- Messages
- 20,926
- Name
- Steve
- Edit My Images
- Yes
then buy one lens for all landscape photography?
I find that more limiting and creatively limiting than lack of pixels tbh.
No - buy the body and lens, then as funds recovery buy more lenses
then buy one lens for all landscape photography?
I find that more limiting and creatively limiting than lack of pixels tbh.
Or buy the A7Riii and 2 lenses....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.No - buy the body and lens, then as funds recovery buy more lenses
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.
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).
If I could only have one lens personally it'd be 24-105mm f4.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
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.
This.....I use this as my main lens.If I could only have one lens personally it'd be 24-105mm f4.
This.....I use this as my main lens.
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
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.then buy one lens for all landscape photography?
I find that more limiting and creatively limiting than lack of pixels tbh.
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.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
Nice pics, you’ve been to some lovely places.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
You need deep pockets for thoseAnd 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.
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.
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.
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
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!)
So, basically buy all of the lenses?
Is 35mm too close to 20mm? Which35mm wins in terms of quality (for a reasonable price)
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.
So, basically buy all of the lenses?
Is 35mm too close to 20mm? Which35mm wins in terms of quality (for a reasonable price)
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.
Big skies, big seas, wide lens. Shouldn’t need a wide aperture. I’m prejudice, but Voigtlander 21mm f3.5.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.
I agree. Something like that would be perfect for the OPBig skies, big seas, wide lens. Shouldn’t need a wide aperture. I’m prejudice, but Voigtlander 21mm f3.5.
To my eyes there’s a big difference between 20mm and 16mm.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.
I have the 16-35mm f4 and think it’s very good, but of course this is just my opinion.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
It gets great reviews.is the sony 16-35 f4 any good ?
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.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.
I actually didn't like my 16-35. I just thought it wasn't anything special, also not wide enough really.
Actually tempted by the 12-24 ticks all the boxes. Too steep for used though for me.Special - no
Decent/good lens - yes
Got a 12-24mm in sales if you fancy one
Actually tempted by the 12-24 ticks all the boxes. Too steep for used though for me.
I’m not sure what you deem “special” with a landscape lens?I actually didn't like my 16-35. I just thought it wasn't anything special, also not wide enough really.
Centre to edge sharpness in landscape photography is as important as front to back sharpness.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.