Will My Choices Of Lenses Meet My Requirements?

[CallMeSteven]

In the future, I am planning on getting a Sony A7R V (maybe VI by the time I have saved enough for it!)

I have been reading a fair amount of reviews, watching YouTube videos and also spending time looking at sample images, but I am still
not certain yet that my choices are correct.

Currently, I own a Panasonic FZ1000 which I use as a macro, portrait and for BIF/Super telephoto photos. So, I looking at lenses that cover
the whole range, from macro, landscape and wildlife photography (I spend a fair amount of time trying to photograph birds locally.

I have been considering:

Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 G Master II Lens for landscape and portrait (can it do macro??)
Sony FE 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens (for wildlife)
Laowa 60mm f2.8 2X Ultra Macro Lens

Ideally, I'd like just two lenses. Should I consider the Sony FE 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 OSS G Master Lens maybe with a 1.4 tele converter?

If I used the Sony A7R V in APS mode it would certainly give me a reasonable zoom. I know the file size would be smaller, but it potentially would give the BIF shots
with less weight and also macro photography?

Are there any sample images in this forum comparing the Sony A7R V full frame versus APS mode?

Thanks for any feedback.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

Is your macro work full 1:1 magnification or "close up" photography......this is important
to whether you need a dedicated 1:1
Lens or are OK with close up photography with an alternate telephoto lens for example.

Many on this site produce good close up images of insects,flowers etc for example with the 70-200 and 200-600mm lenses.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

A lot will happen with lens releases between now and when you buy this thing. It's probably a good idea to not cause yourself this anxiety till you are a little closer...

 

[CallMeSteven]

Is your macro work full 1:1 magnification or "close up" photography......this is important
to whether you need a dedicated 1:1
Lens or are OK with close up photography with an alternate telephoto lens for example.

Many on this site produce good close up images of insects,flowers etc for example with the 70-200 and 200-600mm lenses.

I am okay with 1:1 as I mainly take macros of flowers! So would the 200-600 enable me still to do that?

The Laowa 60mm f2.8 2X Ultra Macro Lens would be nice to have, but maybe the depth of field would be quite tight for flowers.

 

[CallMeSteven]

A lot will happen with lens releases between now and when you buy this thing. It's probably a good idea to not cause yourself this anxiety till you are a little closer...

It's not for me, anxiety, I call it planning, it's fun reading up on lenses and getting to know what to consider

 

[Brownie]

In the future, I am planning on getting a Sony A7R V (maybe VI by the time I have saved enough for it!)

I have been reading a fair amount of reviews, watching YouTube videos and also spending time looking at sample images, but I am still
not certain yet that my choices are correct.

Currently, I own a Panasonic FZ1000 which I use as a macro, portrait and for BIF/Super telephoto photos. So, I looking at lenses that cover
the whole range, from macro, landscape and wildlife photography (I spend a fair amount of time trying to photograph birds locally.

I have been considering:

Sony FE 24-70mm f2.8 G Master II Lens for landscape and portrait (can it do macro??)
Sony FE 200-600mm f5.6-6.3 G OSS Lens (for wildlife)
Laowa 60mm f2.8 2X Ultra Macro Lens

Ideally, I'd like just two lenses. Should I consider the Sony FE 100-400mm f4.5-5.6 OSS G Master Lens maybe with a 1.4 tele converter?

If I used the Sony A7R V in APS mode it would certainly give me a reasonable zoom. I know the file size would be smaller, but it potentially would give the BIF shots
with less weight and also macro photography?

Are there any sample images in this forum comparing the Sony A7R V full frame versus APS mode?

Thanks for any feedback.

Let's first understand Macro. True macro is 1:1, which means the image on the screen will be the same size as in real life. The FZ1000 is not capable of macro photography on its own. It can only get to 1:5 without the digital zoom, which degrades the image. That's only 1/5 life size. It's really shooting a closeup image, but manufacturer's toss the 'macro' term around like chicken feed. There are many lenses on the market that say 'macro' but are not. Unless your predisposed to true macro photography, there are lenses that boast better than a 1:5 macro ratio.

As for your lens selection, those are great lenses and will serve you very well. However, you have a massive gap in your range from 70-200, and you will absolutely miss it. I would not choose those to start with especially if you're on a budget.

If you only want to stick with two lenses, you're going to be hard pressed. If that is the case, then the Sony 24-105/4 and one of the 100-400 choices gets you very good range and is virtually identical to the focal range equivalence of the FZ1000. But none of these lenses are fast. It is typical to have a fast prime at your disposal for low light shots. 50mm is common, I prefer 35mm-40mm. You will want something in the f/1.4 to f/1.8 range.

As to the A7R V image quality in APS-C mode, it is identical in every respect to the Sony A6700. Look at images from that camera and you'll have your answer.

 

[AlphaWorld]

To shoot flowers you do not need full-on macro - with 1:1 macro you will be seeing objects about 24mm high by 36mm wide (roughly an inch high by an inch and a half wide) - that's quite a small flower. If you have plans on shooting, for example, roses, then half macro is plenty, and a lot of the time you'll need even less magnification: roses can get quite large, particularly when they get kind of over-blown (one rose grower I talked to described them as "slutty").

Now half-macro will ring a bell in the minds of some earnest Sony followers: the relatively new 70-200mm f/4 G lens does half macro at all focal lengths. It's also a good lens for portraits. So maybe you should replace your 24-70 f/2.8 GM II plan with the 70-200mm f/4 G? Oh, and I think it's a less expensive lens. If you really wanted to go shorter, then maybe pair it with the 20-70mm f/4 G - another recent lens that's not going to break the bank. Both of these lenses are fairly light, and i can carry both in a fairly small bag with the A7RV (or similar camera) without difficulty.

As for wildlife, the 100-400 GM or the 200-600 G will both work. The 200-600 is a fairly heavy lens. I'd strongly recommend you hire one and see how you feel about carrying it around.

 

[iamdlewis]

Don't forget you can add Extension Tubes as well for macro. I have no clue as to why some of these are so expensive, I have ones that cost me 15 usd.

This is a flower image using the 200-600G. The difficulty with using this lens for this is that the minimum focus distance (2.4m) is rather long.

• ILCE-1
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/200 sec
• ISO 320

I don't have an A7Rv but I do have an A7Riv which has the same sensor. This would be the difference between full frame mode and APS-C mode would look like with the 100-400GM. I can show you this because APS-C mode is just a 50% crop of the full frame. No post processing done of this file other than the crop.
Full-Frame:

• ILCE-7RM4
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 1250

APS-C mode

• ILCE-7RM4
• Sony FE 100-400mm F4.5-5.6 GM OSS (SEL100400GM)
• 400.0 mm
• ƒ/5.6
• 1/320 sec
• ISO 1250

Personally with the A7Riv I find the 100-400GM to be a better lens to use with BiF than the 200-600G. My hit rate was a little higher and there is a crispness to the images that I don't see in the 200-600G (not as noticeable with the A1). Action is not what the R line was developed for the A7Rv does have AF improvements over the A7Riv and if you stuck with APS-C mode when doing BiF you would probably get a higher hit rate.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

As for wildlife, the 100-400 GM or the 200-600 G will both work. The 200-600 is a fairly heavy lens. I'd strongly recommend you hire one and see how you feel about carrying it around.

Keep in mind the 200-600mm does handle unbelievably well due to it's genius design. I honestly thought few people would have issues with it.

 

[iamdlewis]

The 100-400GM v 200-600G

100-400GM
- Images with this lens generally look sharper, especially on the R series but this should be expected given it is a GM lens, it isn't that the 200-600 are bad and most people probably won't notice but I do and this is my list.
- Minimal focus distance is very close for such a long lens (0.98m).
- Size, it is easier to travel with a lens of 205mm length over one of 318mm and a weight of 1395g vs 2115g.
- Versatility the 100-200mm focal length has more usability for non-wildlife types of photography add in the minimal focus distance and there are a lot of options. This also has a fairly common 77mm filter thread allowing for more use of the filters, the 200-600 has a 95mm thread which would probably be the only lens with such a diameter.

200-600G
- Cost. This lens will be around $500 USD cheaper than an equal condition 100-400GM.
- 600mm is going to be better than 400mm the majority of the time for wildlife.
- Balance. Since this is an internal zoom the balance of this lens doesn't really change.

Both lens are fast to focus, both lens are easy to use for long periods of time, yes even though the 200-600 is 50% heavier it is still comfortable for long outings. Both allow for the removal of the tripod foot to cut weight more.

You can use the 1.4x or 2x teleconverters with either lens but I find that this does significantly shift the balance of the lens enough that at least for me they feel more awkward to use. The 100-400+1.4x is still 500+g less that the 200-600 but in use it feels more because the center of weight is now much more between the lens hand and camera body.

If I am going out for wildlife I am taking the 200-600. The only time I take the 100-400 out for wildlife is if I know I the animals are well accustom to people and I am looking for a very close shot or there is a blind in which I already know the animals get close, in both cases I will start with the 200-600. If I am going out to a garden where there is a chance for wildlife but the primary focus is going to be something less I'll take the 100-400. This just really emphasizes that the close focus range and 100-200mm is more useful for non-wildlife activities.

When I started with Sony the 100-400GM was the longest lens you could get for native E-mount, I am in no way disappointed that I own the 100-400GM but I don't think it is likely that I would own it if the 200-600 was around back then. If I were looking at it today I would have the 200-600G and one of the 70-200G/GM lens. I defiantly wouldn't own the 1.4x TC.

 

[Brownie]

The Tamron 50-400 is a better choice for the OP. Not only is it smaller and lighter, it has 'macro' capability of 1:2. It's also half the price.

 

[AlphaWorld]

The Tamron 50-400 is a better choice for the OP. Not only is it smaller and lighter, it has 'macro' capability of 1:2. It's also half the price.

I am obligated to point out that the Tamron will not support shooting at 120fps (which the A7IV does not support )

Apart from that, it sounds like a sensible suggestion...