Just coming back

Started 2 months ago | Discussions thread
OP Disp10-9 New Member • Posts: 4
Re: Just coming back
1

jkokura wrote:

I'm curious why you're going with Sony. Is it because of the volume of lenses available?

Of note, your interests are so broad that you're probably going to end up wanting/needing a fairly large kit. A good long lens, a good wide angle, a lightweight multi-tasking zoom, and at least one body that works with all of them. At your budget it's very difficult to recommend a silver bullet. It seems to me that you could do it, but trying to get it all up front might be too hard.

What I'd recommend is settling on the body you want to use moving forward. Never mind all the prospective tasks you want to do, get something that you can see yourself using in the here and now, and then choose which is the highest priority. Is it wildlife? Is it astro? Is it travel? Get the camera body and lens that is best suited for the highest priority of what you're wanting.

There are probably a good number of A7II ($1100 used) and A7RII ($1500 use?) bodies used out there. The A7III ($2K new, $1500 used) might be a great choice as well, but the costliest. Since you say you want to be able travel light, the reality is that the mirrorless world is already small and light. Going full frame vs APSC is really not that big a difference in terms of package, but the quality of the cameras in the Sony Full Frame is big. I say go FF in this case.

Since travel is what you want to do first, there are two approaches. A street style prime lens, maybe a 28 or 35mm, or a decent zoom like a 24-105. I'd get one of each. The Sony 28mm F2 is $450 new. The Sony 35mm 1.8 is about $750 new, but you can get a Tamron 35mm 2.8 for $300 new. The very small and lightweight 28-60mm Sony lens is $500 new. The larger, heavier, but higher quality Sony 24-105 F4 is $1400 new. The Sony 24-240 is more than $1000, and it's larger and heavier, but the thing about that lens is that it's closer to the all-in-one type of lens that also might get you closer to getting some wildlife stuff. But to be honest, the 200-600 is likely the only lens that I would recommend for wildlife on a FF Sony. The 100-400 is close, but it's pricier and doesn't quite get you the same reach. The problem is that the 200-600 is $2000, and would eat up 2/3 of your budget.

In your shoes, I'd get your camera of choice, the Tamron 35mm 2.8, and the 24-240 zoom. Then I'd start saving for a high quality wide angle for astro/landscape (Sony 20mm?), and a quality telephoto zoom (the 200-600?) for long distance. You aren't going to be able to afford all of them at the same time on your budget.

Jacob

You are absolutely right. I'm not sure if it was your goal, but you spelling out the vast range of lenses I would need helped me realize I need to cut out some of my hopes with this set up. My top priority is going light for travel and I want smaller, high quality lenses. I went back and looked at my pictures from years back and most of my work was shot between FF 35mm. 55ish mm and 75mm (Outside of the rare wildlife photo at 200 mm). With that being said I don't think I can pack light and shoot wildlife, so I will drop it for now and focus on that FF 35-75 mm range.

I recently rented a A6400 with the sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 and while I enjoyed the lens, it was too heavy for the travel I plan to do. So I think I will stick with primes for now.

I originally decided on Sony because of my recent exposure to their lineup of cameras and the large range of high quality lenses. However, since posting my original question, I've gone down a rabbit hole of Fuji and am now looking between the APS-C choices of both. Can you speak more on your comment about the quality of the full frame sony camera to the A series?

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow