Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
Main Photography Discussion
Sony a7rii which lense
Page 1 of 2 next>
Feb 12, 2017 01:12:17   #
buffyjean Loc: Washington, North Carolina
 
I like landscapes, old barns and houses.
Hoping to get into senior portraits this year. Suggestions as to which lense or get both. 24-240 or 70-200 f.4.
I already have 50mm.

Reply
Feb 12, 2017 01:47:01   #
tainkc Loc: Kansas City
 
Look at them and what do you see? One has a wider angle (better for landscapes) and also has a longer reach than the latter. The first one has more latitude overall. So, why are you asking unless they are different brands of which you did not mention? I have a 24-240 F3.5 Sigma that I use on my A77ll all of the time. I shoot portraits, buildings, street photography birds, whether they are flying or not; the whole gamut with it. Oh, and the difference between F3.5 and F4 is negligible.

Reply
Feb 12, 2017 01:58:15   #
buffyjean Loc: Washington, North Carolina
 
Thank you.

Reply
 
 
Feb 12, 2017 04:58:23   #
tdekany Loc: Oregon
 
For landscape, especially if you print, I'd go with the 24-70 2.8 for it's quality. If you are looking for a zoom.

Reply
Feb 12, 2017 08:50:44   #
tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
 
I have used many lenses with my Sony A7rII and have strong opinions about the 24-240..I didn't like it at all! Not sharp enough for me, very stiff zoom action, and heavy.
On the other hand I love and repeatedly use my 70-200 F4...it is a wonderful lens, sharp, fast focus, great color rendition, and relatively light.
I would suggest you also consider a wide angle prime...the 28mm 2.0 is an excellent all around lens, but I enjoy the Zeiss 35mm 2.8 even more although that is fairly close to your 50mm.
I recently sold much of my Canon gear and purchased the Zeiss 50mm 1.4....that lens is spectacular! I got mine for $1025 on Ebay ($1500 new) and consider it the best lens investment I have ever made. Finally, if you are on a budget, the Sigma 19mm can be had for around $150 and is very sharp wide angle with some distortion.

Reply
Feb 12, 2017 13:03:42   #
buffyjean Loc: Washington, North Carolina
 
Thank you very much.

Reply
Feb 13, 2017 07:31:10   #
Jcmarino
 
For portraits, stick with the primes. 55mm Zeiss, 35 mm Zeiss, the Sony 85mm G-Master and the new 100 G-master will be killer lenses. I have all but the new one which makes my mouth water. It was just introduced at the WPPI and I dont think its out on retail yet. I use the 55 in studio, 35 for curvey ladies indoors and out, and the 85 for for outdoors. The f-stops on these lenses range from 1.4 to 2.8 and I would not go higher than that for portraits. For landscapes, the wider the better and a good telephoto and your set.

Reply
 
 
Feb 13, 2017 07:37:34   #
picturesofdogs Loc: Dallas, Texas.
 
Sony FE 24-240. Lives on my A7ii.

Reply
Feb 13, 2017 08:32:32   #
tripsy76 Loc: Northshore, MA
 
This is what I use on both of my a7rii's:

For portraits, I use both my 55 f1.8 and my 85 f1.4GM

For nearly everything else I use the 24-70 f2.8GM and 70-200 f2.8GM

I've had most of the other zoom lenses, and sharpness has been an ongoing issue. But I have yet to have a single issue with this kit.

There are other good lenses, but these are my personal favorite when it comes to consistency sharpness and overall quality

Reply
Feb 13, 2017 08:52:24   #
Jcmarino
 
tripsy76 wrote:
This is what I use on both of my a7rii's:

For portraits, I use both my 55 f1.8 and my 85 f1.4GM

For nearly everything else I use the 24-70 f2.8GM and 70-200 f2.8GM

I've had most of the other zoom lenses, and sharpness has been an ongoing issue. But I have yet to have a single issue with this kit.

There are other good lenses, but these are my personal favorite when it comes to consistency sharpness and overall quality



Reply
Feb 13, 2017 09:04:09   #
Peekayoh Loc: UK
 
buffyjean wrote:
I like landscapes, old barns and houses.
Hoping to get into senior portraits this year. Suggestions as to which lense or get both. 24-240 or 70-200 f.4.
I already have 50mm.
This is an almost impossible question to answer because the two lenses you specify are, IMO, unsuitable.

The 24-240 is a horrible lens and totally unsuited for serious work although I do accept that it's good enough for some and the extended zoom range might be attractive.

The 70-200 on the other hand is a good lens but which I would rule out for "Seniors" because of the relatively slow maximum aperture and rule out for Landscapes because of the Minimum Focal Length.

When you ask a question like this, you get to hear what we prefer not necessarily what's best for you because we have no idea of your circumstances or real preferences although the fact that you have an a7rM2 persuades me that you are not short of a bob or two and like to have the best.

In my case, I prefer primes for both Landscape and Portrait work. For Landscapes, I mostly use focal lengths between 18mm and 35mm and my favourite lens is an old MC 35/1.8 manual focus Rokkor lens (AF is unnecessary for Landscape work).

For Portraits I mainly use an 85mm prime; it used to be a Minolta 85/1.4 but I now have the Sony 85/1.4 GM. I also use the Zeiss 55/1.8 or the 58/1.2 Rokkor. The new 100/2.8 STF sounds interesting but I don't really want the extra length or the less flexible smaller aperture. Some people prefer a longer FL for Portraits up to 135mm; I don't, it creates too much separation between me and the subject, YMMV.

Reply
 
 
Feb 13, 2017 09:34:54   #
picturesofdogs Loc: Dallas, Texas.
 
I know of two professional photographers using the 24-240.

Reply
Feb 13, 2017 09:46:13   #
tinplater Loc: Scottsdale, AZ
 
picturesofdogs wrote:
I know of two professional photographers using the 24-240.


Perhaps there is some variation in quality...my version was not sharp, low contrast, heavy, and the zoom mechanism was so stiff I honestly felt it might produce wear on the bayonet mount!

Reply
Feb 13, 2017 09:51:26   #
Linda Lee Loc: New England
 
I can only tell you what I use and why. I do have the 24 -240, purchased for it's reach and wide capabilities. It's heavy so bring a tripod. It can be the one lens that does a lot for you thus it can be the only lens you need for a variety of situations. Not good for sports, it's not the fastest or sharpest lens. These "do it all," lenses rarely are.

I use the 16 - 35 for landscapes, it does the job very nicely. But is not that fast or light to carry, should be using a tripod anyway. Love, love, love that lens, wouldn't trade it.

Have the 55mm, just don't use it, I like landscape photography. Probably will sell this one.

The Batis 18mm is gorgeous, love, love, love it. How do I justify having it along with the 16-35? It's tac sharp, lighter but not a zoom, which I've so gotten used to having. I'm forcing myself to get used to not using a zoom, with 42 mega pixels I can crop the crap out of a photo and still have a printable shot.

In the past I've had canons and nikons with a 70-200mm lens and it was never my got to lens so I haven't purchased one for this system.

Reply
Feb 13, 2017 10:12:38   #
BobHartung Loc: Bettendorf, IA
 
buffyjean wrote:
I like landscapes, old barns and houses.
Hoping to get into senior portraits this year. Suggestions as to which lense or get both. 24-240 or 70-200 f.4.
I already have 50mm.


Again it is "lens" and not "lense".
Singular: Lens
Plural: Lenses

"Lens" is the glass thing that focuses light.
"Lense" is a verb meaning "To make lean; to macerate".
"Lense" is an archaic variant spelling that is no longer in use.

From https://www.google.com/#q=british+spelling+of+lens

Reply
Page 1 of 2 next>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.