Sony Landscape on a budget...

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
No - buy the body and lens, then as funds recovery buy more lenses :)
true but also depends on how quickly one can recover. OP hasn't told us that information.
Personally it'd take me a good 3-6 months to recover or rather gather £500-1K for a new lens. In worst case scenario that's 6 months with just one lens for me which isn't ideal I'd say (especially considering that one lens is an UWA prime! not even a normal prime like 35/50mm).
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Well I've handled the new A6/7 series bodies, used to own an NEX. I dunno. It comes down to things as simple and dumb as 'I cannot easily use this camera wearing gloves' and 'these controls are frustrating.' I didn't really want to get into the whys and wherefores of it, as I realise these things are going to be different for different people.
Thanks for putting some substance in and I agree although I've never had a camera I could easily operate wearing gloves unless I set it up as a point and shoot first. My Canon DSLR's were no better in this respect and neither was my Nikon SLR or any of my RF's.

I just get bored, tired and irritated by those who criticise brand X with zero substance so I'm happy if you're not one. This isn't a new thing of course and I remember Nikon fanboys bemoaning the rise of Canon who should of course have stuck to making photocopiers.

I have an A7 and no complaints about it's handling other than when I want to move the focus point as I sometimes inadvertently call up the choices to change the size of the focus point. Other than that' it's fine. I've looked and keep looking at the A6xxx line but there being no front dial puts me off as does the 1/4,000 max shutter speed which makes shooting at wide apertures with fast primes a problem. These two criticisms affect the new A7c for me too.
 
Last edited:
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
Ok. REET.

If I go for the IV and ONE lens... which should it be for landscape? One lens that isn't the 20mm f/1.8 as I'll probably hold off for a month and buy it after payday.

Thank you SO much for the input. All of it is valuable. Even the porsche drivel ;)
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Or buy the A7Riii and 2 lenses....
true but also depends on how quickly one can recover. OP hasn't told us that information.
Personally it'd take me a good 3-6 months to recover or rather gather £500-1K for a new lens. In worst case scenario that's 6 months with just one lens for me which isn't ideal I'd say (especially considering that one lens is an UWA prime! not even a normal prime like 35/50mm).
Good points well made.

Depends what budget and expenditure the OP is comfortable with.

Re the one UWA prime. It is a limiting choice in some ways...but it also makes you work hard

For instance I reckon for just my area I could do a lot with just that lens alone. Let me demonstrate what a full frame camera with one 20mm prime and you can tell me just how limiting you think it would be. I guarantee you this - if the OP turned up to a workshop with an A7r4 and a 20mm lens, I could give them a whole days photography...

Just my local patch over a 7 month period in 2018 with a D810 and 20mm F1.8.

_DSC2386 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC2375 - Version 3 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3105 - Version 3 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3055 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3781 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3700 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3744 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3401 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

I am not saying I would want that as my only lens for ever and ever...but I reckon I could make it work for a period.

If you feel you need longer take it portrait if the sky is epic, crop it square...lots of creative opportunities with just a 20mm
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
Ok. REET.

If I go for the IV and ONE lens... which should it be for landscape? One lens that isn't the 20mm f/1.8 as I'll probably hold off for a month and buy it after payday.

Thank you SO much for the input. All of it is valuable. Even the porsche drivel ;)
If I could only have one lens personally it'd be 24-105mm f4.
I know the prime purists trying to get max out of their sensor may rain down on me for suggesting it but it's a good enough lens to do a multitude of things inc. enough resolving power to use in APS-C move on A7RIV to get a bit of extra reach when you need it.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
Good points well made.

Depends what budget and expenditure the OP is comfortable with.

Re the one UWA prime. It is a limiting choice in some ways...but it also makes you work hard

For instance I reckon for just my area I could do a lot with just that lens alone. Let me demonstrate what a full frame camera with one 20mm prime and you can tell me just how limiting you think it would be. I guarantee you this - if the OP turned up to a workshop with an A7r4 and a 20mm lens, I could give them a whole days photography...

Just my local patch over a 7 month period in 2018 with a D810 and 20mm F1.8.

_DSC2386 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC2375 - Version 3 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3105 - Version 3 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3055 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3781 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3700 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3744 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3401 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

I am not saying I would want that as my only lens for ever and ever...but I reckon I could make it work for a period.

