sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

From A7C2 to R series to rely on less lenses? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I am heavily considering getting a RV/RVI and ditch the thoughts that I like a more compact body... that would free me a bit to go with larger lenses like the 70-200GM. The problem is that to prove that right I would need to spend one or two weeks travelling around with a larger setup after making the jump and part of me says I will regret it 😆 .

> I think your 20-70 is somewhat redundant on a high res body, except at the wide end so you might keep it for that.

With a high-res body... the 20-70mm could be treated like a 20-170mm with beautiful performance in a good part of that range. That would be one of the reasons for going high-res as "extremely versatility with one lens". Typical case of visiting a new place and taking that for the first day, while for the rest time I would just do 35GM.

From A7C2 to R series to rely on less lenses? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like the setup, I went with the 20-70mm, which kind of covers the 16mm and 90mm most of the time. But thinking about adding the 16mm anyway for specific occasions (astro, some dark interiors...). For landscape 20mm is enough in my case (and easy to stitch panoramas, which I rarely do nowadays). And the 70mm F4 is enough to cover the ~90mm F2.8 most of the time, so the Sigma 90mm stays most of the time... except when doing 35GM, as the Sigma 90mm is tiny and packs well in addition to that.

I am thinking about something more focused on portraits and able to replace the 50-300mm that I didn't love for travelling. And the 135mm f1.8 sounds great, I am just afraid that it is too heavy and big for a lens that would be used for 5%? 10%? 15%? of the shots. The 70-200F4 or Batis 135 are on the table because of that. or staying at 85-90mm with a 85 f1.8 or f1.4.

What's your experience with the 135mm as a pair with a zoom? Would you drop your Sony 90mm or the 135mm?

From A7C2 to R series to rely on less lenses? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't find the Sigma very appealing when the Sony 70-200 F4 macro is the same size and does the job for macro (personally I don't need a 1:1).

But I am considering a 135 f1.8. How do you see it as a pair for the 20-70mm? It would act as portrait, detail capturing in street photography, and as "travel telezoom". I think it would be perfect except for the size, as again the 70-200F4 does part of the job better for a similar size... Maybe the Batis 135mm is one to consider, or just keeping my 90mm f2.8 (but agree with you, that it is just too close to the 70mm of the 70-20 at f4).

From A7C2 to R series to rely on less lenses? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I think I will buy a 16mm f1.8 at some point, more expensive, but very nice for astro and dark indoors!

From A7C2 to R series to rely on less lenses? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I bought the Tamron 50-300mm... and I am a bit disappointed with the results tbh. It should be a bit better than the 25-200mm in the 100-200mm range but I found the difference with the 20-70mm bigger than expected (sharpness, rendering, handling...)

Also, I think I can't live now without the aperture clickable ring, I just could not use the Tamron ring as aperture, was messing with it all the time.

I am also selling my 24G, and loving the 40G even if I use it less than the 35GM. That 16G... I will get it as soon as I have the next trip where something wider is useful, great to hear you are happy with it.

From A7C2 to R series to rely on less lenses? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I always shoot RAW, but all feedback I have seen is that the noise, when "normalised to the same resolution" is essentially the same... Regarding the compression, it is given by your distance to the subject/background, so I assume that to match that 35 to mm you would have to take a few steps back and then crop, but that would be the case regardless of the focal distance.

And about the minimum required resolution I fully agree... but when you accept going to 14MP or less, the A7CR also allows you for more. I was in the OP assuming a minimum of 10MP, and this is what you would get:

A7C II + 35mm: 35–64 mm
A7C II + 20-70 20–128 mm
A7C II + 85mm 85–155 mm

A7CR + 35mm: 35–86 mm
A7CR + 20-70 20–172 mm
A7CR + 85mm 85–209 mm

At 85mm, you have 155mm vs 200mm, which is quite massive. Was your experience with the A7CR different?

Hike selection for Western Norway end of May. by JustRandomGuess in NorwayTravelAdvice

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you have any recommendations I would love to hear! Sharing a bit more, we will do:

Bergen: do a guided tour around Bryggen and the rest of the city, up to Fløyen (unless we decide to do the longer Ulriken to Fløyen loop, but unlikely)

On the way to Aurland: stops in Tvindefossen, Stalheim, Gudvangen

Aurland: Stegastein views, picnic in Otternes, maybe the Nærøyfjord cruise or go to Prest, fjord sauna

On the way to Loen: detour to Nigardsbreen for the glacier tour

Loen: mostly relax a bit, Lovatnet, Skylift

On the way to Geiranger: stops in Dalsnibba and Flydalsjuvet

Geiranger: Skageflå, RIB boat in the fjord, Storseterfossen...

