The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Sony E mount WA Conundrum

gurtch

Well-known member
Let me start off by saying I am an amateur. I always have strived for the best possible quality in equipment, as my ultimate goal is a big print, that I make myself. I use a Sony A7RII, I have several fixed focal length lenses, including 35mm f2.8 Sony Zeiss, 55mm f1.8 Sony Zeiss, 85mm Sony, and 70mm Sigma Art Macro. These usually remain in my bag in the car, as my principal interest is seascapes. I usually walk the beach with a Voigtlander 12mm, Sony 16-35mm and Sony 24-105mm lenses. Recently I read some very favorable reviews of the Sony 12-24mm f 4 lens. It got me to thinking I could sell the Voigtlander and Sony 16-35mm and finance a 12-24mm, cutting down on weight and number of lenses in my pocket. I am 83 years of age so weight and bulk are an issue. If I would be giving up image quality for convenience, I will not bother. Any practical experience among my learned colleagues regarding the 12mm-24mm? I might add that I always keep a UV filter on my lenses to protect from salt air and blowing fine sand. The 12-24mm will not accept a screw in filter, so I would keep the lens cap on until I was ready to shoot, then replace it after the shot.
Thanks in advance
Dave in NJ
MODERN PICTORIALS
 

pegelli

Well-known member
I don't have the 12-24 but I have used it for a couple of hours during a photography meet. It's a fine lens optically but I found it too big and bulky for my taste (that's very personal of course) and the fact the front element bulges out so far would scare me a lot for inadvertent bumps.

So the way I have solved your dilemma is with the Voigtländer 12/5.6 and the much smaller and lighter E10-18/4. In APS-C mode on a A7Rii that still gives you 18 MP (plenty for my use) and 15-27 mm equivalent FOV. And if you take off the hood this APS-C lens is usable full frame between 12 and 16 mm.


Another option for you could be to stick with the 12 mm and replace the 16-35 (which is also not a small lens) with the new Samyang 18/2.8. You lose some zooming flexibility but I found that with good lenses and 42 MP a prime is really a 1.5x zoom if you accept some cropping.
 

iiiNelson

Well-known member
Let me start off by saying I am an amateur. I always have strived for the best possible quality in equipment, as my ultimate goal is a big print, that I make myself. I use a Sony A7RII, I have several fixed focal length lenses, including 35mm f2.8 Sony Zeiss, 55mm f1.8 Sony Zeiss, 85mm Sony, and 70mm Sigma Art Macro. These usually remain in my bag in the car, as my principal interest is seascapes. I usually walk the beach with a Voigtlander 12mm, Sony 16-35mm and Sony 24-105mm lenses. Recently I read some very favorable reviews of the Sony 12-24mm f 4 lens. It got me to thinking I could sell the Voigtlander and Sony 16-35mm and finance a 12-24mm, cutting down on weight and number of lenses in my pocket. I am 83 years of age so weight and bulk are an issue. If I would be giving up image quality for convenience, I will not bother. Any practical experience among my learned colleagues regarding the 12mm-24mm? I might add that I always keep a UV filter on my lenses to protect from salt air and blowing fine sand. The 12-24mm will not accept a screw in filter, so I would keep the lens cap on until I was ready to shoot, then replace it after the shot.
Thanks in advance
Dave in NJ
MODERN PICTORIALS
I'm not sure that it would work for you but I purchased the Tampon 17-28/2.8 and found it to be extremely useful to the point that I may sell off a lot of my Sony kit and just have the three Tamron zooms (once the 70-180/2.8 ships) and the 55/1.8.

The Tamron lenses not the best out there but they're more than good enough for my purposes. They come close enough to the sharpness of the G, Sony Zeiss, and GM lenses with a bit more distortion that's fixed by lens profiles. I took the 17-28. 28-75, and the 55/1.8 to Greece last fall and I probably used the 17-28 for ~60-70% of all of my photos because it's a useful range for a wide angle. Only occasionally did I find myself wanting even wider with say maybe a 14mm (which I do have in a Rokinon lens that rarely gets used). True enough, your 16-35 covers a wider range but I do believe that the 17-28 is slightly lighter and all of the lenses share a common 67mm filter thread. I'm generally not huge on liking zoom lenses but on vacation it's easier to just be happy with a do everything type of lens. As a bonus the lenses focus pretty closely (coincidently this is why I like the 24-105 on my Panasonic S1R a lot as well.).

Just another option to think about if filters are important. As for the 12-24, I'm briefly took a few happy snaps with it on a few occasions. It's a good lens IMO but I didn't really find a place for it in my kit. The Sigma 14-24 DG DN is another great lens (but on the heavier side of maybe what you want) but it requires the rear filters and not screw in type due to the front element.
 

ggibson

Well-known member
Seems like the 12-24/4 would certainly cut down on some weight for you. I suppose also it depends how necessary you find the ability to go to 12mm.

I'll also add another +1 to the Tamron 17-28/2.8 as an upgrade to the Sony 16-35/4. Great lens, a touch sharper than the Sony 16-35/4 I had, notably lighter with wider aperture. I don't miss the long end at all, since f2.8 still provides good background separation and a high res body makes cropping easy. If your interest is in seascapes, I'd imagine filters are a big advantage you'd miss with a wider zoom like the 12-24. The Tamron also does not extend during zooming so a filter provides even more protection against seawater and sand.
 

Red735i

Member
Hang in there for a bit..... Sony is rumored to offer a new, faster, IQ better lens in the near future.... like later this month.... 12-24 or so....
I am just a few years younger than you.... so I really understand the weight and bulk issues. Typically I pack the 16-35F4 , 24-70F4, and a 12mm Laowa F2.8. By purchasing the F4 versions, I save a lot in both weight and bulk. The 16-35 is extremely good. I do not believe the F2.8 version is significantly better. The 24-70 is a bit worse that its F2.8 version brethren.
The Laowa 12 is a bit of a pain to use... there is only manual control of the aperture. But it is another really top notch optic. ( it is also big)
to me, the choice is ... top, top Iq or balance that with cost, weight, and bulk.
I considered the 12mm Voigtlander. It is smaller and lighter than the Laowa, but it is slower, and I needed to have the option to use it for Astro. F5.6 would make the star trails too dominant ( longer open shutter time would be 4 times longer).
Maybe the last thing to consider is the convenience factor..... Zoom lenses allow you to fill the frame, and the lens has AF, and it is fully integrated with the body.
But you probably know all of this.....
 
Top