Sony Landscape on a budget...

Messages
14,905
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
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.
That's fine, but for me, It's not a problem I worry about. When I'm up in Glencoe, it's not just about the gear, or the maximum sharpness or resolution, it's about the experience as much as anything else.
An F4 zoom meets my requirements perfectly well, as does my 24mp camera and my non 4k TV....
I know you have high standards, but you really are coming across as a total gear snob. :)
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,231
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
The thing is, if photography is your hobby then it's about the experience, but if it's your job then saying you enjoyed taking the pictures won't help if they aren't technically perfect. In fact if you're the kind of person who hates to produce poor work then having second rate kit could completely invalidate the experience after you start going through the pictures.

Not everyone is happy to shrug and say 'maybe next time', especially if you've driven for a couple of days and spent a grand to get there.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,905
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
The thing is, if photography is your hobby then it's about the experience, but if it's your job then saying you enjoyed taking the pictures won't help if they aren't technically perfect. In fact if you're the kind of person who hates to produce poor work then having second rate kit could completely invalidate the experience after you start going through the pictures.

Not everyone is happy to shrug and say 'maybe next time', especially if you've driven for a couple of days and spent a grand to get there.
I get that, but if photography is your job, you should realise that not everyone has the same requirements as you, and it's not necessary to tell everyone how crap their gear is because it's not up to your standards....
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
F4 zooms on a full frame. I wouldn't touch one in a month of Sundays.
I think the opinion of skewed possibly because of bad experiences on your current mount.
F4 or f2.8 doesn't necessarily mean bad and good lenses :)

That's fine, but for me, It's not a problem I worry about. When I'm up in Glencoe, it's not just about the gear, or the maximum sharpness or resolution, it's about the experience as much as anything else.
An F4 zoom meets my requirements perfectly well, as does my 24mp camera and my non 4k TV....
I know you have high standards, but you really are coming across as a total gear snob. :)
24mp is fine on a 4k TV too, in fact it'll be fine on 6K TV too. It'll be a while before we have 8k TVs at normal consumer level prices.
 
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
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.
Why's that? I had the Z 24-70mm f4 on the Z7 which had excellent sharpness, I've got the 16-35mm f4 on the Sony and think it's excellent. Granted the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 isn't up to those levels but the more recent ones are still pretty decent (y)
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
Why's that? I had the Z 24-70mm f4 on the Z7 which had excellent sharpness, I've got the 16-35mm f4 on the Sony and think it's excellent. Granted the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 isn't up to those levels but the more recent ones are still pretty decent (y)
z 24-70/4 or Sony zeiss 24-70/4 aren't what I'd use as examples of a good f4 zoom :ROFLMAO:

but the canon EF 24-70mm f4 is rather good actually!
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
That's fine, but for me, It's not a problem I worry about.
So you're happy with your rig and you don't worry about edge sharpness. Fine, other's do and I'm trying to help the OP avoid a problem they might well care about a bit further down the line as their photography progresses.

I get that, but if photography is your job, you should realise that not everyone has the same requirements as you, and it's not necessary to tell everyone how crap their gear is because it's not up to your standards....
So I shouldn't post about my experiences regarding equipment despite experiencing lot's of it through running workshops and selling commercially?

Having high standards is a good thing. To imply it's some how snobbish to care about edge sharpness just because you don't worry about it I find odd. The OP is looking at very high end gear and I think it's a nice thing to do the help them navigate through the choices they have.
I think the opinion of skewed possibly because of bad experiences on your current mount.
Why's that? I had the Z 24-70mm f4 on the Z7 which had excellent sharpness, I've got the 16-35mm f4 on the Sony and think it's excellent. Granted the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f4 isn't up to those levels but the more recent ones are still pretty decent (y)
Probably as my main exerpience of them is on the F mount, and they were craaaaap.

I digress. The 2.8 ones will probably be a good bit better again - why not just get the best. And you can use 2.8 for landscapes if the entire thing is in the distance.

The thing is, if photography is your hobby then it's about the experience, but if it's your job then saying you enjoyed taking the pictures won't help if they aren't technically perfect. In fact if you're the kind of person who hates to produce poor work then having second rate kit could completely invalidate the experience after you start going through the pictures.

Not everyone is happy to shrug and say 'maybe next time', especially if you've driven for a couple of days and spent a grand to get there.
That's more succinct than even I could put it. I find using the best stuff actually an enhancement to the experience. I like knowing I can get the best I possibly can from the trip.
 
Last edited:
Messages
311
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm a bit of an edge-sharpness whore too, but there are f4 zooms out there - perhaps these are more recently released lenses - which have very good edge sharpness, and you're usually getting a lighter weight or increased zoom range with an f4 zoom. I have the Tamron 17-35 OSD f2.8-f4 and the edge sharpness is very good - much better than the Nikon 16-35 f4. Based on the common view that variable aperture lenses are worse (they usually are) you'd assume it would be complete trash but it's great. I don't think the Sigma 24-105 f4 edge sharpness is much worse than third party 24-70 f2.8s, and you get the ability to quickly zoom in to 105mm if the light suddenly changes and a more distant composition reveals itself. So there are other variables at play than absolute edge sharpness when viewed at 1:1 on a computer screen, which few people will ever do anyway.
 
Last edited:

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
I'm a bit of an edge-sharpness whore too, but there are f4 zooms out there - perhaps these are more recently released lenses - which have very good edge sharpness, and you're usually getting a lighter weight or increased zoom range with an f4 zoom. I have the Tamron 17-35 OSD f2.8-f4 and the edge sharpness is very good - much better than the Nikon 16-35 f4. Based on the common view that variable aperture lenses are worse (they usually are) you'd assume it would be complete trash but it's great. I don't think the Sigma 24-105 f4 edge sharpness is much worse than third party 24-70 f2.8s, and you get the ability to quickly zoom in to 105mm if the light suddenly changes and a more distant composition reveals itself. So there are other variables at play than absolute edge sharpness when viewed at 1:1 on a computer screen, which few people will ever do anyway.
I have a solution for that issue - a second body with a perma attached 70-200 2.8...:D - I really love mine when I use it. I trust it completely and it means I can just rely on it completely and enjoy taking pictures. I've used it hand held at 2.8 and it was hilariously good all over the frame.

Depends how you approach the landscape - I have an idea of the shot I want to take so take the gear appropriate for that one shot. If it works it works, if it doesn't it doesn't.

Back the OP though, I think the 20mm prime for landscapes is wide enough, it will be amazing on the A7r4 and will get them going for sure.
 
Last edited:
Messages
14,905
Name
Bob
Edit My Images
Yes
So I shouldn't post about my experiences regarding equipment despite experiencing lot's of it through running workshops and selling commercially?
Yes you should post about your experiences, and why not?
Tell us which equipment you like, and which lenses you had issues with.
That's a lot more beneficial than making a comment like "F4 zooms on a full frame. I wouldn't touch one in a month of Sundays".
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
That's a lot more beneficial than making a comment like "F4 zooms on a full frame. I wouldn't touch one in a month of Sundays".
But I wouldn't. Based around my experiences of two so called top tier F4 zooms. The F2.8 equivalents were so much better. When you buy a 2.8 zoom over an F4 you aren't buying an extra stop, well you are but you're buying a more advanced construction, with more elements which deliver a better image. The F4 sony stuff might be really good, but the 2.8's will almost certainly be a good bit better again. You get what you pay for in this game. If that extra IQ doesn't matter to you now - great - but it matters to others and it might matter to you later down the line.

I think the 20mm 1.8 and A7r4 is a sound sound choice - and other stuff can come later.
 
Last edited:
OP
G
Messages
520
Edit My Images
No
THANK YOU ALL!

I think I'll be going for the 20mm f/1.8 and a7R IV.

You've all kind of convinced me that it'd be handy to have some kind of zoom. No idea which one to go for. So many options. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Seems to do ok in the reviews. Any thoughts?
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
THANK YOU ALL!

I think I'll be going for the 20mm f/1.8 and a7R IV.

You've all kind of convinced me that it'd be handy to have some kind of zoom. No idea which one to go for. So many options. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Seems to do ok in the reviews. Any thoughts?
Amazing news. I really think you've made the right choice and I think the 20 will serve you really well in Northumberland.

I might suggest the G master Sony 24-70 2.8 - I think you'll find the 24mm-28mm range quite advantageous to have in my honest view.
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
THANK YOU ALL!

I think I'll be going for the 20mm f/1.8 and a7R IV.

You've all kind of convinced me that it'd be handy to have some kind of zoom. No idea which one to go for. So many options. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Seems to do ok in the reviews. Any thoughts?
I went from Tamron 28-75mm/2.8 to Sony 24-105mm f4. you don't gain or lose much in terms of image quality (if anything Sony is slightly better at 75mm than Tamron where its weakest).
IMO Sony is a better landscape lens while tamron is a better indoors and portrait/people lens.

There is also the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DN (make sure you look for the "DN" version i.e. mirrorless version) which is really the best one to go for the money. it match the Sony's own GM equivalent.
 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
Amazing news. I really think you've made the right choice and I think the 20 will serve you really well in Northumberland.

I might suggest the G master Sony 24-70 2.8 - I think you'll find the 24mm-28mm range quite advantageous to have in my honest view.
sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DN is just as good for less money and also slightly lighter :)
the GM is rather old lens comparatively and it shows when compared to the latest designs.
 
Messages
1,635
Edit My Images
No
On the opposite side I haven't missed the 24-27 range at all.
I really like my Tamron 28-200 serves as my do it all lens.
Anywhere if have wanted 24mm is have preferred 20mm so you'll be fine with the 20mm f1.8 which is my next lens to buy.
 
Messages
17,231
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
Viewpoint on lens quality may be affected by which makes of kit one has had previously. Moving from Sony crop to Nikon FX I was quite disappointed by quality of ordinary grade lenses compared to Minolta. Moving to FF Sony I saw a big improvement (and a huge hike in price).

YMMV
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
THANK YOU ALL!

I think I'll be going for the 20mm f/1.8 and a7R IV.

You've all kind of convinced me that it'd be handy to have some kind of zoom. No idea which one to go for. So many options. Maybe the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Seems to do ok in the reviews. Any thoughts?
If you have no idea what to go for you could always take a look at a used Sony 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 kit zoom. It is IMO a good kit zoom and it's relatively small and light and could help you decide if that sort of zoom range is what you want or if you want to go for something else (wider 16-35mm? or longer 25-105mm? or even a jump to 70-200mm?) and if you don't like it you can sell it and not lose too much.
 
Messages
378
Name
Andrew
Edit My Images
Yes
But I wouldn't. Based around my experiences of two so called top tier F4 zooms. The F2.8 equivalents were so much better. When you buy a 2.8 zoom over an F4 you aren't buying an extra stop, well you are but you're buying a more advanced construction, with more elements which deliver a better image.
Problem with gear orientated forums and media is absolutism. Doesn't matter if it's bicycles or cameras or hifi or cars.

The question is simple. Stop both lens down to F5.6 or F8 or whatever and can you tell the difference other than by perhaps pixel peeping. How much of this is just because you know that there is a 'so much better' version of the product out there and you don't have it?
 
Messages
266
Edit My Images
Yes
its ALOT of money if you walk into a UK shop and by a a7r4 + 20mm 1.8 brand new.

pity you couldnt hire one first for a weekend and then decide but with this covid things are tricky now.

i bought a used a7r3 the other week and im undecided about it myself, i wish i could take out the sensor and EVF and shove it into my Canon 5D MK 3.
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
Problem with gear orientated forums and media is absolutism. Doesn't matter if it's bicycles or cameras or hifi or cars.

The question is simple. Stop both lens down to F5.6 or F8 or whatever and can you tell the difference other than by perhaps pixel peeping. How much of this is just because you know that there is a 'so much better' version of the product out there and you don't have it?
In my experience of say an F4 zoom and 2.8 stopped down the difference was clearly visible stopped down - remember when you edit on a screen at full size you are seeing a scaled version of the image. It is only at 100% (or 1:1 view) that you see it for what is is. And the difference is there.

In an extreme example I could misfocus a 36mp shot slightly - resize it to 1024 accross and you wouldn't see the difference if I posted on here against a resized properly focused one at 1024.

However on a large screen and at 1:1 it would be blindingly obvious.

And yes I pixel peep - I actually enjoy it. Much in the same way if I am at a gallery I will look at a picture from afar, walk up, and look at it more closely scanning all around it. Pixel peeping is just the same.
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
its ALOT of money if you walk into a UK shop and by a a7r4 + 20mm 1.8 brand new.

pity you couldnt hire one first for a weekend and then decide but with this covid things are tricky now.

i bought a used a7r3 the other week and im undecided about it myself, i wish i could take out the sensor and EVF and shove it into my Canon 5D MK 3.
But keep that OVF and lose the things that mirrorless brings?
 

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
Viewpoint on lens quality may be affected by which makes of kit one has had previously. Moving from Sony crop to Nikon FX I was quite disappointed by quality of ordinary grade lenses compared to Minolta. Moving to FF Sony I saw a big improvement (and a huge hike in price).

YMMV
the viewpoint is affected by each individuals expectations.
closer your expectations are to practicality for yourself the better.
i bought a used a7r3 the other week and im undecided about it myself, i wish i could take out the sensor and EVF and shove it into my Canon 5D MK 3.
They did it's called the R5 :p
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
They did it's called the R5 :p
That's the one that overheats and dies. £4199.


The OP could get two superior and more reliable A7r4's from e Infin for the same money. It's literally half the price :D - what a bargain. If I could have got on with Sony builds and layouts I'd have 2 of these A7rIV in a flash with the 20mm F1.8 - the G master 2.8 24-70 and 70-200.

 
Last edited:

nandbytes

I owe Cobra some bacon
Messages
11,052
Edit My Images
Yes
That's the one that overheats and dies. £4199.


The OP could get two superior and more reliable A7r4's from e Infin for the same money. It's literally half the price :D - what a bargain. If I could have got on with Sony builds and layouts I'd have 2 of these A7rIV in a flash with the 20mm F1.8 - the G master 2.8 24-70 and 70-200.

well only if you use in video :D

You are willing to put up with Pentax 645, A7RIV is many times better at handling :p
 
Messages
266
Edit My Images
Yes
But keep that OVF and lose the things that mirrorless brings?
I cant deny i much prefer EVF. I think i am suffering from switching from canon / nikon brand dslr to mirrorless that are different brands ( fuji / sony )
 
Messages
17,231
Name
Toni
Edit My Images
No
i bought a used a7r3 the other week and im undecided about it myself, i wish i could take out the sensor and EVF and shove it into my Canon 5D MK 3.
If that was one of the pair sold by 8utters just before Christmas I could be interested.
 
Messages
25,967
Name
Alan
Edit My Images
No
I cant deny i much prefer EVF. I think i am suffering from switching from canon / nikon brand dslr to mirrorless that are different brands ( fuji / sony )
With anything I think it's worthwhile giving yourself time to adapt. If you can't and there's a genuine problem then switching to something else is an option, maybe an expensive one but life is short :D
 

SFTPhotography

Ranger Smith
Messages
18,816
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
Yes
You are willing to put up with Pentax 645, A7RIV is many times better at handling :p
I like bigger cameras - I myself thought the Sony camera felt too small for me and the controls small and fiddly and I find with photography you have the be comfortable using it and I just wasn't. Kudos to those who are as they are a capable camera with amazing lens choices. I've come across more than my fair share of camera systems running workshops etc and helping clients use them out in the field.

The best of the mirrorless bodies controls wise I felt was the Panasonic S1R - felt the most DSLR like in the hand but the price made me bauk. As a tactile thing I'd rate it the best but for lens range and price the poorest of all the mirror-less offerings. For not a huge amount more you could be in the Fuji GFX system - but my experience of Fuji's (not this to be fair) is that the controls don't feel natural. Maybe that's too long using Nikon DSLR's has done that to me.

I imagine you'd hate my 645z to use - it is everything your Sony isn't. It's slow, ponderous, big, heavy but to me it is utterly lovable and intuitive. I cannot wait to get out there with it for real :D - and aye - the 28-45 and 45-85 - stupendously good edge to centre. No difference that I can see. But it's a 4:3 aspect ratio which I really like.

So everyone is happy and that's something rare on TP :D
 
Last edited:
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
.

There is also the Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 DN (make sure you look for the "DN" version i.e. mirrorless version) which is really the best one to go for the money. it match the Sony's own GM equivalent.
Why did you have to post this? :banghead: :LOL:
 
Messages
17,846
Edit My Images
No
Let us know how you like it :ROFLMAO:
Just seen the weight of it, I’ll pass ;)
I’ve been contemplating selling the 24-70mm and just using the 16-35mm as a walkabout/travel lens, I can crop to 70mm and still have around 16mp (y)
 
Last edited:
Messages
1,287
Name
T
Edit My Images
Yes
Some really good advice in this thread.
IMO get either a Sony A7ii or A7iii and perhaps buy some used canon EF lenses as there are more around than Sony and more importantly cheaper. Mate them to a sigma MC-11 adapter ( used as they are cheaper ) and you are set to go.
As AF is not so important in land scape photography the sensor size and good glass is the benefit over a smartphone. If you want to branch out later you have a good kit base to do so.
 
Top