Two or three lenses combo?

[TerryV81]

Hello,

I've been doing of lot of travel photography in the last years. I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

 

[John Crowe]

You seem to enjoy high quality lenses so I would avoid the superzoom telephotos.

Evaluate how much you really need an ultra wideangle lens at f1.8. I have stuck to primes in this range but a zoom would be nice. However, they don't come in at f1.8.

 

[MJ_Photo38]

have you considered the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8?

 

[TerryV81]

You seem to enjoy high quality lenses so I would avoid the superzoom telephotos.

Evaluate how much you really need an ultra wideangle lens at f1.8. I have stuck to primes in this range but a zoom would be nice. However, they don't come in at f1.8.

The Tamron 28-200 doesn't seem bad from the reviews. I don't know how "worse" the IQ could be from what I currently use though.

I really need something brighter from time to time and I would like something wider than 16mm. So the 14mm f1.8 was making sense to me in that regard.

 

[TerryV81]

have you considered the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8?

Yes but it's too heavy and large for me as something to carry all the time.

 

[ZilverHaylide]

Hello,

I've been doing of lot of travel photography in the last years. I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

No idea what your uses or quality needs are, so hard to suggest specific lenses. For instance, if all you do is view on a 4K screen or print no larger than A4, then you only really need about 8 megapixels, and you are a better candidate for a superzoom than is someone making A1 size prints, who is better served by a GM lens.

Several options you haven't listed:

1) the new Samyang 14-24 f/2.8. That gives you 14mm, which seems to interest you. In that case, you'd probably want something to fill the gap beween that and a tele zoom, unless that telezoom started fairly wide, such as the Tamron 28-200.

2) add a fisheye for wider than your current 16-35. You won't be limited wide-wise, and would also get some substantially different images.

3) stick with what you have, and add a small prime between. Maybe the Sony 40 or 50mm f/2.5 or Sigma 50mm f/2. For travel/walkaround, I'm a firm believer in the benefits of something smaller, lighter, and more discreet than a big f/2.8 zoom. But if that's what you want, at least bring a small prime too.

4) do you really need your 16-35 to be f/2.8? The Sony PZ, covering the same zoom range, is only 12 ounces. Possibly supplement with the new Sony 16mm, or the Sony 20mm f/1.8, or a 14mm. Even if you didn't save any total weight, in-hand weight would be less, camera+lens more discreet, you'd have larger max aperture (on the prime) for low-light interiors, and if you chose 14mm as your prime, you'd have the wider that you want

 

[poipoipoi_2016]

Hello,

I've been doing of lot of travel photography in the last years. I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

1. Things I pack
2. Things I carry
3. Things I use

Start with what you'll use. As someone who agrees with you on the 16 just sometimes not being wide enough, I think I'd miss 24-35 on the same lens more. For a two lens kit, 16-35 + 70-180 is my goto urban setup and if you already hate swapping, you'll hate it more.

16-35 + 24-105 for hiking, 16-35 + 85 as the other street setup, maybe 14/1.8 + 24/1.4 for night urban shots?

Carry, I might notice what my itinerary is today, if there's bag policies, that I have that pocket 45...

Pack, it strongly depends on the trip, but I'm very paranoid about checked bags (and Air France did lose one!). So either I'm purely carry-on and then maybe I drop in a lens and a body OR I'm checked + carry-on and it turns out that a week even pretty much dedicates that carry-on to camera gear.

At which point, oh boy bring whatever you feel like. I usually bring 3-4 zooms and 1-4 primes just filling the whole suitcase top to bottom. And then magically end up using every lens even if it's only once.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

If I often found 16mm not wide enough, then I would not be looking at a 14mm (or 14-xx zoom) lens. A 14mm is only 14% wider than a 16mm. Would it make more sense for you to get a 33% wider lens with the Sony 12-24mm f/4 G or the Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM?

In terms of a rational kit with a modest number of lenses to pair with one of the Sony 12-24mm lenses, IMO reasonable options include, for the next step, a Sony 24-105mm, a Tamron 28-75mm G2, or a Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, depending on your ideas about weight, zoom range, and price. And then you could add a long zoom from there, with a bunch of options, depending in part on which mid-rage zoom you get and how much long end you want.

 

[ZilverHaylide]

I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

If I often found 16mm not wide enough, then I would not be looking at a 14mm (or 14-xx zoom) lens. A 14mm is only 14% wider than a 16mm.

Very good point!

Would it make more sense for you to get a 33% wider lens with the Sony 12-24mm f/4 G or the Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM?

In terms of a rational kit with a modest number of lenses to pair with one of the Sony 12-24mm lenses, IMO reasonable options include, for the next step, a Sony 24-105mm, a Tamron 28-75mm G2, or a Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, depending on your ideas about weight, zoom range, and price. And then you could add a long zoom from there, with a bunch of options, depending in part on which mid-rage zoom you get and how much long end you want.

 

[TerryV81]

Hello,

I've been doing of lot of travel photography in the last years. I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

No idea what your uses or quality needs are, so hard to suggest specific lenses. For instance, if all you do is view on a 4K screen or print no larger than A4, then you only really need about 8 megapixels, and you are a better candidate for a superzoom than is someone making A1 size prints, who is better served by a GM lens.

I like high IQ and I the possibility to crop (a lot). This is why I've been using A7R3.

Several options you haven't listed:

1) the new Samyang 14-24 f/2.8. That gives you 14mm, which seems to interest you. In that case, you'd probably want something to fill the gap beween that and a tele zoom, unless that telezoom started fairly wide, such as the Tamron 28-200.

It could be interesting but that zoom is not available yet. Besides, this won't give me a low light option.

2) add a fisheye for wider than your current 16-35. You won't be limited wide-wise, and would also get some substantially different images.

I don't really like fisheye lenses.

3) stick with what you have, and add a small prime between. Maybe the Sony 40 or 50mm f/2.5 or Sigma 50mm f/2. For travel/walkaround, I'm a firm believer in the benefits of something smaller, lighter, and more discreet than a big f/2.8 zoom. But if that's what you want, at least bring a small prime too.

Hence the idea of the 14mm f1.8 (wider and brighter).

4) do you really need your 16-35 to be f/2.8? The Sony PZ, covering the same zoom range, is only 12 ounces. Possibly supplement with the new Sony 16mm, or the Sony 20mm f/1.8, or a 14mm. Even if you didn't save any total weight, in-hand weight would be less, camera+lens more discreet, you'd have larger max aperture (on the prime) for low-light interiors, and if you chose 14mm as your prime, you'd have the wider that you want

I don't know but it's an interesting idea.

 

[TerryV81]

Hello,

I've been doing of lot of travel photography in the last years. I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

1. Things I pack
2. Things I carry
3. Things I use

Start with what you'll use. As someone who agrees with you on the 16 just sometimes not being wide enough, I think I'd miss 24-35 on the same lens more. For a two lens kit, 16-35 + 70-180 is my goto urban setup and if you already hate swapping, you'll hate it more.

I have the same "fear" of missing that focal range. That's why I mostly consider a prime lens like a 24-70, 16-35 or 28-200 with the addition of a secundary lens on the second body (14, 70-180).

16-35 + 24-105 for hiking, 16-35 + 85 as the other street setup, maybe 14/1.8 + 24/1.4 for night urban shots?

Carry, I might notice what my itinerary is today, if there's bag policies, that I have that pocket 45...

Pack, it strongly depends on the trip, but I'm very paranoid about checked bags (and Air France did lose one!). So either I'm purely carry-on and then maybe I drop in a lens and a body OR I'm checked + carry-on and it turns out that a week even pretty much dedicates that carry-on to camera gear.

For long distance trip, I usually take a carry-on with 4 or 5 lenses but when visiting place I can't take everything with me and I have to walk with two bodies - two lenses only (maybe a third one in my smaller backpack).

At which point, oh boy bring whatever you feel like. I usually bring 3-4 zooms and 1-4 primes just filling the whole suitcase top to bottom. And then magically end up using every lens even if it's only once.

 

[TerryV81]

I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

If I often found 16mm not wide enough, then I would not be looking at a 14mm (or 14-xx zoom) lens. A 14mm is only 14% wider than a 16mm. Would it make more sense for you to get a 33% wider lens with the Sony 12-24mm f/4 G or the Sony 12-24mm f/2.8 GM?

I considered this but the 12-24 f2.8 is too expensive for me and the f4 version doesn't seem to be excellent IQ wise (older lens).

In terms of a rational kit with a modest number of lenses to pair with one of the Sony 12-24mm lenses, IMO reasonable options include, for the next step, a Sony 24-105mm, a Tamron 28-75mm G2, or a Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, depending on your ideas about weight, zoom range, and price. And then you could add a long zoom from there, with a bunch of options, depending in part on which mid-rage zoom you get and how much long end you want.

 

[poipoipoi_2016]

Start with what you'll use. As someone who agrees with you on the 16 just sometimes not being wide enough, I think I'd miss 24-35 on the same lens more. For a two lens kit, 16-35 + 70-180 is my goto urban setup and if you already hate swapping, you'll hate it more.

I have the same "fear" of missing that focal range. That's why I mostly consider a prime lens like a 24-70, 16-35 or 28-200 with the addition of a secondary lens on the second body (14, 70-180).

FWIW, here's what I've figured out.

Landscape/hiking trips:

Go pure zoom, targeting mid and then wide and then (very) long. You're standing at a specific 3D point in space and because hiking trails often meander but also the mountains are miles away, you can't really zoom with your feet in any meaningful fashion.

24-105 + 16-35 + 100-400 in that order and the 100-400 never comes down the trail. If I have space, and there's an implied tripod and a couple days in the city with the big airport in here so I usually don't, try the 70-180 as well. But do so knowing that I'll use it all of twice in a 2 week vacation popping around S. Utah.

Urban trips

16-35 + 85 prime and/or 70-180/2.8, followed by the 24mm for night shots (see below), followed by the 14mm prime which is darn situational but my god can it take pictures in NYC in particular.

I can in fact zoom with my feet and rarely feel the gap in 35-70//85. Partly because I don't shoot there as much (I sold my 55/1.8. Darn good lens that was both too narrow and not narrow enough) and partly because I cheat and have a bunch of 40 and 61MP landscape bodies.

If you end up going ultra-wide in a 12/14-24, the f/1.8 Samyang Tinies are great for lens #3.

(35/1.8 looking for a good home by the way. I don't use it ever, but it's not worth selling for $50 after shipping.

You can pry my $250 45/1.8 out of my cold dead hands. Ah what a lens. Loves neon.)

Night (implicitly handheld)

This is a game where you need deep enough DOF, long enough shutter speeds, and wide enough apertures to meet those not terribly fast shutter speeds without doing crazy ISOs.

So a wide fast prime. Personally, I'd say the 24/1.4 or 20/1.8 would be my two choices, though the 16-35/2.8 has done solid duty in a pinch when the suitcases and backpacks are full or I don't own the 24 and 14 yet.

Or use your tripod as a cane and walk around Zurich taking 8s exposures at literally midnight with the 24-105 at f/8. Which I did and got some great blue hour shots at literally midnight (The summer solstice do be wild like that).

The 14 in particular

The 14 needs to be surrounded by tall lines and leading lines. AKA NYC. Or the inside of a church or train station or something.

I'm not going to say that I have never taken a good picture with the 14 outside of NYC, but the 5 pictures that spring to mind when I think of the 14 are all in NYC.

• The inside of the Oculus with perfect lighting
• Looking straight up the new WTC as a narrow cloud crossed its path
• Randomly inside the Astor Street 6 station
• Looking out from a bridge in the SE corner of Central Park when I had some ducks below me.
• One very specific location in Hudson Yards where I had 80-story buildings in blue above me and leading lines on the yellow walking paths below .

 

[TerryV81]

Great post!

 

[Jacques Cornell]

Hello,

I've been doing of lot of travel photography in the last years. I usually take to bodies (A7r3) with me for more flexibility.

My most used combo is 16-35 f2.8 and 70-180 f2.8. I also own a 100-400 for wildlife and sometimes I rent a 150-600 if there are a lot of safaris to do.

I've been considering changing this combo for two other lenses or going to a three lenses option.

The goals would be to have something wider than 16mm (I know it's already wide but I often find it not wide enough), an option for low-light/night photography, and (maybe) a bit more reach in tele.

Things to consider : - I haven't try stiching pics yet. - I don't want to lose IQ - I would consider switching lenses too often to be a problem.

They are so many options in the E-mount! I've put some of them in the poll. What would you choose and why?

FYI, Samyang has announced a new collaboration with Schneider-Kreuznach to produce a 14-24/2.8. Scroll down to the Samyang section of this DPR article for more info. More coverage on PetaPixel.

 

[Craig Gillette]

I think travel opportunities and interests change enough that maybe having a several lens stable and tailoring to the "trip" would work better than trying to find a perfect/universal two or three lens kit.

I have the 28-200 and 17-28/2.8 Tamrons and recently added the Sony 20-70/4 for use with an a7Riv. (And an A6700 and several other aps-c and ff lenses, too.)

I added the 20-70/4 for a convenience and less lens swapping in "urban" areas. Typically I seldom go wider than the 28mm but it's not a never go wider. Walking around a coule of very old and pretty tight quartered "old cities" on a trip to Europe, I used the 17-28 and wider end of the 28-200 a lot more than I usually do around California.

14/1.8? Maybe too wide? Crop room with the A7riv, less so with some of the other ff. But tons of depth of field, even wide open. and lots of light compared to an f2.8 or f4.

I could see a 16-35 as better walk-around paired with the 28-200 compared to prime or the 17-28. I took a while to decide about adding the 20-70 instead of replacing the 17-28 with the 16-35/4 pz. A 16-35/2.8 was both more expensive and a lot bigger and heavier so not in my decision pool.

The zooms do offer some flexibility when there isn't the ability to more quite close or step well back with a prime.

I probably wouldn't like a 16-35 then the jump to a 70-180. Could easily work for others.

I don't know the 50-300 Tamron but could see it being a useful range. One of my "other" lenses is the 70-350. Aps-c but I've got an a6700, too, and not a huge penalty using with the a7riv. It might pair well with a 16-35 or 20-70. I'd prefer the 28-200 as a "one" lens approach.

 

[TerryV81]

I think travel opportunities and interests change enough that maybe having a several lens stable and tailoring to the "trip" would work better than trying to find a perfect/universal two or three lens kit.

I have the 28-200 and 17-28/2.8 Tamrons and recently added the Sony 20-70/4 for use with an a7Riv. (And an A6700 and several other aps-c and ff lenses, too.)

That's a good combo (even though 17mm is not wide enough for me, my most used focal length so far is the 16mm). Why didn't you buy a second body (you wouldn't have to switch anymore) instead of the 20-70 if you don't mind me asking?

I added the 20-70/4 for a convenience and less lens swapping in "urban" areas. Typically I seldom go wider than the 28mm but it's not a never go wider. Walking around a coule of very old and pretty tight quartered "old cities" on a trip to Europe, I used the 17-28 and wider end of the 28-200 a lot more than I usually do around California.

14/1.8? Maybe too wide? Crop room with the A7riv, less so with some of the other ff. But tons of depth of field, even wide open. and lots of light compared to an f2.8 or f4.

I like the idea of the 14 f1.8 because it's wider and brighter than what I have right now (the two main "issues" I've been trying to improve in my setup). But I don't think I can beat the flexibility/ease of use/speed of my current combo (16-35 f2.8 + 70-180 f2.8). I should probably just learn to stich for wider shots...

If I want to stay with two lenses and go with the 14 + 28-200 I'm afraid I'm going to miss the 2.8 on the tele end (which I used fairly often for portraits with background separation and animals in less than ideal light conditions). Maybe I should just try it once but... one trip is not another one in the "photographic aspect of things" (more animals? more people? architecture? landscapes? sunny/cloudy days? night photography? etc.).

 

[Craig Gillette]

I think travel opportunities and interests change enough that maybe having a several lens stable and tailoring to the "trip" would work better than trying to find a perfect/universal two or three lens kit.

I have the 28-200 and 17-28/2.8 Tamrons and recently added the Sony 20-70/4 for use with an a7Riv. (And an A6700 and several other aps-c and ff lenses, too.)

That's a good combo (even though 17mm is not wide enough for me, my most used focal length so far is the 16mm). Why didn't you buy a second body (you wouldn't have to switch anymore) instead of the 20-70 if you don't mind me asking?

Several reasons. Like most gear choices, pretty individual types of things. One reason? Budget and deciding which additional ff body would be the right one. I could make a case for the A7CR or the larger bodies, say for use with a tripod or the larger lenses for nature and wildlife, etc.

Another is that while a second body adds convenience and speed, that crossover from17-28 to 28-200 would still be awkward at times. The 20-70 shifts the crossover point and might reduce changes to either a longer or wider lens in more urban uses. If paring down the carry bag, a second body adds weight and bulk. Perhaps more obtrusive, using/dangling two cameras in a "world" where everyone else is using a phone.

I added the 20-70/4 for a convenience and less lens swapping in "urban" areas. Typically I seldom go wider than the 28mm but it's not a never go wider. Walking around a couple of very old and pretty tight quartered "old cities" on a trip to Europe, I used the 17-28 and wider end of the 28-200 a lot more than I usually do around California.

14/1.8? Maybe too wide? Crop room with the A7riv, less so with some of the other ff. But tons of depth of field, even wide open. and lots of light compared to an f2.8 or f4.

I like the idea of the 14 f1.8 because it's wider and brighter than what I have right now (the two main "issues" I've been trying to improve in my setup). But I don't think I can beat the flexibility/ease of use/speed of my current combo (16-35 f2.8 + 70-180 f2.8). I should probably just learn to stich for wider shots...

I was considering a 16-35 to replace the 17-28. Solves part of the lack of overlap/crossover and could keep it to two lenses. I've done some stitching. Can be a problem if a lot of motion in the view, tourists' wandering around the floor of the cathedral or moving water and vehicles, etc.

If I want to stay with two lenses and go with the 14 + 28-200 I'm afraid I'm going to miss the 2.8 on the tele end (which I used fairly often for portraits with background separation and animals in less than ideal light conditions). Maybe I should just try it once but... one trip is not another one in the "photographic aspect of things" (more animals? more people? architecture? landscapes? sunny/cloudy days? night photography? etc.).

I'm finding the noise reduction programs work pretty well with dim interiors. I've not tried the blurring/isolation approaches. And trips and locations do make for different choices.

 

[JohnClif]

Hard to make any recommendations wi5hout knowing why you feel the need to change.

These wide aperture lenses are big, but three smaller/darker lenses won't be smaller or lighter in total. I often create impromptu panos by manually taking a sequence to create a wider angle photo and stitch in post-production... works very well with increased sharpness and high MP count.

I carry an Oly E-M1 II and III bodies, a 12-40/2.8 Pro, a 40-150/2.8 Pro, my 20/1.4, and my 30/1.4 Sigma lenses. I can cover any travel, street, or portrait opportunity, and can (and have) produced web videos with this gear, a tabletop tripod, an LED light, and a wired or wireless lav mic. It's not that heavy, either. If I'm not doing videos the 20mm and 30mm stay home along with the tripod, light, and mic. I've thought about a 40-150/4 to take some weight and bulk down... for travel an f/4 tele zoom is fine. I use the 12-40/2.8 for most of my photos, and run it on the III with the tele on the II. I also carry the 1.4X Oly TC.

I think the 12-40/2.8 and 40-150/4 would work fine as a minimal travel rig. The advantage of MFT is how small and light the lenses are... and there's a lot of excellent lenses fr9m OM, Pany, Sigma, and others. I've also carried a Pen F with the Oly 14-42/3.5-5.6 pancake and 40-150/4.0-5.6 R lenses and while they're not rugged or weatherproof they are VERY light and small and take astonishingly good images... great for web, or even prints. You give up a stop or two and shallow DoF but optical performance is very good, and at f/5.6 to f/11 is excellent.

--
'Do you think a man can change his destiny?'
'I think a man does what he can until his destiny is revealed.'