Hey guys,
I'm purchasing my first quality camera this week in a Sony A7ii and was wondering if everyone could help me out with my lens decisions. I'm mostly going to stick to Landscape and Travel Photography with the occasional dabbling in Landscape Astrophotography. Most of my favorite shots are taken from hiking trails or while exploring cities. So at least one of my lenses has to be good for walking around a city in a foreign country, while I also need an awesome landscape lens.
I came up with a few different lens combinations and I can't make up my mind about what to purchase. I already bought the Rokinon and I plan on buying an FE lens with the Camera so my first purchase will dictate the future ones as I want to avoid overlapping focal lengths. I also want to stick to high quality lenses since I may want to print some of my photos in the future.
The combos list the lenses in the order I'd purchase them over the next year.
Combo 1:
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
FE 24-70mm
Voigtlander Ultron 21mm
I'm leaning towards this combo since the FE 24-70mm seems to be the most versatile lens option to start out with, but would I really miss the 35-70mm focal range that much if I very very rarely ever do portraits? It seems like this option gives me a lot of versatility, but I may end up regretting the 24-70 purchase since my ultimate goal is high quality landscapes more so than versatility.
Combo 2:
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
FE 16-35mm
FE 24-240
This combo might be the best quality and most logical choice since I may not get better than the FE 16-35 for landscape, but it would still be a heavy and expensive kit with no primes for the landscape shots. However, the 16-35 would allow me to use filters.
My concern here is having just one option for astrophotography, and no light or small options for walking around. My concern is also being stuck with the 16-35 if Sony comes out with an awesome and fast Ultra Wide Angle prime.
Combo 3:
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
FE 35mm 2.8
Voigtlander Ultron 21mm
FE 24-240 or 70-200
I'm thinking combo 3 would be the best since I could leave behind the Rokinon if I was traveling and still have a pretty light kit that can handle everything I want to do. I also wouldn't purchase the Ultron immediately so maybe Sony releases a fast FE 21mm by the end of the year.
My only concern here is that I'm relying on non-native lenses for my landscape shots, and the 35mm might be the worst quality lens for landscapes based on the reviews I read. I just keep coming back to its tiny size.
Another plus to this combo is that the smaller and lighter lenses leaves me a lot of options for a telephoto lens.
I guess the decision ultimately comes down to the following question: If I was packing just two lenses to backpack in somewhere like a Mount Everest Base Camp Trek following by a couple of weeks traveling through India, would I rather have the FE 24-70 and Ultron 21mm; FE 35mm and Ultron 21mm; or the FE 16-35mm and Rokinon 14mm?
I'm purchasing my first quality camera this week in a Sony A7ii and was wondering if everyone could help me out with my lens decisions. I'm mostly going to stick to Landscape and Travel Photography with the occasional dabbling in Landscape Astrophotography. Most of my favorite shots are taken from hiking trails or while exploring cities. So at least one of my lenses has to be good for walking around a city in a foreign country, while I also need an awesome landscape lens.
I came up with a few different lens combinations and I can't make up my mind about what to purchase. I already bought the Rokinon and I plan on buying an FE lens with the Camera so my first purchase will dictate the future ones as I want to avoid overlapping focal lengths. I also want to stick to high quality lenses since I may want to print some of my photos in the future.
The combos list the lenses in the order I'd purchase them over the next year.
Combo 1:
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
FE 24-70mm
Voigtlander Ultron 21mm
I'm leaning towards this combo since the FE 24-70mm seems to be the most versatile lens option to start out with, but would I really miss the 35-70mm focal range that much if I very very rarely ever do portraits? It seems like this option gives me a lot of versatility, but I may end up regretting the 24-70 purchase since my ultimate goal is high quality landscapes more so than versatility.
Combo 2:
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
FE 16-35mm
FE 24-240
This combo might be the best quality and most logical choice since I may not get better than the FE 16-35 for landscape, but it would still be a heavy and expensive kit with no primes for the landscape shots. However, the 16-35 would allow me to use filters.
My concern here is having just one option for astrophotography, and no light or small options for walking around. My concern is also being stuck with the 16-35 if Sony comes out with an awesome and fast Ultra Wide Angle prime.
Combo 3:
Rokinon 14mm 2.8
FE 35mm 2.8
Voigtlander Ultron 21mm
FE 24-240 or 70-200
I'm thinking combo 3 would be the best since I could leave behind the Rokinon if I was traveling and still have a pretty light kit that can handle everything I want to do. I also wouldn't purchase the Ultron immediately so maybe Sony releases a fast FE 21mm by the end of the year.
My only concern here is that I'm relying on non-native lenses for my landscape shots, and the 35mm might be the worst quality lens for landscapes based on the reviews I read. I just keep coming back to its tiny size.
Another plus to this combo is that the smaller and lighter lenses leaves me a lot of options for a telephoto lens.
I guess the decision ultimately comes down to the following question: If I was packing just two lenses to backpack in somewhere like a Mount Everest Base Camp Trek following by a couple of weeks traveling through India, would I rather have the FE 24-70 and Ultron 21mm; FE 35mm and Ultron 21mm; or the FE 16-35mm and Rokinon 14mm?
and also, you can find really good landscapes made with 400mm and even more.