135 mm 1.8 GM lens Versatility

[Sharkman71]

I saw some images from this lens, and they were great. Woud this be a lens that would work for wildlife and landscape photography? I am going to Africa in August and was wondering if this would work for that trip? Thanks for the help. I have a variety of Sony lens, and I am thinking of purchasing it.
Wayne

 

[iamdlewis]

No. It is too long for landscape and not long enough for wildlife. I know that you can get uncomfortably close to the wildlife at times but you really want something that will reach out to at least 300mm. This experience comes from tours in South Africa to Kruger and Karongwe Gamer Reserve. At the time I had an A6000 with the 55-210mm (FF equivalent of 80-315mm) and I had 4 of the 120 keeper shots that were less than 175mm (FF 260mm) and 10 less than 210mm (FF 315mm). If I were to do the trip today my 100-400 would be my primary lens of choice.

From everything that I have seen for the safaris to the savannahs you want a 100-400 and 200-600 or 600.

 

[Richard A]

It is too long for landscape and not long enough for wildlife.

I don't know about that. There are plenty of photographers who quite often use much longer lenses for landscapes.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I would agree. For safari, you want some versatility, 70 - 200 for those heart stopping moments when you're driver has inadvertently reversed into elephants on 3 sides of the vehicle. 200 - 600 for birds and distant ish mammals.

African landscapes are big, beyond anything the human eye can encompass. I wouldn't think a 135 would come out of the bag very often. My choice for travel would be the 24 - 70.

Those three lenses would be my packing list if I was going on another safari.