If you feel you need longer take it portrait if the sky is epic, crop it square...lots of creative opportunities with just a 20mm
very nice indeed!
but in the examples you posted I can see that there are two styles of compositions applied to varying subjects. that was kinda my point. of course you can get a bit more creative with different style crops etc and A7RIV would certainly have more than enough pixels to support that.
I am not trying to offend, actually on the contrary you make a very good case for 20mm (and nearly convinced me to buy one!)
 
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
then buy one lens for all landscape photography?
I find that more limiting and creatively limiting than lack of pixels tbh.
Yep one lens can be quite limiting, however if you are purely just doing Landscape then one good zoom lens could be all you need.
Ok. REET.

If I go for the IV and ONE lens... which should it be for landscape? One lens that isn't the 20mm f/1.8 as I'll probably hold off for a month and buy it after payday.

Thank you SO much for the input. All of it is valuable. Even the porsche drivel ;)
You will get hundreds of different answers as to which lens Tbh. I prefer a zoom as I have more flexibility for different compositions and I’m generally stopping down to f11 so any sharpness advantages of a prime is somewhat negated (depending on lenses). I have the 16-35mm f4 (didn’t go for the f2.8 for the reason mentioned about stopping down, plus weight is a MAJOR consideration for me) and have been really impressed with the detail when used on the A7RIV. Of course if you want the absolute best then it would have to be the GM or a prime, but I would say that light and technique will have far more bearing on the quality of your image.
Good points well made.

Depends what budget and expenditure the OP is comfortable with.

Re the one UWA prime. It is a limiting choice in some ways...but it also makes you work hard

For instance I reckon for just my area I could do a lot with just that lens alone. Let me demonstrate what a full frame camera with one 20mm prime and you can tell me just how limiting you think it would be. I guarantee you this - if the OP turned up to a workshop with an A7r4 and a 20mm lens, I could give them a whole days photography...

Just my local patch over a 7 month period in 2018 with a D810 and 20mm F1.8.

_DSC2386 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC2375 - Version 3 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3105 - Version 3 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3055 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3781 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3700 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3744 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3401 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

I am not saying I would want that as my only lens for ever and ever...but I reckon I could make it work for a period.

If you feel you need longer take it portrait if the sky is epic, crop it square...lots of creative opportunities with just a 20mm
Nice pics, you’ve been to some lovely places.
And on a 24mp sensor it will be excellent...will it really hold up on a 61mp? If it were me, and my advice would be to look at the G master 2.8 zooms and/or the Ziess Otus primes on the 61mp.
You need deep pockets for those ;)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
And on a 24mp sensor it will be excellent...will it really hold up on a 61mp? If it were me, and my advice would be to look at the G master 2.8 zooms and/or the Ziess Otus primes on the 61mp.
Its better than the DSLR variants of that lens which weren't that great tbh especially at the long end. It does fairly well on even on the 61mp sensor. I agree that its not as good as a f2.8 zooms but you still have more resolution to play with at 105mm than a 24-70mm cropped 1.5x to 105mm.

something like a sigma 24-70mm/2.8 (mirrorless version) and the Tamron 70-180mm f2.8 would of course be better for just landscapes. but we are talking like 3x the prices here of just a 24-105mm f4.
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
One lens? For landscape?

OK. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 plus a No.4 close up filter. That's not a choice many will go for :D

Wide angle lenses are both capable of striking results and being frustratingly limiting and I just wonder if a wide and only a wide will do, unless you limit yourself to subjects that show them off :D or are a blogger. At one time my most used lens was a 20mm and at another a 12-24mm but I think going down this route needs careful thought. Ditto long lenses, long lenses can get you some striking landscape pictures but they're utterly useless for some situations.

Another possibility is going for something relatively normal (field of view or zoom range wise) for flexibility and going for stitching if it's not wide enough and if you have time to take the shots and crop for a tighter view if you have the mp's.
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
Or even 50mm?

In these days of stitching and cropping a 50mm might be quite nice as it can even double up for quite tight people shots and thin DoF uses. Plus some are quite well or even very well corrected.

See the Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO Lanthar.
 
Messages
2,490
Name
Lee
Edit My Images
Yes
Somewhere in the middle...... If you've big pixels you can crop without issue. If you need wider on occasion, you can stitch. Personally I prefer to stitch than shoot wide.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Or even 50mm?

In these days of stitching and cropping a 50mm might be quite nice as it can even double up for quite tight people shots and thin DoF uses. Plus some are quite well or even very well corrected.

See the Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO Lanthar.

A good 50mm prime can do wonders for landscapes...Sigma ART though...

I'd rather have just a 20mm over just a 50mm but still I could make do with one as my only lens for a while.

_DSC4091 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC0850 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC4913 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3850 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC3891 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC1297 - Version 4 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC2471 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
One lens? For landscape?

OK. The Voigtlander 35mm f1.4 plus a No.4 close up filter. That's not a choice many will go for :D
On a Sony A7r something I could make that work also. I used my 35mm ART a lot too. 50mm is great for landscapes but kinda restricting. It has it's place but 35mm is more versatile.

_DSC0973 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC4611 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC4716 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC4232 - Version 2 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

_DSC5268 - Version 2 by Stephen Taylor, on Flickr

However just posting these posts makes me realise that of all the primes I had, the 20mm was probably the one I used the most often in Glencoe, which is the place I shoot the most. The 50, 35 were very versatile but in all honesty I think the OP is making a sound choice with the 20mm and say they approached me for a workshop booking in Glencoe and said - Stephen - what lens do you think I would need the most for your Glencoe workshop out of a 20mm, 35mm or 50mm prime and I'd hands down say 20mm.

I am not trying to offend, actually on the contrary you make a very good case for 20mm (and nearly convinced me to buy one!)

Quite frankly I think you should buy one. A wide prime is a wonderful wonderful thing to have in the kit bag. It opens up lots of styles and say it is too wide, shoot portrait, crop square, 4x5, 3x4 or shoot landscape and crop some of the sides off 4x3 etc.

Let the creativity and imagination run :D
 
Last edited:

sirch

Official Forum Numpty 2015,FPOTY 2020
Messages
10,268
Name
Chris
Edit My Images
Yes
You seem convinced that you need a prime, I'm interested to know what advantages you think a prime will give you? A 16-35 zoom gets you lots of lenses in one package.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
So, basically buy all of the lenses? :p

Is 35mm too close to 20mm? Which35mm wins in terms of quality (for a reasonable price)

Yes. Buy them all. 20, 35 and 50 are probably all the primes you really need.

You seem convinced that you need a prime, I'm interested to know what advantages you think a prime will give you? A 16-35 zoom gets you lots of lenses in one package.
Optical quality. In Nikon land the 16-35 is a bit of a turd, whereas the 20mm is lovely and you don't miss the 4mm off the short end. In sony land that might well be different. The 16-35 Nikon was stupidly bad at 35mm, the 24-70 decent but the Sigma ART 35 in a class of its own. It could well be different in Sony land.[/QUOTE]
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
So, basically buy all of the lenses? :p

Is 35mm too close to 20mm? Which35mm wins in terms of quality (for a reasonable price)
They aren't close.

In order of sharpness:
Sigma ART 35mm f1.2 DN
Sigma 35mm f2 DN
Sigma ART 35mm f1.4 (this is a DSLR design lens modified to work on e-mount natively. It's good for stills but sucks for video)
Sony FE 35mm F1.8 and Samyang 35mm f1.8 AF FE (they are about the same.... Samyang probably touch sharper for landscapes)
Samyang 35mm f1.4 AF FE
Sony Zeiss 35mm f1.4 (avoid this tbh unless you need the best AF and f1.4)

There are some manual lenses for voigtlander and Zeiss. There are some 40mm options also.

Optical quality. In Nikon land the 16-35 is a bit of a turd, whereas the 20mm is lovely and you don't miss the 4mm off the short end. In sony land that might well be different. The 16-35 Nikon was stupidly bad at 35mm, the 24-70 decent but the Sigma ART 35 in a class of its own. It could well be different in Sony land.
In Sony land most UWA zooms are great and also a decent size. For example the 16-35mm f2.8 GM is same size as Nikkor 16-35mm/4

I have had many of the Sony UWA zooms and they have all been decent to really great. Currently using the 12-24mm f4 which is amazing.

The tamron 17-28mm f2.8 is said to be very close to GM level, so that's a decent option too.

The sigma 14-24mm f2.8 DN lens gives my 24GM a run for its money at 24mm where it's weakest!!

There are some really sharp UWA zooms available for Sony mirrorless
 
Last edited:
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
I mostly photograph coastal "stuff" as it's where I live. I won't be going far over the next few months. Eventually plan to head off into Northumberland for adventures up there.

Not sure if that impacts anything.
 

Stephen L

I asked a Stupid Question Once...
Messages
5,083
Name
Stephen
Edit My Images
Yes
I mostly photograph coastal "stuff" as it's where I live. I won't be going far over the next few months. Eventually plan to head off into Northumberland for adventures up there.

Not sure if that impacts anything.
Big skies, big seas, wide lens. Shouldn’t need a wide aperture. I’m prejudice, but Voigtlander 21mm f3.5.
 
Messages
266
Edit My Images
Yes
is the sony 16-35 f4 any good ?

that 20mm is quite expensive unless you really want f1.8. i feel that way anyway even though i read its a cracking lens
 
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
Yes. Buy them all. 20, 35 and 50 are probably all the primes you really need.



Optical quality. In Nikon land the 16-35 is a bit of a turd, whereas the 20mm is lovely and you don't miss the 4mm off the short end. In sony land that might well be different. The 16-35 Nikon was stupidly bad at 35mm, the 24-70 decent but the Sigma ART 35 in a class of its own. It could well be different in Sony land.
To my eyes there’s a big difference between 20mm and 16mm.
[/QUOTE]
is the sony 16-35 f4 any good ?

that 20mm is quite expensive unless you really want f1.8. i feel that way anyway even though i read its a cracking lens
I have the 16-35mm f4 and think it’s very good, but of course this is just my opinion.
 
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
ALMOST cheesed off with watching Lens YouTube videos now haha.

As a side question, with the a7R IV which cards should I be aiming for? I really don't want to break the bank. I'm not shooting burst really. Or video. Any model recommendations?

Thank you.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
ALMOST cheesed off with watching Lens YouTube videos now haha.

As a side question, with the a7R IV which cards should I be aiming for? I really don't want to break the bank. I'm not shooting burst really. Or video. Any model recommendations?

Thank you.
when I am not shooting action and not burst shooting I use these - https://www.amazon.co.uk/Integral-256GB-180-V30-Fastest-Memory/dp/B0845H79HH/

for action I have cards that cost 3 times that with half as much memory.... so you really pay for high speed cards (I have even got a couple in sales if you want to take a look to see what they are).
 
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
ALMOST cheesed off with watching Lens YouTube videos now haha.

As a side question, with the a7R IV which cards should I be aiming for? I really don't want to break the bank. I'm not shooting burst really. Or video. Any model recommendations?

Thank you.
In theory any SD card if you don’t burst shoot, but it’s a good idea to have decent read speed at least for transfer to the computer.

One big frustration I have with the A7RIV (and I think it’s true of all A7’s) is that many of the camera functions are disabled whilst files are being written to the card.
 
Messages
1,635
Edit My Images
No
I actually didn't like my 16-35. I just thought it wasn't anything special, also not wide enough really.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
Actually tempted by the 12-24 ticks all the boxes. Too steep for used though for me.
priced it to be the cheapest I could find.... but that was a while back. feel free to make an offer if you are seriously interested :)
 
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
I actually didn't like my 16-35. I just thought it wasn't anything special, also not wide enough really.
I’m not sure what you deem “special” with a landscape lens?

16mm on FF is plenty wide enough for me tbh, it’s rare I’ll use it that wide.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
It gets great reviews.
Obviously the f2.8 is sharper at the edges, but it's twice the price.
I hope my next lens will be the 16-35 f4.
Centre to edge sharpness in landscape photography is as important as front to back sharpness.

Cropping 5x4 4x3 or 7x5 can remove side edges but I prefer just to buy the best 2.8s, or primes so I don't have to worry about the problem. This enables me in turn to compose more freely as I trust the lens.

F4 zooms on a full frame. I wouldn't touch one in a month of Sundays.
 
Messages
378
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
Centre to edge sharpness in landscape photography is as important as front to back sharpness.
So you tramp up to Rannoch moor and setup at the waterfall and get a variation on the classic shot - what makes *your* image better or different compared with the thousands taken there every year?

Do you think somebody who actually admires such an image - either up on the wall - or on an online gallery - sees all the detail pas a certain point?
 
Top