3rd Party (?) Lens recommendations for a7R IV Please

[Stargirl71]

Hi everyone!

Not sure if I should post here or in Gear under Lenses?!

Newbie/beginner here so I'm really REALLY new to the technical side of things
I was super lucky to receive a Sony A7R IV for my birthday recently, which was amazing but also a little daunting - plus represents a pretty steep learning curve (aka jumping in at the deep end!) TBH I was expecting something a bit more mid-range lol. Not that I'm complaining

So I need lenses, obviously...and I have zero idea really what to look at in this respect. I don't think I can afford anything much from the Sony range (not the high-end stuff anyway) so I've been researching some of the 3rd party options. My (limited) understanding is that to utilise the full potential of this particular camera I have to have lenses that are capable of doing that.

My interests are largely landscape/outdoors/nature and I'm super keen to get into night/astro photography. I won't be doing much in the way of action/sports or portrait work.

I'd be super grateful if anyone can give me some advice/suggestions (also, EOFY sales are on!) Ha!

Thanks heaps in advance and sorry for the waffling!

[ameerat42]

Please tell us what lenses it came with.

[Glenda]

If it came with some sort of kit lens it would most likely be more than capable of doing what you require. You don't need a fast lens for landscapes or even city night scapes where you would be shooting with an aperture of between f8 - f16. For astro most of us prefer a fast lens ie a constant aperture of F2.8 works well. I own and use both Sigma and Tamron lenses and have been more than happy with them. For a wide fast lens for astro Samyang have a very good reputation and are reasonably priced. Tokina also have good lenses. You'll just have to research which are available for your particular camera.

[Stargirl71]

Hi Glenda,

Thanks for the reply. It was body only as my husband wasn't sure which lenses to get/what I wanted (lol, neither do I apparently!), so he figured it was better if I organised those myself.

Best,
Kylie

[jim]

Looking at your interests the big question seems to be how likely you are to get into wildlife photography. "Nature" is a pretty broad category. Short of photographing wildlife your needs seem reasonably undemanding, and you should be able to get excellent results from relatively inexpensive zoom lenses of modest specification. But if you get into macro photography you'll need a specialist macro lens, and if you start going after birds or small mammals, you're looking at long fast lenses and incipient poverty.

[Stargirl71]

....you're looking at long fast lenses and incipient poverty.

My husband is wishing I'd taken up macramé right about now.

Thanks for the advice and tips Jim. Yes, nature is quite broad and I have been known to (attempt to) snap the odd fleeting bird/animal. Definitely something to consider. Maybe the basics for now until I'm more proficient then upgrade later for the second-mortgage-required glass?

[Toddyh]

I have the Sony G Master f2.8 15-35mm and it's a cracking lens for what you're planning. It's definitely more expensive than the 3rd party lenses but worth it IMO. Won't be any good for wildlife as it's too wide but everything else it's perfect.

[ameerat42]

W)W!

I've just reviewed some lens prices in Oz, and... - Forget macrame, you may need to take
up a swag and go looking for work!!!

I looked at Sigma, Sony, and fell over a Canon page as well by mistake... - Same thing

I noticed in one instance that a Sigma 8-16 lens has doubled in price since I got it a few years ago.
This lens would not suit you as it's for a crop sensor, not a full-frame like your Sony. It was the 12-24 by
Sigma that first sent me into shock.

I'd say look for a modestly priced "kit" variety lens for the present, say of a range about 15-100+mm.
Get other lenses as you feel you could use them. OTOH, get a good quality one so that you don't hobble
your camera's potential. Check some camera stores for used lenses. From them, at least, you'd get some
warranty, rather than having to wrestle with eBay.

- - - Updated - - -

PS: Sigma and Tamron are the main 3rd-party lenses.

[Stargirl71]

W)W!

I've just reviewed some lens prices in Oz, and... - Forget macrame, you may need to take
up a swag and go looking for work!!!

Lol. Yeah, macramé sure aint going to cut it!
I've been looking at a couple of Tamron options based on some of the reviews specifically for this camera so might go with those initially and possibly a kit lens as you suggest, just to get going.
Then I'll need to see if I have any rich relatives I don't know about...

- - - Updated - - -

I have the Sony G Master f2.8 15-35mm and it's a cracking lens for what you're planning. It's definitely more expensive than the 3rd party lenses but worth it IMO. Won't be any good for wildlife as it's too wide but everything else it's perfect.

Thanks, I'll check it out. Sony was having a cashback deal until the end of the month so I'll see if it's included. Cheers!

[ameerat42]

I got a few possible links on a search for "used Sony e-mount lenses".
The prices look a bit lower than for the new ones. Note that they are
not necessarily Sony brand, but as a guide to their performance, you
can look each one up on the DPReview site.

