Please Suggest a Travel Lense to go with A7Rii?

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

Corelli said:
> This is VERY subjective. You can it apply to almost anything: cars, is a ferrari worth 3 times the price of a corvette?, is a pair of $3000 speakers worth twice as much as a $1500 pair of speakers? etc., etc.

And as in every pursuit, the difference between great and excellent is both small and large. It takes an enormous effort to achieve that "small" difference.

The question should always be: Is it worth it to YOU?

Yes, I stated "IMO, after good post processing with the 24-240mm the IQ gap between the two close significantly where the cost and feature differential isn't worth it" for me.

Corelli said:
A couple of years ago the A7r became available for about the price of the new A6300 so I decided to take the plunge. Then came the sticker shock of the lenses!

I would have taken the A6300 (I used to own the a7r). At least you would have got later and faster tech, like newer faster PDAF instead of CDAF.

Corelli said:
The most I had ever paid for a lens for my other cameras was about $700 for the 10-18 F4. The price of the 55 1.8 was around $900. Yikes! That was just a single focal length. And then came the 35 2.8 for $800. Then the 24-70 F4 for over $1000. Returned that in favor of the 24-240 with which I was quite satisfied for the next year and a half. It was certainly much better than my 18-105G which I used quite happily on my A6000.

Yeah I don't have a problem spending more for lenses, as long as I can justify the extra expense with improved features and/or performance. The 24-240mm suites my requirements perfectly as an inexpensive "all in one" travel lens, and occasional video use. IMO, the 24-105mm limits these requirements (slightly bulkier, considerably more expensive, and less than half the focal range), whilst having arguably better image quality after good/effective post processing.

Corelli said:
The 24-105 F4 is worth the considerable cost FOR ME. It gives me the confidence that I'm getting prime or near prime quality out of my 42MP A7rii. If I'm dissatisfied with the photo, it's my fault and not the camera lens combination. I expect it to be a lens I keep for many years to come.

Good on you, enjoy your lens.

I preferred to keep my more versatile 24-240mm, and with my extra money, I purchased a Sony FE 85mm "f1.8", which (like most fast primes) will perform better in low light and produce better subject isolation than the 24-105mm "f4".

Den

Nicolas06 · Feb 4, 2018

DenImage said:
In Australia the 24-105mm is currently more than twice the cost of the 24-240mm, but do you get twice the performance and advantage? IMO, after good post processing with the 24-240mm the IQ gap between the two close significantly where the cost and feature differential isn't worth it.

Den

I think in France is also also almost like that.

As if the price difference is justified... Well the 24-105 is new, focus much faster apparently, is sharper and has 1 stop advantage for example at 105mm.. quite conveniant for subject isolation or low light... Even more so as AF in Sony system is quite sensitive to the apperture. The lens is also signficiantly sharper. The lens is also significantly lighter.

I wouldn't be surprised if the 24-105 could be find for significantly less after some time maybe 15-30% cheaper than the introduction price, in particular as the competition like sigma or samyang start to make AF lenses in FE mount.

IT will depend of its reputation... Now everybody appear to think it is great but there some people that have an ugly problem with focus shift that is really annoying...

As if the difference is worth it for you that something else entirely. Personnally I value AF, flare resistance and visibly sharp pictures and I prefer lenses to be small/light. For me a 24-70 isn't broad enough range. I appreciate to keep f/4 for the occasionnal low light shot and subject isolation 105mm f/5.6 start to be really annoying for low light. And I find 240mm + the sharpness at that setting too limiting to not get a 70-300 in crop mode anyway when reach matter.

But that are my criterias. Everyone may have different criterias. And if by anyway the 24-240 better match you needs than the 24-105, you'd be stupid to not keep the 24-240 !

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

Nicolas06 said:
I think in France is also also almost like that.

As if the price difference is justified... Well the 24-105 is new, focus much faster apparently, is sharper and has 1 stop advantage for example at 105mm.. quite conveniant for subject isolation or low light... Even more so as AF in Sony system is quite sensitive to the apperture. The lens is also signficiantly sharper. The lens is also significantly lighter.

Not "significantly" lighter (only 117 grams).

Nicolas06 said:
I wouldn't be surprised if the 24-105 could be find for significantly less after some time maybe 15-30% cheaper than the introduction price, in particular as the competition like sigma or samyang start to make AF lenses in FE mount.

True.

Nicolas06 said:
IT will depend of its reputation... Now everybody appear to think it is great but there some people that have an ugly problem with focus shift that is really annoying...

As if the difference is worth it for you that something else entirely. Personnally I value AF, flare resistance and visibly sharp pictures and I prefer lenses to be small/light.

I haven't had any issues with flare, AF speed or accuracy, and with good/effective post processing I get sharp images (see my previous post).

Compared to the Sony FE 24-105mm, the 24-240mm is approximately the same length but less bulky (72mm filter thread vs 77mm), it is 117g heavier but that's the price of an extra 135mm at the long end:

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/comp...s/BHitems/1369442-REG_1126138-REG_1029862-REG

Nicolas06 said:
For me a 24-70 isn't broad enough range. I appreciate to keep f/4 for the occasionnal low light shot and subject isolation 105mm f/5.6 start to be really annoying for low light. And I find 240mm + the sharpness at that setting too limiting to not get a 70-300 in crop mode anyway when reach matter.

With modern sensors and noise reduction algorithms (like DXO prime), the difference between f4 and f5.6 at 105mm is negligible. Not to forget, between 24-28mm the 24-240 starts at f3.5, and the additional 135mm in the 24-240 also provides greater versatility for subject isolation.

Nicolas06 said:
But that are my criterias. Everyone may have different criterias. And if by anyway the 24-240 better match you needs than the 24-105, you'd be stupid to not keep the 24-240 !

Agreed.

Den

RicksAstro · Feb 4, 2018

DenImage said:
FE 24-240mm @240mm

50% crop

Den

Yep, those look like my 24-240 looked like. Fairly sharp in the middle with some post processing and blurry on the edges.

At 24mm, I'd also get funky donut shaped sharpness profile wide open...sharp in the middle and corners, blurry in the mid range areas. Improved a little stopped down.

Post process sharpening does make it look acceptable, but it does add noise to the image compared to an inherently sharp SOOC image.

I'm very glad you are happy with your 24-240...looks like it works well for you. I liked mine overall for snapshots as well, but once the RX10 III came out, that became my travel snapshot camera and it is fabulously sharp edge to edge. Of course, nothing beats a fast prime on a full frame camera in low light.

--
Rick Krejci

RicksAstro Astrophotography

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

Yeah sharp in the centre and softer in the corners. I have created batch profiles to minimise this, but you can only do so much without compromising the result.

Noise hasn't really been a problem, except in the corners when over-correcting vignetting in shadowed areas.

I haven't experienced the 24mm "doughnut" issue though.

All in all, I'm happy with the images I get with the 24-240mm, especially as a convenient 10x snapshot/travel lens.

Den.

paul wassermann · Feb 4, 2018

DenImage said:
"The images taken with 24-240 are unprocessed RAW, the images from the golf outing are JPEGS, processed in Lightroom"

-

Unfair comparison. The 24-240 needs post processing to get the best out of it, and you've posted processed RX10 images in comparison.

:

"I know the 24-240 would not have resolved the golf ball on the green based upon my tests done first day at the driving range with that lens"

-

On a 36 megapixel A7r? That would seem unlikely. Something not quite right there, I resolve a lot of detail with mine on my a7rii.

I'll post some shots later.

Den

Wasn't meaning to really make a fair comparison, just happened the 24-240 were RAW (I only shot about 150 images with the lens) whereas I don't normally shoot in RAW. The Golf outing images were processed for my friends. But even when I worked with Lightroom on the 24-240 I still wasn't happy with the image quality. I think there is just something about Zeiss optics that produces nice colors and pop to begin with. But the bottom line remains, for me the RX10 equalled or outperformed the 24-240. And I really was frustrated by the tight zoom stiffness that almost made me feel I would damage the lens mount.

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

"Wasn't meaning to really make a fair comparison, just happened the 24-240 were RAW (I only shot about 150 images with the lens) whereas I don't normally shoot in RAW. The Golf outing images were processed for my friends. But even when I worked with Lightroom on the 24-240 I still wasn't happy with the image quality. I think there is just something about Zeiss optics that produces nice colors and pop to begin with. But the bottom line remains, for me the RX10 equalled or outperformed the 24-240. And I really was frustrated by the tight zoom stiffness that almost made me feel I would damage the lens mount"

:

I did have another look at your 24-240 images, and they did look unusually soft (at least compared to mine). So product variation may be the cause.

I like the "tight zoom stiffness", I hate zoom creep more.

Den

theswede #100093 · Feb 4, 2018

I would say you have an excellent set of travel lenses for anything but safari and bird spotting. If those are on the agenda, I would complement with a camera which has long reach.

I would be quite happy with that setup you have for 3 months in Asia!

Jesper

Frustrated Writer · Feb 4, 2018

Corelli said:
The 24-105 F4 G is definitely the way to go!

I had the 24-240 and it was a very good "all-in-one" lens and I took hundreds of fine photos with it, but it is quite compromised at the long end.

The 24-105 blows it out of the water and no, that is not an exaggeration. It is prime sharp, fast focusing and well-balanced on the A7rii with excellent OSS.

After a couple months using it in all kinds of conditions, it will certainly be the lens on my camera when traveling. If I think I might be in situations where I will really want more reach, I will take my 70-300G.

Yes, it is expensive but SO worth it.

Cheers

Corelli · Feb 4, 2018

Looking forward to your photos from the trip!

Cheers

Frustrated Writer · Feb 4, 2018

Corelli said:
Looking forward to your photos from the trip!

Cheers

havoc315 · Feb 4, 2018

The 2 lens travel solution for the a7riii

Loading…

enthusiastphotoblog.com

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

havoc315 said:
The 2 lens travel solution for the a7riii

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

--

If your gonna suggest a two lens travel solution, my preference would be the Sony FE 16-35mm f4, and the Sony FE 85mm f1.8

Den

havoc315 · Feb 4, 2018

DenImage said:
havoc315 said:

The 2 lens travel solution for the a7riii

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

--

Click to expand...

If your gonna suggest a two lens travel solution, my preference would be the Sony FE 16-35mm f4, and the Sony FE 85mm f1.8

Den

That’s essentially my 2 favorite ranges. Though for me, it’s ususlly the 12-24 and 85/1.8. But while I LOVE 85mm for much of my shooting, I prefer something closer to 50mm/normal view for travel.

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

havoc315 said:
DenImage said:

havoc315 said:

The 2 lens travel solution for the a7riii

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

--

Click to expand...

If your gonna suggest a two lens travel solution, my preference would be the Sony FE 16-35mm f4, and the Sony FE 85mm f1.8

Den

Click to expand...

That’s essentially my 2 favorite ranges. Though for me, it’s ususlly the 12-24 and 85/1.8. But while I LOVE 85mm for much of my shooting, I prefer something closer to 50mm/normal view for travel.

Yes, but the FE 16-35mm @35mm gets you closer to the "normal" view/perspective, allowing you to go for a slightly longer second prime like the FE 85mm f1.8 (which is arguably a better lens than the FE 55mm, sharper, less LoCa, better bokeh).

The FE 16-35mm f4 is slightly smaller and less bulky, and has a filter thread (convenient for protective filters whilst travelling):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.440,624.662,ha,t

Kind of pointless anyway, because the topic of this thread is to "suggest a travel lense" meaning a single lens solution, not two.

Den

havoc315 · Feb 4, 2018

DenImage said:
havoc315 said:

DenImage said:

havoc315 said:

The 2 lens travel solution for the a7riii

http://enthusiastphotoblog.com/2018/01/25/the-two-lens-travel-solution/

--

Click to expand...

If your gonna suggest a two lens travel solution, my preference would be the Sony FE 16-35mm f4, and the Sony FE 85mm f1.8

Den

Click to expand...

That’s essentially my 2 favorite ranges. Though for me, it’s ususlly the 12-24 and 85/1.8. But while I LOVE 85mm for much of my shooting, I prefer something closer to 50mm/normal view for travel.

Click to expand...

Yes, but the FE 16-35mm @35mm gets you closer to the "normal" view/perspective, allowing you to go for a slightly longer second prime like the FE 85mm f1.8 (which is arguably a better lens than the FE 55mm, sharper, less LoCa, better bokeh).

Good points.

DenImage said:
The FE 16-35mm f4 is smaller, and has a filter thread (convenient for protective filters whilst travelling):

http://camerasize.com/compact/#624.440,624.662,ha,t

Kind of pointless anyway, because the topic of this thread is to "suggest a travel lense" meaning a single lens solution, not two.

Den

This may be opinionated, but if you want to stick to one lens, there is no point to an ILC Camera.... get something like an RX10.

Not that you can’t even spend a session or day with a single lens. But I can’t imagine wanting to use just a single lens for an entire trip. As any trip involves so many different types of shots, and no single lens could do that all well.

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

"This may be opinionated, but if you want to stick to one lens, there is no point to an ILC Camera.... get something like an RX10"

:

The problem with cameras like the RX10 (as discussed earlier in this thread), is poor performance in low light due to the small 1" sensor.

I purchased my FE 24-240mm as an inexpensive "all in one" travel lens, or for occasional video use. It suits these requirements perfectly.

If I need better performance (for photography), I'll take my Voigtlander FE 15mm f4.5, Voigtlander FE 40mm f1.2, and Sony FE 85mm f1.8

Den

havoc315 · Feb 4, 2018

DenImage said:
"This may be opinionated, but if you want to stick to one lens, there is no point to an ILC Camera.... get something like an RX10"

:

The problem with cameras like the RX10 (as discussed earlier in this thread), is poor performance in low light due to the small 1" sensor.

I purchased my FE 24-240mm as an inexpensive "all in one" travel lens, or for occasional video use. It suits these requirements perfectly.

If I need better performance (for photography), I'll take my Voigtlander FE 15mm f4.5, Voigtlander FE 40mm f1.2, and Sony FE 85mm f1.8

Den

Low light capability is just as impacted by lens aperture. The 24-240 is a slow aperture lens, 3.5-6.3

The rx10iv is 2.4-4.

So the RX10 will give low light capability about equivalent to an aps-c camera with the 24-240. (Yes.. if you’re using full frame ILC, you’ll still have about a 1 stop low light advantage)

It’s why smart phones can now produce IQ similar/superior to some ILC+kit lens combos — the faster aperture makes up for the small sensor.

DenImage · Feb 4, 2018

Another forum member (Jim Stirling) posted a good explanation earlier in this thread at the bottom of page 2:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

I won't bother arguing about equivalence again.

Den

havoc315 · Feb 5, 2018

DenImage said:
Another forum member (Jim Stirling) posted a good explanation earlier in this thread at the bottom of page 2:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4250019?page=2

I won't bother arguing about equivalence again.

Den

I can’t find his post?

But it’s rather simple.... even though sensor may be smaller, a larger aperture lets you shoot at lower ISO.

A 1” sensor may be inferior to an aps-c sensor. But I’d rather shoot at ISO 400 on a 1” sensor than ISO 3200 on aps-c (that example would be a rather tremendous 3 stop difference in lens aperture )

Please Suggest a Travel Lense to go with A7Rii?

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts