Quaternity Lenses

[Malsam]

I’m new to Sony system and taken some time to understand the current FE system lens map. I understand there are f2.8 versions of 12-24, 24-70, 70-200, 200-600 (non f2.8). For the things I shoot and the lenses I acquired for my other systems (Canon,Nikon, Fuji and Panasonic) I often find myself going for the trinity zooms. Switching to Sony now, I realise that there is a 4th zoom that completely covers from 12 to 600. The last would be a great 2nd lens for my wildlife and birding use.

Want to know how many of us here had this setup and able to share your experience owning them? Eg. Too heavy, big, exp, usage etc

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

12-600?

 

[Brownie]

You've got some expensive glass listed there!

Sounds like you're asking mostly about the 200-600. Plenty of info on this forum and review sites. The lens is outstanding, and what's more it plays very well with the 1.4 and 2X TCs, which means you can really get to 1200mm if you want. Is it big and heavy? Of course, but the slower aperture makes it more compact than it could be. It's internal zoom so doesn't trombone, which also improves weather sealing. The zoom is as smooth as silk and a very short throw. Some complain that it will zoom from gravity because it's so smooth.

I'm kind of like you, not a big prime shooter, so I only own one fast prime and stick with zooms for the most part. I have no real need for anything too wide and have done plenty of indoor shooting in museums, abandoned buildings, caves, etc. with 16-17mm so, my widest is the Tamron 17-28/2.8. Also, I don't need every lens to be 2.8. I buy them thinking in context of the intended use. I do a lot outdoors and find f/4 to be plenty in those cases. They are more compact and lighter for long days in the field and you're only giving up one stop. The camera can handle that easily.

There's a fantastic selection of non-Sony glass out there to consider. One of the best parts of Sony's system is the tremendous number of aftermarket lenses, something Canon and Nikon currently don't have. They do require some research first. Some don't focus or track as well, some are equivalent, some are better. The Tamron 17-28 is an example of better. While I would prefer a bit more on the long end, the image quality surpasses the Sony 16-35/4 by a good margin and stands with the 16-35/2.8, which costs 2-1/2 times more. The Tamron 28-200 surpasses the Sony 24-240. On the other hand, the Sigma 150-600 doesn't perform as well with AF speed and doesn't accept a TC as the 200-600.

Welcome to the forum, and keep us posted as you build your kit!

 

[Brownie]

12-600?

I think he means that by adding the 200-600, he can cover all FLs from 12-600 with the 4 lenses. Took me a minute to sort it out too.

 

[Clix Pix]

Oh.....I was thoroughly confused there! Thanks for clearing this up! Sure, if one has the 12-24mm zoom, a couple in the middle (say, 24-70, then the 70-200mm), and then the 200-600mm zoom, this makes sense. Using all zooms may cover a wide range of focal lengths but sometimes prime lenses better help the photographer accomplish certain kinds of images. I have a mix of zooms and primes because I do want to shoot with very fast lenses from time to time and I also want macro lenses as part of my repertoire. We all need to develop our own preferences and shooting styles...

 

[AlphaWorld]

I would have called it a quartet, but quaternity is a real word (even if auto-corrupt insists on "correcting" it to quaternary). I looked it up!

I only have the 70-200 (mark II) and the 200-600 - is that a duopoly?

 

[Malsam]

Thanks to share your thoughts guys! Im excited to build the kit up and initially I was thinking to go all primes since I had never done that before and Sony primes are nice and cute! However doing my sums and only having a single body, I really don’t want to be changing lenses especially in occasions and events not to mention its a lot more expensive if I would to pick up most of them.

Does anyone had managed to have the zooms I’ve listed?