It's a bit surprising to me to see people like you suggesting switching to primes indoors on FF. I have done that on M43/APS-C and it was annoying as hell. To me, one of the main drivers of switching to FF was the possibility of getting rid of that juggling with primes in favor of a single zoom.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Will we ever get a decent universal zoom for Sony FE?
- Thread starter alphaZ
- Start date
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
It depends on what and how you shoot. I also hate switching lenses. When I'm indoors I'm usually at home or in someone else's home, so I can almost always get away with 1 FL to do everything since my subject distances don't vary much. If I were shooting concerts or events or something then yea I could see the use case for "fast" zooms indoors.
The Lamentable Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 1,530
Similar story here (although I don't mind switching lenses). I throw the 35mm 1.4 on my camera, and I'm pretty much set for most of my indoor shots (with a lens that is smaller, lighter, and a couple of stops brighter than a 2.8 zoom).
But for me it's less the benefits of the primes for the indoor work than it is the versatility of the slower zooms for the other stuff. I just find the 24-105 f/4 (or the Tamron 28-200) to be a better balance of trade-offs for me than a 24-70 f/2.8. I prefer the extra range to the extra stop, especially because I'll always have at least one prime in the bag if I really need more light.
That doesn't mean there isn't a separate case to be made for the 2.8 zooms. Those are staple lenses for a reason, and they're a better choice for plenty of people. I'm just not one of those people.
But the 35mm GM is not lighter than a F2.8 zoom, it has the same weight. And the major point is that you have to carry the prime in addition to the zoom (unless you are shooting at home like sportyaccordy) .
But the Tamron is F2.8 at 28mm and F3.2 at 35mm. So the question is not if you want a 24-70mm/2.8 zoom or the Tamron 28-200mm, you can choose freely. They provide the same functionality at wide angles. The question is why do you carry that 500g 35mm GM in addition to the zoom and switch to it in interiors.
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
I cant speak for The Lamentable Lens but I have stopped carrying lenses that overlap. If I'm indoors I'm either at home or somewhere where I can leave lenses unattended, or I'm traveling and will have the 28-200 + an ultrawide, the latter for architecture.
So in the hypothetical 35 GM vs 24-70 GM the two lenses would never be on me at the same time. Most of my indoor shots over the last 2-3 years have been with a fast prime in the 35-50 range while my zooms sat and collected dust. Hence the outdoor/travel focus for my current zoom. So no I personally would never carry the 35 GM along with the zoom, what would be the point of that?
richj20
Forum Pro
I've wondered about that...
Panasonic makes a Micro Four Thirds 12-60mm (=24-120mm) f/3.5-5.6. It's a wonderful all-around lens. Later Panasonic with Leica branding released a f/2.8-4 version. It was expensive, and I had no need for f/2.8 so I passed on it.
I appreciate the wider 24mm (vs 28mm), and 120mm is a nice reach.
24mm
120mm
I can understand why you would want this focal length for Sony.
(Would I? I'm not sure... I use mostly primes on my Sony. )
--
Richard
http://www.rsjphoto.net/
Last edited:
Mike Fewster
Forum Pro
That sums up the issue. That Panasonic lens has very good performance and weighs 210gm. A Sony equivalent is over 3X the weight. If you travel, primes on Sony are the way to go. The zooms get big real quick.I've wondered about that...
Panasonic makes a Micro Four Thirds 12-60mm (=24-120mm) f/3.5-5.6. It's a wonderful all-around lens. Later Panasonic with Leica branding released a f/2.8-4 version. It was expensive, and I had no need for f/2.8 so I passed on it.
I appreciate the wider 24mm (vs 28mm), and 120mm is a nice reach.
24mm
120mm
I can understand why you would want this focal length for Sony.
(Would I? I'm not sure... I use mostly primes on my Sony. )
--
Mike Fewster
Adelaide Australia
In my case, I can't divide use cases as neatly. I do take a lot of pictures in interiors/low-light when travelling (museums, architecture interiors, restaurants, evenings, parties, forests etc.). I certainly agree that I can easily live with a single prime "at home", which I often do with my 24/2.8 G (though more for convenience than light gathering).
My point is that I'd rather highlight the capability of FF to be competent in interiors/low-light with brighter zooms (and here both the 24-70GM and Tamron 28-200mm qualify), compared to smaller systems, which usually need primes. To me, the change between indoor/outdoor (or good light/low light) can happen in a few seconds and thus not having to switch to an additional lens, which has to be carried just for such situations, is a big advantage.
But if you are happy to travel with the 12-60mm/3.5-5.6 as your single lens, the question is why don't you downsize much more significantly to a 1" compact, like the Sony RX100VII (24-200mm eq., F2.8-4.5, 302g) or Canon G5XII (24-120mm eq, F1.8-2.8, 340g)? The smaller sensor is more than compensated by a brighter lens, while the weight is literally halved, compared to say a GX9 + 12-60mm.
