Replace 24-70GMII & 70-200mmGMII with 50-150mm GM thoughts?

[GeffBourke]

Hello everyone. I'm a wildlife photographer and traavel on safaris etc. I was thinking of replacing my 24-70GMII & 70-200mmGMII with 50-150mm GM. Any thoughts on this. I really like the one less lens idea when traveling and the aditiponal stop of light gained during low light. Thanks in advance.

 

[THXGEEK]

Hi Geff -

I have all three and for my uses, the 50-150 does not replace the other two....

I almost always find myself at the close side of the 24-70 and/or at the far side of the 70-200. Don't get me wrong, the 50-150 is a freaking awesome lens (especially in low light)... Could I make do with 'just' the 50-150? Probably, but then I'd always be wondering 'what if'.

And don't forget the 'Photographer's Corollary to Murphy's Law': The lens you need right now is not the one that's mounted on your camera.

 

[GeffBourke]

Hi Geff -

I have all three and for my uses, the 50-150 does not replace the other two....

I almost always find myself at the close side of the 24-70 and/or at the far side of the 70-200. Don't get me wrong, the 50-150 is a freaking awesome lens (especially in low light)... Could I make do with 'just' the 50-150? Probably, but then I'd always be wondering 'what if'.

And don't forget the 'Photographer's Corollary to Murphy's Law': The lens you need right now is not the one that's mounted on your camera.

THanks so much. Really appreciate your thoughts. I keep thinking about it.

Geff

 

[Chris 3754]

I have to agree with THXGEEK, for wildlife 150 might not be long enough. I think the 50 on the low end is OK though. How about throwing a 35mm prime which weighs nothing in your bag and just carrying the 70-200.

 

[GeffBourke]

I have to agree with THXGEEK, for wildlife 150 might not be long enough. I think the 50 on the low end is OK though. How about throwing a 35mm prime which weighs nothing in your bag and just carrying the 70-200.

Thanks for the info. I forgot to mention that I have the 100-400mm f4.5 coming and own the 400-800mm.

 

[Unframed Dave]

Not wanting to over think things, isn't the answer obvious.

50mm is rarely wide enough for those landscapes you come across on safari and 150mm is OK, but sometimes you just need a bit more?

My regular travel kit is 200-600 70-200 and 24-70. The lens I use least is the 70-200mm. Ten years ago, it rarely left my camera. I guess a lot of that comes down to 50mp+ and the cropability.

 

[lombardi99]

Hello everyone. I'm a wildlife photographer and traavel on safaris etc. I was thinking of replacing my 24-70GMII & 70-200mmGMII with 50-150mm GM. Any thoughts on this. I really like the one less lens idea when traveling and the aditiponal stop of light gained during low light. Thanks in advance.

I've thought about this. I shoot wildlife as well as landscapes. I find I rarely use my 12-24. I mostly used the 24-70 GMI for landscapes but recently sold it and got a 24-105 f/4. I have a 70-200 GMI that I rarely use, because if space is limited I take my 100-400. I have tended to use the 24-70 at 24, often doing vertical panoramas ... or at 70 ... often wishing I had more. That's one reason I got the 24-105. But I feel like I want the 24-70GMII. Now for your proposition ... what if I sell my 70-200GMI and buy the 50-150 ... then I would use the 12-24 at the long end a lot, and the 50-150 a lot also. The 24-105 would still be the great walk around lens. I would not need the 24-70GMII.

 

[Chris 3754]

I've thought about this. I shoot wildlife as well as landscapes. I find I rarely use my 12-24. I mostly used the 24-70 GMI for landscapes but recently sold it and got a 24-105 f/4. I have a 70-200 GMI that I rarely use, because if space is limited I take my 100-400. I have tended to use the 24-70 at 24, often doing vertical panoramas ... or at 70 ... often wishing I had more. That's one reason I got the 24-105. But I feel like I want the 24-70GMII. Now for your proposition ... what if I sell my 70-200GMI and buy the 50-150 ... then I would use the 12-24 at the long end a lot, and the 50-150 a lot also. The 24-105 would still be the great walk around lens. I would not need the 24-70GMII.

So we are running on parallel but different tracks. I added the 24-70 GMii and found I use the 24-105 less since I pick up a stop and can crop when needed with the added MPs of the a1ii. Also my go-to indoor sports lens is the 70-200 GMii. I had the GMi version and found the autofocus speed and reduced weight of the new lens to be significant improvements. I am however thinking seriously about adding the 100-400 for outdoor sports.

 

[lombardi99]

So we are running on parallel but different tracks. I added the 24-70 GMii and found I use the 24-105 less since I pick up a stop and can crop when needed with the added MPs of the a1ii. Also my go-to indoor sports lens is the 70-200 GMii. I had the GMi version and found the autofocus speed and reduced weight of the new lens to be significant improvements. I am however thinking seriously about adding the 100-400 for outdoor sports.

And I don't do sports at all so that is a factor. I bring the 100-400 (original) because it works for landscapes and is also a backup (with TC's) for the 400-800 which I use for wildlife. I did try the NEW 100-400 f/4.5 at the NY event. Very nice but clearly no use case for me. If Sony had not come out with the 400-800 and I still had the 200-600 (which I struggled to like) ... then this new 100-400 with TC's would be my wildlife lens. But ... it all worked out for the best. I'm going to rent a 24-70GMII for a trip to Ireland in September. I'll have the opportunity to do a good objective test between that and the 24-105 f/4 also.

And ... I still have an A1 ... so what will the A1 III bring some day?

 

[Chris 3754]

And I don't do sports at all so that is a factor. I bring the 100-400 (original) because it works for landscapes and is also a backup (with TC's) for the 400-800 which I use for wildlife. I did try the NEW 100-400 f/4.5 at the NY event. Very nice but clearly no use case for me. If Sony had not come out with the 400-800 and I still had the 200-600 (which I struggled to like) ... then this new 100-400 with TC's would be my wildlife lens. But ... it all worked out for the best. I'm going to rent a 24-70GMII for a trip to Ireland in September. I'll have the opportunity to do a good objective test between that and the 24-105 f/4 also.

And ... I still have an A1 ... so what will the A1 III bring some day?

Like you, I am struggling to like the 200-600. I think the Sigma 150-600 Inhad previously was sharper. I traded it because there is no TC opportunity when extra reach is needed. What do you think of the original 100-400, trying to get some opinions?

 

[lombardi99]

Like you, I am struggling to like the 200-600. I think the Sigma 150-600 Inhad previously was sharper. I traded it because there is no TC opportunity when extra reach is needed. What do you think of the original 100-400, trying to get some opinions?

I used the 200-600 four years and got inconsistent results. Sold it in 2024 and bought the Sigma 500 f/5.6 which was consistently sharper even cropped past 600mm equivalent ... but yes, no TC and not quite enough reach. Then the 400-800 came out and I sold the Sigma. 400-800 is the best telephoto I ever owned, even with 1.4 or 2.0 ... I won't be renting the 600 f/4 anymore.