Just one link is:
https://www.ebay.com.au/p/8039230367?iid=203055947828

This would be (for me) a starting point lens that ranges from
"not-too-wide" to "not-too-telephoto" and "not-too-macro".
It's maximum reproduction size is 0.32X or about 1/3 actual
subject size. A true macro would be at least 1:1.

I did not find a DPR link for it, but here is a PhotoReview test
on it:
https://www.photoreview.com.au/revie...rxd-lens-a071/

[Stargirl71]

I got a few possible links on a search for "used Sony e-mount lenses".
The prices look a bit lower than for the new ones. Note that they are
not necessarily Sony brand, but as a guide to their performance, you
can look each one up on the DPReview site.

Just one link is:
https://www.ebay.com.au/p/8039230367?iid=203055947828

This would be (for me) a starting point lens that ranges from
"not-too-wide" to "not-too-telephoto" and "not-too-macro".
It's maximum reproduction size is 0.32X or about 1/3 actual
subject size. A true macro would be at least 1:1.

I did not find a DPR link for it, but here is a PhotoReview test
on it:
https://www.photoreview.com.au/revie...rxd-lens-a071/

Thanks so much for going to all this trouble
The review was super helpful; I think I had looked at the Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8.5.6 a while back. Then I got so confused/overwhelmed, I kinda stopped for a while. This could be a good all-round starting point to get me going while I decide on what else to kit myself out with.

[ameerat42]

No trouble. It's useful to revise what's out there occasionally. I remember reading that your camera has
IBIS - in-body-image-stabilisation - which means you can even use lenses without their own stabilisation.

Your confusion sounds about right. It means that next time you'll pick something up, and again, and...

As for "deciding" what else you need, you should eventually "feel the need" for a particular type of lens,
rather than just acquiring lots of lenses that you think might be handy but then may hardly use. - Unless,
of course, someone showers you with freebies

[Stargirl71]

I have the Sony G Master f2.8 15-35mm and it's a cracking lens for what you're planning. It's definitely more expensive than the 3rd party lenses but worth it IMO. Won't be any good for wildlife as it's too wide but everything else it's perfect.

Hey, thanks. Is it this one?
https://www.sony.com.au/electronics/...nses/sel1635gm

I can get it atm for $1935 with the Sony cashback offer until end of June.

Do you know much about this other lens and what pros/cons there might be if I went for this over the one you're using? It's slightly less expensive (that's not the reason I'm looking at it) - I just wondered if it offered more versatility? If that's a thing...
https://www.sony.com.au/electronics/...nses/sel2470gm

Sorry for all the questions Thanks again!

[Glenda]

The 24-70 with a constant f2.8 aperture is an excellent lens and would be capable of doing astro as well as landscapes, night scenes and portraits. Still too short for wildlife unless you get up close and personal with larger animals and birds. Mine is my walkaround lens for most situations when travelling as it's handy to have that little extra zoom and I'd probably go with it over the 15-35 for a first lens. I shoot Nikon and the holy trinity of lenses are the 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 and like most people I opted for the 24-70 first.

[Toddyh]

Hey, thanks. Is it this one?
https://www.sony.com.au/electronics/...nses/sel1635gm

I can get it atm for $1935 with the Sony cashback offer until end of June.

Do you know much about this other lens and what pros/cons there might be if I went for this over the one you're using? It's slightly less expensive (that's not the reason I'm looking at it) - I just wondered if it offered more versatility? If that's a thing...
https://www.sony.com.au/electronics/...nses/sel2470gm

Sorry for all the questions Thanks again!

Yes that's the one. That sounds like a good deal if you can get it. I paid $3k for that lens around 4 years ago and that was by far the cheapest I could find it.

The 24-70mm looks like a really good thing for every day photography. Gives you more versatility than the 16-35mm. Won't be as good for astro simply because it wont be wide enough a lot of the time.

[ameerat42]

^Just a bit of terminology, but important on a photo forum. (NB: Not Glenda's fault.)

The lens features a constant "f-stop", rather than "aperture", even though in the "specs"
it is wrongly (and populistically) referred to as:
"...A constant F2.8 maximum aperture makes it..."

Actually, I don't even know what they mean, whether this is a feature ONLY at f/2.8
focal ratio, or at any chosen f-stop, eg, that f/8, will also remain constant over the
zoom range

As they say, vive la hype!

And further, and almost counter-intuitively, it is in fact the aperture that remains constant
in most zoom lenses, while the effective f-stop changes. (Ie, for zoom lenses that are not
specified as "constant-aperture" [ahem!].)

So that means:
1) when you zoom with a "constant-what-they call-aperture" lens that stays at, say, f/2.8, then the aperture does indeed change!!!
while
2) when you zoom with a "normal" lens, at again say, f/2.8, then the aperture remains the same, or does not change!!!

Why in #2)? Because the non-changing aperture (A) over the increased focal length (FL) means that the focal ratio (FR) must change.

It makes sense when you think of it as the aperture is in fact the physical size of the hole that the light passes through, and if you like
a bit of maths only, then

FR = FL/A

or Anglicised:

f-stop = (focal length)/(diam of aperture)

So what's "constant" about this lens? - The f-stop!

Note: preliminary confusion is free

[Stargirl71]

Note: preliminary confusion is free

Ha! I'm going to go and have a lie down for a bit and try reading that again No, seriously...

And thank you btw for taking the time to respond with such a detailed explanation. I appreciate it immensely. Though it does make high school Math A seem easy I can see this is going to be a steep learning curve lol.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes that's the one. That sounds like a good deal if you can get it. I paid $3k for that lens around 4 years ago and that was by far the cheapest I could find it.

The 24-70mm looks like a really good thing for every day photography. Gives you more versatility than the 16-35mm. Won't be as good for astro simply because it wont be wide enough a lot of the time.

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for the expert tips. I'm definitely leaning towards the 16-35mm and will perhaps invest in an additional 3rd party lens for day-to-day stuff. Tamron have a few good options that seem reasonable and with the sales on atm, there are some great deals to be had. I admit to having a lens meltdown last night and giving it away for a while!

[Boo53]

Boy am I envious. It took a lot more birthdays before I was given permission to buy an A7Riv

Having said that I've had an A7 Rii for a few years and other Sony's before that.

As a. good walk around lens, and for most landscape work the 24-70 f2.8 GM is a great lens. It does cost a lot (although it sounds like its a lot less than I paid for mine a few years ago). Tamron has a similar lens, also f2.8 and with good reviews for less money than the sony. Some friends in the local camera club have the 24-105 f4 G lens and swear by it.

I've heard the sigma equivalent is also good but I had another sigma lens, in a different focal length, some years ago and I was quite disappointed with it.

A wide angle lens like the 16-35 is good for landscape and I would like the f2.8 GM in this range as well but I've had the 16-35mm F4 Zeiss OSS Lens for many years and I can't justify replacing it as it does everything I want it to do and my preferred genre is Landscape.

If you only have the 24-70 and want to do pano shots you can do a 2 shot stitch in Lightroom or photoshop. There'll be a thread on this forum about that.

My 70-200f2.8 is a Tamron that I've had for so long its actually an old A mount lens with an adaptor to the e mount system. A lovely lens, without in lens stabilisation, but it is a bit slow to autofocus but I think that's because of the adaptor - the next lens I'd like to get is the new Tamron 70-180 e mount.

I hope that helps a bit.

[Aus275]

Zeiss do a 16-35 and a 24-70 that both seem to bring out great colour. Both F4, which is a bit low for astro, but I've still seen some great shots done with it. You would be looking around 2 grand for both.

For prices I compare Ted's, JB hifi, digital camera warehouse, digidirect and camera house. There is quite a large variation in prices between them for the same thing so whatever lenses you decide be sure to research where to buy it for the best deal.

[Stargirl71]

Boy am I envious. It took a lot more birthdays before I was given permission to buy an A7Riv

Having said that I've had an A7 Rii for a few years and other Sony's before that.

As a. good walk around lens, and for most landscape work the 24-70 f2.8 GM is a great lens. It does cost a lot (although it sounds like its a lot less than I paid for mine a few years ago). Tamron has a similar lens, also f2.8 and with good reviews for less money than the sony. Some friends in the local camera club have the 24-105 f4 G lens and swear by it.

I've heard the sigma equivalent is also good but I had another sigma lens, in a different focal length, some years ago and I was quite disappointed with it.

A wide angle lens like the 16-35 is good for landscape and I would like the f2.8 GM in this range as well but I've had the 16-35mm F4 Zeiss OSS Lens for many years and I can't justify replacing it as it does everything I want it to do and my preferred genre is Landscape.

If you only have the 24-70 and want to do pano shots you can do a 2 shot stitch in Lightroom or photoshop. There'll be a thread on this forum about that.

My 70-200f2.8 is a Tamron that I've had for so long its actually an old A mount lens with an adaptor to the e mount system. A lovely lens, without in lens stabilisation, but it is a bit slow to autofocus but I think that's because of the adaptor - the next lens I'd like to get is the new Tamron 70-180 e mount.

I hope that helps a bit.

Hey, thanks so much John. Yes, it was an amazing birthday gift and very unexpected. I would have been over the moon with a ii or iii (and probably less overwhelmed lol).

I appreciate all the feedback and info. I ended up grabbing the Sony 16-35 f/2.8 and 24-105 f/4 in the end; after weighing up all the pros and cons, reviews and also the awesome deal *** it seemed like the best way to go for me to start out with. Now I have to get everything else! *sees husband hiding credit cards*