Jump to content

Sony a7 iii - looks to be a game changer


 Share

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I have to profess a complete love of the 100-400mm lens. It's simply the finest lens I have ever had, A- or E-mount. The 70-200mm F2.8 is lovely, but I still would choose the 100-400mm over it - the loss of light for me was nothing compared to the additional reach, and the quality of the lens at all focal lengths. Adding TCs to the 70-200mm F2.8 from what I've seen won't quite match the 100-400mm overall in IQ. Of course, you can also use the extenders on the 100-400mm too, which gets you even greater reach - I use the 1.4x often, but didn't bother with the 2x. The 100-400mm is a suprisingly versatile lens too - it's not just all about reach. It's excellent at 100mm, and has excellent close-focus ability at around 3 feet at all focal lengths, is built like a tank, and has a nice slate of controls. On crop bodies it's marvelous for the reach, and on full-frame body, it's edge-to-edge sharpness actually makes it a very good portrait to wildlife lens. And bokeh is beautiful.

 

Sounds like you two need to get a room! :)

 

Seriously, nothing like hearing first-hand experience.

 

Thank you, sir.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd ask yourself if you really need the 2.8. If you're not shooting a lot of indoor sports or indoor events, then I don't think the 2.8 aperture is compelling. When it comes to background separation, portraits, etc... give me the 85/1.8 -- small and relatively cheap.

So big heavy expensive lens..... what's more important, the aperture or the reach. If I didn't really need the 2.8, I'd go with the reach.

If I really did need indoor telephoto, then the 2.8 would be more important to me than the reach.

 

If you're ever going to switch to full frame, just realize that 200mm is kinda short on full frame.

 

And you might not want to rule out the 100-300, if you want something lighter and cheaper.

 

All good points.

 

I'm not all that concerned about the cost or weight of either since both those specs are very close. The reach aspect is (I think ) winning me over since the A7 III's high-ISO capability sort of offsets the f/ disadvantage of the longer lens.

 

BTW, the 85 f/1.8 is on the list. Another remarkable lens, especially for the price.

 

Thanks.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rent? Unless I know I'll need it a ton, renting can be a nice way to try out stuff to see what you really like/need.

 

Thought I wanted/need a 12-24 f/2.8. Rented one. Nice, but now I know I'll only rent it in VERY specific circumstances. It's just not what I like to shoot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rent? Unless I know I'll need it a ton, renting can be a nice way to try out stuff to see what you really like/need.

 

Thought I wanted/need a 12-24 f/2.8. Rented one. Nice, but now I know I'll only rent it in VERY specific circumstances. It's just not what I like to shoot.

 

A valid consideration but with my old 70-200 f/2.8 A-mount I found that though I didn't use it constantly, I used it often enough that a rental would be an inconvenience. The spontaneous trip to the zoo or an airshow wouldn't be spontaneous any longer and at $130/wk, the cost would add up. Another Alaska trip is inevitable and the youngest grandkids are getting to the group/team activity age. Those shots are always fun.

 

Whichever one I choose, it will mean the death of a piggy bank.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All good points.

 

I'm not all that concerned about the cost or weight of either since both those specs are very close. The reach aspect is (I think ) winning me over since the A7 III's high-ISO capability sort of offsets the f/ disadvantage of the longer lens.

 

BTW, the 85 f/1.8 is on the list. Another remarkable lens, especially for the price.

 

Thanks.

 

Dave

 

My point about the weight is that they are indeed about the same -- which is why skipping both could even be a consideration.

 

The 85/1.8 plus the 70-200/4 OR the 70-300 might satisfy your needs, with less weight and price overall.

 

For me, even on full frame, the 70-200/4 satisfies most of my limited telephoto needs/ If I stick it on my A6300 and get 300mm of reach, that's usually enough for me.

If I start doing more birding, I might want something really longer. So the 100-400 is on the edges of my radar. I intend to borrow it and try it for a couple of weeks over the summer. (I just finished playing with the 50/1.4 for 2 weeks... that lens is SPECTACULAR but way too heavy for me for a prime).