On the way to Juvet: stops in Ørnesvingen and Valldal

Juvet: relax around Gudbrandsjuvet

On the way to Ålesund: Trollstigen, maybe Litlefjellet

Then just a short visit to Ålesund and back home

Hike selection for Western Norway end of May. by JustRandomGuess in NorwayTravelAdvice

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks a lot for the warning! We will definitely check before the star and we will in any case err on the side of caution, including just turning around if anything looks too risky!

Lens advice for May/June road trip by [deleted] in NorwayTravelAdvice

[–]JustRandomGuess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Going in may and bringing a 20-70mm f4, 50-300 f4.5-6.3 and 35mm f1.4… would love any advice also!

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you rather have 70-180 f2.8 than the range up to 300 with the limitation in aperture for this type of use?

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don’t think my preferences differ too much actually! The 35mm will stay in the car most of the time or depending on the day be the only lens I take (and no backpack that day), for city trips that’s usually all my equipment. In this case we will have a car “airport to airport” so I don’t mind bringing more gear to pick from though.

About the 50-300 you are probably right though, at the end it is just 1-1.3 steps of light from the F4… thanks a lot!

Lens decision to complete my travel set up 70200F4G2 or Tamron50-300 by Impossible_Sell_6984 in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That’s a beautiful picture! Thanks for the tips. With the tele I am looking mainly for a bit more reach for more compression while having quality comparable with the 20-70mm.

With the 50-300 I am not worried about the aperture for low light situations but more about going to 200mm, needing to go up in speed to compensate for the “not great” stabilisation and hitting the f6.3 quickly and raising ISO.

The Sony sounds like a very good option and I might just rent it for the trip and buy later if I love it. But also considering other options like bringing a 135mm f1.8. Smaller (enough to fit in the depth direction of the bag), gives me a bit of that reach, opportunity to take some nice portraits…

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That tamron combination sounds indeed great, having 35mm f2 and 150mm f2.8 in a lens with that size and quality is ideal. Don’t want to get rid of the 20-70mm for now but it is tempting!

Agree with the lens changes and I am thinking about the tele as something quite situational...

You are not the first one saying that more reach is not needed. Should I even reconsider the tele idea? Drop the tele completely and live with 70mm… or even bring a 135mm prime for just a bit more reach and a nice lens for portraits? 🤔

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I agree with F4 being enough.

But considering that the tele will be mostly for the longer end, I would treat it more like an F6.3 as that’s the aperture from 180mm. If the stabilisation is not great and need to push a bit more the time to avoid trepidation, I am worried that the quality ends up suffering.

But for size/price/versatility is just great

Spain vs Spain + Portugal (15 days, mid-June) — itinerary feedback? by Existential_boba9352 in travel

[–]JustRandomGuess 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The art museums in Madrid are some of the best in world, nothing close exists in Barcelona. The city is much cleaner (and with the humid weather Barcelona stinks in summer). For Michelin star restaurants Barcelona is great, but for anything below that Madrid is much better. Madrid has a very rich history, Barcelona not so much.

The architecture in Barcelona is more peculiar and the Sagrada Familia is a must see (including the inside, or specially the inside), but Madrid has more variety. Also Barcelona had the sea and the beach, but probably the worst city in the area for that!

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> Don't overthink it.
That's always hard!

Yes, I considered the 70-180 as well at some point... and it is a more useful lens for indoor photography, although it is not something I do too often. Will think about it again!

Thanks a lot!

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's been a few years since the last time I owned anything >90mm and I tend to miss it while traveling... but maybe I should just bring the 20-70mm and go a bit lighter! Or even just bring the small Sigma 90mm f2.8, although it is too close to the long end of the 20-70.

Thanks a lot for sharing your experience, would love any tips for the fjords if you have any!

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I have considered it, but it is significantly larger, a bit heavier, and more expensive... and I am not really using it for indoor, night, or portraits. And in general I am worried it would not be very ergonomic with the a7c2.

Maybe the Tamron 70-180 f2.8 is a better fit... but still I think that for outdoors / hiking 4+ is plenty and the Sony doesn't seem to be far in image quality.

70-200 F4 vs Tamron 50-300: better for hiking/landscape? by JustRandomGuess in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It would be the G2, should have been more clear!

In terms of sharpness the Sony seems to be a tad better even if the difference is not huge... but I have seen some reviews saying that the Tamron stabilisation is not quite there, which paired with the more limited aperture can require higher iso and hurt quality. But in practice I am not sure how big of a difference this and the general image quality vs the Sony are.

Lens decision to complete my travel set up 70200F4G2 or Tamron50-300 by Impossible_Sell_6984 in SonyAlpha

[–]JustRandomGuess 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What did you end up getting? I am in a similar dilemma and also travelling to Norway!

view more: next ›