actually, can't obviously tell the difference most of the time between it and the 35 unless you go extreme pixel peeping. The flexibility is awesome despite being a bit bigger, I actually wish I had gotten it first instead of the 35, as I'm usually in situations where some more flexibility would help.