 

Switching to the A7iii.... you will be gaining a great deal of ISO capability compared to your own A-mount gear. Easily 2-3 stops over your old APS-C A-mount. So losing 1 stop on the lens but gaining 2-3 stops in the body.. the F4 may be plenty for you.

 

So 70-200/4, 70-300, 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 should all be on your list of possibilities. If you can, I'd try to get a hold of them and test them out before you make a decision.

 

For me... I definitely have GAS.... I have the 90mm macro coming to me soon (bought used). But given the price AND weight of the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400, I've been hesitant to add either of those to my bag. Now that's just me and what I shoot (mostly portraits and landscapes). But you may find what you need from the 70-200/4 or 70-300, letting you save weight and money. Thereby saving your marriage and/or helping you save up for additional lenses!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My point about the weight is that they are indeed about the same -- which is why skipping both could even be a consideration.

 

The 85/1.8 plus the 70-200/4 OR the 70-300 might satisfy your needs, with less weight and price overall.

 

For me, even on full frame, the 70-200/4 satisfies most of my limited telephoto needs/ If I stick it on my A6300 and get 300mm of reach, that's usually enough for me.

If I start doing more birding, I might want something really longer. So the 100-400 is on the edges of my radar. I intend to borrow it and try it for a couple of weeks over the summer. (I just finished playing with the 50/1.4 for 2 weeks... that lens is SPECTACULAR but way too heavy for me for a prime).

 

Switching to the A7iii.... you will be gaining a great deal of ISO capability compared to your own A-mount gear. Easily 2-3 stops over your old APS-C A-mount. So losing 1 stop on the lens but gaining 2-3 stops in the body.. the F4 may be plenty for you.

 

So 70-200/4, 70-300, 70-200/2.8 and 100-400 should all be on your list of possibilities. If you can, I'd try to get a hold of them and test them out before you make a decision.

 

For me... I definitely have GAS.... I have the 90mm macro coming to me soon (bought used). But given the price AND weight of the 70-200/2.8 and 100-400, I've been hesitant to add either of those to my bag. Now that's just me and what I shoot (mostly portraits and landscapes). But you may find what you need from the 70-200/4 or 70-300, letting you save weight and money. Thereby saving your marriage and/or helping you save up for additional lenses!

 

The 70-300 G was always on my radar for the A6X00 bodies. Reducing cost and weight is tempting and the 70-300 is a fine lens, but the newer linear focusing motors and other generational improvements tempt as well. Maybe I get a 70-300, see what it can do and pick up the 100-400 if I feel I need (want bad enough = need) it, keeping the 70-300 for a lighter travel option.

 

Do they make Camera-Beano? I think I'm getting GAS. :(

 

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, that's pretty much how my setup is now with the A6300. I got rid of the 70-200mm and kept the 70-300mm as I felt the 70-300mm was almost identical in performance plus had the additional reach, AND despite the longer focal length it's a much more packable/portable lens - it compacts nicely to fit in regular medium shoulder bags so I can bring it along with other lenses on travels...even the 70-200mm F4 didn't fit in my shoulder bag as it was just too long. The 100-400mm is for the dedicated wildlife/birding, or if I ever shoot sports. I tend to bring it when I know I need reach and quality and won't be switching lenses much or at all. Sometimes when birding I'll just bring the camera and lens, no bag or other lenses. I haven't bothered with the 100-400mm when I go to Disney, for example - just too much lens to carry around Animal Kingdom all day and honestly not too many situations where I even need the reach - the 70-300mm does very well for that kind of stuff and is much easier to carry and pack.

 

Of course, when you're trying to justify whether to splurge for the 70-200mm F2.8 or 100-400mm, and now you're going to consider getting a 70-300mm AND a 100-400mm down the road...you might have to spend a few nights sleeping in the dog house.

 

I made a recent purchase myself, but mine's much more simplistic - and still committed to APS-C - I decided to use that 'free' money from my trade-in lenses to pick up the new 18-135mm lens, which will essentially become my A6300's kit lens, replacing the old 18-55mm. I like the extended range it offers, and even if I decide to add full frame down the road, I know I'll still have APS-C for a long time to come as I still prefer the crop sensor for birding. And someday, the full-frame sensors might be pushing high enough resolution that even shooting in crop mode they may get up to 24MP...so a separate APS-C camera might then not be necessary - I could just use the APS-C lenses on the full-frame body in crop mode and get the same resolution! That's looking long-range down the road though. My hopes are still on an A9-engined APS-C body coming along soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking outside the box for Dave....

Consider the 70-300 + the Batis 135/2.8. Combined, similar in price to the 70-200/2.8 or the 100-400.

But it mostly covers both needs.... You get the telephoto 2.8 for when you need it. Right in the middle of the 70-200 range.

And you get 300mm of reach for when you need that.

So compromise a little, cover both basic needs, and each lens with significantly less weight/bulk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave, that's pretty much how my setup is now with the A6300. I got rid of the 70-200mm and kept the 70-300mm as I felt the 70-300mm was almost identical in performance plus had the additional reach, AND despite the longer focal length it's a much more packable/portable lens - it compacts nicely to fit in regular medium shoulder bags so I can bring it along with other lenses on travels...even the 70-200mm F4 didn't fit in my shoulder bag as it was just too long. The 100-400mm is for the dedicated wildlife/birding, or if I ever shoot sports. I tend to bring it when I know I need reach and quality and won't be switching lenses much or at all. Sometimes when birding I'll just bring the camera and lens, no bag or other lenses. I haven't bothered with the 100-400mm when I go to Disney, for example - just too much lens to carry around Animal Kingdom all day and honestly not too many situations where I even need the reach - the 70-300mm does very well for that kind of stuff and is much easier to carry and pack.

 

Of course, when you're trying to justify whether to splurge for the 70-200mm F2.8 or 100-400mm, and now you're going to consider getting a 70-300mm AND a 100-400mm down the road...you might have to spend a few nights sleeping in the dog house.

 

I made a recent purchase myself, but mine's much more simplistic - and still committed to APS-C - I decided to use that 'free' money from my trade-in lenses to pick up the new 18-135mm lens, which will essentially become my A6300's kit lens, replacing the old 18-55mm. I like the extended range it offers, and even if I decide to add full frame down the road, I know I'll still have APS-C for a long time to come as I still prefer the crop sensor for birding. And someday, the full-frame sensors might be pushing high enough resolution that even shooting in crop mode they may get up to 24MP...so a separate APS-C camera might then not be necessary - I could just use the APS-C lenses on the full-frame body in crop mode and get the same resolution! That's looking long-range down the road though. My hopes are still on an A9-engined APS-C body coming along soon.

 

 

A word of explanation: I was planning on leaving enough of a gap between the 100-300 and the 100-400 to allow the waters to smooth and avoid banishment. ;)

 

A follow up question for you would be about the focusing on the 70-300. I have been surfing reviews and comparisons and while it is pretty firm that the 100-400 is well worth the price of admission, my intention to retain the A6x00 cameras may well give me any additional reach needed and forestall the 100-400 purchase indefinitely. My only hesitation is some concerns voiced about the 70-300 stumbling with focus at the long end. Can you share your experience with this?

 

Thanks.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I've never had any focus issues with the 70-300mm, long-end or otherwise. While the 100-400mm may be a bit snappier for fast-moving tracking, the 70-300mm still does a fine job both tracking moving subjects and accurately locking at 300mm on still subjects. Birding is one of those things where focus needs to be fast and accurate, even a 'sitting' bird is never just sitting - they flinch and move so quickly that you often don't have a second chance to get it. I've also used it for live shows, performances, stunt shows, etc - and at least on the A6300, focus is pretty well instant at 300mm, even wide open.

A lot of shots I take are with no warning or preparation - I see something, and whip the lens up, focus, and fire - from first sighting of a subject or scene to firing the shutter is often under 2 seconds...so focus needs to nail it instantly:

original.jpg

 

original.jpg

 

Both of those are 300mm, wide open F5.6, and were shot with no pre-framing or focusing warnings - I saw something interesting and had a small window to catch it, pulled up the camera and fired off frames.

 

I'd be curious if the reports you've heard on focus issues at distance were with particular cameras...I don't recall hearing reports of issues with others who use the lens that I know - I shoot with at least 6 others who use this lens, and it hasn't come up in any discussions yet - that includes A6300, A6500, and A7RIII cameras with this lens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly, I've never had any focus issues with the 70-300mm, long-end or otherwise. While the 100-400mm may be a bit snappier for fast-moving tracking, the 70-300mm still does a fine job both tracking moving subjects and accurately locking at 300mm on still subjects. Birding is one of those things where focus needs to be fast and accurate, even a 'sitting' bird is never just sitting - they flinch and move so quickly that you often don't have a second chance to get it. I've also used it for live shows, performances, stunt shows, etc - and at least on the A6300, focus is pretty well instant at 300mm, even wide open.

A lot of shots I take are with no warning or preparation - I see something, and whip the lens up, focus, and fire - from first sighting of a subject or scene to firing the shutter is often under 2 seconds...so focus needs to nail it instantly:

original.jpg

 

original.jpg

 

Both of those are 300mm, wide open F5.6, and were shot with no pre-framing or focusing warnings - I saw something interesting and had a small window to catch it, pulled up the camera and fired off frames.

 

I'd be curious if the reports you've heard on focus issues at distance were with particular cameras...I don't recall hearing reports of issues with others who use the lens that I know - I shoot with at least 6 others who use this lens, and it hasn't come up in any discussions yet - that includes A6300, A6500, and A7RIII cameras with this lens.

 

 

Again with the first-hand experience!

 

Justin and Havoc,

 

I appreciate the input and it looks like the 70-300 will be the winner for the first round. Of the six lenses I dumped along with my A77, three were good-but-not-great E-mount units from the early days when the NEX-5 and NEX-7 bodies were backups to the SLT. Going forward, I plan on rebuilding the stable with a few quality FF lenses and keep the solid APS-C lenses like the 12mm f/2.0 and the Rokinon fisheye for second-body duty.

 

My resolution for this year was "simplification" and I guess shedding a ton of old equipment is one more step towards the goal. Adding a new battery form factor is a step back but I doubt I'll shed any tears over it. :)

 

Thanks again for the invaluable input.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again with the first-hand experience!

 

Justin and Havoc,

 

I appreciate the input and it looks like the 70-300 will be the winner for the first round. Of the six lenses I dumped along with my A77, three were good-but-not-great E-mount units from the early days when the NEX-5 and NEX-7 bodies were backups to the SLT. Going forward, I plan on rebuilding the stable with a few quality FF lenses and keep the solid APS-C lenses like the 12mm f/2.0 and the Rokinon fisheye for second-body duty.

 

My resolution for this year was "simplification" and I guess shedding a ton of old equipment is one more step towards the goal. Adding a new battery form factor is a step back but I doubt I'll shed any tears over it. :)

 

Thanks again for the invaluable input.

 

Dave

 

Good plan. It's true that once you experience good glass (especially on full frame), it's hard to go back. Most of those aps-c e-mount zooms can't hold a candle to the good FE glass. (I don't know about the new 18-135. And I did like the 10-18/4. But I never warmed to the 16-50 or 16-70, and the 55-210 was pretty awful).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good plan. It's true that once you experience good glass (especially on full frame), it's hard to go back. Most of those aps-c e-mount zooms can't hold a candle to the good FE glass. (I don't know about the new 18-135. And I did like the 10-18/4. But I never warmed to the 16-50 or 16-70, and the 55-210 was pretty awful).

 

The 18-105 F/4 G is actually quite good. It benefits greatly from in-camera correction at the wide end but the results are quite nice. Surprisingly, my 16-50 PZ was a "good enough" travel lens. I have a lot of really nice images from that lens. They probably wouldn't be great at 40x60 but nobody ever asked me why I didn't use a better lens. :)

 

Times change. I feel it's time for some awesome glass.

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aloha Dave, Justin and Adam:

 

Anyone have experience (first-hand or otherwise) on the 18mm-135mm Sony?

 

Thanks

 

Not yet. But I will soon! Mine's on its way - probably won't get it until Monday though, so I may not really get a chance to shoot with it until the following weekend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 18-105 F/4 G is actually quite good. It benefits greatly from in-camera correction at the wide end but the results are quite nice. Surprisingly, my 16-50 PZ was a "good enough" travel lens. I have a lot of really nice images from that lens. They probably wouldn't be great at 40x60 but nobody ever asked me why I didn't use a better lens. :)

 

Times change. I feel it's time for some awesome glass.

 

Dave

 

Problem is, our own definition of "good enough" changes over time, especially as we experience good glass.

I have tons of pictures that I thought were good enough when I took them -- and other people may still think they look good. But now when I look at them, I see flaws either in my own technique or in the lens faults.

 

Dave... if you're planning on buying any of those news lenses from Amazon, I would greatly appreciate it if you used the links in my blog. But I can't actually recommend you buy full price new --

Using the Fred & Miranda forum, you will get the best used prices.

For new and full warranty, Greentoe.com will usually save you 5-15%, and still full warranty, etc: http://gtoe.me/l/7uMyhRk9Eo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Problem is, our own definition of "good enough" changes over time, especially as we experience good glass.

I have tons of pictures that I thought were good enough when I took them -- and other people may still think they look good. But now when I look at them, I see flaws either in my own technique or in the lens faults.

 

Dave... if you're planning on buying any of those news lenses from Amazon, I would greatly appreciate it if you used the links in my blog. But I can't actually recommend you buy full price new --

Using the Fred & Miranda forum, you will get the best used prices.

For new and full warranty, Greentoe.com will usually save you 5-15%, and still full warranty, etc: http://gtoe.me/l/7uMyhRk9Eo

 

I'd be happy to go through your site if I go with Amazon. I live in the People's Republic of California, so I need to do a comparison between B&H - tax and Amazon - my Prime cashback.

 

I used to love my state. Born and raised here and now I'm looking for a way out. :(

 

Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be happy to go through your site if I go with Amazon. I live in the People's Republic of California, so I need to do a comparison between B&H - tax and Amazon - my Prime cashback.

 

I used to love my state. Born and raised here and now I'm looking for a way out. :(

 

Dave

 

I know people are hesitant to use Greentoe... and I have had a few *minor* customer service headaches with them. But in the end, you get the brand new full warranty product -- and the price is always less than Amazon and B&H (including shipping and tax).

Of course, I live in NY -- so I can't buy from B&H without paying tax.

 

If I'm buying any lens that has been on the market for a while, I go used. May as well save money.... I just picked up the 90mm macro for $800.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sitting here, playing Angry Bird and waiting patiently (sort of) for someone to deliver my 18-135 lens. Maybe I'll go kill a few weeds in the garden while I wait. :cool::cool:clear.png?emoji-cool-1690It's not raining at this moment.

 

Tomorrow or Monday I will get my new A6300. Another cruise, a new camera, right?

 

Vic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a new toy.... the Sony 90mm macro... wow.. not a unique lens, everyone has a short telephoto macro, but they really nailed it perfectly.

 

39955647095_9116cea34f_h.jpgWinter emerging pinecone by Adam Brown, on Flickr

 

Of course.. I had it on my lens when some geese landed on the lake in the distance. So how does the 90mm macro focus on landing geese, and then extremely cropped?

 

25978207717_ea4b718374_h.jpgDSC05966.jpg by Adam Brown, on Flickr

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that once you experience good glass (especially on full frame), it's hard to go back.

 

<Sigh> Yeah, that's what's holding us back from going to the Sony A6XXX series. So nice for travel. However, it's tough to go back to "good enough" after using pro level full frame lenses for a while. Maybe if we went on vacations we've been to before and didn't care as much, but we're on a bucket list vacation mindset right now so we want to maximize everything as we don't think we'll go back for decades, if at all.

 

The photos have been so helpful to burn the experiences into our kids' minds so they don't forget either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

  • Forum Jump
    • Categories
      • Welcome to Cruise Critic
      • New Cruisers
      • Cruise Lines “A – O”
      • Cruise Lines “P – Z”
      • River Cruising
      • ROLL CALLS
      • Digital Photography & Cruise Technology
      • Special Interest Cruising
      • Cruise Discussion Topics
      • UK Cruising
      • Australia & New Zealand Cruisers
      • Canadian Cruisers
      • North American Homeports
      • Ports of Call
      • Cruise Conversations
×
×
  • Create New...