However, let's say you want to treat your M43 camera as a system camera and the 12-60mm is just one lens in a system supposed to perform all round. For example, beyond having this zoom lens with a convenient range, you also want some low light capability, some potential for background blur and some UWA perspective as well. On FF E-mount, you can do it using two lenses, e.g. this is close to what I currently use:
Sony A7C.....509g
Tamron 28-200mm/2.8-5.6....575g
Sony 16-35mm/4 G....353g
........................................................................
Total 1437g (Compact Camera Meter (camerasize.com))
Let's try to put a somewhat comparable system around the GX9+12-60mm:
Panasonic GX9.....450g
Panasonic 12-60mm/3.5-5.6....210g
Panasonic 8-18mm/2.8-4.......315g
Panasonic 12mm/1.4.....335g
Panasonic 25mm/1.7......125g
............................................................................
Total 1435g (Compact Camera Meter (camerasize.com))
So you need many more lenses and you are not nearly replicating the capability of the FF system, like missing a portrait prime, for example. I also assumed that 120mm eq is long enough for you, but clearly, replicating the reach of the FF system needs another lens, like the Panasonic 35-100mm/2.8, or throwing out that 12-60mm in lieu of something longer, like the Olympus 12-100mm/4, which then is as large as the Tamron. You can play with this, choose some smaller, while less capable lenses, but at the end of the day, you always end up juggling with many lenses to poorly replicate what FF can do with just two midrange zooms.
Even if you cut down the M43 system to just a minimalist version with a single small prime (say GX9+12-60mm+15mm/1.7), you end up around 800g, while the A7C with the Tamron 28-200mm or Sony 24-105mm is around 1.1kg. Is that such a significant saving worth sacrificing the capability of the system severely? Only if you don't have the budget for FF, I'd say.
And this is not theory, this juggling with lenses is what I did for many years as an M43 user, before switching to FF and cutting down the number of lenses I really need.
Do I say that a smaller and more convenient 24-120mm/3.5-5.6 lens on E-mount would not be nice to have? Not at all, though I would not replace my Tamron for that. The point is that a dim M43 kit lens is not a fair comparison, as it can't competently work on its own and needs at least a prime or two.
Last edited:
It all depends what you want to shoot and what you want to carry.
My basic MFT kit is 2.47kg and FE kit is 3.05 kg. For what I shoot, the MFT kit is better in low light because of the IBIS and the OM1quad Bayer PDAF system. I’m just getting to grips with how to use the HHHiRes and Live ND functions on the recently delivered OM1.
I would usually take the FE kit with a tripod and square filters. The MFT kit maybe with a monopod on a long trip.
The Tamron super zoom doesn’t appeal, so that range is a 100-400GM.
The issue with using primes indoors is DoF. Works fine on single subjects, but not on groups. Just got a PL 25/1.4 mk I used for £240. Really liking it so far. Not tested it with EyeAF on the OM1 yet, but doubt it matches the 55/1.8 on the R4.
My small MFT kit is an EM1.1 with 10/2 and the 25/1.4. The teeny kit is GM1 with any of the 12-32 and 35-100 kits plus the 20/1.7. I can match any of the smaller lenses with either the EM1.1 or OM1 as backup if required. The GM1 has a pop up flash and the EM1.1 and OM1 have the tiny system flashes. The LM3 is a small wonder.
My FE kit is heavily optimised for landscape, including really heavy lenses like the Samyang 135/2, the Canon 24mm TSE II and pretty heavy ones like the Sony 90/2.8 and Tamron 35/1.4 SP. Full backpack can get pretty heavy.
What to take out on any occasion is an exercise in matching the kit to the situation.
Andrew
The Lamentable Lens
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,300
- Reaction score
- 1,530
I'm not sure which 2.8 zoom you're comparing it to, but the 35 GM is meaningfully lighter than any of the 24-70 2.8 zooms. The smaller Sigma/Tamron 28-7X 2.8 zooms are a different story, but I really dislike like their even more limited focal ranges (I had the Sigma and ended up selling it). As I said before, for zooms, I'd rather trade the extra stop for more range and take the 24-105 (or the Tamron). If weight were a primary consideration, I'd likely carry something like the tiny Samyang 35 1.8 before compromising on a 2.8 zoom.
But I don't want to get sidetracked on the weight discussion -- weight is very much secondary for me. Among its other benefits, the 35 GM provides more than two full additional stops to play with compared to a 2.8 zoom, and I find that to be significant.
Most of the time, perhaps, but I sometimes carry just a single prime or just a single zoom (or a couple of primes and no zoom, or a combination of the two, etc.). It all depends on where I'm going and what I'm shooting.
But more to the point, as I said in my prior reply, I really don't mind swapping lenses. Setting aside dedicated landscape shoots (for which I have a very different bag and kit), my setup is a Think Tank Retrospective shoulder bag with a camera body and 2-3 lenses. The way I have that bag set up, swapping a lens takes about 5 seconds or so. The make-up of those lenses will differ depending on the scenario (e.g., family event vs. travel/street shooting), but the approach is the same.
Just to be clear, this isn't really about interiors vs. exteriors for me (I was agreeing with sporty more generally than that); it's more about use case. For general travel/walkaround use, the Tamron is a great all-purpose lens. But if I'm shooting people (family gatherings, pictures of my kids, etc.), then I'm grabbing the primes all day.
In any event, as for why I carry the 35 GM in addition to the Sony 24-105 or Tamron 28-200, there are a few reasons. The primary reason is that there is a rather significant difference between f/1.4 and f/3.2 (or f/4 in the case of the Sony), not just in light gathering but also for DOF flexibility. I also have longer primes, where the difference becomes even more dramatic. Secondarily, the primes are also sharper and the AF performance is better, and I also use both the aperture ring and the function buttons on my prime lenses (the Tamron has neither).
To be clear, I'm not at all arguing that my setup is right for everyone. To the contrary, I'd argue quite strenuously that it is not! We all have different preferences and uses cases, and we need to find the setup that works best for us.
If you can throw a 2.8 zoom in the bag and call it a day, that's great! I prefer to shoot with primes, I often want something faster than f/2.8, and I don't mind swapping lenses, so I go a different route. Someone else may prefer a third option. That's why it's great that E mount offers a million lens choices -- something for everyone. Well, everyone except the OP, perhaps ;-)
Last edited:
Jacques Cornell
Forum Pro
As an event pro and landscape enthusiast, I share sportyaccordy's perspective. Indoors, I need all the light gathering I can get. Hence, I use three a7RIIIs with bright primes. Outdoors, I want deep DoF and a lightweight kit covering a very wide range of focal lengths, so I choose relatively dim but sharp zooms.
FWIW, I used to do my event work with three MFT bodies bearing primes. They were so small and light that I preferred them to using two 35mm bodies with much larger, heavier, more expensive f2.8 zooms, and I got similar light gathering and noise.
An A6xxx body with the small f/1.4 Sigma and Sony primes is a great way to get the extra light gathering indoors without the weight of FF. That tends to be how I go these days.
The 24-105/4 and Tamron's 28-200 are both great "universal" zoom options. A lighter 24-105/4 revision would be nice, though as I recall it's fairly competitive with the size and weight of Canon and Nikon's offerings. Personally, I also prefer to go with the APS-C 18-135 for this use case — it's not as nice as the Tamron is optically, but it's tiny in comparison and has image stabilization.
The 24-105/4 and Tamron's 28-200 are both great "universal" zoom options. A lighter 24-105/4 revision would be nice, though as I recall it's fairly competitive with the size and weight of Canon and Nikon's offerings. Personally, I also prefer to go with the APS-C 18-135 for this use case — it's not as nice as the Tamron is optically, but it's tiny in comparison and has image stabilization.
richj20
Forum Pro
I didn't say I travel with this lens - it is my all around lens for in town. It goes with me in a small shoulder bag and that focal length is perfect.
When I began with Sony 7 years ago, I kept my MFT system for several uses, the around-town being one. The reason was that the nearest Sony equivalent to the Panasonic 12-60mm (= 24-120mm) at that time was FE 4/24-105 which weighs 663 g compared to 210 g for the Sony.
richj20
Forum Pro
Yes.
However, everyone's needs are different, and I'm not advocating for others to travel as I do.
--
Richard
http://www.rsjphoto.net/
Last edited:
SafariBob
Veteran Member
the nikon z 24-200 springs to mind
the 35-150 tamron is a winner
There is the Leica 24-90
I honestly think, that if you really think it through, the tamron 35-150 is the most versatile option in this space.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
For certain events and architecture I can definitely see the usefulness of a zoom over a prime.
I guess if you are doing long shoots moving between indoors and outdoors constantly I can see how primes would be annoying. But I don't do that kind of shooting.
Plus I think what smaller systems are capable of is of limited relevance. I didn't buy a FF system to limit its light gathering ability that of crop systems :-D Most of my indoor shooting these days is snapshots of my kids + family so perfect framing and perfectly catching moments isn't super critical. Like a few days ago I thought I had the 45 on but it was really the 35. The pictures came out fine anyway.
I think the main takeaway is that everyone's shooting is different. There are use cases for primes and zooms. People have to figure out what works for them.
travelinbri_74
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,541
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,776
I think we'll see a high quality 24-200 (or 24-240) soon from Sony, but with the Tamron 28-200 and Sony 24-105 its not like we have no high quality options in the interim. I have the 35-150 on order - for months now - as a travel/portrait lens, but 35 is not wide enough to replace a 24-200; and its heavy to boot.
SafariBob
Veteran Member
Probably
have /have had both, they are good, but not amazing.
I think the overall versatility of having a fast, sharp lens with a 35-150 range far exceeds the loss of 24mm
travelinbri_74
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,541
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 2,776
Just different. I sold the 24-105 and the Tamron 28-200 and am waiting for the 35-150 to arrive. The 35-150 kills my need for the 70-200/2.8 and may replace even my 35/1.4 as a travel lens where I will focus on streets and portraits; but for daytime hiking, a lightweight but high quality 24-200 would be huge value added.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum