What's your Sony FF hiking landscape lens choise

MVDH · Jan 2, 2024

I transitioned from Sony APSC to Sony FF in 2023 after gradually replacing my APS-C lenses first. I'm slowly completing my lens selection, one by one. I mainly do landscape / seascape photography with occasional night photography (nightsky).

I like to hike in the mointains and am preparing for an ypcomming 2 week hiking/wilderness/photography trip later this year. I'm balancing my lens choice for that trip.

My camera is A7R III and my lenses FE20 F1.8 G, FE35 F1.4 GM, Loxia 50 F2, FE70-200 F4 and I have just purchased the FE 20-70 F4 G to complete.

For my hiking trip my preferred lens selection will be:

FE20 F1.8 G for night sky / northern lights and sharp UWA shots;
FE20-70 F4 G als main lens during hiking days;
FE70-200 F4 for those close-ups / intimate details in the mountains, wildlife.

I'm planning to upgrade the FE 70-200 F4 later this year for the new FE70-200 F4 Macro GII mainly for the better close-up capabilities, slightly better IQ and option to add a 1.4x teleconverter.

I believe this completes my lenses nicely for the comming period and gives me a nice hiking kit - acceptable weight with very good IQ.

I'm just wondering which Sony lenses other use for multiple day hiking trips into the mountains, where carrying heavy bags is not an option.

Impulses · Jan 16, 2024

dazzerfong said:
Jacques Cornell said:

dazzerfong said:

Jacques Cornell said:

dazzerfong said:

MVDH said:

It seems that the Tamron 28-200 is popular as a travel lens, and indeed if the image quality is good the focal range and weight/size of that lens is indeed very appealing for hiking.

I'd be interested to see how well it holds up compared to the new FE 70-200 F4 Macro and FE20-70 F4 in same focal range. Any comparisons available?

I already ordered the FE 20-70 F4 (found it at a good price that I could not pass, almost EUR 600 off the regular retail price in my country). If the IQ of the 20-70 disappoints I might consider the Tamron purely for hiking.

However for my needs 20-70 + 70-200 make more sense.

Click to expand...

Surprisingly well, though ultimately the 70-200 G2 is still a bit better (to nobody's surprise):

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/tamron-28-200mm-f-2-8-5-6-di-iii-rxd-review-34968/performance

https://www.ephotozine.com/article/sony-fe-70-200mm-f-4-g-oss-ii-lens-review-36557 (A7RIII used here so test isn't comparable)

https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1179-sony70200f4g2

I found another review for the 70-200 G2 which tested with the A7RIV. I have no idea why reviewers think it's a good idea to mix cameras up...............

However, the 20-70 + 70-200 is about a kilo more than just the 28-200. Throw in a 20mm or 24mm prime, and the gap closes to about half a kilo of difference.

Click to expand...

Samyang AF 18/2.8 weighs just 145g, and it's quite sharp across the frame at f5.6.

Click to expand...

Even better then, I was thinking the Sony f/1.4 and f/1.8 specials. Heck if you use the 24mm f/2.8 G, it's similarly light.

Click to expand...

In my view, 24mm isn't different enough from 28mm to make a good complement to the 28-200 zoom. I'd rather have a 20mm or 18mm for that role.

Click to expand...

Either way, options are there for the 28-200 to be complimented with a prime of OP's choice.

Yup, and more of them every day, the Viltrox 20/2.8 is worth cross shopping with the 18/2.8, and even the 20/1.8 G the OP already likes for astro added to the 28-200 would be like 30% lighter than the two G zooms alone... That being said I'm a contrarian (and/or just haven't given in to the 28-200's convenience), for a future trip I'm thinking 17-50/4 + adapted 135/3.5 + a small Samyang prime, heh... That's still barely 1kg so also less than the G zoom pair.

Impulses · Jan 16, 2024

MVDH said:
My new FE 20-70 F4 arrived yesterday. Size and weight is very simular to my FE35 F1.4 GM, almost a clone, so it has very familiar size.
Between the rain showers I took it out this afternoon for a short test run. Mainly brick wall testing and some shooting around a local lake, just for some first impressions. Light was not good, late afternoon in wintertime, but the brick wall test showed the lens is decently centered, that is reassuring. Corners seem OK as well, although clearly the wide end (20-35 mm) has weaker sides and corners. Long end seem pretty good. Center sharpness seems very good.

I don't know yet what to think of the lens, it didn't blew me away yet, I didn't get the "wow"feeling yet. I think I need to give it more time and proper testing in the field to decide if I will keep it. I guess I am just a bit spoiled by the excelent FE20 F1.8 G and FE35 F1.4 GM that I have, maybe my expectations are too high for a zoom lens like this to get that wow feeling.

For me zooms are about convenience, rarely about wow or special characteristics... Is the 20-70 range very convenient to you? I'm quite glad Sony bucked the trend and pushed things in a different direction, but for me it'd still be not wide enough or long enough for a lot of purposes, personally I'd rather pair an even wider UWA zoom with a tele zoom if I'm seeking convenience, YMMV. I can see why some like the 20-70's range tho, and the 28-200's, etc.

It's more about how it fits your use case and shooting style IMO... For instance if you're married to the 70-200 then an wider UWA might be more versatile next to it, but if you don't shoot very wide a lot then the 28-200 might make more sense, etc.

Dan_168 · Jan 17, 2024

MVDH said:
My new FE 20-70 F4 arrived yesterday.

I don't know yet what to think of the lens, it didn't blew me away yet, I didn't get the "wow"feeling yet. I think I need to give it more time and proper testing in the field to decide if I will keep it. I guess I am just a bit spoiled by the excelent FE20 F1.8 G and FE35 F1.4 GM that I have, maybe my expectations are too high for a zoom lens like this to get that wow feeling.

I also have a 20-70 F4, when compare to any of my primes in that range, ( Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Sony 20G, Sigma 20 F1.4 DG DN, Sony 35GM, Voigtlander 35 F2 APO, Zeiss Milvus 35 1.4 ZF.2, Loxia 50 , Voigtlander 50 F2, Voigtlander 65,.......) I can't say any good thing about this zoom in terms of image quality, but the selling point for this lens is to pack all those focal length in one pretty decent size package, so I think they did a pretty decent job to achieve the goal, as long as you use the lens profile it's pretty decent for a wide angel zoom starting from 20mm, without lens profile the distortion is super ugly though.

With that being said, I will most likely sell the lens since I always go back to my prime even that means I have to carry more lenses, but a friend of mine borrowed my lens and tried it on one oversea trip and already falling in love with it, so most likely I will just sell it to him.

bpatient · Jan 17, 2024

MVDH said:
My new FE 20-70 F4 arrived yesterday. . . . I don't know yet what to think of the lens, it didn't blew me away yet, I didn't get the "wow"feeling yet. I think I need to give it more time and proper testing in the field to decide if I will keep it. I

Trading range and lens speed for lighter weight, the 28-60 might be a useful option. It seems that the smaller lens is sharper at 28mm than the 20-70 is, although it may be weaker at the long end. Here's what Fred Miranda said about the 28-60:

The optimal apertures for my copy which is surprisingly well centered at 28/40/60:

28mm (f/4.5)
40mm (f/5.6)
60mm (f/7.1)

At these apertures, the 28-60mm maintains similar IQ throughout the range. I would not hesitate using it for serious landscape photography. So far I have not seen issues with flare resistance and I do not know how its sunstar looks like. CA is well controlled.

Steve W · Jan 18, 2024

I really enjoy the image quality of my GM II Holy Trinity and Sony’s GM primes that I own but before the 20-70/4 G came out for lighter travel I picked up (used) the Sigma 16-28/2.8 DG DN Contemporary and its 28-70/2.8 DG DN Contemporary partner. Both are slightly smaller and lighter than the Sony 20-70/4 G and I think the quality is quite good. Having to change lenses at 28mm is a pain but I’m thinking of carrying these on two A7Cx bodies so just switch to another body/lens combo. If wanting lighter I might trade of one to prime like the 20/1.8 G for the wide end. Also although heavier I like the range of my FE 24-105/4 G. Maybe Sony could refresh it with a 24-120/4 like the Nikon version.

Perturabo · Jan 18, 2024

MVDH said:
I transitioned from Sony APSC to Sony FF in 2023 after gradually replacing my APS-C lenses first. I'm slowly completing my lens selection, one by one. I mainly do landscape / seascape photography with occasional night photography (nightsky).

I like to hike in the mointains and am preparing for an ypcomming 2 week hiking/wilderness/photography trip later this year. I'm balancing my lens choice for that trip.

My camera is A7R III and my lenses FE20 F1.8 G, FE35 F1.4 GM, Loxia 50 F2, FE70-200 F4 and I have just purchased the FE 20-70 F4 G to complete.

For my hiking trip my preferred lens selection will be:

FE20 F1.8 G for night sky / northern lights and sharp UWA shots;

FE20-70 F4 G als main lens during hiking days;

FE70-200 F4 for those close-ups / intimate details in the mountains, wildlife.

I'm planning to upgrade the FE 70-200 F4 later this year for the new FE70-200 F4 Macro GII mainly for the better close-up capabilities, slightly better IQ and option to add a 1.4x teleconverter.

I believe this completes my lenses nicely for the comming period and gives me a nice hiking kit - acceptable weight with very good IQ.
I'm just wondering which Sony lenses other use for multiple day hiking trips into the mountains, where carrying heavy bags is not an option.

LouMeluso · Jan 22, 2024

I use an A7C with a Sony FE 20mm f/1.8, Samyang 45mm f/1.8, and Sony FE 85mm f/1.8

MVDH · Feb 23, 2024

Some good suggestions and recommendations here - thanks all.

I need to rethink my hiking lens kit for upcomming trip, and make a change.

For my upcomming 2 week mountain hiking and photography trip in September I was planning to take FE 20 F1.8 (night sky, northern lights), FE 20-70 F4 (main lens during daytime) and FE 70-200 F4 (close up mountain scenes).

I sold my FE 70-200 F4 just 3 weeks ago to save up for the new FE 70-200 F4 Macro, just waiting for spring cash-back promotions. However due to unexpected events I will need to postpone my 70-200 F4 Macro lens purchase to next year. So I need to rethink my hiking lens kit for upcomming trip and change my approach.

Fortunately I bought a nice used Loxia 85 mm several weeks ago, so I'm not fully handicapt on the telephoto end, although 85mm is clearly more restrictive than a 70-200.

I will now need to select my hiking kit from the lenses that I currently have for my A7R3:

FE 20 F1.8 G
FE 35 F1.4 GM
FE 20-70 F4 G
Loxia 50/2
Loxia 85/2.4
~~FE 70-200 F4~~ (just sold it)

The FE 20 F1.8 G is a must take for me, September in the arctic means good possibility for clear dark skies and northern lights. This is a no brainer for me, this is why I bought the FE 20 F1.8.

Loxia 85 is a very nice and sharp lens. Combined with 42 MP sensor this will give me great images and enough detail and resolution to crop quite a bit. So I'm hoping I will not be too limited for nice detailed intimate mountain scenes.

The FE 20-70 was my initial obvious choise as daytime hiking lens, but I am now reconsidering and maybe should just go with a 3 prime kit, which is a creative challange.

If I would take my FE 35 GM instead of 20-70 I would have one of the best quality 20 / 35 / 85 mm prime sets that I could wish for, perfectly suited for landscape and low light / night sky photography. Sure I'd loose a bit flexibility of 20-70, but I have hiked before in the same area with my FE 20 F1.8 G on a crop camera ( 30mm FF equivalent) and only felt the need to change to my 70-200 (100-300 FF equiv) for wildlife and detailed mountain scenes. I didn't realy felt I missed much in the 30-100 mm range and didn't feel much need for anything wider (except for nightsky/northern lights).

I could decide to save some weight and take just the 20 F1.8 and 20-70 F4 and leave the Loxia 85 at home, but I have started to realy like the Loxia 85 so much in recent weeks that I realy want to try it out in the moutains. I believe it will give me the most wonderfull images.

So I am thinking to take for my September mountain hiking/phoitography trip :

FE 20 F1.8 G for night sky / northern lights and sharp UWA shots;
FE 35 F1.4 GM as my main walkaround lens for daytime hiking, panorama's, and tighter nightsky shots
Loxia 85/2.4 for short telephoto mountains scenes and distant panaorama's

What do you think? Would you take the 3 prime set and leave the 20-70 at home?
Have you hiked in the mountains with 85 mm as your longest lens? Did you feel very limited?

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/sets

bpatient · Feb 23, 2024

MVDH said:
Would you take the 3 prime set and leave the 20-70 at home?

Yes. As I indicated in my earlier reply, I often carry just two or three of my hiking landscape lens kit: Loxia 25, Voigtlander 35 APO, Voigtlander 50 APO, and ZM 85/4. I'm happy to stitch with the 25. If weight is a major consideration I'd take only the 25 and 50 rather than a zoom. I've carried iterations of that kit in the Sierra Nevada and in the Alps, and it's what I plan to take on my upcoming trip to Patagonia--but those are day trips, not week-long backpacking treks.

MVDH said:
Have you hiked in the mountains with 85 mm as your longest lens? Did you feel very limited?

Because I'm not particularly interested in wildlife or in isolated views of distant peaks, I'm happy with 85 (to ca. 100mm) as my longest lens while hiking. I like my 85 Tele-Tessar (which behaves rather like a lighter-weight version of your Loxia 85 by f/6.3), but it is my least-used lens while hiking.

Rod McD · Feb 23, 2024

MVDH said:
[ ]

I could decide to save some weight and take just the 20 F1.8 and 20-70 F4 and leave the Loxia 85 at home, but I have started to realy like the Loxia 85 so much in recent weeks that I realy want to try it out in the moutains. I believe it will give me the most wonderfull images.

So I am thinking to take for my September mountain hiking/phoitography trip :

FE 20 F1.8 G for night sky / northern lights and sharp UWA shots;

FE 35 F1.4 GM as my main walkaround lens for daytime hiking, panorama's, and tighter nightsky shots

Loxia 85/2.4 for short telephoto mountains scenes and distant panaorama's

What do you think? Would you take the 3 prime set and leave the 20-70 at home?
Have you hiked in the mountains with 85 mm as your longest lens? Did you feel very limited?

Hi,

I suspect I'd make a different decision. We don't know too much about exactly what your hiking involves. A lot to me would depend on whether you're overnight hiking and carrying a heavy load, and equally on the terrain - whether you're dealing with lots of elevation, so tougher walking and weight starts to matter....

I'd take the 20/1.8 for the aurora, since that's one of the key purposes of your trip. And the 20-70 for everything else. I know you've just bought the Loxia 85 and are ultra keen to try it, so I guess I'd take that too. (If it were me, I'd probably crop the 70mm end of the zoom to get an 85mm FOV. It's not a major crop - you'd still have an image area much bigger than APSC.)

I can't really see why the GM 35/1.4 appeals here. It seems to me to be a lens that's about great performance at fast apertures. But it weighs a whisker more than the zoom and offers zero performance at any other FL. You've got a big gap between 20mm and 35mm and another big gap between 35mm and 85mm. It's a personal choice but I'd cover the FL gaps before opting for a heavy fast prime, especially when you're also taking the 20G and the Loxia 85, which is not a lightweight lens at all.

Enjoy whatever you decide.

Cheers, Rod

Silat Shooter · Feb 24, 2024

I'm a fan of the 20-70f4. You really have to pixel peep to see minor differences between this and the 24-70GM. Add a good software post program such as Lightroom or DXO, the difference become even less in my experience.

rashid7 · Feb 25, 2024

Dan_168 said:
MVDH said:

I transitioned from Sony APSC to Sony FF in 2023 after gradually replacing my APS-C lenses first. I'm slowly completing my lens selection, one by one. I mainly do landscape / seascape photography with occasional night photography (nightsky).

I like to hike in the mointains and am preparing for an ypcomming 2 week hiking/wilderness/photography trip later this year. I'm balancing my lens choice for that trip.

I believe this completes my lenses nicely for the comming period and gives me a nice hiking kit - acceptable weight with very good IQ.
I'm just wondering which Sony lenses other use for multiple day hiking trips into the mountains, where carrying heavy bags is not an option.

Click to expand...

My Sony hiking gears normally include the A7R IV, Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2.0 APO, sometimes also bringing the Zeiss Loxia 85. I hike a lot with those, Grand Canyon, Zion subway and narrows, Angels landing, Mt. Whitney, Yosemite....so far works great, I don't miss my zoom at all, I do have a Sigma 14-24 2.8, Sony 20-70, 16-35, Tamron 28-200 and Nikon 24-200 Z mount for my Z7 and Z9, but I prefer the Voigtlander and Zeiss primes and my zoom hardly see the light, actually i just sold the 14-24 and selling my 16-35GM now and should get rid of the rest of them, I bought them for traveling, but at the end never like them that much and always go back to the prime.

how do u find the z24-200 compares to Tam 28-100?

Dan_168 · Feb 26, 2024

rashid7 said:
Dan_168 said:

MVDH said:

I transitioned from Sony APSC to Sony FF in 2023 after gradually replacing my APS-C lenses first. I'm slowly completing my lens selection, one by one. I mainly do landscape / seascape photography with occasional night photography (nightsky).

I like to hike in the mointains and am preparing for an ypcomming 2 week hiking/wilderness/photography trip later this year. I'm balancing my lens choice for that trip.

I believe this completes my lenses nicely for the comming period and gives me a nice hiking kit - acceptable weight with very good IQ.
I'm just wondering which Sony lenses other use for multiple day hiking trips into the mountains, where carrying heavy bags is not an option.

Click to expand...

My Sony hiking gears normally include the A7R IV, Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2.0 APO, sometimes also bringing the Zeiss Loxia 85. I hike a lot with those, Grand Canyon, Zion subway and narrows, Angels landing, Mt. Whitney, Yosemite....so far works great, I don't miss my zoom at all, I do have a Sigma 14-24 2.8, Sony 20-70, 16-35, Tamron 28-200 and Nikon 24-200 Z mount for my Z7 and Z9, but I prefer the Voigtlander and Zeiss primes and my zoom hardly see the light, actually i just sold the 14-24 and selling my 16-35GM now and should get rid of the rest of them, I bought them for traveling, but at the end never like them that much and always go back to the prime.

Click to expand...

how do u find the z24-200 compares to Tam 28-100?

I assumed you actually mean the Tamron 28-200. I like the Nikon better, first of all, the Nikon super zoom starts at 24mm instead of 28mm, that's one huge advantage as an all in one travel lens since I use the wide end a lot more than the long end, that 4mm really makes some difference for me, I also like the optic quality of the Nikon better, so I tend to use it a little more, actually just yesterday when I was shooting in Yosemite, I set up multiple cameras with different lenses, this sample is from 1 of the 500 time lapse from the Z7 with the 24-200:

neuromantism · Feb 26, 2024

Whatever you take with you to the Arctic, just don't forget that 20mm f1.8. The rest is details (although my personal 2nd choice would be 20-70 zoom, stop on that for hiking, and the 3rd 35mm F1.4 - for town visits, only if having a companion).

MVDH · Feb 26, 2024

Thanks.. for me the 20 f1.8 main purpose is northern lights / night sky and its the first lens to go in my bag. However I dont do much UWA.. I find 20mm a bit too wide, it makes the mountains look tiny and it realy needs a strong foreground which is not often available. For me 25 mm to short telephoto range is much more usefull.

On my 20-70 I always to choose 'standard' focal lengths like 20 24 28 35 50 70 when I can and I use 24 and 28 much more than 20.

On my APS-C I used FE20f1.8 all the time.. (29/30 mm FF equivalent). My SEL10-18 didnt get much use in recent years. I guess 28mm is how I see the world..

--
https://www.flickr.com/photos/62121798@N08/sets

neuromantism · Feb 26, 2024

MVDH said:
Thanks.. for me the 20 f1.8 main purpose is northern lights / night sky and its the first lens to go in my bag. However I dont do much UWA.. I find 20mm a bit too wide, it makes the mountains look tiny and it realy needs a strong foreground which is not often available. For me 25 mm to short telephoto range is much more usefull.

On my 20-70 I always to choose 'standard' focal lengths like 20 24 28 35 50 70 when I can and I use 24 and 28 much more than 20.

On my APS-C I used FE20f1.8 all the time.. (29/30 mm FF equivalent). My SEL10-18 didnt get much use in recent years. I guess 28mm is how I see the world..

alphaZ · Feb 26, 2024

Dan_168 said:
rashid7 said:

Dan_168 said:

MVDH said:

I transitioned from Sony APSC to Sony FF in 2023 after gradually replacing my APS-C lenses first. I'm slowly completing my lens selection, one by one. I mainly do landscape / seascape photography with occasional night photography (nightsky).

I like to hike in the mointains and am preparing for an ypcomming 2 week hiking/wilderness/photography trip later this year. I'm balancing my lens choice for that trip.

I believe this completes my lenses nicely for the comming period and gives me a nice hiking kit - acceptable weight with very good IQ.
I'm just wondering which Sony lenses other use for multiple day hiking trips into the mountains, where carrying heavy bags is not an option.

Click to expand...

My Sony hiking gears normally include the A7R IV, Voigtlander 21 F1.4, Voigtlander 35 F2.0 APO, sometimes also bringing the Zeiss Loxia 85. I hike a lot with those, Grand Canyon, Zion subway and narrows, Angels landing, Mt. Whitney, Yosemite....so far works great, I don't miss my zoom at all, I do have a Sigma 14-24 2.8, Sony 20-70, 16-35, Tamron 28-200 and Nikon 24-200 Z mount for my Z7 and Z9, but I prefer the Voigtlander and Zeiss primes and my zoom hardly see the light, actually i just sold the 14-24 and selling my 16-35GM now and should get rid of the rest of them, I bought them for traveling, but at the end never like them that much and always go back to the prime.

Click to expand...

how do u find the z24-200 compares to Tam 28-100?

Click to expand...

I assumed you actually mean the Tamron 28-200. I like the Nikon better, first of all, the Nikon super zoom starts at 24mm instead of 28mm, that's one huge advantage as an all in one travel lens since I use the wide end a lot more than the long end, that 4mm really makes some difference for me, I also like the optic quality of the Nikon better, so I tend to use it a little more, actually just yesterday when I was shooting in Yosemite, I set up multiple cameras with different lenses, this sample is from 1 of the 500 time lapse from the Z7 with the 24-200:

Optical limits are in the process of reviewing the Z 24-200, its weakest point is 24mm where the corners never get sharp or catch up it seems, however, from 40mm, their next test point, its very good all the way to 200mm, if a little slow overall. However, its an interesting lens for the range/size. Like all zooms it has to compromise and 24mm seems the compromise, but at least it has it and maybe its not so bad in the real world. I think Sony needs a better 24-105 eg 24-120 or 24-200 like Nikon though!

MVDH · Feb 26, 2024

Rod McD said:
... We don't know too much about exactly what your hiking involves. A lot to me would depend on whether you're overnight hiking and carrying a heavy load, and equally on the terrain - whether you're dealing with lots of elevation, so tougher walking and weight starts to matter....

This hiking/photography trip will be a 10-12 day off-trail hiking into the mountains of Northern Sweden, taking a backpack with camping gear and food for 12 days. My total packweight excl. photography equipment is max. 19 kg or 25 kg incl. camera equipment.
Photography is one of the main goals during this hike, I don't want to compromise on the gear I take (other than that I need to use the lenses that I already have). I limit myself to 6 kg camera equipment that is incl tripod, power banks / batteries / filterset / camera bag, etc.

Perturabo · Feb 26, 2024

MVDH said:
Rod McD said:

... We don't know too much about exactly what your hiking involves. A lot to me would depend on whether you're overnight hiking and carrying a heavy load, and equally on the terrain - whether you're dealing with lots of elevation, so tougher walking and weight starts to matter....

Click to expand...

This hiking/photography trip will be a 10-12 day off-trail hiking into the mountains of Northern Sweden, taking a backpack with camping gear and food for 12 days. My total packweight excl. photography equipment is max. 19 kg or 25 kg incl. camera equipment.
Photography is one of the main goals during this hike, I don't want to compromise on the gear I take (other than that I need to use the lenses that I already have). I limit myself to 6 kg camera equipment that is incl tripod, power banks / batteries / filterset / camera bag, etc.

Just out of curiosity: Where exactly are planning to go? We're planning to up there again as well, also in September. It's a vast area in a vast country, but you never know...

Back to topic:

If you haven't purchased or own it already, I would highly, highly recommend a Peak Design clip. It makes on-the-go photography so much more convenient, and you don't want to set down your bag for each and every photo you might want to take.

As for the choice of lenses:

Ultimately, it comes down to your personal preference. I've been up there with a setup consisting of 14mm GM, 24-105 G, and 100-400GM, but I've used 14 GM / 35 GM / 100-400GM as well. Both setups worked well for me, and while I sometimes missed the versatility of the 24-105, I also missed the large apeture of the 35 GM, mostly when I wanted to emphasize something but retain some context of the landscape.

It's really hard to give any relevant advice here, as it really depends on the approach you want to take. Cover every possible angle and every possible view would call for a zoom, 20-70 in your case. Work with what you have, most likely have to think more about composition and the like, and be rewarded with some shots you wouldn't have taken otherwise in exchange for some missed opportunities...

Last but not least, the tele departement:

I tend to bring along my 100-400GM, not for landscape but for wildlife. It adds quite some weight, and it's all but guaranteed to actually encounter some wildlife, but if I do, I'd regret not bringing that lens so hard I rather carry a bit too much weight. That's a personal thing, though, consider it more an explanation why I'd carry along that thing.

I did also bring along my 85GM once, though, and for me and my perception, it did work quite well as a landscape lens. Long enough for some compression if the 35GM didn't do the trick, short enough to capture what I wanted to capture. I even got lucky enough to use it for wildlife, although it's way too short for that under normal circumstances.

Long story short:

Yes, I think your prime setup could work very well, but it depends on your expectations. I'm pretty sure no matter which setup you decide to bring along, you will enjoy it anyway.

Myself, for our upcoming hiking trip in September, I'm thinking about going all prime as well, with 14 GM / 35 GM / 135 GM in the backpack.

Finally, after a lot of text, a few shots.

85 GM for wildlife... I basically stumbled over it, otherwise no chance that would've worked.

--
Flickr photostream: https://flickr.com/photos/198185181@N03/

Dan_168 · Feb 26, 2024

Alpha user said:
alphaZ said:

alphaZ said:

how do u find the z24-200 compares to Tam 28-100?

Click to expand...

I assumed you actually mean the Tamron 28-200. I like the Nikon better, first of all, the Nikon super zoom starts at 24mm instead of 28mm, that's one huge advantage as an all in one travel lens since I use the wide end a lot more than the long end, that 4mm really makes some difference for me, I also like the optic quality of the Nikon better, so I tend to use it a little more, actually just yesterday when I was shooting in Yosemite, I set up multiple cameras with different lenses, this sample is from 1 of the 500 time lapse from the Z7 with the 24-200:

Click to expand...

Optical limits are in the process of reviewing the Z 24-200, its weakest point is 24mm where the corners never get sharp or catch up it seems, however, from 40mm, their next test point, its very good all the way to 200mm, if a little slow overall. However, its an interesting lens for the range/size. Like all zooms it has to compromise and 24mm seems the compromise, but at least it has it and maybe its not so bad in the real world. I think Sony needs a better 24-105 eg 24-120 or 24-200 like Nikon though!

Most if not all, of these kind of all-in-one super zoom is really weak either the wide end or the long end, or some is such big time at both ends, LOL. so one just needs to have a reasonable expectation when using such lenses.

What's your Sony FF hiking landscape lens choise

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Attachments

Well-known member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Attachments

Forum Pro

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts