Art and Photography

Sony full frame lens suggestions?

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 7th, 2019 12:11 pm
Tags:
None
Newbie
Oct 31, 2018
6 posts
9 upvotes
If you don't mind switching lens around, you can go prime lens setup.
I use the following lens setup :

Sony FE 28mm F2.0
Sony Zeiss FE 55mm F1.8
Sony FE 85mm F1.8

For zoom lens, I would pick sony FE 24-105 f4 over tamron 28-75. if money no object , go for 24-70 gm lens (it's heavy lens).
[OP]
Member
User avatar
Jul 5, 2006
369 posts
166 upvotes
twitchyzero wrote:
Dec 31st, 2018 1:50 am
enjoy your new toy~
Lol I didn't get it yet! Just tested my friend's
[OP]
Member
User avatar
Jul 5, 2006
369 posts
166 upvotes
Any experience with the 16-35?
Member
Nov 24, 2009
380 posts
39 upvotes
Ottawa
I bought a7iii very recently and went with Sony 24-105mm f/4 G. It costs me over 4k and was a bit painful cuz I've never spent that much money on camera. But I'm totally happy with the result.
Deal Addict
Sep 3, 2005
2799 posts
405 upvotes
Vaughan
kevwo wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2019 8:18 am
Any experience with the 16-35?
16mm on full frame is a lot wider than 16mm on crop, just keep that in mind.

I've owned both f4 and f2.8 GM versions of the lens. I'm going to assume you are considering the f4 version. If so, its definitely not as good as the GM version. But it's also much cheaper. The f4 version is sharp until around 28mm. Gets softer after that. But if you mainly use it at wide/mid focal lengths, it's an excellent lens, especially since your just starting out. The lens isn't too heavy or big imo, just the right size and weight. The GM version on the other hand is just a tad bit heavy, and a tad bit too big imo. The f4 version isn't a bad lens at all, it's just the GM version is better.
For Sale

Nothing at the moment
Newbie
Oct 31, 2018
6 posts
9 upvotes
Alternative for wide angle zooms 10-18mm F4.0 APSC lens (FF equivalent 15-27mm) .
I am still using it and it works great for taking landscape and it's a lot cheaper than FF 16-35mm. it is smaller than FF lens. I carried all my three prime lens i mentioned above and this for my trip to Europe last year.

10 -18mm F4.0 ~1000$ (i got mine long time ago for 800$ so yea)
FE 16-35mm F4.0 ~1800$
FE 16-35mm F2.8 GM ~3200$

Sample pic with Sony 10-18mm
ImageAncient Rome
Deal Addict
Sep 3, 2005
2799 posts
405 upvotes
Vaughan
I'd be cautious with the 10-18 on full frame. Photos can vary, depending on the scene. Here's a shot i took a while back. You can see the distortion, its terrible. Not only is there distortion, the corners and edges of the photo are smudged and soft, because of the distortion. The central part of the image is pretty good though. Not all the photo's produced from the 10-18 will look this bad, but it does happen. I found the 10-18 to work well around 14-15mm. It is a cheap way to get an uwa lens on full frame though. Plus lens is super compact, and light when compared to the native full frame alternatives. I guess really comes down to how particular you are about your photos, or how much work you want to put in fixing distortion. My experience was a little different than what WillamT above experienced.

WillamT1451, great photo.

ImageTestphoto by Phu Vong, on Flickr

Here's what happens when you do a little bit of correcting the distortion. You do lose a a bit of the photo, still not perfect, but not a bad alternative if you're on a budget, and don't mind the fact you can't go past 18mm.

ImageTestphoto2 by Phu Vong, on Flickr
For Sale

Nothing at the moment
Deal Addict
Aug 4, 2008
4176 posts
1096 upvotes
Toronto
kevwo wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2019 8:18 am
Any experience with the 16-35?
phuviano wrote:
Jan 3rd, 2019 4:30 pm
16mm on full frame is a lot wider than 16mm on crop, just keep that in mind.

I've owned both f4 and f2.8 GM versions of the lens. I'm going to assume you are considering the f4 version. If so, its definitely not as good as the GM version. But it's also much cheaper. The f4 version is sharp until around 28mm. Gets softer after that. But if you mainly use it at wide/mid focal lengths, it's an excellent lens, especially since your just starting out. The lens isn't too heavy or big imo, just the right size and weight. The GM version on the other hand is just a tad bit heavy, and a tad bit too big imo. The f4 version isn't a bad lens at all, it's just the GM version is better.
I have the 16-35 GM and it's the best lens when compared to the competing offers from Canon or Nikon. It's a lot lighter than Canon's 16-35 Mark 3. A lot sharper and puts out great starbursts. The only drawback is that the barrel isn't sealed like Canon's but its still weather sealed.

It's useful as an all around UWA that can also stop down to help with astro.

I was eyeing the 12-24 F/4, but it's an F4 and has a bulb front element. If they update it to a f/2.8 I will likely pick it up as long as it performs like other GM lenses.

The nice thing about the 16-35GM is that its 82mm and can use the same filters as my 24-70GM.
Deal Addict
Aug 12, 2004
3995 posts
1291 upvotes
Calgary
OP have you considered getting A mount lens with the LA-EA3 adapter and get some cheap full frame A mount lenses? I have stuck with the A mount (got the A99II), and the deals you can get on A mount lenses are significant. Even if I do eventually switch to the E mount, I will keep using most of my lenses. A mount lenses with SSM or SAM will work with the LA-EA3 , (even Eye AF). Lenses with screw focus can only Manual focus, or require the bulky LA-EA4 adapter and limited AF.

I have the following

Sony 50 mm 1.4 (cheap lens but still pretty good and still use it, better options and would need LA-EA4)
Sony ZA 85mm 1.4 (screw AF, will need LA-EA4 to auto focus, got for 900$)
Sony ZA 135mm 1.8 (screw AF, will need LA-EA4 to auto focus, 1200$)
Sony ZA 24mm 2 SSM (will work 99% as well as a native lens, either 900 or 1000$)
Sony 70-200 2.8 SSMII (beast and I got it for only 1300$)
Minolta 100 mm Macro (300$ for the 1000-1200$ E mount equivalent, you would not want it to AF ). extremely good lens, even it being over 30 years old, buy it on ebay from Japan and get a good copy.

Others I am looking for, the Sony ZA 24-70mm 2.8 SSMII, the Sony ZA 2.8 16-35mm, both would be absolute beasts.

Using A mount lens can save you quite a bit, and there are still some lenses missing from the E mount system, that can be had for cheaper.

Top