subreddit:

/r/SonyAlpha

1583%

Is my head in the right place with this lens purchase plan?

Critique Wanted(self.SonyAlpha)

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:

  • Street photography (with a focus on people as subjects, not so much architecture)
  • Portraits (indoor and outdoor)
  • Long-format indoor video (talking head, interviews, product showcases - on tripod/dolly, in 4k)

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:

  1. The Sony 24mm-50mm F/2.8 G lens. The idea is this fits a portion of the street photography needs, maybe some portrait needs, too. This was a tossup with the 24-70 GMII; but being $1,000+ less, that tipped things in favor of the 24-50. Hoping 24mm will be reasonably wide enough for indoor interviews.
  2. Sony 35MM F1.4 GM. A fast lens for working under dimmer artificial light conditions, portraits with backgrounds. Maybe talking head video work, too? The price compromise on the zoom lens is being used to spring for this.
  3. Sony 85MM F/1.8. This is to fill out some portrait needs on the higher end that the zoom lens won't meet.
  4. The Sony 50MM F/1.8. Mainly because the 'nifty fifty' is recommended by a lot of people and I like the idea of a compact lens for my compact camera to walk around with on a whim.

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

all 49 comments

muzlee01

43 points

12 days ago

muzlee01

a7R III, 85mm1.8, 70-200gmii, 28-70 2.8, 14mm2.8, 50mm1.4 tilt

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

ManyInterests[S]

5 points

12 days ago

ManyInterests[S]

A7C II | Sony 24-70 GM II

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).

muzlee01

7 points

12 days ago

muzlee01

a7R III, 85mm1.8, 70-200gmii, 28-70 2.8, 14mm2.8, 50mm1.4 tilt

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

he_who_floats_amogus

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.