steveg48

I am planning to get a Sony A7R as a backup/ 2nd body to a Nikon D800. I shoot mostly landscape and street photography. I also like to shoot dogs at the dog park. I am torn between two lenses for my initial purchase. I have checked them out on the DXO Mark website. The Zeiss F3.5 2.8 gets a score of 33 and a sharpness rating of 22 mp. (The A7R is a 36 mp full frame mirrorless camera). The Zeiss 55mm f1.8 gets a score of 42 and a sharpness rating of 29 mp. One review considers the 55mm the 'finest autofocus lens' ever made. In general I think I would find the 35mm more useful, the 55mm FOV seems kind of narrow for me. However I'm leaning toward the 55mm because it is such a great lens. I usually print 19x13 but my printer will go to 22 x 17. Any thoughts on which lens to get or on the A7R would be appreciated.

amehta Loc: Boston

I'm a big fan of sharp lenses, but I'm a bigger fan of using the lens which takes the pictures I want to take. :-)

PalePictures Loc: Traveling

When I make my choices for lenses I usually look up the equipment and usage of the photographers I like.
The list of lenses and focal length depends on what you are going to shoot as well as the style of your images. I usually like longer formal lengths for head and shoulder portraits. Full body portraits work well at 35 and 50. They also work good at 200 but they will have a different feel. Many photographers use perspective distortion to there advantage when photographing people.
The following photo was taken with the Zeiss 35mm. I cannot be sure that both the foreground and background were taken with the same lens but it would give a similar feel. Beware that this is an example of the lens used in a Digital Composite. World class digital artist are my goto resources for discovering what lenses do what and to what degree. There is no better place to understand how lens quality can effect the outcome of a composite than by examining the work of great digital artist.

Here is and example of John Wilhelm using the A7R with the Zeiss 35mm.

http://500px.com/photo/72793935/cigarette-break(fast)-by-john-wilhelm-is-a-photoholic?from=user

Here is his list of his lenses.....He has pretty much everything!!

Nikkor 14-24
Sony 70-200 FE
Zeiss Macroplanar 100
Sony Zeiss 35 FE
Sony Zeiss 55 FE
Sony Zeiss 24-70 FE
Samyang 8mm


And yes this camera will be my backup to my 5DMKIII and 5DMKII at the beginning of 2015. Sony does need to work on the lens selection for this camera.

Hope these lens choices give you a little to think about. :D
Regards,
Russ Elkins

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

I am curious as to why you want the A7R as a backup to a D800. Unless you really need the EVF of the Sony for extreme low light shooting, what is the advantage to a second body that will require a second set of lenses and is totally different to operate. Seems to me either another D800 or possibly D800E, D810 or D610 would be better choices as you stay in the same lens family. A friend has a D800E and A7R. He just got a D810 and the A7R is for sale! The Sony is a fine camera and one of the only FF bodies that can produce images equivalent to the D800/E, but may not be the right choice in your case. BTW, you will be hard pressed to see any real world noticeable difference between the Zeiss, Sigma and Nikon 35mm prime lenses.

steveg48

Good question. The answer is the size. Sometimes the D800 is just too heavy. I feel that the A7R will be much easier to have with me for unplanned work or where I don't want to bring a tripod,- also street photography.

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

I take your point, that was exactly my friend's thinking when he got the A7R, but, in reality, the difference is not that great. I strongly recommend you take a look at the Sony RX100 series, they are truly pocketable, have P,A,S,M, shoot RAW and have Zeiss optics. The IQ I get from mine still astounds me and I've made 17 x 22 prints that are beautiful. As a portable, take it with you everywhere camera, it's hard to beat!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Here - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/12/sony-a7r-a-rising-tide-lifts-all-the-boats - is the review you need to read if you have not done so already. - The Zeiss 35 would work for me !

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

P.S. DXO is NOT the last word in testing/reviews .....IMHO!

robsphotography Loc: New Zealand

I also own a Sony RX100 and I agree that it's very worthwhile having as a back-up. I now use it quite extensively for video work as its F/1.8 lens works extremely well for concerts etc in low light settings. Here's an example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bM27dYL5GvI

Even the tiny microphone does amazingly well in a concert hall!

BUT, for general stills photography, I prefer a camera with a viewfinder and a comfortable grip. Taking photos with my RX100 in bright sunlight using my close-up glasses is not always the best!

Although my Sony A99 is quite a heavy full frame camera, I just put up with the weight so I can get the best quality stills and handling ability.

Cheers
Rob
http://www.robsphotography.co.nz/

Gobuster Loc: South Florida

I agree on the viewfinder, one of the reasons I recently acquired a Nikon 1 V3 - it comes with a detachable EVF that is quite good. An added benefit is that it also comes with an adapter that allows use of the "big" AF-S Nikon lenses. Don't forget that the latest RX100 III comes with a "pop up" EVF too, very handy indeed.

robsphotography Loc: New Zealand

Thanks, yes the pop-up EVF of the RX100 III is a good addition, but I'm not so keen on the reduction in lens focal range from 28-100mm to 24-70mm.

With regard to the Sony FE 55mm F/1.8 lens for the Sony A7R, I would certainly go for this lens. The DPR review of this lens is amazing and mentioned that:

"Compared to the Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II or Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G, the Sony is quite simply in a different class in terms of wide-open sharpness."

"From the lab test results, the Sony FE 55mm F1.8 ZA is quite simply one of the sharpest lenses we've seen. It's clearly been designed with the demands of modern high resolution sensors in mind, and is easily a match for the currently class-leading resolution of the Alpha 7R."

http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/sony-fe-55-1-8

Cheers
Rob

amehta Loc: Boston

It isn't entirely a "reduction", as the wide end does go to 24mm instead of 28mm. The lens is also faster at 70mm, the new one is f/2.8 while the older RX-100 lens is at f/4 when zoomed to 70mm.

robsphotography Loc: New Zealand

The reason I mentioned that the RX100 III has only a 24mm-70mm focal range (or a 2.9x zoom) is that a friend who was thinking of buying the RX100 III was surprised to learn this fact and therefore chose instead the RX100 II, which has the same lens focal range as the RX100, that is 28mm – 100mm (or a 3.6x zoom). With a fixed lens camera, I would also prefer a 3.6x zoom rather than the reduced 2.9x zoom of the RX100 III.

Now, back to the walk-around lens for the full frame 36mp Sony A7R. One factor that I would take into account is that the A7R and the FE 35mm and FE 55mm lenses do not have built-in optical stabilization. Because these lenses are quite light, 120g and 281g respectively, this may not be a significant issue to many photographers.

However, have you considered the CZ FE 24mm – 70mm constant F/4 lens, which does have built-in optical stabilization? I realise this lens is heavier than the 35mm and 55mm lenses, weighing in at 426g, but it provides more flexibility than a prime lens, even if the image quality and low-light capability isn’t quite as good as the primes.

I bought the CZ 24mm -70mm constant F/2.8 lens for my full frame Sony A99, and I have been really pleased with the quality of the images. But this lens is very heavy and weighs nearly 1 kilogram, so the E-Mount CZ FE 24-70 lens has certainly achieved a good weight reduction!

Regards
Rob

amehta Loc: Boston

I think comparing 3.6x and 2.9x zoom is the wrong evaluation. There are three factors:
1. III is "shorter" by 30%
2. III is "wider" by about 15%
3. III is "faster" by about 1 stop at "70mm".

If someone really wants the extra 30% at the long end, and they don't care about the wide end or the lens speed, they should get the II (or a different camera which goes even longer!). But I don't there is an unequivocal advantage to the lens on the I/II over the III. I think too many people see a single comparison, either 100mm/70mm or 3.6x/2.9x and decide the new lens is entirely worse, but that is not seeing the whole picture (pun intended).

lighthouse Loc: No Fixed Abode

You have a D800.
You are getting an A7R as a backup.
You like dogs at the park and street photography.
You are talking Zeiss primes ... and DXO total and sharpness scores ..... and yet you cannot answer this question yourself???

Seems to me, your wallet has got ahead of your apprenticeship.

My advice would be to stop buying the latest and greatest gear and to actually learn a little bit about photography.

Don't buy an A7R.
Don't buy that Zeiss prime.
Buying the latest quality gear won't make you into a photographer.
Experience will, clicking the shutter will, studying will.

If the money is burning a hole in your pocket, then use those funds on professional photography courses, with the gear you already have.