50-150 vs 70-200

[-ST-]

I am seriously thinking of picking up the 50–150mm f/2.0 and would appreciate any input from people who have used it. I have enjoyed the 50–150 photos and discussions here in AlphaShooters, and I hope we can talk about it in the context of this decision.

My shooting is mostly wildlife and landscapes, and lately more impromptu portraits of people I meet on my daily sunrise walks at Crescent Beach.

Current kit: Sony A1 II with 300mm f/2.8 GM (with 1.4x and 2x teleconverters)Sony A1 with 70–200mm f/2.8 GM II

I am out every day from about 30 to 60 minutes before sunrise to 60 to 90 minutes after, which is where all my keeper images come from.

Location context: Crescent Beach, near Vancouver BC, has weather and light almost identical to what many of you in the UK and northern Europe deal with. Think Manchester, Glasgow, or Dublin: long stretches of soft overcast, low winter sun, frequent rain, and muted contrast. For US members, it is basically Seattle. This kind of light really shapes my lens choices, especially for wildlife and environmental portraits at dawn.

I picked up the 300mm f/2.8 about four months ago, added both teleconverters, and after a lot of testing I have decided to sell my 200–600mm. The 300mm plus teleconverters simply fits my shooting conditions better.

Why I am considering the 50–150mm f/2 even though I already have the 70–200 GM II: The 70–200 GM II has been excellent for me: sharp, fast, and reliable. But most of my shooting happens in low contrast, pre sunrise light where subject separation can be subtle. I am looking at the 50–150 f/2 because the extra stop of light and the f/2 rendering might give me a different aesthetic in those conditions. More separation, more depth, and a slightly more cinematic look for environmental portraits and wildlife at dawn. I am not assuming it replaces the 70–200. I am simply exploring whether its f/2 character might suit the soft, muted light I shoot in every day.

Since I am using the A1 II, I am not concerned about the difference between 150mm and 200mm at the long end. I can easily make up that last 50mm with cropping without sacrificing image quality, so the focal length gap is not a deciding factor.

I do not shoot sports, weddings, or other life events. I occasionally shoot live music indoors in small venues, and I am enjoying the interaction with people around impromptu portraits. That is another reason I am wondering if the 50–150 might be a better fit than the 70–200 I am using now.

I am also thinking about the 50–150 as a street photography lens. I am selling my 24–105 because for that kind of work I actually prefer the 70–200, but I would not mind having a slightly wider field of view. The 50–150 range lines up better with how I shoot in markets and on the street, and the f/2 aperture could give me a more distinctive look for candid portraits and environmental scenes.

If anyone has used both the 50–150 f/2 and the 70–200 GM II in grey, low contrast conditions, I would really appreciate hearing how the rendering compares.

Thanks,
ST

 

[AlphaWorld]

I own both the 70-200 GM II and the 50-150 GM. I rarely use the 70-200 now, because the 50-150 is (a little) sharper, and produces better subject / background separation. You need good focus for it to produce its best work, but the A1 II can cope. Catching a razor sharp catchlight in the eye, and softening the hair and shoulders - I like that effect.

I don't know about using it for street photography of people - it's a large lens, and people are unlikely to ignore it But I have used it when photographing graffiti - it was very good for that.

I was at a Sony sponsored event recently, and a couple of the shooters were trying out the 50-150 (I was using mine, and the host was using his, so four of us had the lens). The lighting was somewhat dim for some of the setups (we were shooting with a projector and gobos). I'm very happy with the results I got, and I think the others were, too.