Which lenses to complement 90 MM & 200-600?

[Gilraen]

Hi all,

I'm sure this has been asked before, but a quick search did not yield any results, so it might have been on the Facebook groups instead of here... Thanks to all the input/help from these forums and the Facebook group, I have my mind set on the 200-600 for sure, 90% sure coupled with the A9 (still considering the A7R IV but the issues paired with the 200-600 make me hesitant), and probably in due time (when I've saved up again) the 90 MM macro lens.

Now my question is, with the above gear, what additional lenses would you recommend to fill the gap <90 and from 90-200? (Not sure if there is even a need to fill all the gaps?)

Until now I've always shot with (borrowed) Nikon that had a (lower quality) kit zoomlens covering from low ranges until about ~250/300, or a very old Canon that was pretty much perma-fixed to a beautiful older 400mm prime. And usually actually missed more length than I was taking pictures in the lower ranges.... So i'm not sure if it's neccessary to buy a 3rd lens next to the 90mm and the 200-600 from the get go (or maybe before even investing in the 90 mm prime)?

Looking forward to hearing what you recommend!!
And thanks for your input!

 

[ianbarton]

Hi all,

I'm sure this has been asked before, but a quick search did not yield any results, so it might have been on the Facebook groups instead of here... Thanks to all the input/help from these forums and the Facebook group, I have my mind set on the 200-600 for sure, 90% sure coupled with the A9 (still considering the A7R IV but the issues paired with the 200-600 make me hesitant), and probably in due time (when I've saved up again) the 90 MM macro lens.

Now my question is, with the above gear, what additional lenses would you recommend to fill the gap <90 and from 90-200? (Not sure if there is even a need to fill all the gaps?)

Until now I've always shot with (borrowed) Nikon that had a (lower quality) kit zoomlens covering from low ranges until about ~250/300, or a very old Canon that was pretty much perma-fixed to a beautiful older 400mm prime. And usually actually missed more length than I was taking pictures in the lower ranges.... So i'm not sure if it's neccessary to buy a 3rd lens next to the 90mm and the 200-600 from the get go (or maybe before even investing in the 90 mm prime)?

Looking forward to hearing what you recommend!!
And thanks for your input!

What kind of shooting do you do? I just bought the Sony 85 1.8 and i love it for the price. I also have the 24-105 f/4 G and that is a killer lens for landscapes and works for portraits fine if you don't have anything faster.

 

[dragonsdreams]

I have a 24-105 f4 which is fine to fill in. But to be honest the 200-600 is permanently on my A7R4 and my macro also is being used alot too. My other filler lens was my first buy, my 100-400GM which usually lives on my A9.

 

[Gilraen]

What kind of shooting do you do? I just bought the Sony 85 1.8 and i love it for the price. I also have the 24-105 f/4 G and that is a killer lens for landscapes and works for portraits fine if you don't have anything faster.

Thanks for replying!! I am definitely mostly into wildlife / animal portrets / nature. I've fallen in love with photography in africa, during safaris. I also like birding, but not necessarily BIF, I prefer them more in surroundings than in an empty sky, but I'd like to practice more at BIF regardless too. On top of that I like macro a lot as well, but never had a great lens for it yet (my best macro shots were with the 400 mm canon prime lens so go figure haha), so I had to make do. I'm not into humans / portrets or cities / industrial stuff.

I have a 24-105 f4 which is fine to fill in. But to be honest the 200-600 is permanently on my A7R4 and my macro also if bring used alot too. My other filler lens was my first buy, my 100-400GM which usually lives on my A9.

Thanks for replying! Then I think I'll might just use the two lenses I mentioned and time will tell if I miss any other type.

 

[Clix Pix]

Back in November 2019 I purchased my A7R IV and since I was trading in all my Nikon gear to do so, I was starting from scratch in terms of lenses. I had spent a lot of time thinking about what lenses would best work for the kinds of shooting I like to do, and my first choice was the 90mm macro. I also bought the 135mm GM that day, too, and the 50mm macro. It wasn't long until I was back at the store buying the 200-600mm! Over the next several months as a situation arose when I thought, "gee, I need a [fill in the blank focal length or speed] and that was when I bought a 35mm f/1.8 and later the 85mm f/1.8. Come Spring and I realized that as much as I love the Bazooka (200-600mm) it really is a bit too awkward and heavy for me to use as a walk-around lens and so back to the store and this time I came home with the 100-400mm. Perfect for walking around our small lake and capturing images of the wildlife, which is what I like to do in good weather! It also does pretty nicely as a closeup lens, too, for shooting flowers and even insects.....

I still have a few lenses on my "want" list and the 24-105mm is on there, as well as either the 16-35mm or the 12-24mm, as I know there are times when I need a wider lens than the 35 f/1.8 prime, but I haven't quite made my mind up yet on those, and I am trying to honestly assess just how badly I really need to shoot wide and if I would use the lens enough to justify the expense, as both of those lenses are pretty costly. I don't do landscape shooting, really, but I can see some interesting creative possibilities in a wide-angle lens, too, though. However, another lens that I am likely to buy before any of the ones I've mentioned, is the 100mm STF, as it definitely has a special appeal and would fit in nicely with the type of shooting I like to do.

Anyway, the upshot of this verbiage is to give an idea of how I've been doing the lens acquisition process this time around, and my mantra is: take your time when considering what lens(es) to purchase next and don't simply buy a particular one because you think you might need it sometime.... I made that mistake before with my Nikon lenses and had several that I think I used only a couple of times and then they languished in the camera bag. So far I've been more than happy with the current choices I've made and am having a lot of fun shooting with my Sony gear!

 

[AHPZuazua]

Hello. Maybe consider a Wide Angle. You have a great camera for the resolution and plenty of reach to capture the subject, I do feel that the habitat of your Wildlife subject can be just important and a wide angle may do the trick

 

[Gilraen]

Back in November 2019 I purchased my A7R IV and since I was trading in all my Nikon gear to do so, I was starting from scratch in terms of lenses. I had spent a lot of time thinking about what lenses would best work for the kinds of shooting I like to do, and my first choice was the 90mm macro. I also bought the 135mm GM that day, too, and the 50mm macro. It wasn't long until I was back at the store buying the 200-600mm! Over the next several months as a situation arose when I thought, "gee, I need a [fill in the blank focal length or speed] and that was when I bought a 35mm f/1.8 and later the 85mm f/1.8. Come Spring and I realized that as much as I love the Bazooka (200-600mm) it really is a bit too awkward and heavy for me to use as a walk-around lens and so back to the store and this time I came home with the 100-400mm. Perfect for walking around our small lake and capturing images of the wildlife, which is what I like to do in good weather! It also does pretty nicely as a closeup lens, too, for shooting flowers and even insects.....

I still have a few lenses on my "want" list and the 24-105mm is on there, as well as either the 16-35mm or the 12-24mm, as I know there are times when I need a wider lens than the 35 f/1.8 prime, but I haven't quite made my mind up yet on those, and I am trying to honestly assess just how badly I really need to shoot wide and if I would use the lens enough to justify the expense, as both of those lenses are pretty costly. I don't do landscape shooting, really, but I can see some interesting creative possibilities in a wide-angle lens, too, though. However, another lens that I am likely to buy before any of the ones I've mentioned, is the 100mm STF, as it definitely has a special appeal and would fit in nicely with the type of shooting I like to do.

Anyway, the upshot of this verbiage is to give an idea of how I've been doing the lens acquisition process this time around, and my mantra is: take your time when considering what lens(es) to purchase next and don't simply buy a particular one because you think you might need it sometime.... I made that mistake before with my Nikon lenses and had several that I think I used only a couple of times and then they languished in the camera bag. So far I've been more than happy with the current choices I've made and am having a lot of fun shooting with my Sony gear!

Super valuable advice, thank you! And it sounds like a very sensible way to go about things. I'm also curious about the weight / feel of the 200-600, so I'll definately rent it before making my final decision. (I once rented a sigma 150-600 - if i remember correctly - for on a nikon and my god, that thing was way too big for me, and actually made me feel slightly ridiculous walking around with such a unit at the beach trying to spot the occasional bird....) And I'll probably rent other lenses too prior to buying them to ensure i really want / 'need' them.

Hello. Maybe consider a Wide Angle. You have a great camera for the resolution and plenty of reach to capture the subject, I do feel that the habitat of your Wildlife subject can be just important and a wide angle may do the trick

Definately agree with that, thanks!!

 

[Vorkell]

I started with the 70-300 and 24-70. Ended up getting the 200-600mm after that (I mainly shoot wildlife), and wanted something for landscapes as I was going over to Asia for work. Picked up the 24mm f/1.4 GM. Since then I picked up the 100-400GM, and it has more or less become attached constantly to my A7R3. As such, if you find that you want that can be an all-rounder (Not quite as good as the 90mm GM, but still pretty darn good!), and really sharp, I'd suggest the 100-400GM. If you're really looking for a wide-angle, the 24mm GM has been amazing for me. It picks up details my eyes can't even see when zooming in, and is also really sharp, allowing for some pretty good cropping. These lenses really make me understand how the "GM" lenses are really a cut above so many others (though, you sure do pay for it!).

 

[Gilraen]

I started with the 70-300 and 24-70. Ended up getting the 200-600mm after that (I mainly shoot wildlife), and wanted something for landscapes as I was going over to Asia for work. Picked up the 24mm f/1.4 GM. Since then I picked up the 100-400GM, and it has more or less become attached constantly to my A7R3. As such, if you find that you want that can be an all-rounder (Not quite as good as the 90mm GM, but still pretty darn good!), and really sharp, I'd suggest the 100-400GM. If you're really looking for a wide-angle, the 24mm GM has been amazing for me. It picks up details my eyes can't even see when zooming in, and is also really sharp, allowing for some pretty good cropping. These lenses really make me understand how the "GM" lenses are really a cut above so many others (though, you sure do pay for it!).

Thanks for the reply! So if I'm not misunderstanding, you'd also rather go for the 100-400 than the 200-600?

 

[Vorkell]

Thanks for the reply! So if I'm not misunderstanding, you'd also rather go for the 100-400 than the 200-600?

I have both lenses, but I find that the 100-400GM to be just that much sharper so I can typically crop the image and keep 90% of the clarity I'd get with the 200-600G. This means that when I'm going for a walk or hike, I keep the 100-400GM on. The 200-600G is definitely heavier (though IMO, more balanced when shooting at max range). Both lenses have incredible capability and you really can't go wrong with either. The minimum focusing distance of the 200-600 is over 2m, where the 100-400GM is under 1m. This is one of the big winning things as I love doing photography of small insects like dragonflies.

That said, if you often plan to be in situations where you'll be very far off, the 200-600 is definitely going to be better. For instance, if I'm going somewhere I know I will never get close to anything, I'll have the 200-600G on. If I'm in a forest or relatively closed in area, I keep the 100-400GM on.

One thing to note is that if you're going to get the A7R4 is that I've heard the 100-400GM's sharpness really makes it pull ahead of the 200-600G in terms of clarity.

Also, Timothy Mayo did a spectacular comparison of the two lenses that may help (I know it did with me!). It can be seen here: https://www.alphashooters.com/compa...al range of,for these different focal lengths.

 

[Gilraen]

I have both lenses, but I find that the 100-400GM to be just that much sharper so I can typically crop the image and keep 90% of the clarity I'd get with the 200-600G. This means that when I'm going for a walk or hike, I keep the 100-400GM on. The 200-600G is definitely heavier (though IMO, more balanced when shooting at max range). Both lenses have incredible capability and you really can't go wrong with either. The minimum focusing distance of the 200-600 is over 2m, where the 100-400GM is under 1m. This is one of the big winning things as I love doing photography of small insects like dragonflies.

That said, if you often plan to be in situations where you'll be very far off, the 200-600 is definitely going to be better. For instance, if I'm going somewhere I know I will never get close to anything, I'll have the 200-600G on. If I'm in a forest or relatively closed in area, I keep the 100-400GM on.

One thing to note is that if you're going to get the A7R4 is that I've heard the 100-400GM's sharpness really makes it pull ahead of the 200-600G in terms of clarity.

Also, Timothy Mayo did a spectacular comparison of the two lenses that may help (I know it did with me!). It can be seen here: https://www.alphashooters.com/compare/sony-fe-200-600-vs-fe-100-400-gm/#:~:text=The Sony FE 100-400 covers a focal range of,for these different focal lengths.

Thanks Nicholas! Appreciate the explanation. As I'm mosly keen on using the gear on safari's in South(ern) Africa (if Corona ever ends..), as my partner is South African and used to work in the Kruger, and we still go back regularly. I decided on the 200-600, for the extra range and I indeed like the internal mechanism regardless of how far you zoom. Which is also why I'd rather go for the A9, not just because of the autofocus etc, but also because I've heard of those issues when pairing the 200-600 with the A7RV.

 

[Astrnmrtom]

I'm going to second a wide lens, but probably as a future purchase since your primary style is shooting long. I purchased an inexpensive 12mm manual lens for one specific purpose - wide field star shots - thinking it would stay in the case the rest of the time. Then, I realized it might work well for things like beautiful Sunsets, where the sky was covered with wide spread clouds of all types. That got me looking at the "wide" world and the lens ended up on the camera much more than originally planned. You may end up finding some amazing vistas on Safari, and who knows, it's bound to be dark with a sky full of stars just asking to be captured.

I'm new to the Sony world, so please forgive me for posting a photo taken with another brand of camera, but it is an easy example of being surprised by nature and being happy I have a wide lens. I was camping at a place primarily to see and photograph ancient petroglyphs where a long lens was very helpful. That's when nature surprised me. This was taken at 28mm equivalent, and the sky was stunning, fading from this brilliant glowing orange near sunset, to deep indigo in the clear sky above. Had to settle for the colors in the clouds.

 

[Jeff A]

I'm not sure that I'm the guy who should be dishing out advice because my camera life began about 10 months ago with the purchase of an A7M3. Couldn't be happier. As far as lenses (Which you can see in my Signature block) I'm very happy with the choices I have made. Having said that, there is one change I am contemplating. I bought a Sigma 100-400. It's a great lens, no problem. Like many people, I think a longer reach would be a nice thing, so selling the Sigma 100-400 and replacing it with a Sony 100-400GM would be a good move, I just have not figured out how to pay for it yet. Then when funds permit I would get a Sony 1.4 Teleconverter for those times when 400mm was not enough, the Teleconverter would give me 560mm effectively. I only have one GM lens so far, but owning that one makes me want another one. Funny how that works.

 

[Reciprocum]

Thanks Nicholas! Appreciate the explanation. As I'm mosly keen on using the gear on safari's in South(ern) Africa (if Corona ever ends..), as my partner is South African and used to work in the Kruger, and we still go back regularly. I decided on the 200-600, for the extra range and I indeed like the internal mechanism regardless of how far you zoom. Which is also why I'd rather go for the A9, not just because of the autofocus etc, but also because I've heard of those issues when pairing the 200-600 with the A7RV.

You did the right choice, not only for the reach but also because external zooms and dusty/sandy environments don't result in acceptable lens longevity. If Sony comes out with an internal zoom 100-400GM I would not hesitate to add it to my 200-600.

 

[jshutzman]

Back in November 2019 I purchased my A7R IV and since I was trading in all my Nikon gear to do so, I was starting from scratch in terms of lenses. I had spent a lot of time thinking about what lenses would best work for the kinds of shooting I like to do, and my first choice was the 90mm macro. I also bought the 135mm GM that day, too, and the 50mm macro. It wasn't long until I was back at the store buying the 200-600mm! Over the next several months as a situation arose when I thought, "gee, I need a [fill in the blank focal length or speed] and that was when I bought a 35mm f/1.8 and later the 85mm f/1.8. Come Spring and I realized that as much as I love the Bazooka (200-600mm) it really is a bit too awkward and heavy for me to use as a walk-around lens and so back to the store and this time I came home with the 100-400mm. Perfect for walking around our small lake and capturing images of the wildlife, which is what I like to do in good weather! It also does pretty nicely as a closeup lens, too, for shooting flowers and even insects.....

I still have a few lenses on my "want" list and the 24-105mm is on there, as well as either the 16-35mm or the 12-24mm, as I know there are times when I need a wider lens than the 35 f/1.8 prime, but I haven't quite made my mind up yet on those, and I am trying to honestly assess just how badly I really need to shoot wide and if I would use the lens enough to justify the expense, as both of those lenses are pretty costly. I don't do landscape shooting, really, but I can see some interesting creative possibilities in a wide-angle lens, too, though. However, another lens that I am likely to buy before any of the ones I've mentioned, is the 100mm STF, as it definitely has a special appeal and would fit in nicely with the type of shooting I like to do.

Anyway, the upshot of this verbiage is to give an idea of how I've been doing the lens acquisition process this time around, and my mantra is: take your time when considering what lens(es) to purchase next and don't simply buy a particular one because you think you might need it sometime.... I made that mistake before with my Nikon lenses and had several that I think I used only a couple of times and then they languished in the camera bag. So far I've been more than happy with the current choices I've made and am having a lot of fun shooting with my Sony gear!

The 24-105mm G lens is kind of the all-purpose usual lens that I have on my camera if I don't go out shooting with a specific goal. The other 2 most useful for me are the 16-35mm 2.8 GM - awesome wide angle anywhere and the incredible 100-400mm GM (also have the 1.4x tele in case I need more reach).

The next 3 I'm considering are: 70-200mm 2.8 GM, 12-24mm f/4 and 200-600mm G. The 12-24 first because it extends my range. If I already have the 100-400 with the 1.4x is it still worth getting the 200-600 ?

Gear: 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss , 24mm f/1.4 GM, 16-35mm f/2.8 GM, 24-105mm f/4 G, 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM, 1.4X, Sony RX10 M4

 

[Boojum]

I am not the brightest bear in the woods so I tried to keep it simple. I have the Zeiss/Sony 55.0 mm f/1.8 for ordinary around town shooting where crisp is really nice. I have the Sony 24 - 240 to cover everything else. The zoom is a good lens with good color and definition. (https://www.kenrockwell.com/sony/lenses/24-240mm.htm) This review sums it up for me. I have used it on the A7M II and now the A7M III. It works. It works well. I have a Tamron mirror 500.0 mm f/8.0 if I need daytime reach but rarely do. Here are some links to some pics with the zoom and the 55. These are not great photos but they will give you an idea of what the lenses can do.

Zoom:

Giverny

Monet's home

www.flickr.com

La Ferté-Alais Air Museum

France: when you least expect it, a pleasant surprise.

www.flickr.com

Zeiss/Sony 55.0 mm f/1.8

Blackhawk Museum Insight Meet

February 29, 2020, Insight Central Member Meet-up

www.flickr.com

As I said, I like to keep it simple for my simple brain. And I lug around a lot less and have a lot less to buy and to maintain. The money saved can be spent on strong drink, fast women and dangerous automobiles.

 

[Paul stuart]

Depends on your style of photography tamron zooms are really nice ,28-200mm is a great all round versatile lens ,and the new 35-150mm f2-f2.8 will be kind of awesome for event photography ,the 70-180mm f2.8 would fill the gap also .suspect you will still need a wide lens also maybe the sony 20mm f1.8

 

[Clix Pix]

Recently I filled in the gaps on the wide angle end of things by purchasing the Sony 12-24mm GM. I figured that since I haven't been shooting wide-angle a lot that it would be sensible to buy a zoom rather than a wide angle in a prime, and that has worked out well for me so far, although I may well pick up a fast wide-angle prime at some point further down the road, too.

For traveling, a couple or three zooms can cover the gamut and be much easier to carry around than a bag full of prime lenses, but it all depends upon where you will be going, how you'll be traveling (in your own car offers more flexibility in cargo than flying), what you'll be shooting, etc., etc. I don't have any travel plans for a while so haven't picked up a good mid-range zoom but that would definitely be my strategy.

 

[jshutzman]

When flying I take all my gear, 25lb in the carry on and the rest in the suitcase. When I go for excursions, I pick what lenses to take in a smaller backpack, but usually I have the all purpose 24-10mm f/4 G, 16-35mm f/2.8 GM and the 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 + 1.4x extender (sometimes the Mavic drone) . I'm planning to purchase the 70-200 f/2.8 GM and that will alternate with the 100-400, although the latter is an awesome awesome lens. For low light perhaps the 70-200 will do the job.

 

[Spiderx1]

24-70 GM f2.8