Sony lens decision
Dec 23, 2019 10:57:28 #
crapshooter
Loc: Fox, Alaska
You can get a Sony 70-350 now for 900.00 on sale now, originally for 1000.00. I've been eying it for my A6000
Dec 23, 2019 11:25:20 #
Ob1
Loc: Utah
Price is always a consideration but three possibilities are: These are all Sony lenses- 70-200 2.8 with a 1.4 teleconverter (I would stay away from the 2.0 just being honest). 2nd 100-400 (super sharp lens can be used with a teleconverter) 3rd the new 200-600 very good price and very sharp. It is a 5.6 lens the only drawback. I own two of these lens and have shot the 200-600. They are all very expensive but the IQ’s are fantastic. I used to own the 70-300 and I like to count the feathers on birds in flight or the hairs on the face of an animal. That’s why I choose these lenses. My advice is to save you money and rent the different lenses and see what one works for you. You the the old saying about advice, it free and that’s what’s it worth.
Dec 23, 2019 11:25:30 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
Goober wrote:
Jay, I have the Sony FE 70-300 and FE 100-400 that I use with my a7rii and a7rlll. I bought the 70-300 before the 100-400 was available. Originally thought I would sell the 70-300 but decided to keep it as I think it is a better walk-around lens as easier to hand-hold since it is smaller and lighter. I have no complaints about this lens. Sharpness and contrast is just fine. I have not used my 1.4 or 2x converters with this lens.
Goober - Thanks--this is just what I wanted--someone who has the lens to comment on it. While quality is important to me I really like that you're able to use it as a walk-around lens because that's pretty much what I want.
Dec 23, 2019 11:26:53 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
Ob1 wrote:
Price is always a consideration but three possibil... (show quote)
Ob1--you make some good points--I'll be thinking about them.
Dec 23, 2019 11:28:21 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
crapshooter wrote:
You can get a Sony 70-350 now for 900.00 on sale now, originally for 1000.00. I've been eying it for my A6000
I almost went for that but it's a crop lens which will work great with your a6000 but wouldn't be as good with my a7iii. The Sony 70-350 got pretty good reviews though.
Dec 23, 2019 11:32:15 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
nikonbug wrote:
I only have two lenses for the Sony a7 m3. A Tamron 28-85 and the Sony 70-300 which you mention. The reviews on this lens are good, and unless you want to count the splines in the feathers of a far away bird in flight, it serves me well. It is a good all around lens, not as sharp as a GM lens, but very acceptable for its size and cost.
nikonbug - thanks, I was hoping for comments that describe experience with the 70-300. I'm still leaning toward that lens as the size makes a difference to me and I'm not into birds all that much.
Dec 23, 2019 11:58:32 #
cahale
Loc: San Angelo, TX
My first purchase after the a7r iii was the Sony FE 4.5-5.6/100-400 GM OSS. It was not cheap, but I have never regretted purchasing it. On the night of the day it arrived from B&H, I shot the attached moon shot. It is moderately heavy, but no burden if you don't mind a backpack and reattaching/detaching between moves. The 4 position mounting foot makes it easier to balance lens/camera weight.
Dec 23, 2019 12:46:13 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
cahale wrote:
My first purchase after the a7r iii was the Sony FE 4.5-5.6/100-400 GM OSS. It was not cheap, but I have never regretted purchasing it. On the night of the day it arrived from B&H, I shot the attached moon shot. It is moderately heavy, but no burden if you don't mind a backpack and reattaching/detaching between moves. The 4 position mounting foot makes it easier to balance lens/camera weight.
cahale - Thanks but I do a fair amount of my shooting from the back of a motorcycle so I need a lighter lens. The reviews on the 100-400 are really good but I'm afraid it would be too bulky for me. I'm afraid I may have to sacrifice a little quality and reach for usability.
Dec 23, 2019 12:53:40 #
I have the 70-300mm lens and find it very good. I use it a lot in backpacking and climbing situations. While one of the more expensive and faster offerings no doubt would be optically better, this lens provides great images and weighs considerably less than those costlier lenses. At 300mm, a tripod or some type of steady support is important, but it does well. And on a cropped sensor, it goes up to 450mm, which is pretty far out there.
On a cropped sensor, I pair it with the 16-70mm, f4, which covers almost all of the desired ranges and in good glass. It is an old enough lens that you probably can find a good used one or one on sale.
On my A7rii, it is excellent, as well. I'd choose it over the more expensive options almost all times, not wanting to lug such monsters around. BUT, if I were to go to Alaska to try to get good pictures of wildlife, I'd probably spring for the 200-400mm.
Hope this helps. Have a great holiday and best luck in your decision-making.
On a cropped sensor, I pair it with the 16-70mm, f4, which covers almost all of the desired ranges and in good glass. It is an old enough lens that you probably can find a good used one or one on sale.
On my A7rii, it is excellent, as well. I'd choose it over the more expensive options almost all times, not wanting to lug such monsters around. BUT, if I were to go to Alaska to try to get good pictures of wildlife, I'd probably spring for the 200-400mm.
Hope this helps. Have a great holiday and best luck in your decision-making.
Dec 23, 2019 13:14:32 #
jaycoffman
Loc: San Diego
NatureRocks - Thanks, this is just the kind of feedback I wanted. I'm like you and I have to often shoot in unstable conditions and I have to get it where I'm going. I'm leaning toward this lens and will rethink what I want if or when I go back on African safari or other place where I need more reach.
Dec 23, 2019 13:53:00 #
azted
Loc: Las Vegas, NV.
I also have an A7iii, and I have the 70-300 among other lenses. I also tried the 24-240, but sent it back as it is not as sharp as the 70-300. I do not currently use the 70-300 too much, but will be taking it on a trip later this year. Walking around with that range is terrific. I also have the 16-35 F4, which is a very sharp zeiss lens. Missing the 35-70 mm range does not bother me. So, unless you want to go for the newer sharp 200-400, you will be happy with the versatility of the 70-300.
Dec 23, 2019 14:04:31 #
jaycoffman wrote:
OK, I have a Sony a7iii. The only lens I have now ... (show quote)
I use a Canon 24-105 L lens with Sigma MC-11 adapter and like it a lot. My normal lenses for holidays are a Sony 24-240mm and a Minolta 35-70mm. Some people have said the 24-240mm is soft but I've found it to have good image quality. I also have the Sony 200-600mm which is a fabulous piece of glass; the sharpest lens I've ever owned / used; highly recommend it!
Good luck in your decision process.
bwa
Dec 23, 2019 14:08:28 #
I have the 24-105 and love it. If I wanted more reach with great quality I would seriously consider the Sony 200-600mm lens.
Dec 23, 2019 14:11:54 #
I shout with a sony a mount full frame and although I have some old Minolta lenses that work great. I've pretty much gone the Tamron 2.8 route adding a 70-200 2.8, 15-30 2.8, and a 150-600 to my sony 24 70 22.8 zeiss. I occasionally use my Minolta 50 1.8. I find the Tamron lenses about 1/2 the price and of very high quality have a peek before you decide.
Dec 23, 2019 15:24:36 #
I have the a7iii, a7Riii, a7s, and a6000. I have the FE 70-300G. It is great. I had the 70-300 Minolta for my a99ii and was happy. So I got the 70-300G thinking that it was the same but with the E-mount. It is far superior. I did a sunset shot and discovered that it resolved the moons around Jupiter. That sold me. Sorry this is the reduced resolution shot for easy uploading.
Sony a7s FE 70-300mm G, Moon, Jupiter and its moons
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.