-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Walk Around FE Lens for Travel
- Thread starter ultragc
- Start date
-
- Tags
- sony a6000 sony a7
Don't think you will be disappointed with either one. I love the 55 though, and for the price you could get the 28 with it as well! Enjoy
G
Glenn Barber
Guest
For the A6000 - the best all arounder is the Fe 28 - also consider the inexpensive and light weight 21 adapter for it. I have these on my A7r2 when I need wide for light weight walk around. for the A6000 anything longer is probably too long. The only alternatives I would suggest is the FE 16-35 (or the 35 2.8 if you are on a budget and want to keep size down)
golfhov
Forum Pro
Ok
I love my 55 but it is a bit odd. It seems a bit long for a all day ttravel lens. I almostuseit like a short portrait lens most of the time. Beautiful output
Now they have the cheap 50 1.8. It seems to be not the quality of the 55 butmay be good for travel where you will rarely bes hooting wide open anyway.
Great lens. Big and heavy. I don't know I would favor it for travel. Although to me35mm makes a lot more travel sense then the 55. You could in theory use only this lens but there would be a few times you would probably want to stitch. The lens is sharp enough you could crop signicantly
If this is really what you want to do. You also need to set aside money for a flash. I like the nissin i40. Small and powerful enough. Good travel and general use. Has HSS. The hvlf20 is cheap and more portable(it lays flat in a bag). Not very powerful no HSS.
There are SOoooooo many options if you use native glass. You said that travel and landscape was your priority. I would say kit, 28 f2, and MAYBE the 16-35. Then add as you see fit
Just make out your list of priorities andaddglass that meets those needs .
G
Glenn Barber
Guest
I would agree with this one - tread lightly and avoid lens fever (wishing I had)... especially with the bigger glass. You might eventually realize you would want the 21 loxia for the best wide corners or maybe a batis - there are lots of options and many more every day. Get the 28 and maybe the 21 adapter - they are wide enough for your a6000 and are the best bang for the buck and easier to sell when you upgrade.. The take the time to see what you are shooting most and what's important.
Shoot for awhile with the 28-70 on the A7II (it is very popular for the A6000, too). See what focal lengths you shoot most, then buy a prime for that.
I would strongly recommend the FE 35mm f2.8 over the f1.4. It is a fraction of the size and weight, and the high ISO performance of both the A6000 and A7II is so good you can shoot in very low light with it on both cameras. It's very small and light. You can wear either camera with the 35/2.8 on a strap over your shoulder and under your coat when you go out to dinner.
Richard Spangler
Leading Member
- Messages
- 944
- Reaction score
- 302
I love the FE 28/55 combo. Im going on a cruise in a couple of weeks and want to take just these 2 as they are compact and fit in my Ono bag. Im going to lug the 24-240 along in my luggage just in case but I hope I can find a reason to let it go. Its huge and not comfortable to use on the a7r2. The 24-70, 2.8 would be a perfect lens for travel but due to the laws of physics its a tank.
I can see the allure to the 35/2.8 and as a one lens only solution and it might work. I tried it but felt the versatilty of the 28/55 was better for me and the color rendition/bokeh of the 55 is nothing short of amazing and the 28 isn't bad at all. If I had to chose only between the 28/2 and the 35/2.8 id go the 28. Its easier to move up sometimes then to move back so you can get more landscapes/buildings in. IQ is the same from what I can see. More Barrel distortion that can be corrected on the 28.
Forgot to add. The 28/55 use the same filters. I have CP I use for both.
I can see the allure to the 35/2.8 and as a one lens only solution and it might work. I tried it but felt the versatilty of the 28/55 was better for me and the color rendition/bokeh of the 55 is nothing short of amazing and the 28 isn't bad at all. If I had to chose only between the 28/2 and the 35/2.8 id go the 28. Its easier to move up sometimes then to move back so you can get more landscapes/buildings in. IQ is the same from what I can see. More Barrel distortion that can be corrected on the 28.
Forgot to add. The 28/55 use the same filters. I have CP I use for both.
Last edited:
While many A7X bodies are relative affordable but lens choice is significantly limited, and they are expensive. For a cost of one lens, you can buy one or maybe two A6300 body. Secondly they are bigger and heavier to carry around.
Since you have been shooting the A6000 with kit zoom, you may consider buying a few Zeiss Touit. They are fantastic and only half the price of a FF (and much easy to find on eBay). Also Sigma Art lenses too. If you don't like them, easy to sell too.
Since you have been shooting the A6000 with kit zoom, you may consider buying a few Zeiss Touit. They are fantastic and only half the price of a FF (and much easy to find on eBay). Also Sigma Art lenses too. If you don't like them, easy to sell too.
I rarely shot at 28mm so I reluctant to get this lens. Rather save money for a wider lens. Batis 18mm is great..but $1500, ouch.
G
Glenn Barber
Guest
With the corners clipped a bit on the a6000 - the FE 28 is a nice, reasonable bright near normal lens. I found I was also a bit surprised by the 21 adapter - better than expected and also you would get center field on the a6000. Cant beat the price either.
PhilthePhrame
Leading Member
I've most of the lenses referred to in this thread. For the A7 series, the 35/f2.8 is a brilliliant travel lens, but I purchased the 35 f/1.8 for the A6000 as a travel lens. Very pleased.
S
Sr1racha
Guest
I've tried out a few different setups in the 25 or so countries I've traveled around, and I'd say my fave setup to date is the one I brought with me to Spain and Portugal last month - which is the 28 f2 and 55 f1.8 combo others are recommending.
The only thing that I'd add to that combo is either the 16 or 21 ultra wide adapter for the 28.
The advantages of the 28 and 55 combo are:
If you do a lot of wide angle shots - I'd swap the 28 for the 16-35mm f4 (or wait for the 16-35 f2.8 GM). An alternative to bringing a wide angle that I thought worked quite well was just shooting 5-6 portrait oriented shots with the 28 and stitching them together in photoshop (using the auto function)
The only thing that I'd add to that combo is either the 16 or 21 ultra wide adapter for the 28.
The advantages of the 28 and 55 combo are:
- Both pretty fast lenses - so gives you low light and subject isolation capability when you need it. They're also both sharp wide open, so I rarely find the need to stop down to get to maximum sharpness.
- Focal lengths are different enough that there's a distinct difference in look and perspective. The 28mm is a moderate wide angle, so I found it's great for landscape shots without introducing a ton of distortion and it's also great for more intimate shots like in a restaurant where your subject is sitting right across from you (where the 55 would be way too tight). And the 55 is great for street photography where you want a little bit of distance, and in a pinch can serve as a portrait lens.
- They're both physically small and unobtrusive which is very important for travel lenses. You don't want something that screams tourist. This is why, having owned the FE 35 f1.4, I think the fast 35 is a poor travel lens. It is huge, and the front element screams - HEY I'M TAKING A PICTURE OF YOU". Plus you can buy both the 28 and 55 used for about the same price as just the 35. Lastly - my copy of the 35 f1.4 was noticeably soft wide open.. which I think is inexcusable for such an expensive lens.
If you do a lot of wide angle shots - I'd swap the 28 for the 16-35mm f4 (or wait for the 16-35 f2.8 GM). An alternative to bringing a wide angle that I thought worked quite well was just shooting 5-6 portrait oriented shots with the 28 and stitching them together in photoshop (using the auto function)
ChrisLovesUgly
Leading Member
They're close in size. I think IQ-wise, the 16-35 has the edge. It really depends on your preferred focal lengths. I use the 16-35 (or Batis 25) and 55 as my travel kit.
Thanks Chris. So, I am going to purchase an A7ii. The challenge now is the lense. Based on all the feedback, I am narrowing it down to the following options:
1) 28mm F/2 + 21mm Converter = $650
2) Zeiss 55mm F/1.8 = $785 ebay
3) Zeiss 16-35mm F/4 = $1,130 ebay
I will be doing a combination of portrait/landscape shooting day and night. Given the above, if I only need to choose one, which would be the one? If I choose two, it would most likely be #1 and #2... cause #3 is a bit too expensive.
Thanks
ChrisLovesUgly
Leading Member
If #3 is a bit too expensive, I think I would go for 28 (wide walk-about, landscape) +21 (landscape) and the new 50mm (long walk-about, portrait). This gives you AF, low light ability, and a good range with nice IQ for $900. If only 2 of the 3, I'd pick up the 28 and 50 (can be had new for $700 total).
It's really hard to argue against the 55, but it can be a bit limiting as a single lens.
S
Sr1racha
Guest
I can only speak for the 16-35 f4 as I've owned that one.
I'd say it's image quality wise it's very very good for landscapes, and if you're fine with it being f4 at its widest, an ok daytime walkaround lens when traveling.
It has those awesome sun-stars stopped down a little, is sharp wide open, great color and contrast, and I find that 16mm is as wide as I'd typically want to ever go.
I didn't keep it however because I tend to do a lot of lower light photography when I'm traveling, and I'm not much of a landscape shooter (I'm more about taking pics of people, not things) and I found f4 limiting. If you tend to do a lot of landscapes, I'd say it should be high on your list, if not you may found that it sits in your camera bag most of the time like me (and it's not a cheap piece of glass so I can really only afford having glass that I use a lot).
If you're only an occasional landscape shooter, the 28mm may actually be enough for you. Just something to think about.
I have tried out the 24-70mm f4, and for what it's worth, wasn't very impressed with it optically. It does focus significantly faster than the kit 28-70 though.
I'd say it's image quality wise it's very very good for landscapes, and if you're fine with it being f4 at its widest, an ok daytime walkaround lens when traveling.
It has those awesome sun-stars stopped down a little, is sharp wide open, great color and contrast, and I find that 16mm is as wide as I'd typically want to ever go.
I didn't keep it however because I tend to do a lot of lower light photography when I'm traveling, and I'm not much of a landscape shooter (I'm more about taking pics of people, not things) and I found f4 limiting. If you tend to do a lot of landscapes, I'd say it should be high on your list, if not you may found that it sits in your camera bag most of the time like me (and it's not a cheap piece of glass so I can really only afford having glass that I use a lot).
If you're only an occasional landscape shooter, the 28mm may actually be enough for you. Just something to think about.
I have tried out the 24-70mm f4, and for what it's worth, wasn't very impressed with it optically. It does focus significantly faster than the kit 28-70 though.
Similar threads
- Question
- Question
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum