Decisions Decisions.....

[rae1063]

I shoot w the a7 rv. Current set up is a Sony 24-105 f4, which I rarely use. Sony 200-600, Sigma 105 2.8, & Sigma 16-24 2.8. I shoot landscapes and some wildlife. Occasional portraits.

Landscapes are majority 99.9% of my sales, as wildlife shots, which I love to do, get more likes on FB and IG and no sales. Not much else. Really considering selling the 200-600 which is in perfect condition, + the Sigma 105 and buying one of the Sony 70-200.

I find the 200-600 just too much weight for my hikes, and again, while I like the reach, unless I'm shooting bear or eagles, no other wildlife really sells.

I always like more light but in reality don't need it, so another decision is, do I go with the f4 II or more cost for 2.8 II?

My thinking currently is I can sell the 200-600 and the sigma 105, grab the new 70-200 f4II and pick up a sigma or Sony 85 1.8 for portraits and call it a day, but will I miss that extra stop of light?

 

[Landshark99]

I love the 2.8 but the new F4 is great for travel, if you use a tele conveter that loss of a stop might be more important, Size vs Fstop

 

[spudhead]

Easy you already know the answer 70-200 2.8

 

[AlphaWorld]

I have both. I wanted to choose between them, but both are useful.

The 70-200 f/2.8 GM II is exceptional - Sony pulled out all the stops. When I want the best I can get in a zoom - that's the lens. I keep telling myself that it's about 2/3 of the weight of the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses I've used in the past, but my younger self was stronger than my current self! I can carry this one on an A7RV for two or three hours, but I get seriously weary.

The 70-200 f/4 G II packs up substantially smaller, especially if you leave the tripod ring at home (which I recommend doing). Smaller hood, and you can lock the lens in compact form so it doesn't get dragged out while coming out of the bag. Weighs 250g less than the GM II, which may not sound like a lot, but it matters on a long hot day. The smaller size lets me use a smaller bag, too - which helps (the bags are surprisingly heavy!). Works fine on a full-frame, and it works very well indeed on an APS-C body.

I have used both TCs on both lenses. Using the 2x on the G II seems to have a bigger impact than it does on the GM II. The 1.4x has pretty minimal impact on both.

 

[jav_eee]

Where do you sell your landscape shots?

 

[rae1063]

I had a website but it was just a time/money hole trying to keep it up, do the SEO, etc. I've not put all my resources into an Etsy shop which does pretty good. Last week I sold a 4ft x 5ft metal print to a company in San Francisco.
https://rogerelliottphotos.etsy.com

 

[iamdlewis]

Just to add more fun to this, have you thought about the 100-400GM?

 

[rae1063]

I'd definitely consider it, but I think I'd rent it vs purchase for awhile first.

 

[iamdlewis]

I am kind of confused as to how you most often shoot. I assume most of the landscape is with the 16-24 since the 24-105 is rarely used. After that I don't know what you would be doing.
Getting a 70-200 would fill that missing 105-200 range you have but it doesn't sound as though you do much in that range or have even felt the need for that often as you would probably already have a 70-200 or a 100-400 already.

If you are considering portraits than the 70-200 2.8 would be the better choice .
If you are looking for mostly landscape with the 70-200 the F4 would be the better choice.
If you still want something to cover the 100-200 range and also use for wildlife the 100-400 is the best choice.

 

[rae1063]

I am kind of confused as to how you most often shoot. I assume most of the landscape is with the 16-24 since the 24-105 is rarely used. After that I don't know what you would be doing.
Getting a 70-200 would fill that missing 105-200 range you have but it doesn't sound as though you do much in that range or have even felt the need for that often as you would probably already have a 70-200 or a 100-400 already.

If you are considering portraits than the 70-200 2.8 would be the better choice .
If you are looking for mostly landscape with the 70-200 the F4 would be the better choice.
If you still want something to cover the 100-200 range and also use for wildlife the 100-400 is the best choice.

Great response! I find myself going out for landscapes, and then I see nature/wildlife while I'm out. Therefore, quite a few of my landscapes become more "intimate landscapes." Which I absolutely love to do.
I need to keep the 24-105 on the camera more and see how I go w that. The sigma 16-24 was bought for doing real estate, which I rarely do anymore of that too.

Maybe sell the sigma 16-24 & the sigma 105, plus sell the Sony 200-600. That will give me the capital to go w the 70-200 2.8 for intimate landscapes, keep the 24-105 for the grandkids and goofing off, then maybe add a1.4 or 1.8 for ports.

Welcome to my mind!!! Thanks again!