Considering upgrading to Alpha A7R ll & What Lenses?

[jimbogreen]

Hi!

 

I am considering upgrading my current camera to the beautiful A7R ll. I currently have a Canon 700D DSLR, so I realise this is a big change, both in terms of system and also actual upgrade of camera being used. I had a few questions:

 

- Is this going to be a big learning curve for me? I would still class myself as an amateur photographer, but very keen to learn and aiming to make it (at the very least) a part time career and would love to build that with this camera

 

- Do people feel that this camera has expanded/freed their creativity, esp. when compared to using a DSLR? I love my Canon, but find it can be cumbersome and somewhat limiting when using 'on the fly'.

 

- How long has it taken for people to settle with this camera? I'm certain its something that I'll always be learning something new about, but an idea would be interesting.

 

- What lenses are recommended? I have somewhat diverse areas of interest - I love both landscape/travel photography, as well as culinary. I've read very good reviews of the Zeiss Batis 25mm, and I believe this would be a good lens for landscape/travel, but does anyone know how it is for culinary photography? Also, what are peoples experiences with this lens for portraiture? 

 

For examples of what I'm currently doing, my website is www.jamesmeadphoto.com

 

Any other thoughts for a newbie would be great.

 

Thanks!

 

James

[JonathanStewart]

I think you'll find the image quality to be a huge leap forward from your current Canon.  The menus will take some getting used to. I used the Sony DSLT camera before switching, so it wasn't as steep a learning curve, but most people find the Sony menus tricky at first.  The good thing is, you get lots of custom buttons and a dedicated FN button with a configurable menu to make your most-accessed functions easily available.  

 

I've been using the Batis 25mm since it came out. Great lens, perfect for landscapes and environmental portraits. I've never used it for food photography but I don't see why it wouldn't be fine for that. The distortion is pretty negligible. 

 

Get lots of extra batteries.  The A7R2 will burn through them.  On a good day of shooting, I can go through 3-4 batteries easily, and I actually have about 20 of them to take with me on long trips away from power outlets.  It comes with 2. If you buy 2 more, you'll be fine for just about any scenario as long as you can charge at the end of the day.  Also, you can charge and operate the camera with a USB battery backup (as long as you've enabled it in the menu and have a battery installed), which is an amazingly useful feature, especially for time lapses. 

 

Has it opened up my creativity? Probably not. It's been an improvement in image quality, which lets me crop more and keep detail. The dynamic range is also very good, and low noise helps as well.  These improvements have been incremental and not revolutionary to my end result. 

 

You can check out some of my work with the camera at http://www.jonathanstewartphotos.com/Featured-Albums  Most of those albums were shot with the A7R2, except for Mongolia in Winter, Peru 2015, and Guatemalan Highlands. 

[Gilgenberg]

i also used the Sony DSLT camera before and yes......the menu things are the point, so it was easy for me

 

i  have the A7S and yes things have been easier

ISO...... you can shoot when ever you want,

small size...... i have it with me all the time,

focussing tool and awesome EVF........i swapped to small manual lenses (like summicron 40mm) because of that......  so it´s getting smaller and lighter and less batterie consumption

and faster...

creattivity...no...it is more fun shooting, but i can not say my pictures are better...maybe a little bit worse...sometimes limitation brings up more creativity.....

but i am myself an amateur so i have no pressure to make good fotos...and to have more fun shooting is great

 

 

 

 

P.S.: Lenses:

 

are very subjective....AF or MF...high color contrast + sharpness vs low contrast + detail + B+W.....if you like high contrast go for Zeiss and if you like AF it is the Sonnar 55mm 1.8

i would go for prime lenses...but it is me...if you like more detail and MF go for Leica or Nikon glass ...my favorite in IQ is Minolta MC 58mm 1.2 but it is big and has not the punch of Zeiss lenses

..........you have to check for your self...it is so subjective...

[Golem]

Sooner or later pixel peepers will encounter this thread

and try to convince you that an a7R-II will expose huge

optical shortcomings in all lenses except for the most

exotic and expensive optics. Fuggdat. When all we had

was mid-to-late 20th century optics, nobody hesitated

to use whatever lenses they had on hand when they'd

wanna try some Pan-X or K-II film .... slow fine grained

film of far higher resolving power than the sensor in a

a7R-II. Howeverrrrr .... the nature of digital sensors, as

opposed to film, makes CA somewhat more visible than

the same lens would have shown on Pan-X or K-II. But

editing software can easily reduce visible CA to levels

not noticeably worse than we saw on film. 

 

So in general, if you were happy with your APSC lens kit

for the Canon, just scale up the FLs by 1.6X. Acoarst the

zoom ranges available for the smaller format were often

greater than FF offerings so you'll hafta compromise on

any extreme zoom dreams.

  

Since the alpha has IBIS your choice is broader than the

Canon offered ... assuming you care about stabilization.  

  

If you do serious macro, or tripod-bound hi-rez low-ISO

landscapes or architecture, you could save a bundle by

adapting legacy SLR lenses. No need for all the modern

high tech conveniences when bound to a tripod. IOW a

24-105 general purpose zoom deserves the full load of

conveniences but a 17mm for landscape or architecture

can be a decades-old SLR lens on an adapter.

  

As to adapters, I recommend Nikon-F mount. There are

absolutely great ancient lenses out there in mounts for

Minolta-SR, Pentax-K, etc, but users of those marques

didn't buy many ultra-wides, ultra-teles, long FL macros,  

or other gems. Nearly ALL such vintage gems are Nikon

F-mount lenses. Canon FD is in second place, but not

even a CLOSE second ... and the various generations

of the FD mount lead to grief in adapterland. Adapting

is absolutely MOST sane with Nikon mount. 

 

Do not cheap out. Nikon mount lenses cost more, and a

Metabones E-N/F adapter is $100 compared to all others

at $12 to $25, except for the Novoflex at $250 ! So, you

can satisfy you need to cheap out by choosing the Meta

Bones over the Novoflex :-)

[jimbogreen]

Thanks all of you for your really useful replies.

 

It has confirmed what I felt before - that while this camera is expensive, it really offers a huge step up from what I'm working with now and will produce some lovely shots (of course, great shots always require great vision).

 

Lens wise, am I right in thinking that the Batis 25mm is a good all-rounder? The reviews i'm reading seem to indicate this, but there is a lot of discussion as to whether its perfect for closer work (portraiture, food etc.). I suppose its down to personal preference. Any thoughts on the new Sony FE 50mm 1.8?

 

Thanks again for all the help!

[dmwphoto]

I migrated from Nikon and find:

Easy to use and understand

excellent image quality

short learning curve

chose 55mm f1.8, 90mm f2.8 macro

16-35 f4 

a light tripod

= happy camper 

[Golem]

25mm is not usually considered an "all-rounder". No denying  

that a 24, 25, or 28mm belongs in everyone's kit, but for most

users 35 or 50mm is the all-rounder FL, especially the 35. 25

[or 23 or 24mm] is a popular all-rounder for APSC ... perhaps

that's where you're coming from ?  

  

Your remark "but there is a lot of discussion as to whether its

perfect for closer work (portraiture, food etc.)" reinforces that

25mm is NOT general purpose. But why not see if you're one

of the non-typical users for whom it just might be your "go-to",

since it's an important lens for everyone. Buy it, as your first

lens. If it proves to be your go-to lens, way cool. If it proves to

you that 25mm is definitely not your all-rounder, it's still a lens

that you won't ever regret buying. All the kool kids have one :-)

[Zé De Boni]

It is not a matter of improving creativity. It is rather about the reward that you get from the increased quality. This may be controversial, since more detail, bigger enlargements and less noise are not universal goals for all kinds of photographers.

In fact, on a first moment that you use a new system, you may downgrade your ability to control the situations, which depending on the kind of work you're doing may lead to some deceptions. Some photographers can quickly get adapted, while others take long or even never get to have the same intimacy as with their former system. Allow some time to fully get the benefits.

For me, the higher ISO tolerance due to a less noisy sensor in the A7RII allowed a different metering approach. In many situations, working handheld, I use Manual speed and f-stop with Auto ISO, instead of a fixed ISO and Aperture priority. So I set a fixed speed according to the subject and the focal length and a fixed f-stop for best resolution. IQ is just marginally degraded at ISO values up to 3200, at least in my tests and standards. This doesn't mean being more creative, but rather getting focused on the subject and less distracted by camera settings. Surely, ISO 50 on a tripod is unbeatable.

About the lens for culinary photography, I see limitations using such wide angle. Normal to short telephoto macro lenses are the usual choice for this kind of work. The Sony G 90mm is the only native option and looks great in tests. I don't mean that you must stick to the rule, but with the 25mm you will get unconventional shots, with stretched out tridimensional objects on the edges. IMO perspective control macro lenses are the best for this kind of photography. And it is great to work with TS lenses in lifeview without a mirror in the optical path, checking focus all around the image area with the magnifier, which resembles the way we worked with large format cameras (with many advantages). 

If you want to go serious in that field, you should choose any of these lenses: 

Nikon PC-E Micro-NIKKOR 85mm f/2.8D Tilt-Shift Lens

Nikon PC-E Micro-NIKKOR 45mm f/2.8D ED Tilt-Shift Lens

Canon TS-E 90mm f/2.8 Tilt-Shift Lens

[BigMixxx]

I'm no pro...by no means.  My goal was to buy a full frame camera. Nikon was on my mind, until I read on the A7 line, and when the A7RII was available, I immediately scooped it up. Coming from an A6000 as my second camera and a Pentax K10D I used for EONs (What it seems 10 years), the 6000 was a VAST improvement. Color rendition, speed, and with the an adapter, wider automatic lens selection, there was something awesome.

 

I got rid of everything Pentax and got the A7rII (open box).  So you are making a good choice.

 

I'd recommend the 24 to 240 by Sony, if you want one lens.  My copy, I'd assume, is special, however, i think it's more the sensor at 42 megapixels vs the lens.  REALLY sharp on the A7rII, fills lots and lots of gaps and you have the option to fill in where needed.   I

 

Other recommendations include: 

if you have NO options, get the Sony/Zeiss 55, and you might be able to find it open box.  This is a magical lens. Extra Sharp, Color rendition is beautiful and gives you some beautiful bokeh wide open and tack sharp at 5.6.  But if you are into landscape, the Manual lens (loxia, rokinon) are said to be beaut's for this camera.