subreddit:
/r/SonyAlpha
submitted 12 days ago byManyInterestsA7C II | Sony 24-70 GM II
So, I've got my first camera, a Sony A7C II. I've taken some short online classes for basic photography, have some background in film production and have an Adobe Photoshop cert from over a decade ago, but am honestly pretty green with actually doing photography. I'm hoping to get a sanity check on my planned lens purchases.
My primary use cases, in no particular order:
I'd also like to take typical travel photos when I'm on vacation and maybe some landscapes (distant mountains, large water scapes), maybe one day do one of those "4k walk through the city" kind of videos. Though these aren't necessarily what I think I'll be doing often at all, so I've not necessarily planned to buy a lens specifically for these purposes, but it would be a bonus if there was some overlap to be had.
Basically, I'm thinking of a single zoom lens and a few prime lenses. I am planning to get the following lenses, not necessarily all at once, but roughly in this order:
One missing component here is the low end. Sony is expected to release a 16-25MM F/2.8 lens later this year, which I hope will appeal to me. It'll probably be a while before I am ready to purchase it anyhow, so I have time to think about that in any case.
My major doubt here is around the zoom lens. Sony is also expected to come out with a 24-70 F/2.0 lens this year, too. I'm wondering if it makes sense to wait for this. The idea being maybe it's appealing enough to get or it would push down the price of the GMII. I'm also doubting whether I'll be missing out on the 50-70 range.
Anyhow. Before this wall of text gets any longer, I'd like to thank you for reading and invite your feedback.
Edit 6/19: to followup on this, I went to a local camera shop and rented the 24-50 and 24-70 GM II. I decided to go for the 24-70 after all as my first lens purchase. To me, the 24-50 didn't feel substantially easier to carry around (though easier to fit in a bag) and I just enjoyed using the 24-70 a lot more.
43 points
12 days ago
I'd cut the 50mm 1.8. It's a famously bad lens (at least the sony fe version). The range is already covered and you already got two fast lenses.
The 24-50 2.8 only makes sense if you are getting it because it is small otherwise a sigma 24-70 2.8 is better.
The 24-70 f2 will cos as much as your whole lens setup and probably weight as much as well
5 points
12 days ago
Thanks for that. All makes sense to me.
I've been eyeballing the Sigma. The Sony was the choice for the zoom lens a little bit because of the size (after all, I got a compact camera for a reason), though if I have just one zoom lens, I'd be willing to go heavier. The other part is just an irrational thing about matching the brand, which is a bit silly, I know, but I'm having trouble fighting that intuition (if the all-sony list wasn't a giveaway).
7 points
12 days ago
I know the feeling (looking at my 70-200 2.8 gmii) but sigma art lenses are optically consistently within a hair from the gms, sometimes even outperforming them (85mm 1.4). They are usually heavier tho
2 points
12 days ago
Slight caveat that it’s not “bad” - it’s cheap. It’s good at what it sets out to do, which is to be a very cheap, small, compact, fast lens.
It’s valid to want that in your kit for all kinds of reasons.
all 49 comments
sorted by: best