Sony full frame mirrorless camera and lens buying for beginner on a low budget

Sounds like a reasonable plan to me. An original A7 doesn't give you as much of adapted AF lens options as a II or III series camera, so you would need to go with native lenses if relatively fast AF is important.

A few other options to consider:

1. An A99 (A mount camera). The body would be more expensive, but there are a wide variety of A mount lenses available for very affordable prices. Pretty much the same sensor as the A7.

2. An A7R, since you're doing mainly landscape. It has 50% more pixels, but, more importantly, no AA filter and a thinner, less reflective, sensor stack.

3. An A7II. This would allow you to get fast adapted AF, and you could look at something like a Sigma EX DG 15-30 instead of the FE 16-35/4. IBIS can be handy, as well as the less reflective sensor, and better AF with EF lenses on an adapter would expand your budget-oriented lens options.

--
A7R2 with SEL2470Z and a number of adapted lenses (Canon FD, Minolta AF, Canon EF, Leica, Nikon...); A7R converted to IR.

Thanks for your opinion.

For your 1st alternative I instantly said no, because of the almost double weight and because it's bigger.

The second alternative is interesting, but from what I read the a7r has a slower AF and slower continuous shooting. This maybe would not be a deal breaker, but it's also more expensive.

The a7 ii was actually my main camera that I looked at. But what I thought in the end is: it's $200 more expensive. That money I can buy the 50mm f1.8. So I will have at least 2 lenses at the beginning. Which I think (at least this is my perspective) is better than having only the 16-35mm and the a7 ii. But nonetheless I will stick this option to my wishlist. Maybe I manage to get the a7 ii instead. It's just the tiny itchy thought that I will change the body anyway in 1 year or so.

I also got more confidence on my main plan, because you approved it to be a nice way. Thanks again for your help!

I was in your situation a few years back. It often seems to me that people on this forum have bottomless pockets! I bought the a7 with the FE 28mm, and the 50mm you mention. In total this weighed just 860g, and gave me far better sharpness and dynamic range than my Nikon APS-C gear. The 28mm has quite a lot of distortion, and you need to play with it a bit to discover just what apertures and focal distances work best, but it is capable of good results. The Samyang 35mm is a really sharp lens, especially on just 24MP, and is so light and small. The Samyang 24mm f/2.8 is also amazingly light and small, and while not as good as the 35mm, I found that I got really good images if I stopped well down and set the focus around 4m manually. People often complain about the slow focus of the FE50mm, and it certainly is slow, but I find it to be accurate more than 90% of the time, and it is really sharp on the a7 if well stopped down.

I actually found the 16-35mm f/4 to be a bit heavy for the a7, and though the colours and contrast were excellent, the sharpness in the corners was poorer than I wanted.

I had the Samyang 14mm too, and though sharp enough I found it very fussy (I remember I couild only get corner to corner sharpness by focussing at a very specific distance), and again just too heavy for the a7.

If you choose Samyang, be prepared to test it well, you may well need to go through a copy or two before getting a good one.

So some combination of the Sam24mm, the FE28mm, the Sam35mm, and the FE50mm would give a light, cheap, high quality kit. Whatever you choose, good luck!

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/138606207@N02/

Robert Balazs said:

Getting a Sony a7 Mk 1 used around 400 dollars.

Click to expand...

I think that the a7ii has efcs and better af, it might be worth paying a premium for.

Robert Balazs said:

Getting a 16-35mm f4 for landscape and street and general travel photography.

Click to expand...

f/4 zoom is slow and big for street use, and it's expensive.

Robert Balazs said:

Getting the 50mm f1.8 (the nifty fifty).

This is all for starting. And then later down the road (in about 1-1.5 years) when I get the chance I would like to change the body to the a7r Mk 2 /r Mk 3 or the original a7 Mk 3. Maybe getting the 85mm f1.8 as well.

Other than the 16-35mm I don't want to spend more right now, because I can't.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't get a $1250 ultrawide to start off with, it's a restrictive focal length.

Robert Balazs said:

Is this a good starting point, or do you think another way would be better?

Click to expand...

don't know what your experience level is, but there are a lot of people who adapt old film lenses, because they are cheap, and it's an xlnt learning experience... manual focus is far more accurate with these milc bodies, than it ever was with dslrs.

canon fdn lenses with a $15 adapter would be a good overall choice... the drawback to old film lenses is that finding good lenses wider than 28mm is difficult.

Robert Balazs said:

I shoot mostly landscapes, cityscapes, landscape, and cityscape portraits. Normal portraits and the all-around shooting, when you see something and just shoot.

Click to expand...

ansel adams did his greatest work with nothing wider than a 50mm ff equivalent lens, so don't fall for the hype that ultra wide is the only lens that you'll need for landscape shooting.

take a look at some fan ho street pics(see below for example), he shot with a Nikon film camera, no ultra-wide lenses afaik.

worst case, you can take a series of overlapped vertical shots with a longer lens, and stitch 'em together in post, then crop for the width that you want, and end up with a high-resolution photo.

Robert Balazs said:

For the lenses I also considered to have only primes, instead of the 16-35mm. Like a Samyang 14mm f2.8 and a Samyang 35mm f2.8. It will not only cut the weight but the price as well. Do you think it's better to have these 2 primes instead of the 16-35mm f4?

Click to expand...

it would be cheaper and lighter, but if you are referring to the manual focus Samyang 14/2.8 from years ago, that lens has a terrible q.c. record.

The A7 (~$350 used) is a great affordable way to get into 'full frame' and into the Sony system. I'd recommend at least going to the A7RII or A7III as an upgrade option.

For wide angle, the 16-35mm f/4 (~$800 used) is a great option, and unlike what others said, IMO, is not too big. The new Tamron 17-28mm f/2.8 (~$900 new) could be another decent option. Unfortunately, because it's so new, you probably won't be able to get a used discount on it yet. For standard portraits, the 50mm f/1.8 (~$150 used) is a great affordable option.

For me personally, since I don't shoot wide much, I didn't spend too much on my wide angle option. I still have a Sony 10-18mm f/4 (~$500 used) for APS-C that also works at certain focal lengths for 'full frame'. It's pretty compact but I'm looking to sell it. I also have a Minolta 17-35mm f/2.8-4 (~$250 used) and Sony LA-EA4 (~$150 used) as an actual full frame wide angle combo. So together (~$400 used), that's the cheapest decent full frame wide-angle autofocusing lens I could find. It's not huge but not compact either.

Another thing to be said about slightly heavier lenses on the a7 is that they may tend to loosen the mount. My a7 is about three years old, and I already notice that the lens mount feels a bit loose, something which is more noticeable with the heavier lenses. As yet, this has made no difference to image quality.

Part of the old fortification around Copenhagen. Carl zeiss Distagon f:2,8/35mm (Sony 5100 crop x1.5)

Personally I would go for a a7 Mk.2 the onboard stabilizer give you the possibility to shoot in darker surroundings. Even if its less than what Sony’s marketing department dreams of, in real world its means the same difference as from a f:2.0 to a f:1.0 lens. You said you are shooting landscape, city’s, portrait, and a little of everything. If you want the most quality from a modest budget I will recommend the classic choice: 35mm, 50mm and something between 75 to 90mm (very important for portrait, taking portraits with a 35mm lens is far from optimal). Research the internet and look on as many pictures as possibly taken with the lenses you can afford, and look at the whole rendering, colors, shades, and spacial qualities. Prioritizing from details like lowest f-number or corner sharpness don’t give you the best tools to make quality pictures, especially on a low budget. Using hours looking at corner sharpness at full open aperture only tells something about- corner sharpness at full open aperture. For your landscape pictures you should of course close down to the sharpest aperture (start with doing your own test when you get the lens - a good eye is the best picture analyser there is). If landscape has the highest priority a wider lens could be nice to have but 24mm is more versatile and useful than a 16mm, with a ultra wides you get much more perspective displacement which means that you miss a lot in post because of cropping included in uprighing of the picture, so the finished result is not so much wider than with a 24mm. If you need it real wide stitch several pictures together. If you like to try to do your own focus, there is a real treasure chest of beautiful old manuel lenses out there (with very cheap adaptors) which could fit a modest budget nicely. If I should recommend some of the old manuel lenses I use on my a7R2 it could be: Distagon 2,8/35 (C/Y), Planer 1,8/50 (QBM), Sonnar 2,8/85 (C/Y), or Distagon 2,8/25 and Sonnar 2,8/135 (C/Y) - All Carl Zeiss.


Copenhagen harbor. Carl Zeiss Distagon f:2,8/25mm

Robert Balazs said:

Hi,

I would have a question for you if you have the time to answer, it would be awesome!I'm not in the best situation when it comes to budget, but I thought a way of getting the best I can for my money.

So here's my plan for getting into the full-frame world:

Getting a Sony a7 Mk 1 used around 400 dollars. Getting a 16-35mm f4 for landscape and street and general travel photography.

Getting the 50mm f1.8 (the nifty fifty).

This is all for starting. And then later down the road (in about 1-1.5 years) when I get the chance I would like to change the body to the a7r Mk 2 /r Mk 3 or the original a7 Mk 3. Maybe getting the 85mm f1.8 as well.

Other than the 16-35mm I don't want to spend more right now, because I can't.

Is this a good starting point, or do you think another way would be better?

General QA:

I shoot mostly landscapes, cityscapes, landscape, and cityscape portraits. Normal portraits and the all-around shooting, when you see something and just shoot.

I don't want to carry a big weight with me but want quality gear. Don't want to consider the APS-C line at all.

For the lenses I also considered to have only primes, instead of the 16-35mm. Like a Samyang 14mm f2.8 and a Samyang 35mm f2.8. It will not only cut the weight but the price as well. Do you think it's better to have these 2 primes instead of the 16-35mm f4?

Thank you for your patience and help.

Click to expand...

IMHO you should be able to get a very good condition used A7r for $400. That's a very good camera I think (I still have one here)... the shutter is a bit noisy by today's standards but it's no worse than many SLR's

The A7r takes some gorgeous 36MP shots! (It just doesn't focus as fast as the latest gear).

I've started my digital journey with an a7 + 55/1.8 and added later a 16-35/4.

Today I would recommend to get an a7RII if you're about the best value for money.

May I ask what your experience in photography and with cameras in general are? IMO it's still good to start learning with just a 50mm prime (or something between 35 and 55). Learn everything about the settings, composing, .... Then start playing around. Do tests and so on. After a year ask yourself what lens you want to buy next. The restriction to one focal length is good for many things.

A6200 ?

Phillip Reeve just updated their article on the "best lenses under $499 for Sony A7x".


Some of the best lenses and bargains are actually manual focus, which I personlly find an advantage for landscapes and architecture (especially if the AF is "by wire").

While I have some good native and native mount lenses, I still mostly use adapted ones.

I'd spend a little extra for the A7II just to have IBIS, among other advantages.

go crop. 6400 over the a71. even a6000 over a71.

switch over to FF once teh a74 hits $1200

Thank you everyone to your suggestions and sorry that I haven't had the time to respond earlier. I already made kind of a decision these days, let me tell you about it. This a plan right now, so the actual purchase will have place in about 1-2 months.

I'm a beginner, but I've got a point and shoot camera with the possibility using of manual settings when I was 15. I used it a good amount of time back then, and I learned a bit about the settings and the camera in general. Not much though.

In the last month or so I used a Sony a5000 with the kit lens, which I borrowed from my cousin. Also this will be my travel camera on my next trip to Dublin, because I don't have the budget to buy something better (also wanna save for my plan). While I was shooting with this camera, I need to focus and practice more on my composition and my photographer eye because even if I took a few good shots, I'm not seeing the things that I should. I just know that I could've done that better but at the place I wasn't aware of that composition.

Also, my shots are made at 2 focal lengths, almost every one of them. It's 16mm or 50mm, the two extremes of the kit lens. Which made me think... In my case this can't mean that I will need a wide and a 50mm... I think my situation is that I don't know how and why should I use other focal lengths. I want everything in my shot or I want shallow depth of field and compressed background.

So my way to see this is: maybe I should buy a 35mm and a 50mm so I will be forced to move around and find a better position to take the picture instead of just having the possibility to zoom in and out. Because most of the times if I don't like how it looks, I just zoom out to get everything and the crop in post...

For the camera, I made up my mind on the A7 or A7ii, I just can't save up for anything newer then these 2. Also I considered buying with the kit lens because it's only 50 bucs more. The kit lens will be used only for traveling eventually I will sell it later when I want to move on to another other lens.

Also because my budget is very limited (and I'm stubborn and don't want to go aps-c) I considered the 50mm f1.8 from Sony, and 35mm f2.8 from Samyang/Rokinon. The sony here where I live can be found new (but not from a shop) for $165 and the samyang for $250.

But, I will be more precise with my decision after the trip to Dublin, so that's something to keep in mind.

Thanks again for all of you.

Robert Balazs said:

Hi,

I would have a question for you if you have the time to answer, it would be awesome!I'm not in the best situation when it comes to budget, but I thought a way of getting the best I can for my money.

So here's my plan for getting into the full-frame world:

Getting a Sony a7 Mk 1 used around 400 dollars. Getting a 16-35mm f4 for landscape and street and general travel photography.

Getting the 50mm f1.8 (the nifty fifty).

This is all for starting. And then later down the road (in about 1-1.5 years) when I get the chance I would like to change the body to the a7r Mk 2 /r Mk 3 or the original a7 Mk 3. Maybe getting the 85mm f1.8 as well.

Other than the 16-35mm I don't want to spend more right now, because I can't.

Is this a good starting point, or do you think another way would be better?

General QA:

I shoot mostly landscapes, cityscapes, landscape, and cityscape portraits. Normal portraits and the all-around shooting, when you see something and just shoot.

I don't want to carry a big weight with me but want quality gear. Don't want to consider the APS-C line at all.

For the lenses I also considered to have only primes, instead of the 16-35mm. Like a Samyang 14mm f2.8 and a Samyang 35mm f2.8. It will not only cut the weight but the price as well. Do you think it's better to have these 2 primes instead of the 16-35mm f4?

Thank you for your patience and help.

Click to expand...

Tough situation here. You want ' quality gear 'and full frame cameras, which doesn't really lend itself to a low cost entry point. I was in your position a couple of years ago..

From purely a 'learning experience' , the A7mark 2 and 1635 ƒ4 would be a good place to start..

I had the Mark 2 camera and found it to be fun and very usable in most situations ( excluding low light focus and high ISO noise)..edit: and the battery capacity

Prices of these in the pre-owned market are reasonable.

Another lens that has become much more affordable used is the SEL35F28Z. Nice compact lens that is most likely selling low ($400 on the 'bay ) now because of the newly released 35 ƒ1.8.

Good luck and have fun.

Hi, Robert--

The excellent phillipreeve.net site has some articles that might interest you, including extensive comments on budget lenses, lens kits, etc. For example:

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/sony-...nual-lenses-full-frame-for-less-than-a-grand/

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/best-lenses-499-sony-a7-series/

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/manual-lenses-sony-a7/

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/affordable-manual-lenses-for-the-sony-alpha-77r7ii7rii-and-7s/

https://phillipreeve.net/blog/building-a-lens-kit/

You might want to investigate whether the improvements (such as IBIS) from the mark I to mark II versions of the A7 are worth the modest cost increase for a used camera body.