Upgrading to A7RIV - Am I being too ambitious with my current lenses?

richardD300 said:

Although a new adopter to Sony FF, I currently have the A7RIII and think it is a remarkable camera. However, I am interested in upgrading to the IV and my current lenses are the 16-35mm F4 ZA, 35mm f1.8 and the 24-105mm F4. So, not exactly the gold standard of Fuji lenses, but I’ve been more than happy with my results. I’m wondering how well would these lenses behave on the mark 4 with its vastly increased sensor size and specification!

Obviously, only I can answer the question whether I should afford the premium glass and I like to avoid doing that. My current lenses behave well enough on my Mk 3, so would I be being too ambitious in buying the Mk 4 and find myself disappointed with my current lenses?

Thank you - Rich

Click to expand...

Sony Alpha Blog : Which Lenses to maximise the potential of your Sony A7RIV/ A7RV / A1 / A7IV…?

This article assesses approximately 300 full-frame lenses tested on the Sony A7RV, focusing on their sharpness and performance. Divided into seven parts, it discusses lens categories, optimal condi…

sonyalpha.blog

Roger Cicala said:

Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.

That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. MTF maxes at 1.0 because 1.0 is perfect. So let’s say my camera MTF is 0.7, and my lens MTF is 0.7, then my system MTF is 0.49 (Lens MTF x Camera MTF). This is actually a pretty reasonable system.

Now, let’s say I get a much better camera with much higher resolution; the camera MTF is 0.9. The system MTF with the same lens also increases: 0.7 X 0.9 = 0.63. On the other hand, I could do the same thing if I bought a much better lens and kept it on the same camera. The camera basically never ‘out resolves the lens.’

You could kind of get that ‘perceptual megapixel’ thing if either the lens (or the camera) really sucks. Let say we were using a crappy kit zoom lens with an MTF of 0.3. With the old camera; 0.3 X 0.7 =.21. Let’s spend a fortune on the newer, better camera, and we get 0.3 X 0.9 = 0.27. So our overall system MTF only went up a bit (0.07) because the lens really sucked. But if it had been just an average lens or a better lens (let say the MTF was 0.6 or 0.8), we’d have gotten a pretty similar improvement.

If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images. If you ask something like ‘is my camera going to out resolve this lens’ you sound silly.

Roger’s rule: If you have either a crappy lens or crappy camera, improve the crappy part first; you get more bang for your $.

Click to expand...

AZheaven said:

richardD300 said:

Although a new adopter to Sony FF, I currently have the A7RIII and think it is a remarkable camera. However, I am interested in upgrading to the IV and my current lenses are the 16-35mm F4 ZA, 35mm f1.8 and the 24-105mm F4. So, not exactly the gold standard of Fuji lenses, but I’ve been more than happy with my results. I’m wondering how well would these lenses behave on the mark 4 with its vastly increased sensor size and specification!

Obviously, only I can answer the question whether I should afford the premium glass and I like to avoid doing that. My current lenses behave well enough on my Mk 3, so would I be being too ambitious in buying the Mk 4 and find myself disappointed with my current lenses?

Thank you - Rich

Click to expand...

This list is pretty much current and used by my pro Sony friends.

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

Click to expand...

Lan said:

FWIW I use the Sony 24-105 f4 with my A7R4 and I'm very happy with the results. The resolution difference between the 42MP of your A7R3 and the 61MP of the A7R4 isn't as significant as you might think; don't get me wrong it's a jump, but it's only 17% in terms of x or y resolution. That means that generally if you're happy with the lens on an A7R3, you're still likely to be happy with it on an A7R4. I moved from the A7R2 to the A7R4, so I'm speaking from personal experience.

Here's an excellent post by Roger Cicala from the Lens Rentals Blog that explains how upgrading either the lens or the camera will increase the amount of information you capture:

Roger Cicala said:

Lots of people think that will be ‘whichever is less of the camera and lens.’ For example, my camera can resolve 61 megapixels, but my lens can only resolve 30 megapixels, so all I can see is 30 megapixels.

That’s not how it works. How it does work is very simple math: System MTF = Camera MTF x Lens MTF. MTF maxes at 1.0 because 1.0 is perfect. So let’s say my camera MTF is 0.7, and my lens MTF is 0.7, then my system MTF is 0.49 (Lens MTF x Camera MTF). This is actually a pretty reasonable system.

Now, let’s say I get a much better camera with much higher resolution; the camera MTF is 0.9. The system MTF with the same lens also increases: 0.7 X 0.9 = 0.63. On the other hand, I could do the same thing if I bought a much better lens and kept it on the same camera. The camera basically never ‘out resolves the lens.’

You could kind of get that ‘perceptual megapixel’ thing if either the lens (or the camera) really sucks. Let say we were using a crappy kit zoom lens with an MTF of 0.3. With the old camera; 0.3 X 0.7 =.21. Let’s spend a fortune on the newer, better camera, and we get 0.3 X 0.9 = 0.27. So our overall system MTF only went up a bit (0.07) because the lens really sucked. But if it had been just an average lens or a better lens (let say the MTF was 0.6 or 0.8), we’d have gotten a pretty similar improvement.

If you have a reasonably good lens and/or a reasonably good camera, upgrading either one upgrades your images. If you ask something like ‘is my camera going to out resolve this lens’ you sound silly.

Roger’s rule: If you have either a crappy lens or crappy camera, improve the crappy part first; you get more bang for your $.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rol Lei Nut said:

All lenses, unless they're really junk, will benefit from a higher resolution sensor.

Also, I wouldn't really consider the RIV's resolution as being "vastly increased".

Basically, any lens which does well with 42mp will still do well (actually, somewhat better) with 60mp.

Click to expand...

richardD300 said:

Although a new adopter to Sony FF, I currently have the A7RIII and think it is a remarkable camera. However, I am interested in upgrading to the IV and my current lenses are the 16-35mm F4 ZA, 35mm f1.8 and the 24-105mm F4. So, not exactly the gold standard of Fuji lenses, but I’ve been more than happy with my results. I’m wondering how well would these lenses behave on the mark 4 with its vastly increased sensor size and specification!

Obviously, only I can answer the question whether I should afford the premium glass and I like to avoid doing that. My current lenses behave well enough on my Mk 3, so would I be being too ambitious in buying the Mk 4 and find myself disappointed with my current lenses?

Thank you - Rich

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

richardD300 said:

Although a new adopter to Sony FF, I currently have the A7RIII and think it is a remarkable camera. However, I am interested in upgrading to the IV and my current lenses are the 16-35mm F4 ZA, 35mm f1.8 and the 24-105mm F4. So, not exactly the gold standard of Fuji lenses, but I’ve been more than happy with my results. I’m wondering how well would these lenses behave on the mark 4 with its vastly increased sensor size and specification!

Obviously, only I can answer the question whether I should afford the premium glass and I like to avoid doing that. My current lenses behave well enough on my Mk 3, so would I be being too ambitious in buying the Mk 4 and find myself disappointed with my current lenses?

Thank you - Rich

Click to expand...

I upgraded from an A7R2 to R4 a few months ago, mainly for the usability benefits. It’s used mainly for landscape, so I see a small IQ benefit.

I wouldn’t have any concerns about suddenly needing to upgrade your lenses, although you would be able to see their limits in slightly greater detail if you really want to.

I’m very happy with my good copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and average copy of the 17-28/2.8.

Andrew

Click to expand...

richardD300 said:

ahaslett said:

richardD300 said:

Although a new adopter to Sony FF, I currently have the A7RIII and think it is a remarkable camera. However, I am interested in upgrading to the IV and my current lenses are the 16-35mm F4 ZA, 35mm f1.8 and the 24-105mm F4. So, not exactly the gold standard of Fuji lenses, but I’ve been more than happy with my results. I’m wondering how well would these lenses behave on the mark 4 with its vastly increased sensor size and specification!

Obviously, only I can answer the question whether I should afford the premium glass and I like to avoid doing that. My current lenses behave well enough on my Mk 3, so would I be being too ambitious in buying the Mk 4 and find myself disappointed with my current lenses?

Thank you - Rich

Click to expand...

I upgraded from an A7R2 to R4 a few months ago, mainly for the usability benefits. It’s used mainly for landscape, so I see a small IQ benefit.

I wouldn’t have any concerns about suddenly needing to upgrade your lenses, although you would be able to see their limits in slightly greater detail if you really want to.

I’m very happy with my good copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and average copy of the 17-28/2.8.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Thank you Andrew.

I am interested in your 3rd party lenses. I know from days of FF Nikon’s the benefits of the Sigma A and C range and earlier. I haven’t ever used Tamron, but from your experiences I shall certainly consider them.

Rich

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

richardD300 said:

ahaslett said:

richardD300 said:

Although a new adopter to Sony FF, I currently have the A7RIII and think it is a remarkable camera. However, I am interested in upgrading to the IV and my current lenses are the 16-35mm F4 ZA, 35mm f1.8 and the 24-105mm F4. So, not exactly the gold standard of Fuji lenses, but I’ve been more than happy with my results. I’m wondering how well would these lenses behave on the mark 4 with its vastly increased sensor size and specification!

Obviously, only I can answer the question whether I should afford the premium glass and I like to avoid doing that. My current lenses behave well enough on my Mk 3, so would I be being too ambitious in buying the Mk 4 and find myself disappointed with my current lenses?

Thank you - Rich

Click to expand...

I upgraded from an A7R2 to R4 a few months ago, mainly for the usability benefits. It’s used mainly for landscape, so I see a small IQ benefit.

I wouldn’t have any concerns about suddenly needing to upgrade your lenses, although you would be able to see their limits in slightly greater detail if you really want to.

I’m very happy with my good copy of the Tamron 28-75/2.8 and average copy of the 17-28/2.8.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Thank you Andrew.

I am interested in your 3rd party lenses. I know from days of FF Nikon’s the benefits of the Sigma A and C range and earlier. I haven’t ever used Tamron, but from your experiences I shall certainly consider them.

Rich

Click to expand...

Tamron optimise their lenses a particular way. The new 28-75/2.8 G2 FE is a striking example. Like Sigma, they have raised their game recently. The 150-500mm FE is an interesting lens, although the 100-400 GM is higher up my list.

The 17-28/2.8 for my purposes performs quite close to the 16-35/2.8 GM, without its weaker 28-35mm range.

I wouldn’t buy Tamron if fast AF was a need, but for landscape and general shooting they are ideal. Close minimum focus is part of the recipe. Bokeh is a lower priority. I love the low weight.

Andrew

Click to expand...

ne beginner said:

FWIW, I have found this list to be useful for lenses on the RIV (below). This has popped up several places as a reference from who I believe are experience Sony owners, and offered up as a useful guideline. I tend to take with a "grain of salt" the most "popular" google search lists, which I think often tend to be put together by paid or otherwise compensated reviewers, and\or "generic" high-volume reviewers, who publish lists and reviews on almost everything piece of camera equipment from every brand, probably more for clicks.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/here-are-the-best-lenses-for-your-a7riv/

I'm new to Sony, with a 7R III A. Started with the 24-105, 16-35 GM (my "splurge"), and the 70-300. Very happy with the 24-105 and 16-35, Have not used the 70-300 much, but don't figure too. Just wanted to have that range if needed.

There is also data in DXO for the RIV and many lenses, FWIW as well.

Click to expand...

richardD300 said:

ne beginner said:

FWIW, I have found this list to be useful for lenses on the RIV (below). This has popped up several places as a reference from who I believe are experience Sony owners, and offered up as a useful guideline. I tend to take with a "grain of salt" the most "popular" google search lists, which I think often tend to be put together by paid or otherwise compensated reviewers, and\or "generic" high-volume reviewers, who publish lists and reviews on almost everything piece of camera equipment from every brand, probably more for clicks.

https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/here-are-the-best-lenses-for-your-a7riv/

I'm new to Sony, with a 7R III A. Started with the 24-105, 16-35 GM (my "splurge"), and the 70-300. Very happy with the 24-105 and 16-35, Have not used the 70-300 much, but don't figure too. Just wanted to have that range if needed.

There is also data in DXO for the RIV and many lenses, FWIW as well.

Click to expand...

Thanks, a similar setup. I don’t tend to take much notice of web advice apart from real time users on forums like this. As an example, if I’d taken notice of some of the reviews regarding the 16-35mm I probably wouldn’t have bought it. However I am more than pleased with it, as I am with the 24-105mm f4. The 16mm f2.8 is a cracker on my Mk3 too.

Rich.

Click to expand...

WhistlerNorth said:

The website this list was taken from actually has a bigger list now but since so many new lenses not up to real time. Find he has new reviews though like the most recent Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III VXD G2 A063 just announced.

Click to expand...

Sony Alpha Blog : Which Lenses to maximise the potential of your Sony A7RIV/ A7RV / A1 / A7IV…?

This article assesses approximately 300 full-frame lenses tested on the Sony A7RV, focusing on their sharpness and performance. Divided into seven parts, it discusses lens categories, optimal condi…

sonyalpha.blog

ne beginner said:

WhistlerNorth said:

The website this list was taken from actually has a bigger list now but since so many new lenses not up to real time. Find he has new reviews though like the most recent Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III VXD G2 A063 just announced.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. I think this is latest :

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

"Marc Alhadeff made this graph showing the best lenses to achieve maximum sharpness for your Sony A7rIV. Marc is known for making a ton of FE lens reviews and is one of the few that can therefore give you this complete overview!"

Click to expand...

ne beginner said:

WhistlerNorth said:

The website this list was taken from actually has a bigger list now but since so many new lenses not up to real time. Find he has new reviews though like the most recent Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 Di III VXD G2 A063 just announced.

Click to expand...

Thanks for pointing that out. I think this is latest :

https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/

"Marc Alhadeff made this graph showing the best lenses to achieve maximum sharpness for your Sony A7rIV. Marc is known for making a ton of FE lens reviews and is one of the few that can therefore give you this complete overview!"

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

ahaslett wrote

Click to expand...

ahaslett said:

Tamron optimise their lenses a particular way. The new 28-75/2.8 G2 FE is a striking example. Like Sigma, they have raised their game recently. The 150-500mm FE is an interesting lens, although the 100-400 GM is higher up my list.

The 17-28/2.8 for my purposes performs quite close to the 16-35/2.8 GM, without its weaker 28-35mm range.

I wouldn’t buy Tamron if fast AF was a need, but for landscape and general shooting they are ideal. Close minimum focus is part of the recipe. Bokeh is a lower priority. I love the low weight.

Andrew

Click to expand...

WhistlerNorth said:

WhistlerNorth said:

ahaslett wrote

Tamron optimise their lenses a particular way. The new 28-75/2.8 G2 FE is a striking example. Like Sigma, they have raised their game recently. The 150-500mm FE is an interesting lens, although the 100-400 GM is higher up my list.

The 17-28/2.8 for my purposes performs quite close to the 16-35/2.8 GM, without its weaker 28-35mm range.

I wouldn’t buy Tamron if fast AF was a need, but for landscape and general shooting they are ideal. Close minimum focus is part of the recipe. Bokeh is a lower priority. I love the low weight.

Andrew

Click to expand...

Curious are you saying the 16-35/2.8 GM lens is poor from in the 28-35 so do not need ithat range in the Sony anyways as Tamron equal or close to quality from 17-28?

Click to expand...