Reading mode: Light Dark

Switching to Sony, need lens advice for kids

Go to last post
sapple

sapple

Forum Enthusiast
Messages
458
Solutions
1
Reaction score
180
Location
MD, US
Hello,

I have been following rumors of a new full frame e-mount camera for a while and was hoping to see the a7III announced. Its technically possible that could happen at the sony news conference tomorrow but unlikely. That said, its past time I upgraded to a full frame and I want that camera to be a sony. Specifically I am looking at an a7II.

Since I will be switching from nikon apsc none of my lenses will be usable. What lenses should I be looking for that support the eye-af? Is the 28-70 kit lens worth getting?

I have a newborn and primary subject will be her for the foreseeable future, but prior to her I took a lot of landscapes and would like to do that still. My initial budget for glass is $2000. Eventually I will buy more glass as time goes on and I get a better feel for what I need. But can you guys give me some recommendations for 1 to 3 lenses I should go for right away?

At least right now my midrange plan will be to use the a7II now and upgrade to the a7III (if warranted) when it is released.

Thank you for any help.
 
I upgraded from the A7 to A7RII before my son was born. That was April 2016. So my son is 1 year old and walking around now.
When the baby was stationary, the GM85 and FE55 produced nice portraits.
After we started bringing the baby out more, the FE35 F2.8 and FE16-35mm F4 were used often.

The FE35 lets me make the package small enough that I always have the camera on me.
The 16-35mm is especially useful when shooting video in crop mode (it's sharper than full frame mode for A7rii 4k video). I used to never shoot videos and only started when my son was born. So if you're not a video person, you might become one.


16-35mm will be a good landscape lens too. So it seems this lens is a "must buy" for you. Then with your remaining budget you could either get native lenses or legacy glass. The 28-70 is worth getting as a kit if you use that focal range.

Personally I prefer all native glass for the AF, but I've used a Canon FDn 50mm before. For static subjects the manual focusing was easy enough. A cheap legacy 50/85mm would be nice before your baby learns to move around. My MF skills are crap for moving subjects and I wouldn't try MF for a crawling or walking kid.

Purely just my opinion:
  • FE 16-35 F4
  • Small, light lens around 35mm (AF recommended)
  • Portrait lens (MF legacy glass, save money. Upgrade in the future if you want)
--
Flickr photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tylclement/
 
Last edited:
Quite frankly, I disagree with the 16-35/4.

In my opinion the key focal lengths for shooting kids/newborns are 35mm, 50/55mm and, on occasion, 85mm.

The 35/2.8 is an ok all-purpose lens, but I personally don't love the rendering for portraits. The 35/1.4 and 50/1.4 are *spectacular* for kids/newborns, although they're pricey. But I'd very strongly recommend you get one of these two lenses.

55/1.8 is another very good option, but I do find the 50/1.4 to be noticeably better.

It's probably safe to buy a used 50/1.4 because there don't seem to be many quality control issues with that lens. If you buy a used 35/1.4, you'll want to test it thoroughly as many/most of them suffer from a soft right side (but even a bad copy will give you spectacular photos). The 55/1.8 also has some sample variation.

Finally the 85/1.8 seems to be a solid lens for the price.
 
Go to shop and try out a7II and a7rII with native prime like 55mm, bring your own SDcard and bring a friend you can take pictures of. Compare results using afc and face tracking modes with focus area wide etc.. Also compare at iso 640 and also write speeds to sd card..

Back home you can develop raw files and compare.. If needed you can install capture one and use it to develop raw for free, either one month full trial or free express version for Sony cameras :-)

Then perhaps try a cheaper native lens like the FE 50 1.8.. on a7ii it was not sharp enough in corners wide open for me as we often frame subject away from center so we chose the sel55f18z

For indoors use I need atleast f/2 as i don't use flash and need to keep shutter fast enough to not get too much motion blur.

Ofcourse also try the zoom if you can :-)

After the latest pricedrop A7rII might make sense.

Hope you find what you're looking for :-)
 
A used 55/1.8 is around $600, fast AF and a very special lens.

If you have a lot more money to spend, the 50/1.4 and 35/1.4 are supposed to be spectacular lenses for portraits, but more than I'm willing to spend for that.
 
One lens I got that was cheap and made one of the best baby portraits I have taken was a 2nd hand Nikon 55 F2.8 macro. It lets you get really close and is sharp. You can get a unique look there.

Costs hardly anything and cheap dumb adapters are abundant on ebay.

I don't know the 35 and 50 1.4s and I am sure they are great but they are also large,heavy and expensive. The 55 1.8 is one I think you'll find is universally agreed as one of Sonys best lenses.

I use a Batis 85 for portraits and using eye detect AF in the A7r2 also got me some of the best portraits ever. Sony's news 85 1.8 is probably an excellent choice as its getting good reviews. Its more zoomed in though being a mild telephoto. Probably better for outdoor shots.

Greg.
 
The f/4 zooms are quite convenient but they are slow and they don't have much in the way of character.

A lot of baby's early days will be shot indoors so think about that relative to focal length and aperture.

At first all they do is sleep and sit so any good speedy MF lens will do.

12-14 months is when they start to move and that's when AF is helpful.

The 28/2 is not their best lens but the focal length and speed allows it to work well indoors.

35/2.8 is a good lens for general photography. Slower than I like for indoors....

55 and both non-GM 85s are great lenses.

The 55mm can be an tough focal length for many people; a little long for small indoor spaces.

Loxia 35 and 50 are lovely but you have to be OK with MF.

In short I would be inclined to buy some nice primes over the zooms.

YMMV.
 
FE 50 f1.8 plus a flash.
 
LoneReaction said:
I upgraded from the A7 to A7RII before my son was born. That was April 2016. So my son is 1 year old and walking around now.
When the baby was stationary, the GM85 and FE55 produced nice portraits.
After we started bringing the baby out more, the FE35 F2.8 and FE16-35mm F4 were used often.

The FE35 lets me make the package small enough that I always have the camera on me.

16-35mm will be a good landscape lens too. So it seems this lens is a "must buy" for you. Then with your remaining budget you could either get native lenses or legacy glass. The 28-70 is worth getting as a kit if you use that focal range.

Purely just my opinion:
  • FE 16-35 F4
  • Small, light lens around 35mm (AF recommended)
  • Portrait lens (MF legacy glass, save money. Upgrade in the future if you want)
Click to expand...
I too disagree about the FE 16-35 mm zoom as a main lens. I would count the 35 mm f2.8, 55 mm f1.8, and the new FE 85 mm f1.8 as "must buy" for me. Also get the 28-70 kit zoom. It is pretty decent and is very lightweight (a major plus within the Sony ecosphere), and is definitely worth it at the bundled price. Unfortunately, Sony seems to have a split personality with their cameras being compact and lightweight, and most of their lenses being large, heavy monsters; well at least the fast ones, but that seems to be where they are focusing most of their effort.

I too would advise you to go into a brick and mortar store and handle the camera and lenses, before you buy, and hopefully buy from that store, otherwise brick and mortar stores will go the way of the Dodo even faster than they are doing right now. I think you gain a different perspective when you handle the camera yourself. I for one dislike big, bulky lenses, which seem to be all the rage on this forum.

One other piece of advice, is to see what you are using right now on your Nikon system, and ask yourself why you are considering the switch? A look at what lens you are currently using the most, which focal lengths and why, as well as what your current system is able to give you and where you think it is failing you, will inform your decision far more than a forum full of gear-head strangers.
 
Last edited:
If your budget for glass is $2000, you might want to at least consider this lens. Maybe get a used A7II to help pay for it. I bought a used A7II 1.5 years ago from B&H and it has been flawless.

The advantage with the GM zoom is that it can do landscape and baby pics, without need for lens changes. The issue would be is f/2.8 fast enough for you. It would be for me, since I am not interested in thinner DOF than that. Yes, everything is a compromise. But I do not recommend the kit zoom, which I used to have. Way too slow, especially on the long end. Not very good sharpness. It is pretty good in a central 'bulls eye' region, not very good beyond that. And it only goes to 28mm. Huge compromises all around. But, if you can get one for cheap, you may be able to swing a Batis 25 and FE 85 to go along with it. Only you know your priorities.
 
Taking everyones comments into account and looking for similarities, I see general recommendation for the Sony 55 lens. After that folks like the idea of the new 85 lens and there is some disagreement about what to go after for the wider end.

For landscapes right now I use a 11-16 tokina on my nikon aps-c camera which I believe is equivalent to 18 to 25mm. I really do not want to lose the ability to get into this range for purposes of doing landscapes. The 24-70 2.8 lens is very interesting to me but not knowing anything about it I wonder if the image quality is equivalent to the primes. I could buy the body only a7ii and the 24-70 and fit just within my budget even with everything brand new.

If I decide to go the other route and get the 55mm, the kit lens, and a wide angle (preferable in the 20mm or less category) any recommendations for glass that would support the autofocus? Seems like a lot of lenses in this category are manual which given the lengths involved make a certain amount of sense, but at the same time I like to keep things simple with AF whenever possible.

Thank you guys for the advice so far and any other help.
 
sapple said:
Taking everyones comments into account and looking for similarities, I see general recommendation for the Sony 55 lens. After that folks like the idea of the new 85 lens and there is some disagreement about what to go after for the wider end.

For landscapes right now I use a 11-16 tokina on my nikon aps-c camera which I believe is equivalent to 18 to 25mm. I really do not want to lose the ability to get into this range for purposes of doing landscapes. The 24-70 2.8 lens is very interesting to me but not knowing anything about it I wonder if the image quality is equivalent to the primes. I could buy the body only a7ii and the 24-70 and fit just within my budget even with everything brand new.

If I decide to go the other route and get the 55mm, the kit lens, and a wide angle (preferable in the 20mm or less category) any recommendations for glass that would support the autofocus? Seems like a lot of lenses in this category are manual which given the lengths involved make a certain amount of sense, but at the same time I like to keep things simple with AF whenever possible.

Thank you guys for the advice so far and any other help.

--
www.applenegative.com
Click to expand...
If you are considering the 24-70 f2.8 then do walk into a real store and try it first. It is large, heavy and bulky. For me, that would make it a no-no. I don't have this Sony lens but did buy a used Canon 28-70 f2.8 many years ago. Guess how many times I have used that lens in the last 10 years, on either my Canon or Sony bodies? Zero, Nada, NEVER! All because of it's size, weight and bulk.

If you want to get another zoom other than the kit zoom another possibility is the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 mm f4 lens, which is more manageable than the f2.8. I am not sure it is significantly better than the kit zoom other than starting at 24 mm on the wide end, vs the kit zoom.
 
1635/4ZA, 55/1.8ZA, 70300G OSS
 
You will get a lot of keeper for their lifetime memory.
 
sapple said:
Taking everyones comments into account and looking for similarities, I see general recommendation for the Sony 55 lens. After that folks like the idea of the new 85 lens and there is some disagreement about what to go after for the wider end.

For landscapes right now I use a 11-16 tokina on my nikon aps-c camera which I believe is equivalent to 18 to 25mm. I really do not want to lose the ability to get into this range for purposes of doing landscapes. The 24-70 2.8 lens is very interesting to me but not knowing anything about it I wonder if the image quality is equivalent to the primes. I could buy the body only a7ii and the 24-70 and fit just within my budget even with everything brand new.

If I decide to go the other route and get the 55mm, the kit lens, and a wide angle (preferable in the 20mm or less category) any recommendations for glass that would support the autofocus? Seems like a lot of lenses in this category are manual which given the lengths involved make a certain amount of sense, but at the same time I like to keep things simple with AF whenever possible.

Thank you guys for the advice so far and any other help.
Click to expand...
 
That will take you a long way, I would guess - and will come in around $1000.

Save the other $1000 until you have a better idea what works and what (if anything) is missing.

Alternative would be Batis 25 plus Batis 85. But $$$ (and not that much better).

PS: If you don't mind grey import, you can get A7rii for $2200 currently. That is not that much more compared to A7ii and significant step up in image quality. The extra pixels will give you ability to crop, so need for 85mm lens is somewhat diminished.
 
Last edited:
Considering the price of the 28-70 when purchased with the camera as a kit, I would consider it foolish to pass up this very usable little lens. The quality is better than a lot give it credit for and the small size and weight combined with the zoom range makes it very nice to keep handy, especially when kids are around.
 
BBQue said:
That will take you a long way, I would guess - and will come in around $1000.

Save the other $1000 until you have a better idea what works and what (if anything) is missing.

Alternative would be Batis 25 plus Batis 85. But $$$ (and not that much better).

PS: If you don't mind grey import, you can get A7rii for $2200 currently. That is not that much more compared to A7ii and significant step up in image quality. The extra pixels will give you ability to crop, so need for 85mm lens is somewhat diminished.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately this combination is overbudget. The plan is get an a7ii now and upgrade whenever the a7iii comes out and sell off the a7ii for whatever I can get for it at that time. Also the 28mm is not as wide as I want to go and I feel like I would be missing some ranges having only those 2 lenses. While having the a7rii would be nice I do not think the difference is critical for me. The a7ii is already a giant upgrade over my current camera.
 
dkeller said:
Considering the price of the 28-70 when purchased with the camera as a kit, I would consider it foolish to pass up this very usable little lens. The quality is better than a lot give it credit for and the small size and weight combined with the zoom range makes it very nice to keep handy, especially when kids are around.
Click to expand...
It really depends on what I end up buying. If I go with a couple of primes then you are right I would definitely want to get the kit lens. But if I decided to go with the 24-70 2.8 then there really is no reason to also get the kit lens which covers a slightly more limited range and does so in a way that is inferior in every respect except size and weight.
 
sapple said:
sapple wrote:It really depends on what I end up buying. If I go with a couple of primes then you are right I would definitely want to get the kit lens. But if I decided to go with the 24-70 2.8 then there really is no reason to also get the kit lens which covers a slightly more limited range and does so in a way that is inferior in every respect except size and weight.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top