Reading mode: Light Dark

A7Riii - lens choices for iceland?

Go to last post
T

Tuner25

Member
Messages
11
Reaction score
7
Hi,

I just bought an A7r III for a good price (at least for where I live) which I plan to bring to a backpacking trip to iceland next summer. Since I am switching from Fuji to Sony, I do not have any lens at the moment.

My plan is:

Tamron 28-200mm as the lens which should be fine most of the time for most situations.

plus a wide angle lense (e.g. for waterfalls) but I am not sure what I should buy here. Maybe a tamron 17-28mm? Or the cheaper Samyang 14mm f2.8? Or how about the rather heavy Laowa 15mm 2.0? What would you guys buy as an addition to the 28-200mm? Or do you think the 28-200 is enough for a travel lens in iceland?

I am aware that with the mentioned lenses I won't have perfect image quality. But for me it's about finding the best combination of performance/price/weight.

Thanks a lot

Christian
 
I used my 17-28 quite a lot on a trip to Iceland summer 2019. It was probably my most used lens that trip. It certainly produced my favorite pictures. I personally didn't feel the need for wider than 17. But that is my personal style.

I did use my 70-300 on an a6400 for Puffin pictures. Depending on when you are there, a long lens for birds could be useful.

If/when I go back I'd probably go with the 17-28, sigma 100-400 and samyang 45/1.8.
 
In addition to the 28-200, I'd get at least a good 18, 20 or 21mm. The Tamron 17-28 would also be a good choice. Lenses under 18mm or so can be difficult to compose with.

That said, the 28-200 isn't the sharpest or lightest lens around. The Tamron 28-75 is very well considered. The Sony 24-105 is also very good (arguably even better for landscape use), in that case the matching wide should be an 18mm (Samyang 18 2.8 is cheap light & good). Another alternative could be the "Zony" 16-35 4.0 plus a light tele of some kind. You might consider not taking a lens which reaches 180 or 200mm for weight reasons, even though they can also be useful for landscape shots.

There are many other other lens combinations you could make, but keep in mind that if you're backpacking, weight really is essential!

The lenses I'd take on such a trip (manual focus & adapted), ranging from 16 to 85mm, weigh 748 grams (or, if limited to 18 to 85mm, 546 grams)...
 
Last edited:
I have not been. However any location any lens. Much depends on your itinerary and expectations as you have to like your photos.
are you taking a travel tripod, how’s the ambient light. Do you need flash and how many, do you need filters how will you back up your cards

what type of bag or backpack etc

check out YouTube and or Google the location you are going to. I know seeing a location if at all possible helps a lot

what is plan b for poor weather?
 
Rol Lei Nut said:
In addition to the 28-200, I'd get at least a good 18, 20 or 21mm. The Tamron 17-28 would also be a good choice. Lenses under 18mm or so can be difficult to compose with.

That said, the 28-200 isn't the sharpest or lightest lens around. The Tamron 28-75 is very well considered.
Click to expand...
Hang on, I think you have misjudged the 28-200, or perhaps made assumptions about it. For starters, it is no heavier than the 28-75.

Secondly, it is optically ranked on the same level (“Very Good”) as the 17-28 and 28-75 for suitability with the A7R IV. link
Rol Lei Nut said:
The Sony 24-105 is also very good (arguably even better for landscape use), in that case the matching wide should be an 18mm (Samyang 18 2.8 is cheap light & good).
Click to expand...
Agree about the Samyang 18mm. Mine is more than good enough for demanding landscapes at ƒ/8. It is insanely light, too.
Rol Lei Nut said:
Another alternative could be the "Zony" 16-35 4.0 plus a light tele of some kind. You might consider not taking a lens which reaches 180 or 200mm for weight reasons, even though they can also be useful for landscape shots.
Click to expand...
Err, the 28-200 of course.
Rol Lei Nut said:
There are many other other lens combinations you could make, but keep in mind that if you're backpacking, weight really is essential!

The lenses I'd take on such a trip (manual focus & adapted), ranging from 16 to 85mm, weigh 748 grams (or, if limited to 18 to 85mm, 546 grams)...
Click to expand...
I find it hard to imagine being limited to 85mm, too many missed opportunities.

The Samyang 18mm and Tamron 28-200 kit weighs 710g and covers 18 to 200mm. My recommendation.

cheers
 
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment. Years ago, Canon pro cameras died by the dozen on the trip to Antarctica, Nikon's kept working as did non-pro DSLRs from various brands. Salt-air? Freezing cold? Wet? Risky. Always have a back-up. A lens range from 14mm to 200mm should cover anything you might happen upon.
 
I went to Iceland last year with an APSC setup and would recommend the following:

Tamron 28-200mm: General purpose zoom; great for most situations.

Tamron 17-28mm: For capturing BIG THING up close.

(Rental) Sony RX10IV or Sigma 100-400mm: puffins.
 
I took the Sony 16 35 GM and it was so worth it....here are some pics:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com
 
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
You don’t know that.

OTOH it is a fact that pros use Sony Alphas in every kind of environment. And harsh environments don’t send them running back to ‘mummy brands’ after the first trip.

Which is not to say that the OP shouldn’t treat his gear well. He should. Especially since his lenses may not be sealed. I seriously doubt that the OP is planning to expose his new camera gear to climactic extremes and prove its mettle with ‘torture test’ scenarios.
MHshooter said:
Years ago, Canon pro cameras died by the dozen on the trip to Antarctica, Nikon's kept working as did non-pro DSLRs from various brands. Salt-air? Freezing cold? Wet? Risky. Always have a back-up. A lens range from 14mm to 200mm should cover anything you might happen upon.
Click to expand...
I pay no attention to brand biases born of ultra small samples.

If I were taking an A7R III to an extreme environment and intending to be amateurish in my camera handling, I would be tempted to tape it up and cover the base plate with a battery grip or L plate. But then again, that wouldn’t be amateurish, would it.

cheers
 
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment. Years ago, Canon pro cameras died by the dozen on the trip to Antarctica, Nikon's kept working as did non-pro DSLRs from various brands. Salt-air? Freezing cold? Wet? Risky. Always have a back-up. A lens range from 14mm to 200mm should cover anything you might happen upon.
Click to expand...
What? We are lots of photographers living in pretty harsh climate, using Sony cameras for pleasure or earning for a living. I can assure you that their cameras stand heavy use over years in such climate. Sometimes my cameras are covered with a shell of ice, when doing polar light or night photography on cold evenings when humidity is vey high, and the temperatures are then moving down to well below the freezing point.

The hardest challenge in wet and windy weather is to protect the front lens element from water drops, I would say.
 
I've traveled to Iceland three times: first with EOS 400D and 24-70/2.8L, second with EOS 5D and 24-105/4L, and finally, with EOS 6D, 24-105/4L and Tamron 70-300 VC USD.

In the last case the distribution of focal lengths was like that:

1a793ee48da7468e8d6e1f94605acafb.jpg

If I traveled to Iceland tomorrow, I would bring both of my bodies, A6500 and A7III, plus two lenses: 17-28 and 70-180. Another viable option would be 28-200 plus 17-28, bundled with your A7RIII. I prefer having two cameras, as I faced various malfunctions on my own Sony bodies and lenses for 3 times, each of them could (and sometimes did) ruin my vacation.

Actually, I wasn't missing UWA lens in my past Iceland trips, as I made LOTS of panoramas, gaining the quality which could never be reached with single shot on 10-12 MP sensor. Here's a panorama which took about 2-3 dozens of shots:

255be0e7aa23497883d14e2d6e908b0b.jpg

--
Vladimir Gorbunov
«Often the difference between a good and a bad sample of the same lens is bigger than that between two different lenses» — Bastian K.
 
Last edited:
TN Args said:
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
You don’t know that.

OTOH it is a fact that pros use Sony Alphas in every kind of environment. And harsh environments don’t send them running back to ‘mummy brands’ after the first trip.
Click to expand...
Well, we know they don't take to getting wet like Nikon or Olympus, at least Nikon DSLRs.
 
MHshooter said:
TN Args said:
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
You don’t know that.

OTOH it is a fact that pros use Sony Alphas in every kind of environment. And harsh environments don’t send them running back to ‘mummy brands’ after the first trip.
Click to expand...
Well, we know they don't take to getting wet like Nikon or Olympus, at least Nikon DSLRs.
Click to expand...
How do you know? I have seen Canon cameras die in high humidity environment in Arctic, where Sony cameras did just excellent. Others have similar experience.
 
Magnar W said:
MHshooter said:
TN Args said:
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
You don’t know that.

OTOH it is a fact that pros use Sony Alphas in every kind of environment. And harsh environments don’t send them running back to ‘mummy brands’ after the first trip.
Click to expand...
Well, we know they don't take to getting wet like Nikon or Olympus, at least Nikon DSLRs.
Click to expand...
How do you know? I have seen Canon cameras die in high humidity environment in Arctic, where Sony cameras did just excellent. Others have similar experience.
Click to expand...
And yet we've seen reports also that they can't take being wet. Meanwhile, I know Nikon, Olympus and Pentax can take it because I've used all three, multiple models in such conditions without problems. You can write-off some reports as sporadic and perhaps inconsequential, but not when it becomes a lot of reports. With cars, that's when recalls happen.
 
MHshooter said:
Magnar W said:
MHshooter said:
TN Args said:
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment.
Click to expand...
You don’t know that.

OTOH it is a fact that pros use Sony Alphas in every kind of environment. And harsh environments don’t send them running back to ‘mummy brands’ after the first trip.
Click to expand...
Well, we know they don't take to getting wet like Nikon or Olympus, at least Nikon DSLRs.
Click to expand...
How do you know? I have seen Canon cameras die in high humidity environment in Arctic, where Sony cameras did just excellent. Others have similar experience.
Click to expand...
And yet we've seen reports also that they can't take being wet. Meanwhile, I know Nikon, Olympus and Pentax can take it because I've used all three, multiple models in such conditions without problems. You can write-off some reports as sporadic and perhaps inconsequential, but not when it becomes a lot of reports. With cars, that's when recalls happen.
Click to expand...
Where are all these reports? It doesn't seem that Sony cameras are more often repaired than other brands because of water damage, not counting Olympus and Pentax. Even Associated press found this brand to stand pretty tough tests in harsh climate.

Do you really think that a Sony camera can't take a trip to Iceland?!?

The king of recalls is Nikon, by the way ...
 
Last edited:
Tuner25 said:
Hi,

I just bought an A7r III for a good price (at least for where I live) which I plan to bring to a backpacking trip to iceland next summer. Since I am switching from Fuji to Sony, I do not have any lens at the moment.

My plan is:

Tamron 28-200mm as the lens which should be fine most of the time for most situations.

plus a wide angle lense (e.g. for waterfalls) but I am not sure what I should buy here. Maybe a tamron 17-28mm? Or the cheaper Samyang 14mm f2.8? Or how about the rather heavy Laowa 15mm 2.0? What would you guys buy as an addition to the 28-200mm? Or do you think the 28-200 is enough for a travel lens in iceland?

I am aware that with the mentioned lenses I won't have perfect image quality. But for me it's about finding the best combination of performance/price/weight.

Thanks a lot

Christian
Click to expand...
I really enjoy the Tamron 20mm 2.8, its sealed, optically very good, compact and the price is excellent. Its plenty wide enough for me but if you need wider the 17 28 is a great option to.
 
MHshooter said:
I'd worry more about the bodies. Sony's are unproven in that kind of environment. Years ago, Canon pro cameras died by the dozen on the trip to Antarctica, Nikon's kept working as did non-pro DSLRs from various brands. Salt-air? Freezing cold? Wet? Risky. Always have a back-up. A lens range from 14mm to 200mm should cover anything you might happen upon.
Click to expand...
Unproven? The A7x series has been out at least six years by now.

Iceland isn't Antarctica. Salt air, freezing cold & wet are conditions I meet regularly even where I live, not to mention on my extended travels & treks to mountains and wilder places.

I take reasonable precautions, like protecting the cameras (the not weather sealed A7 & A7RII) during heavy rain (when the little water droplets on the camera aren't separated anymore, time to cover) and keeping it away from sand and salt spray (not ordinary salt air like near any seaside, but the stuff which lands on your eyeglasses). In the 6 years I've been using my Sonys, I've had one shutter which progressively started jamming and needed replacing, probably not due to outside environmental causes. No sudden failure of any kind.
 
Uhh love Iceland and spent the summer of 2020 there.

My kit was the 17-28, 28-75, 85f1.8 and the 200-600mm

My advise:

Do add something below 28mm because that is not wide enough. the 17-28 was perfect in my opinion but the 16-35f2.8 will also be really good.

My best shots was with the 17-28 and the 200-600 though. Landscapes and wildlife mostly.

I think having the sony 100-400mm would be ideal.

Add something for sensor cleaning to your kit and check it daily. I have spent countless hours cleaning up spots in post from the trip. The dust is very fine and gets in everywhere.
 
MHshooter said:
Well, we know they don't take to getting wet like Nikon or Olympus, at least Nikon DSLRs.
Click to expand...
All three malfunctions which I personally faced in my Sony cameras have had nothing to do with getting wet:
  1. Sporadical sensor shaking on A7III - on the 2nd day of vacation. Though I was still able to control it somehow. Fixed under warranty.
  2. Dead 24-240 lens on the 4th day of vacation. Ruined my photography plans, and I was shooting with mobile phone for 10 days. Fixed under warranty.
  3. Severe case of unstable contact in shutter button. Appeared in casual shooting, didn't ruin anything. Fixed under warranty.
So now I carry 2 cameras to the trips. :)
 
Me, I'd take two cameras along with my Tamron 28-200: my A7Riii and my GoPro 4 Black for superwide use. Yes, a longer lens would be nice for puffin shooting, but you probably will be bouncing around in rough seas in a small sightseeing boat and that makes long lenses very hard to handle. In such conditions a focal length of 200mm plus cropping a 42 mp image works well.
 
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