The best reason for buying into Sony, IMO, is the variety of high-quality lens options from multiple manufacturers. It really lets you tailor your setup to your needs, both in performance and in budget.
The E-mount protocol is open source software, that facilitates development and ensures long-term compatibility, which makes it much easier for the manufacturers. With Canon and Nikon 3rd party lenses have to be constructed by employing reverse engineering techniques since they do not disclose the electronic specifications of their mounts.
Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Tokina and others, they make good lenses - and by good I mean good for the money - but in a general point of view? I mean, it's all low tier lenses after all. They render dead and flat images. Sigma lenses especially. Sigma lenses create images that look like flat cardboard cutouts put together to form an image. Same applies to Samyang, Tamron and just about 80-90% of all other lenses built in the past 20-25 years. If you want to experience a lens that you can ACTUALLY call ''The Best'' then you will have to look in the direction of Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica, Hasselblad or PhaseOne, because after all, what matters in a lens is how it renders the image aka. the image quality, not the auto-focus, not the corner sharpness, not the bokeh... It's the image quality that matters the most.
Some other notable amazing Sony mount lenses I've used: 1. 50mm f1.2 (Since I got this lens, it has never ever left one of my camera bodies. It's so useful that I basically treat that with the camera as a fixed lens system, the other camera is for swapping lenses - this also means I never have to clean the sensor.) 2. Sigma 65mm f2 (I really love this focal length. I wish they would do a 1.4, I'd buy that in a heart beat) 3. Sigma 16mm f1.4 (although I think the Sony 15mm is now the new champ there) 4. Sony 35mm f1.4 (terrible breathing but everything else is amazing) 5. 20mm f1.8 (one of my all time favorites. Every time I use this lens I'm always surprised how good it looks. Best "Instagram" lens.) 6. Sigma 85mm f1.4 (best 85 option until Sony eventually comes out with a 1.2) 7. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (probably the best "vacation" lens ever)
@@setiop6788 To be honest its not that bad. Iits no heavier than you typical telephoto zoom, so its not abnormaly heavy if that makes sense. I you're used to primes then yes you'll feel it quite heavy, but if you have telephoto zoom like the Sony 70-200's or the tamron 70-180 it'll feel very similar.
I'd add in an honorable mention to the Sony 100-400 GM. I find that paired with the Sigma 24-70 or Sony 24-70 II, it offers an excellent 2 lens "if I can carry a bag with me" setup. Throw in an ultra wide or telephoto prime of your choosing, and you've got an even more versatile 3 lens kit still small enough to fit into a messenger bag. Yes, the 100-400 is a bit heavy, but it's fairly compact in a bag and optically excellent. And with it you get a standard telephoto zoom, just enough reach for a super telephoto zoom, and it even passes as both a portrait lens and macro lens in a pinch.
Personally I love the 100-400 GM. It sits on my camera most of the time. Great for wildlife ... especially if paired with an A7RIV which leaves heaps of room to crop if not close enough.
The Sony 200-600mm deserved a mention with that swift zoom ring, weather sealing, internal zoom (much less moisture and dust in high humidity area specially than external zooms). It generally performs better than the Sigma 150-600mm & Tamron 150-500mm and on same level as Canon RF 100-500mm with more light & reach.
@@summonedfist Could be but i never had anything broken in Nikon Cameras for 3 years used in dust, heat, moisture and rain but with care. The Sony A7iv exposure compensation lock switch stopped working within 1 month of use. Sony took 1 month to repair it.
It’s perfect for indoor photos where spatial restriction is commonly seen, and the balance between emphasizing the subject and keeping the background story is amazing.
Great picks! Makes you realise the depth of the E-mount ecosystem when the Sony 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 GM and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 don't even get a mention. How about those Tamron guys though! Just killing it!
Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is all I used with a A7R III on a trip to Italy. It was brilliant, specially at nights. The combination of the focus ability of the A7R III and wide aperture of the 35 mm GM was really effective for low light photography. It looks like the A7R III can still hold up after all these years.
@@gregory7887 I have one myself too, my first copy had a a bit more than my current second. It sure has less than the 24mm 1.4 GM , tried two of those too. The 35mm 1.4 GM is almost equal to the 20mm 1.8 G which I haven't really seen any fringing with, but stopping the 35mm 1.4 gm down to 1.8 eliminates it just as well. I used to have the old Sony 35mm 1.4 ZA which had absolutely terrible green fringing, and tons of ca, purple all over, even visible in video too. So the GM is a huuuuge step up.
@@gregory7887 I haven’t seen any on mine. You can either make a Lightroom profile for the lens or take it to the dealer and see if you can get a 2nd copy.
Surprised you guys left out the 200-600 OSS G. I love that lens. It’s slower than others, but the reach is superb, sharpness and focus is also second to none. I love third party lenses, I have the 17-28, 28-75 G2 and even the 70-180 all f2.8 from Tamron. But when I got the Tamron 150-500, I wanted to switch to the Sony 200-600 and so glad I did.
I love the 150-500 from Tamron, I actually chose that one over the Sony because of the price and the extra 50mm on the wide end is much more usable than the 100mm on the narrow end. The difference between 500 and 600mm is moving a few cm forward while 50mm on the wide end is really a few steps back. Linear motors on the Tamron are better than the focus motors on the Sigma as well.
For those of us hanging in the crop sensor range of Sony cameras, a bit more info and comparison for those lenses would be helpful as well as a listing of the full frame/crop frame equivalencies in your reviews. After all, if I'm not mistaken, the Sony 6000 was/is (?) one of the most popular cameras introduced. Due to weight and cost considerations, I'm still in there with the 6000 and the 6500 as are, i'm quite sure, many others. Thanks for the reviews!
I own just about every Sony FE lens. By far my go-to lens is the 24-70 2.8. Worth every penny. Least used 70-200 2.8. It’s way too large and heavy. Never wide enough when you want, somewhat, wide, never enough zoom if things are far away. A lens many hate is the 24-240. To my surprise it’s a great travel lens for daytime shooting.
I agree with the 24-240. It is very versatile for travelling and not having to worry about changing lenses out in the field. The auto-focusing does suffer though when shooting in low light though.
Some great options there. I love the Sony 90mm 2.8 Macro myself, it’s fantastically sharp and great for portraits and tight landscapes too. Very versatile. If you do more of these videos I’d love to see a Fujifilm one. If you did a Canon/Nikon one, I’d be interested in seeing what your favourite DSLR lenses were… kind of like a looking back special celebrating their best DSLR lenses
I have tried multiple 24-70 lenses and the sigma is by far my favorite. Theres something different about it. Especially for video its absolutely my favorite lens.
The short flange focal distance on mirrorless systems opens up the ability use just about any lens mount on Sony E cameras with a cheap adapter. Some of my M-mount lenses are thoroughly enjoyable to use with my Sony camera. Some of the unique Canon EF lenses work great with Sony. These adapted lenses work so well that it's worth covering when talking about the E mount lens ecosystem. The breadth of supported lens mounts isn't possible on EF or F mount systems due to their longer flange distance.
It is good in basic disciplines like sharpness, but not only is there LoCA that can become pretty obvious in the highlights on a water surface like a lake, also - and very unfortunately so - contrast in backlit situations is very poor compared to recent GM lenses like e.g. the 12-24 GM. I really wish Sony (and all other manufacturers) would apply all their advancements (like the nano coating in this case) to their entire lineup and release new versions way more frequently. Still a very good choice for landscape to fill the gap between 12-24 and 100-400 and a no-brainer before the 24-70 GM II existed - since then decision may be tougher.
The 135 GM has actually stopped me from switching systems a few times. Just knowing that Sony has that lens makes me forget about other systems. It's that damn good.
The reason why 135mm GM from Sony renders so good, is because most GM lenses were made while Sony was still under partnership contract with Zeiss. The sole reason GM lenses even exist in the first place is because of Sony-Zeiss partnership. Most GM lenses were made by Zeiss manufacturing standards. Zeiss own 135mm Batis for E mount renders even better than the GM (naturally) but pixel peepers and RUclipsrs dismiss it because its a f2.8 lens, even though it renders ten times better images than the Sony GM does.
@@nogerboher5266 I'm not sure that's totally correct. Sure Zeiss is pretty good (great) but many Zeiss badged Sony lenses are outperformed by later GM versions. Also Sony mkii versions of earlier GM lenses are a big improvement. So IMO it's more a case of Sony 'hitting their stride' and demanding an own development goal is to be the very best in class (wherever possible). Then investing sufficient R&D resources (funds plus expertise) to usually achieve this. See how mkii GMs in both 24-70 and 70-200 are way better than original gen 1 GM options. Also later GM f1.4 35mm is better than 35mm f1.8 (still a great lens). 55mm Zeiss/Sony (great) isn't quite in league as 50mm f1.2 etc etc. I could go on, but clearly there is a pattern that newer Sony glass is almost always an improvement on earlier lenses when their partnership with Zeiss was stronger.
Loving my Tamron 28-200, the 2.8 at the wide end is perfect for shallow depth of field on close up objects and low light shots. Someday when I can afford it, I'll definitely get the 35-150
I love mine too. My friend has the 35-150 and we decided to keep both and exchange when needed. For low weight travel, skiing, cycling etc the 28-200 is much better. 35-150 is a lot heavier not long enough and you must carry a wide as well. With some compromise the 28-200 will get you through.
Your picks were compelling. For those who don't want the weight of the Sony 135, consider the Zeiss Batis 135mm 2.8. I have it and it does produce lovely portraits (clean, dreamy bokeh, nicely isolated subjects). Oh, and it doesn't leave your hand feeling numb after carrying it around with you "walkabout" for several hours...
Going ultralight, ultra compact and affordable with A7c: - wide: Samyang 18mm f2.8 - standard zoom: sony 24-60mm f4-5.6 (kit lens) - portrait/macro: Sony 50mm f2.8 macro - telephoto: samyang 75mm f1. 8 BTW that Tamron 70-180 seems all but compact compared to those mentioned x)
I use the 200-600 daily for my work as team photographer for an MLB Draft League baseball team. It's crazy sharp, it's FAST AF even on my (older) a7riii and it's not that heavy. And it's a lens that feels like the best pro-quality you can buy at a moderate price.
Don't forget the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. I personally try to avoid using a 24mm equivalent lens because the perspective just looks like that of a cell phone, but for the price, it's a great optic. The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 is another budget option that's compact and versatile. Next you should do a video of your favorite micro four thirds lenses. They also have a huge selection of excellent AF lenses from a few different manufacturers to choose from. I would pick either the Panasonic/Leica 9mm f/1.7 or Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for wide angle, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 for normal with the f/1.8 model as a runner up, the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 for portraits with the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 as alternatives if you prefer a different focal length, the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 for telephoto, and the 300mm f/4 for supertelephoto with the 150-400 f/4.5 as an alternative for those on a larger budget.
I am using Sony A7R series for 4 years, I hope this helps you choose your Sony lenses and may save you some money. 1. 16-35mm f2.8 GM = use this as your everyday lens. Sony full-frame camera has APS-C mode, so it feels like you carry 16-50mm lens. Perfect range for almost anything. This is Sony's best landscape lens so far, I just found that if I utilize the APS-C mode with it, it's like I can zoom further (it's actually cropping your pic not zooming). One length rules all, leave the rest at home :)). 2. 85mm f1.4 GM = of all lenses I have this is the lens with the unparallel soft bokeh characteristic. This is my primary portrait lens, its soft bokeh is unmatched. You know it's coming out from a different glass... and it's not easy to create a neat soft bokeh in post-production. Better get it done with a proper lens. 3. 100-400mm f4 GM = I understand I can cheat this lens' focal length by using APS-C mode with the cheaper 70-200mm f4. But boy... shooting far away objects is already challenging enough and you want to keep the picture quality decent for postpro. I don't want to compromise and limit my options and flexibility in post-production. I better go with 100-400mm. FYI, although above lenses are GM lenses, they are not the sharpest lenses. Why do I pick those above and don't go all the way with Sony's sharpest lenses? Becuz, with Sony's full frame sensor, any pictures coming out of it are actually sharp enough even if they are taken with average lenses or non-GM lenses. I have a few other lenses, but after a few years, I learn that I used those 3 lenses more frequently. PS: I understand that Sony's newer lenses are made to maximize its big sensor (they are sharper), and they may have faster and easier auto-focus capability. But I doubt it will affect my focal length choice. I may upgrade with new ones with the same focal length. I do have a good experience with 2470mm GM II, it's a damn sharp lens, a lot of fun with it, but I don't live in that focal length territory, I can't go wider and can't reach long enough. If you are into macro, I think the 90mm macro is by far Sony's best for macro. Since I don't shoot really far, I don't have anything to say on Sony's 200-600mm and 600mm. I have to say, your focal length choice depends on what you shoot and your shooting style. Don't worry about sharpness if you are using Sony's full frame camera. All lenses made for it are normally very sharp, even those ones produced by the third parties like Tamron, Sigma, Laowa, or Voigtländer.
I use both the Sony 400mm 2.8 GM and Sony 600mm 4.0 GM for Wildlife and Sport. And these lenses are not only optically top-notch, their linear motors make the autofocus simply brutally fast. Absolute stunning design Sony delivered here to users who can afford them.
The Sony 70-350 deserves an honorable mention in the súper telephoto apsc space. Very sharp ab fast AF. Plus it is half the size and weight of everyone else.
70-200 f4 g and 50 1.2 are my halo lens combo. Right now I have 24-70z f4 for video, 85 1.8 for portraits/everyday and tamron 70-300 for my kids sports.
Thanks for the perspective. Sure not all agree, it's a very personal choice. I own much of the great glass you commend, so broadly agree. In wides, l have GMs 14mm, 24mm, 35mm and 16-35. Tried and switched from some others too. I also kept my 35mm Sony f1.8, whilst not as good as the GM f1.4 it's beautifully compact - ideal for discreet street and video application. That said the GM f1.4 is my lens of choice for environmental portraiture - where I want a soft sympathetic background with near zero distortion. My f1.4 35mm GM is probably one of my top 3 favorite lenses and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford just about any lens. Reworked mk ii GM lenses are fab. I will probably also buy a 24-70 GM mkii and possibly sell my 24-105 (also a lovely lens - bought as I didn't rate the original GM 24-70). My old 55mm f1.8 gets a shout-out as a compact high quality excellent travel option that nicely bridges the GM zooms 16-35 and 70-200 for travel. Also discreet, good for low light and close-in portraits. I have yet to try the new f1.2 but the heft and cost make that less a priority to investigate further. Talking of portraits I also have the 135mm GM f1.8, probably the sharpest lens I ever owned and background separation like no other. For pro-portraits where you can work at greater distance, without problems of communication, or others jumping into your shot it has no peer. If you have ever tried this lens then you know why I'm keeping mine forever! Yet in truth that optical capability is probably overkill. IMO few really need that sharpness in real world use. It's exotic specialist glass that few can really justify, even if they think they need one. On tele zooms I absolutely love the new 70-200 f2.8 GM mk ii. It almost always gets a place in my bag. Indeed it's used far more than my 135mm GM. When I switched from Nikon I rejected the underwhelming mk i original and bought the smaller G f4. Not bad, but sold for a Tamron 70-180 (not bad either, but build quality felt low-grade vs Sony). So that got sold when the mk ii GM came out. - a lens so good it's also one of my top three. Indeed, if I'm not concerned about attracting attention as a photographer, then the 35mm f1.4 and new GM mk ii 70-200 are my go-to twin lens, versatile, relatively light weight choice. Overall in terms of glass, for sure it's a case of the 'right tool....' so at risk of looking like a 'complete tool' I sometimes take too many lenses on a shoot - usually a mistake. lMO too much glass and too much choice just gets in the way. I would need a caddy for all my glass, so I do try to pick a small selection to suit the occasion or assignment. My top tip - learn to live with and use expertly what you have and can afford, rather than becoming a GAS case. Talking sharp, there is little to touch Sony's 90mm macro - but that's a special use lens that not many really need. But I'm keeping mine for occasional nature work. Some also use for portraits, but I never tried it for that. The 105mm sounds interesting too, but again no experience and I honestly don't need more glass. The GM 85mm 'sucks' and will soon be replaced by a much better mk ii IMO. But the small 85mm f1.8 is a compact relatively affordable understated lens that's so good I'm keeping. Worth checking out if you don't want to standout, attract attention and signal 'beware, photographer about. This with my 35mm f1.8 makes an ultralight 2 lens HQ combo that's easy to use for uber light travel and discreet street use. Both lenses are very affordable, esp. if bought in good condition used (light use amateur selling is best option). In real world use this f1.8 duo will stand up optically to just about anything else. Although other far more exotic optics are technically sharper and faster - they don't in and of themselves lead automatically to higher quality images. Really good photographers, perhaps with a body of internationally awarded images and/or satisfied paying clients, know this.... The best tool (bit of kit) is the nut 8 inches behind the lens. To really improve one needs a modicum of theory, a reasonable eye, motivation, perhaps just 2-3 lenses (max) and time to practice, practice, review then practice some more. Extra glass is nice but lusting after it and getting into senseless debt is no route to success, happiness or great images. Apologies if I sound a bit 'preachy' but I now realise it's not my access to lots of top kit that that helped me achieve success. Instead, having a great mentor, experienced critical critique plus practice practice practice will help much more than the finest glass.
I have to recommend the Voigtlander range of E-Mount prime manual lenses. They are fast, light, very well built and optically amazing. And they are affordable. The Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 rarely leaves my camera.
The third party support is really the key. The Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 or the 35-150mm F2-2.8 are such unique lenses. I would never ever go back to a normal 70-200mm after a half year with the 70-180mm, so small so leightweight. But for me, the most interesting lens ist still to come and thats the Tamron 50-400mm. This range is something, I waited over 15 years now. A 16-35mm + the 50-400mm and you’re ready to go, when you just want to shoot landscapes.
2:33 The man you mentioned is likely 奥村哲一朗 Tetsuichiro Okumura, who was awarded Sony Outstanding Engineer Award 2018 for "creation and commercialization of a new optical type that realizes compact and lightweight E-mount lenses".
I got the Sony 200-600mm with my new A7 iv. Wonderfully sharp provided you were 12 yards away from your subject, Since I love shooting warblers and small birds, it drove me crazy so I sold it and got the Sigma 150-600mm. Now, when a Kirtland Warbler poses six feet from me, I can get a super sharp shot. I recently got the Tamron 50-400mm to replace my Somy A-mount 70-400mm. Sharp through the whole range. It would be a fantastic travel lens. 50mm isn't quite wide enough for landscape unless you do portriat mode panoramas. Do that and you are set.
You asked which mount we'd like to see next... E-Mount again, but only in regard to when used on APS-C. FE lenses can still be included options, but they only get points for when in the context of being used on a crop body.
Ah ... that "glaring omission" for me is the 50mm f1.2. Portraits are coming out soooo good with buttery bokeh. The 50mm seems to work better than 85mm for kids and family ... although my preference is skewed by the fact that the Sony 85mm f1.4 was never the best to begin with (would definitely have gone Sigma had that existed at the time of purchase).
Well I think, you‘ve ommissed one category completely - and that is travel/general purpose photography. And there is a fantastic Tamron 28-200mm 2.8-5.6, or the 17-70mm 2.8 for crop. And I miss the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, as an lighter alternative to that.
I'm happy with my 24 1.4 GM, 50 1.2 GM, 135 1.8 GM . I played with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II at the Drumheller Sony event but I found it underwhelming. I had to switch back to my 135 GM for most of my shots. Maybe I just like primes more now haha. Now if only a new 85 1.2 GM?? or 100/105 1.4 GM :D
I switched to Sony when they released their mirrorless line of cameras. The knock on Sony at that time was that there were no lenses. Of course Sony has continued to release lenses since then and the other manufacturers are still playing catch up. For me, Sony has so many great lenses now that there is no shortage of lenses to choose from. I love their zooms for travel lenses, but use their primes when I'm closer to home. The exceptions are the long primes. I just can't spend the money that the 400mm GM and 600mm GM cost. Fortunately the 200mm-600mm G lens does a great job, particularly for it's price.
As a fan of 135mm focal length, I'm so glad you recommended the Sony 135. I have the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm, newly released, and I've got to say that it's one Fine lens. Not even one complaint about it. "Try it, you'll like it."😉
@@martin9410 Yeah, I wouldn't use the Samyang for action shots, which isn't in my wheelhouse. It excels where I need it at a more than reasonable price tag. That makes me smile.
Honestly, as someone who has used both, the samyang/rokinon is better in almost every category, minus build quality and autofocus speed. Really an amazing showing for something less than half the price.
The most striking aspect of the 600 f:4GM when it came out was how light it was and how much better balanced it was compared to any other 600 f:4. And to this day, nothing’s really dethroned it. What’s in my bag looks very much like your list, one exception being that I picked the 20mm f:1.8 instead of the 24mm f:1.4 because I really like the 20mm focal but both are superb lenses (the 20mm has no right to be this good considering it’s not a GM lens). The only thing I’d disagree with is the choice of the sigma 150-600 over the Sony 200-600. Yes price is a factor but optically and AF speed wise they are not in the same camp and if you use that lens for wildlife, the Sony is worth every extra dollar. Glad you highlighted the 135mm, it’s indeed one of the most stunning lenses I have ever owned (and I have owned many). How about Leica M next? Just to get the haters going :-)
I like this list, but I'm surprised that the Sigma 150-600 won the telephoto category instead of the Sony 200-600. Both are affordable but there's a major difference in AF performance, to the point that I wouldn't recommend the Sigma.
I have COVID also. I subscribed and immediately started feeling better. I can't disagree with any of your choices. I bought the 100-400 GM 3 years ago and still love it even though I'm sure it could use an update. I also have the Tamrom 35-150 for my everyday lens. I'm intrigued by the Sigma 150-600 for Wildlife but as a senior (nearly 70) photographer the weight is an issue. I'll probably stick with my 100-400 with the 1.4x tele when I need reach.
@@yassinerizzani4600 It's a good idea but I'm having a love affair with my A1 especially for birds in flight. At this stage it's just best for me to stick with my current sent up. I do shoot my A1 in crop mode which works very well at 21 MP
Well done guys, I agree with you on many of these. Tamron has come a long way in the last few years. Get better Jordon, I caught COVID while running a workshop in June. That was a hassle for sure.
The Sony GM 35mm F1.4 is on the short list of “best 35mm’s”. Going with the 14mm, 24mm, 35mm GM primes - and - adding the Tamaron 35-150mm is a very nice kit. Let’s not forget the Voightlander APO 65mm Macro - excellent multipurpose lens with astounding IQ.
The Sigma 65mm F2 is like the Voightlander with AF for sharpness, albeit without APO or macro properties. And at a cheaper price, too. Currently my favorite E Mount lens.
I have the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm 1.8 and they are both fantastic lenses. People just can't accept that the low priced and Tiny and lightweight Sony 85mm 1.8 is just fantastic and most people don't need anything other than that in an 85mm. Those 1.4's and 1.2's are just to give the pros something to lust after. They're big boat anchors. The 85 mm 1.8 is lightweight and fantastic but the 135mm 1.8 G Master is the sharpest and best lens I've ever shot with. It's just incredible.
I would go for the 200-600 over the 150-600, the zoom ring of the 200-600 has a very short throw so is very fast to work with. With everything being internal on that lens, I think Sony has a winner on their hands with that design.
A few honourable mentions for E-mount: Zeiss Batis 40/2, the Sony-Zeiss 55/1.8 is also still a wonderful optic despite its age, the amazing options on the market for manual focus lenses like Voigtlander, so many macro’s as well that are available for E-mount and Sony’s own 90/2.8 is a really amazing piece of kit.
The 24mm 1.4 is the “fullframe look” in my opinion. Getting that shallow depth of field at a wide angle. The rest of the focal lengths i’m perfectly happy with using zooms. 35mm and onwards you get plenty of bokeh even at 2.8 and below 20mm I do not expect much bokeh anyway. So that is how I shoot. 24mm 1.4 is my prime and the rest are zooms for versatility.
I've never used a 24mm 1.4 on fullframe, but I do agree. I'd say 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are the best showoffs of the fullframe look, even if they don't fit my style.
@@GabrielFFontes Ye I completely agree on 24 and 35 being that. I just usually end up either shooting wide or telephoto i’m rarely in the normal 35-50 range which is why I went for the 24 over the 35.
Thanks for this informative video . For enthusiasts but non professional wild life photographers how is 100-400 lens and 24-105 lens on Sony A7 IV as the reach becomes good enough and do not need to carry much gear during wildlife excursions. It will be good if you do a video on optimal gear for wildlife enthusiasts
Yeah, this was a strange omission. It's, by far, the best 85mm on the E-Mount. It outclasses Sony's offering (which is very old at this point), and greatly outclasses its competitors from other brands.
I really like this table at 11:32 which shows the maximum aperture over the focal length of all FF lenses. Does it exist somewhere outside of a film, can it be linked?
The spectacular 15mm Viogtlander for Sony is overlooked a lot. Many ultra wide lens shooters don't need wide apertures. This lens is small and light, built like a tank, and has amazing optics. I replaced it with the Sony 14mm and at f8, the difference is tiny. Might even go back to the Voigtlander for sheer portability.
I bought Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 & Tamron 15-500mm f5.6-6.3 for my Sony A7 IV, I am quite happy with both of them, and APSC mode of Sony A 7 IV gives me *1.5 factor , so I could reach equivalent of 750mm with my Tamron lens. Unfortunately Sony don't allow tele convertors for 3rd party lenses
When I bought my A7R3, I bought the 24-240 superzoom. While it does give you a single lens that can get most of the shots you might want for travel, it's not as sharp or bright as the the Tamron 28-70 you mentioned. I have been lately seriously considering ditching the superzoom in favor of that one and possibly their 70-180 as replacements. They are both relatively budget friendly and are sharp and bright enough to take advantage of the A7R3's 42mb sensor. As people move up to the latest Sony bodies, they are going to really be looking for the sharpest glass they can afford to put an image on that sensor that can take advantage of all those megapixels.
I absolutely love my 55mm 1.8, after six years of using the lens I'm pretty sure I got a solid copy with no motor failure. I need one of those 135 1.8 in my life...
The zeiss version? Yes I also have one and it is fantastic! The 135mm gm is also just a great lens. If u like the 85mm gm I would say wait for the version 2 of that lens
I had a Sony a7 II for about 2 years before i changed systems because sony just wasn't for me. The camera was so easy to give away but the 55mm 1.8 was really hart. Such a lovely style and sharpness and bokeh. Very underrated lens.
@@ThisIsWideAngle I see. Glad you still enjoyed that zeiss 55mm lens. It is underrated because it is also quite expensive, but if you can find one with good prices it is absolutely worth it.
I can agree with most of the choices. I bought this year the 24 1.4 and the Tamron 70-180. Both are absolutely stellar. No comparison to some of the older quite disappointing lenses, like the sony 70-300 or the ZA 24-70 4.0. Great AF, nice Bokeh, very sharp, compact... What else do you expect? Regarding the Super Teles: I only know and have the Tamron 150-500, but it is great. And with a A7Rx camera therre are still some cropping reserves, if needed. Compared to the Sigma or the Sony 200-600 it is also quite compact and it's not white. I would also mention the Tamron 17-28 as a very compact UW Zoom.
I recently traded my 55-210 kitlens in for the Tamron 18-300. This is a great improvement to say the least. Of course it is bulkier/havier but you get so much in return! The lens is sooo much sharper! The winning side is not so much the xtra 90 mm but more on the other side the 18/55. Vibration control was a must for me and it works good enough. Now I have only 2 lenses in my case: The Tamron and my Zeiss Touit 12 mm.
I love 20G. It's such a compact lens and sharpness is amazing. I have to be careful shooting portraits with this a bit but when it's done right it also gives nice bokeh quality.
Great discussion! I feel this is probably the top of the line reason I entered E-mount couple of years ago and a good trend other manufacturers should consider following. The 3rd party lens choice is definitely very versatile and practical. Of course, I still hope to see some "Noct-level" lenses but please, try not to put a "Noct" weight on the Sony body...
The bigger lens designs and the switches/design options from GMaster and Sigma have really great uses. I hope Fujifilm understands that for more lens options for their GFX. The FX line are great for quality portable pictures. But the GFX needs better designs and ranges. The current GFX lenses don't really have the same clean designs as FX or the functionality of the GMaster. They need to use that bigger sensor to do more. Wider fstop lenses most of all.
I agree with most of your recommendations, but WRT third party super tele zooms, these have the significant limitation of not supporting 20FPS on the A9/A9ii or 30FPS on the A1 bodies. For many wildlife, sports and action shooters this is a significant consideration and would push the decision towards the 200-600mm or 100-400mm from Sony (or the 400/600 primes). As for APS-C, that 56mm is incredible... but as I use my A6600 for "holiday snaps", the best lens in recent years for APS-C and the one that I use by far the most is the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. That thing is barely larger than a kit lens, and is so versatile.
I read that Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD Lens for Sony E is a great lens except it does not handle sun flare well. What's your opinion on this issue for this lens?
Obviously in a video like this it is easy to forget some lenses, but I found it funny//strange that Jordan mentioned that the 135mm focal length needed some love/attention when Samyang just released an apparently excellent 135/1.8 AF.
The best reason for buying into Sony, IMO, is the variety of high-quality lens options from multiple manufacturers. It really lets you tailor your setup to your needs, both in performance and in budget.
Crazy how much times have changed - this was literally a reason to not get Sony only a few years back
The E-mount protocol is open source software, that facilitates development and ensures long-term compatibility, which makes it much easier for the manufacturers. With Canon and Nikon 3rd party lenses have to be constructed by employing reverse engineering techniques since they do not disclose the electronic specifications of their mounts.
@@richrollin4867 Sony is also a large share holder of tamron
Only problem with E mount is it’s not easily adapted to other bodies. Sony is riding high at the moment, but 10 years from now, who knows.
Sigma, Tamron, Samyang, Tokina and others, they make good lenses - and by good I mean good for the money - but in a general point of view? I mean, it's all low tier lenses after all. They render dead and flat images. Sigma lenses especially. Sigma lenses create images that look like flat cardboard cutouts put together to form an image. Same applies to Samyang, Tamron and just about 80-90% of all other lenses built in the past 20-25 years. If you want to experience a lens that you can ACTUALLY call ''The Best'' then you will have to look in the direction of Zeiss, Voigtlander, Leica, Hasselblad or PhaseOne, because after all, what matters in a lens is how it renders the image aka. the image quality, not the auto-focus, not the corner sharpness, not the bokeh... It's the image quality that matters the most.
Not that anyone asked, but here's my current favorites for every category.
Do it all lens - Tamron 35-150 2-2.8 (#1)
Wide angle - Sony 20mm 1.8 (#1)
Standard Zoom - Tamron 28-75 V2 (#1)
Standard Zoom - Sony 24-70 GM V2 (#2)
Portrait - Sigma 85mm 1.4 (#1)
Portrait - Sony 135mm 1.8GM (Close #2)
Telephoto - Sony 70-200 2.8 GM V2 (#1)
Telephoto - Tamron 70-180 (Close #2)
Super Telephoto - Sony 200-600 G (#1)
Nifty 50 - Sony 50mm 1.2 GM (#1)
Nifty 50 - Sony 50mm 2.5G (#2)
Nifty 50 - Samyang 50mm 1.4 V2 (#3)
Macro - Laowa 90mm 2x Macro (#1)
Some other notable amazing Sony mount lenses I've used:
1. 50mm f1.2 (Since I got this lens, it has never ever left one of my camera bodies. It's so useful that I basically treat that with the camera as a fixed lens system, the other camera is for swapping lenses - this also means I never have to clean the sensor.)
2. Sigma 65mm f2 (I really love this focal length. I wish they would do a 1.4, I'd buy that in a heart beat)
3. Sigma 16mm f1.4 (although I think the Sony 15mm is now the new champ there)
4. Sony 35mm f1.4 (terrible breathing but everything else is amazing)
5. 20mm f1.8 (one of my all time favorites. Every time I use this lens I'm always surprised how good it looks. Best "Instagram" lens.)
6. Sigma 85mm f1.4 (best 85 option until Sony eventually comes out with a 1.2)
7. Sigma 18-50mm f2.8 (probably the best "vacation" lens ever)
Same here with the 50 1.2! Absolutely love it. I am shocked they didn't mention it.
The Tamron 35-150mm is the most versatile lens I have ever used. If I could only have one lens, that would be it.
Absolutely! I see it exactly the same way. An absolute dream lens
I'd love to own one some day but it's too expensive for me currently when I have other things that I need.
Only thing stopping me is the weight.
@@setiop6788 To be honest its not that bad. Iits no heavier than you typical telephoto zoom, so its not abnormaly heavy if that makes sense. I you're used to primes then yes you'll feel it quite heavy, but if you have telephoto zoom like the Sony 70-200's or the tamron 70-180 it'll feel very similar.
@@sstteevveenn77 I got tamron 50-400 and I’m happy with iq and sharpness.
Zeiss 55mm f/1.8? Small, light, unobtrusive, decently fast, not too expensive, optically lovely. My favorite walk around lens.
Totally agree with you. Many of the newer lenses don’t appeal because of their size.. The 35mm f2.8 is a fabulous compact lens too.
I'd add in an honorable mention to the Sony 100-400 GM. I find that paired with the Sigma 24-70 or Sony 24-70 II, it offers an excellent 2 lens "if I can carry a bag with me" setup. Throw in an ultra wide or telephoto prime of your choosing, and you've got an even more versatile 3 lens kit still small enough to fit into a messenger bag.
Yes, the 100-400 is a bit heavy, but it's fairly compact in a bag and optically excellent. And with it you get a standard telephoto zoom, just enough reach for a super telephoto zoom, and it even passes as both a portrait lens and macro lens in a pinch.
Personally I love the 100-400 GM. It sits on my camera most of the time. Great for wildlife ... especially if paired with an A7RIV which leaves heaps of room to crop if not close enough.
My 100-400 GM has seen a lot of action taking launch photos on my trips to KSC. Its been amazing even paired with the 1.4TC
The Sony 200-600mm deserved a mention with that swift zoom ring, weather sealing, internal zoom (much less moisture and dust in high humidity area specially than external zooms). It generally performs better than the Sigma 150-600mm & Tamron 150-500mm and on same level as Canon RF 100-500mm with more light & reach.
The Sony 200-600 msrp makes the rf 100-500 a joke
@@summonedfist yes but canon nikon bodies have better build compared to Sony specially in Budget to Midrange bodies.
@@stripes_in_raw that seems rather subjective tho don't you think?
@@summonedfist Could be but i never had anything broken in Nikon Cameras for 3 years used in dust, heat, moisture and rain but with care.
The Sony A7iv exposure compensation lock switch stopped working within 1 month of use. Sony took 1 month to repair it.
Have Sony 200-600G and love this lense. Sharp and fast af. Very nice lense
I’m a huge fan of the Sony 50mm 1.2. It renders so beautifully and is handy in low light situations.
It’s perfect for indoor photos where spatial restriction is commonly seen, and the balance between emphasizing the subject and keeping the background story is amazing.
The 50mm f1.2 GM is probably Sony's second best prime behind the incredible 135mm f1.8 GM
Great picks! Makes you realise the depth of the E-mount ecosystem when the Sony 20mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.4 GM and Sigma 85mm f/1.4 don't even get a mention. How about those Tamron guys though! Just killing it!
love my Sigma 85mm.
Yeah, the Sigma 85 is awesome.
35GM is amazing too.
Here with 35 1.4GM! Love it 😍
The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 is the best wide angle zoom. Why didn't they mention it?
Sony 35mm 1.4 GM is all I used with a A7R III on a trip to Italy. It was brilliant, specially at nights. The combination of the focus ability of the A7R III and wide aperture of the 35 mm GM was really effective for low light photography.
It looks like the A7R III can still hold up after all these years.
Do you notice green fringing on the 35mm F1.4 when shot wide open on high contrasting subjects?
@@gregory7887 I have one myself too, my first copy had a a bit more than my current second. It sure has less than the 24mm 1.4 GM , tried two of those too. The 35mm 1.4 GM is almost equal to the 20mm 1.8 G which I haven't really seen any fringing with, but stopping the 35mm 1.4 gm down to 1.8 eliminates it just as well. I used to have the old Sony 35mm 1.4 ZA which had absolutely terrible green fringing, and tons of ca, purple all over, even visible in video too. So the GM is a huuuuge step up.
@@gregory7887 I didn’t see any.
@@gregory7887 I haven’t seen any on mine. You can either make a Lightroom profile for the lens or take it to the dealer and see if you can get a 2nd copy.
Thanks for the vid and wishing Jordan a speedy recovery.
I just want to shout out the Voigtlander FE mount lenses. They're so fun to use
I have the 21mm 3.5. really good one
Surprised you guys left out the 200-600 OSS G. I love that lens. It’s slower than others, but the reach is superb, sharpness and focus is also second to none. I love third party lenses, I have the 17-28, 28-75 G2 and even the 70-180 all f2.8 from Tamron. But when I got the Tamron 150-500, I wanted to switch to the Sony 200-600 and so glad I did.
Get well soon! I think your choices were spot on!
For me, 55mm f/1.8 stands out due to its Sonnar design => truly special bokeh. Same goes for Batis 85mm Sonnar.
Agree Incredible images from my 7r2 w this lens. Gets tops sharpness marks from DXO , if that matters
Agred. And it works great with infrared!
I love the 150-500 from Tamron, I actually chose that one over the Sony because of the price and the extra 50mm on the wide end is much more usable than the 100mm on the narrow end. The difference between 500 and 600mm is moving a few cm forward while 50mm on the wide end is really a few steps back. Linear motors on the Tamron are better than the focus motors on the Sigma as well.
For those of us hanging in the crop sensor range of Sony cameras, a bit more info and comparison for those lenses would be helpful as well as a listing of the full frame/crop frame equivalencies in your reviews. After all, if I'm not mistaken, the Sony 6000 was/is (?) one of the most popular cameras introduced. Due to weight and cost considerations, I'm still in there with the 6000 and the 6500 as are, i'm quite sure, many others. Thanks for the reviews!
glad to see that the sigma 56 f1.4 made it into the list of otherwise full frame lenses
For traveling I am just using 20 mm and 55 1.8. I also got a tamrom 2875 g2 and I love it
I think Voigtlander deserves a shout, I know not for the masses necessarily but a really amazing lineup.
This guy gets it
Had to pause the video to say - the 24gm is a beast! Some of my favorite images were captured using it
I own just about every Sony FE lens. By far my go-to lens is the 24-70 2.8. Worth every penny. Least used 70-200 2.8. It’s way too large and heavy. Never wide enough when you want, somewhat, wide, never enough zoom if things are far away. A lens many hate is the 24-240. To my surprise it’s a great travel lens for daytime shooting.
I agree with the 24-240. It is very versatile for travelling and not having to worry about changing lenses out in the field. The auto-focusing does suffer though when shooting in low light though.
I'll add the Sony 50 1.2 and the new Sigma 85 1.4 dg dn, it's every bit as sharp as the huge older one, but much smaller and with declickable ap ring
The Sony 20mm f1.8 is absolutely stunning! Both for Video and Image quality very versatile lens on the Sony alpha 7 IV
I currently use the a7iv paired with the 200-600, 20mm f1.8 and sigma 24-70 going to upgrade for the gmaster ii for weight saving and size.
It is a great lens! GM quality at a G lens price!
Wonder if the 20mm is a better pick than the 24 GM?
Some great options there. I love the Sony 90mm 2.8 Macro myself, it’s fantastically sharp and great for portraits and tight landscapes too. Very versatile. If you do more of these videos I’d love to see a Fujifilm one. If you did a Canon/Nikon one, I’d be interested in seeing what your favourite DSLR lenses were… kind of like a looking back special celebrating their best DSLR lenses
A little sad the sigma 24-70 didn’t get an honourable mention, if the tamron 28-75 is on the list the sigma should def be on the list too IMO
I have tried multiple 24-70 lenses and the sigma is by far my favorite. Theres something different about it. Especially for video its absolutely my favorite lens.
The short flange focal distance on mirrorless systems opens up the ability use just about any lens mount on Sony E cameras with a cheap adapter. Some of my M-mount lenses are thoroughly enjoyable to use with my Sony camera. Some of the unique Canon EF lenses work great with Sony. These adapted lenses work so well that it's worth covering when talking about the E mount lens ecosystem. The breadth of supported lens mounts isn't possible on EF or F mount systems due to their longer flange distance.
Great picks. The fact that so many great lenses didn't make the pick shows how far E-mount has come in the last 5 years.
I love my Sony 24-105 f4 G OSS. Itś my go to lens and optically very good.
It is good in basic disciplines like sharpness, but not only is there LoCA that can become pretty obvious in the highlights on a water surface like a lake, also - and very unfortunately so - contrast in backlit situations is very poor compared to recent GM lenses like e.g. the 12-24 GM.
I really wish Sony (and all other manufacturers) would apply all their advancements (like the nano coating in this case) to their entire lineup and release new versions way more frequently.
Still a very good choice for landscape to fill the gap between 12-24 and 100-400 and a no-brainer before the 24-70 GM II existed - since then decision may be tougher.
The 135 GM has actually stopped me from switching systems a few times. Just knowing that Sony has that lens makes me forget about other systems. It's that damn good.
The reason why 135mm GM from Sony renders so good, is because most GM lenses were made while Sony was still under partnership contract with Zeiss. The sole reason GM lenses even exist in the first place is because of Sony-Zeiss partnership. Most GM lenses were made by Zeiss manufacturing standards. Zeiss own 135mm Batis for E mount renders even better than the GM (naturally) but pixel peepers and RUclipsrs dismiss it because its a f2.8 lens, even though it renders ten times better images than the Sony GM does.
@@nogerboher5266 I'm not sure that's totally correct. Sure Zeiss is pretty good (great) but many Zeiss badged Sony lenses are outperformed by later GM versions.
Also Sony mkii versions of earlier GM lenses are a big improvement. So IMO it's more a case of Sony 'hitting their stride' and demanding an own development goal is to be the very best in class (wherever possible). Then investing sufficient R&D resources (funds plus expertise) to usually achieve this. See how mkii GMs in both 24-70 and 70-200 are way better than original gen 1 GM options. Also later GM f1.4 35mm is better than 35mm f1.8 (still a great lens). 55mm Zeiss/Sony (great) isn't quite in league as 50mm f1.2 etc etc.
I could go on, but clearly there is a pattern that newer Sony glass is almost always an improvement on earlier lenses when their partnership with Zeiss was stronger.
Loving my Tamron 28-200, the 2.8 at the wide end is perfect for shallow depth of field on close up objects and low light shots. Someday when I can afford it, I'll definitely get the 35-150
I love mine too. My friend has the 35-150 and we decided to keep both and exchange when needed. For low weight travel, skiing, cycling etc the 28-200 is much better. 35-150 is a lot heavier not long enough and you must carry a wide as well. With some compromise the 28-200 will get you through.
Well I had 2 of your picks. I have the 28 to 75 Tamron and I have the 150 to 600 Sigma lens. I am super happy with them.
Your picks were compelling. For those who don't want the weight of the Sony 135, consider the Zeiss Batis 135mm 2.8. I have it and it does produce lovely portraits (clean, dreamy bokeh, nicely isolated subjects).
Oh, and it doesn't leave your hand feeling numb after carrying it around with you "walkabout" for several hours...
Thanks for great contents. Could you recommend best flashes for Sony cameras?
Going ultralight, ultra compact and affordable with A7c:
- wide: Samyang 18mm f2.8
- standard zoom: sony 24-60mm f4-5.6 (kit lens)
- portrait/macro: Sony 50mm f2.8 macro
- telephoto: samyang 75mm f1. 8
BTW that Tamron 70-180 seems all but compact compared to those mentioned x)
Great video, I totally agree. Wish you added the Macro category, I wonder what your pick would be 🤔
I use the 200-600 daily for my work as team photographer for an MLB Draft League baseball team. It's crazy sharp, it's FAST AF even on my (older) a7riii and it's not that heavy. And it's a lens that feels like the best pro-quality you can buy at a moderate price.
You are spot on with the 35-150. My holy trinity is Sony 16-35mm f/2.8, Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8, and the Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3.
if you had to choose one of those you listed which would you choose?
Don't forget the Sigma 16mm f/1.4. I personally try to avoid using a 24mm equivalent lens because the perspective just looks like that of a cell phone, but for the price, it's a great optic. The Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8-5.6 is another budget option that's compact and versatile.
Next you should do a video of your favorite micro four thirds lenses. They also have a huge selection of excellent AF lenses from a few different manufacturers to choose from. I would pick either the Panasonic/Leica 9mm f/1.7 or Sigma 16mm f/1.4 for wide angle, the Olympus 25mm f/1.2 for normal with the f/1.8 model as a runner up, the Sigma 56mm f/1.4 for portraits with the Olympus 75mm f/1.8 and Panasonic 42.5mm f/1.7 as alternatives if you prefer a different focal length, the Olympus 40-150 f/2.8 for telephoto, and the 300mm f/4 for supertelephoto with the 150-400 f/4.5 as an alternative for those on a larger budget.
I am using Sony A7R series for 4 years, I hope this helps you choose your Sony lenses and may save you some money.
1. 16-35mm f2.8 GM = use this as your everyday lens. Sony full-frame camera has APS-C mode, so it feels like you carry 16-50mm lens. Perfect range for almost anything. This is Sony's best landscape lens so far, I just found that if I utilize the APS-C mode with it, it's like I can zoom further (it's actually cropping your pic not zooming). One length rules all, leave the rest at home :)).
2. 85mm f1.4 GM = of all lenses I have this is the lens with the unparallel soft bokeh characteristic. This is my primary portrait lens, its soft bokeh is unmatched. You know it's coming out from a different glass... and it's not easy to create a neat soft bokeh in post-production. Better get it done with a proper lens.
3. 100-400mm f4 GM = I understand I can cheat this lens' focal length by using APS-C mode with the cheaper 70-200mm f4. But boy... shooting far away objects is already challenging enough and you want to keep the picture quality decent for postpro. I don't want to compromise and limit my options and flexibility in post-production. I better go with 100-400mm.
FYI, although above lenses are GM lenses, they are not the sharpest lenses. Why do I pick those above and don't go all the way with Sony's sharpest lenses?
Becuz, with Sony's full frame sensor, any pictures coming out of it are actually sharp enough even if they are taken with average lenses or non-GM lenses.
I have a few other lenses, but after a few years, I learn that I used those 3 lenses more frequently.
PS: I understand that Sony's newer lenses are made to maximize its big sensor (they are sharper), and they may have faster and easier auto-focus capability. But I doubt it will affect my focal length choice. I may upgrade with new ones with the same focal length.
I do have a good experience with 2470mm GM II, it's a damn sharp lens, a lot of fun with it, but I don't live in that focal length territory, I can't go wider and can't reach long enough.
If you are into macro, I think the 90mm macro is by far Sony's best for macro. Since I don't shoot really far, I don't have anything to say on Sony's 200-600mm and 600mm.
I have to say, your focal length choice depends on what you shoot and your shooting style.
Don't worry about sharpness if you are using Sony's full frame camera. All lenses made for it are normally very sharp, even those ones produced by the third parties like Tamron, Sigma, Laowa, or Voigtländer.
I use both the Sony 400mm 2.8 GM and Sony 600mm 4.0 GM for Wildlife and Sport. And these lenses are not only optically top-notch, their linear motors make the autofocus simply brutally fast. Absolute stunning design Sony delivered here to users who can afford them.
Totally agree...I use both lenses as well and the results are absolute stunning. In combination with my A1 it's a dream combo! 👍 🙋♂️
I mean, for those prices, anything other than outstanding would be a ripoff.
@@homeboi808 Yes, you are absolutely right!
The Sony 70-350 deserves an honorable mention in the súper telephoto apsc space. Very sharp ab fast AF. Plus it is half the size and weight of everyone else.
up !!
had the lens loving its range weight and sharpness overall 😌
70-200 f4 g and 50 1.2 are my halo lens combo. Right now I have 24-70z f4 for video, 85 1.8 for portraits/everyday and tamron 70-300 for my kids sports.
Thanks for the perspective. Sure not all agree, it's a very personal choice. I own much of the great glass you commend, so broadly agree.
In wides, l have GMs 14mm, 24mm, 35mm and 16-35. Tried and switched from some others too. I also kept my 35mm Sony f1.8, whilst not as good as the GM f1.4 it's beautifully compact - ideal for discreet street and video application. That said the GM f1.4 is my lens of choice for environmental portraiture - where I want a soft sympathetic background with near zero distortion. My f1.4 35mm GM is probably one of my top 3 favorite lenses and I'm lucky enough to be able to afford just about any lens.
Reworked mk ii GM lenses are fab. I will probably also buy a 24-70 GM mkii and possibly sell my 24-105 (also a lovely lens - bought as I didn't rate the original GM 24-70). My old 55mm f1.8 gets a shout-out as a compact high quality excellent travel option that nicely bridges the GM zooms 16-35 and 70-200 for travel. Also discreet, good for low light and close-in portraits. I have yet to try the new f1.2 but the heft and cost make that less a priority to investigate further.
Talking of portraits I also have the 135mm GM f1.8, probably the sharpest lens I ever owned and background separation like no other. For pro-portraits where you can work at greater distance, without problems of communication, or others jumping into your shot it has no peer. If you have ever tried this lens then you know why I'm keeping mine forever! Yet in truth that optical capability is probably overkill. IMO few really need that sharpness in real world use. It's exotic specialist glass that few can really justify, even if they think they need one.
On tele zooms I absolutely love the new 70-200 f2.8 GM mk ii. It almost always gets a place in my bag. Indeed it's used far more than my 135mm GM. When I switched from Nikon I rejected the underwhelming mk i original and bought the smaller G f4. Not bad, but sold for a Tamron 70-180 (not bad either, but build quality felt low-grade vs Sony). So that got sold when the mk ii GM came out. - a lens so good it's also one of my top three. Indeed, if I'm not concerned about attracting attention as a photographer, then the 35mm f1.4 and new GM mk ii 70-200 are my go-to twin lens, versatile, relatively light weight choice.
Overall in terms of glass, for sure it's a case of the 'right tool....' so at risk of looking like a 'complete tool' I sometimes take too many lenses on a shoot - usually a mistake. lMO too much glass and too much choice just gets in the way. I would need a caddy for all my glass, so I do try to pick a small selection to suit the occasion or assignment. My top tip - learn to live with and use expertly what you have and can afford, rather than becoming a GAS case.
Talking sharp, there is little to touch Sony's 90mm macro - but that's a special use lens that not many really need. But I'm keeping mine for occasional nature work. Some also use for portraits, but I never tried it for that. The 105mm sounds interesting too, but again no experience and I honestly don't need more glass.
The GM 85mm 'sucks' and will soon be replaced by a much better mk ii IMO. But the small 85mm f1.8 is a compact relatively affordable understated lens that's so good I'm keeping. Worth checking out if you don't want to standout, attract attention and signal 'beware, photographer about. This with my 35mm f1.8 makes an ultralight 2 lens HQ combo that's easy to use for uber light travel and discreet street use. Both lenses are very affordable, esp. if bought in good condition used (light use amateur selling is best option). In real world use this f1.8 duo will stand up optically to just about anything else. Although other far more exotic optics are technically sharper and faster - they don't in and of themselves lead automatically to higher quality images.
Really good photographers, perhaps with a body of internationally awarded images and/or satisfied paying clients, know this.... The best tool (bit of kit) is the nut 8 inches behind the lens. To really improve one needs a modicum of theory, a reasonable eye, motivation, perhaps just 2-3 lenses (max) and time to practice, practice, review then practice some more. Extra glass is nice but lusting after it and getting into senseless debt is no route to success, happiness or great images.
Apologies if I sound a bit 'preachy' but I now realise it's not my access to lots of top kit that that helped me achieve success. Instead, having a great mentor, experienced critical critique plus practice practice practice will help much more than the finest glass.
Great video. Next up, best Micro Four Thirds lenses?
Wide Angle - Sony 24mm F1.4 / Sony 14mm F1.8
Standard Zoom - Tamron 28-75mm F2.8 G2 / Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 / Sony 24-70mm F2.8 MII
Portrait - Sony 135mm F1.8 / Sigma 56mm F1.4
Telephoto - Sony 70-200mm F2.8 MarkII / Tamron 70-180mm F2.8
Super Telephoto - Sony 400mm F2.8 / Sigma 150-600mm F5-6.3
I have to recommend the Voigtlander range of E-Mount prime manual lenses. They are fast, light, very well built and optically amazing. And they are affordable.
The Voigtlander 40mm f/1.2 rarely leaves my camera.
There series of APO lenses hit well above their weight. Not even Zeiss lenses approach their quality. Solid tiny but mighty lenses.
The third party support is really the key. The Tamron 70-180mm F2.8 or the 35-150mm F2-2.8 are such unique lenses. I would never ever go back to a normal 70-200mm after a half year with the 70-180mm, so small so leightweight.
But for me, the most interesting lens ist still to come and thats the Tamron 50-400mm. This range is something, I waited over 15 years now. A 16-35mm + the 50-400mm and you’re ready to go, when you just want to shoot landscapes.
Good point! I hope the 50-400 is smaller than my 200-600 😂
@@EpitomePax It’s smaller than my Canon first gen 100-400mm and it weighs 1100g, thats over 300g less than the Canon.
@@Benjamin_Jehne not bad! That’s like 2.75 lbs. could definitely fit in a decent sized camera bag
2:33 The man you mentioned is likely 奥村哲一朗 Tetsuichiro Okumura, who was awarded Sony Outstanding Engineer Award 2018 for "creation and commercialization of a new optical type that realizes compact and lightweight E-mount lenses".
I got the Sony 200-600mm with my new A7 iv. Wonderfully sharp provided you were 12 yards away from your subject, Since I love shooting warblers and small birds, it drove me crazy so I sold it and got the Sigma 150-600mm. Now, when a Kirtland Warbler poses six feet from me, I can get a super sharp shot. I recently got the Tamron 50-400mm to replace my Somy A-mount 70-400mm. Sharp through the whole range. It would be a fantastic travel lens. 50mm isn't quite wide enough for landscape unless you do portriat mode panoramas. Do that and you are set.
You asked which mount we'd like to see next... E-Mount again, but only in regard to when used on APS-C. FE lenses can still be included options, but they only get points for when in the context of being used on a crop body.
Ah ... that "glaring omission" for me is the 50mm f1.2. Portraits are coming out soooo good with buttery bokeh. The 50mm seems to work better than 85mm for kids and family ... although my preference is skewed by the fact that the Sony 85mm f1.4 was never the best to begin with (would definitely have gone Sigma had that existed at the time of purchase).
Yes that’s a big omission. It’s a perfect lens.
the 135 is a hidden gem for APSC imo, a beautifully bright and compact 200mm prime
What are your thoughts on the Sony 24-105, f4 G FE lens? While not GM lens, for the price do you think it is worth it for a non professional? Thanks
It's a very versatile and capable lens as long as there is sufficient light. My general walking around and landscape lens. I recommend it.
When all you can bring is one lens this is it
Speedy recovery jordan.
Also, still looking forward to your review of the fuji x-h2s
It is gorgeous!
I wish you would test more of the Voigtländer Lenses for Sony E-mount !!!
Well I think, you‘ve ommissed one category completely - and that is travel/general purpose photography. And there is a fantastic Tamron 28-200mm 2.8-5.6, or the 17-70mm 2.8 for crop. And I miss the Sigma 18-50mm 2.8, as an lighter alternative to that.
In this category, I like the Sony 24-105 f4, as well. Bought I own it, so I have buyer's bias (which I also own).
I'm happy with my 24 1.4 GM, 50 1.2 GM, 135 1.8 GM . I played with the 70-200 f/2.8 GM II at the Drumheller Sony event but I found it underwhelming. I had to switch back to my 135 GM for most of my shots. Maybe I just like primes more now haha. Now if only a new 85 1.2 GM?? or 100/105 1.4 GM :D
That's my set up. I'm hoping for an 85 1.2 and a 200 2.0 one day
Hoping here for the new Sony 85mm. Waiting
I switched to Sony when they released their mirrorless line of cameras. The knock on Sony at that time was that there were no lenses. Of course Sony has continued to release lenses since then and the other manufacturers are still playing catch up. For me, Sony has so many great lenses now that there is no shortage of lenses to choose from. I love their zooms for travel lenses, but use their primes when I'm closer to home. The exceptions are the long primes. I just can't spend the money that the 400mm GM and 600mm GM cost. Fortunately the 200mm-600mm G lens does a great job, particularly for it's price.
I would love to get the Sigma super tele but no support for extenders. Sony does support it’s 1.4x and 2.0x extenders.
As a fan of 135mm focal length, I'm so glad you recommended the Sony 135. I have the Samyang/Rokinon 135mm, newly released, and I've got to say that it's one Fine lens. Not even one complaint about it. "Try it, you'll like it."😉
Yep, the Samyang is amazing!
I have the same lens and like it almost as good as the GM
@@martin9410 Yeah, I wouldn't use the Samyang for action shots, which isn't in my wheelhouse. It excels where I need it at a more than reasonable price tag. That makes me smile.
@@dougd2723 I just the Samyang for portraits and occasional landscape shots
Honestly, as someone who has used both, the samyang/rokinon is better in almost every category, minus build quality and autofocus speed. Really an amazing showing for something less than half the price.
Loved this video but I miss the macro lens options.
Whoa!!! What about my beloved 50 1.2 GM! That's the lens that stays on one of my camera for all professional work.
Surely 200-600 from so y should get some love. Fast focus, affordable and reliable for the performance
The most striking aspect of the 600 f:4GM when it came out was how light it was and how much better balanced it was compared to any other 600 f:4. And to this day, nothing’s really dethroned it. What’s in my bag looks very much like your list, one exception being that I picked the 20mm f:1.8 instead of the 24mm f:1.4 because I really like the 20mm focal but both are superb lenses (the 20mm has no right to be this good considering it’s not a GM lens). The only thing I’d disagree with is the choice of the sigma 150-600 over the Sony 200-600. Yes price is a factor but optically and AF speed wise they are not in the same camp and if you use that lens for wildlife, the Sony is worth every extra dollar. Glad you highlighted the 135mm, it’s indeed one of the most stunning lenses I have ever owned (and I have owned many). How about Leica M next? Just to get the haters going :-)
the sony 200-600 also only costs like 400$ more and it's an internal zoom.
Take a shot every time Chris says “beautiful” in this review ;)
I like this list, but I'm surprised that the Sigma 150-600 won the telephoto category instead of the Sony 200-600. Both are affordable but there's a major difference in AF performance, to the point that I wouldn't recommend the Sigma.
Let alone the ability to use a teleconverter with the Sony, and even more important, the ability to use it on a gimbal head due to the internal zoom.
I have COVID also. I subscribed and immediately started feeling better. I can't disagree with any of your choices. I bought the 100-400 GM 3 years ago and still love it even though I'm sure it could use an update. I also have the Tamrom 35-150 for my everyday lens. I'm intrigued by the Sigma 150-600 for Wildlife but as a senior (nearly 70) photographer the weight is an issue. I'll probably stick with my 100-400 with the 1.4x tele when I need reach.
Why not go aps-c for a lighter setup, especially with sony's rather excellent 70-350
@@yassinerizzani4600 It's a good idea but I'm having a love affair with my A1 especially for birds in flight. At this stage it's just best for me to stick with my current sent up. I do shoot my A1 in crop mode which works very well at 21 MP
Well done guys, I agree with you on many of these. Tamron has come a long way in the last few years. Get better Jordon, I caught COVID while running a workshop in June. That was a hassle for sure.
The Sony GM 35mm F1.4 is on the short list of “best 35mm’s”. Going with the 14mm, 24mm, 35mm GM primes - and - adding the Tamaron 35-150mm is a very nice kit. Let’s not forget the Voightlander APO 65mm Macro - excellent multipurpose lens with astounding IQ.
35GM is the single best 35mm. There's nothing that can compete against it overall. Sigma 35mm f1.2 Art sacrificed too much edge and coma quality.
The Sigma 65mm F2 is like the Voightlander with AF for sharpness, albeit without APO or macro properties. And at a cheaper price, too. Currently my favorite E Mount lens.
I have the 85mm 1.8 and the 135mm 1.8 and they are both fantastic lenses. People just can't accept that the low priced and Tiny and lightweight Sony 85mm 1.8 is just fantastic and most people don't need anything other than that in an 85mm. Those 1.4's and 1.2's are just to give the pros something to lust after. They're big boat anchors. The 85 mm 1.8 is lightweight and fantastic but the 135mm 1.8 G Master is the sharpest and best lens I've ever shot with. It's just incredible.
I would go for the 200-600 over the 150-600, the zoom ring of the 200-600 has a very short throw so is very fast to work with. With everything being internal on that lens, I think Sony has a winner on their hands with that design.
A few honourable mentions for E-mount:
Zeiss Batis 40/2, the Sony-Zeiss 55/1.8 is also still a wonderful optic despite its age, the amazing options on the market for manual focus lenses like Voigtlander, so many macro’s as well that are available for E-mount and Sony’s own 90/2.8 is a really amazing piece of kit.
For me the Sony G 24-105mm F4 is an outstanding and versatile lens. I use it a heap.
Same. It’s focal length covers 90% of what I shoot regularly.
The 24mm 1.4 is the “fullframe look” in my opinion. Getting that shallow depth of field at a wide angle.
The rest of the focal lengths i’m perfectly happy with using zooms. 35mm and onwards you get plenty of bokeh even at 2.8 and below 20mm I do not expect much bokeh anyway.
So that is how I shoot. 24mm 1.4 is my prime and the rest are zooms for versatility.
I've never used a 24mm 1.4 on fullframe, but I do agree. I'd say 24 1.4 and 35 1.4 are the best showoffs of the fullframe look, even if they don't fit my style.
@@GabrielFFontes Ye I completely agree on 24 and 35 being that.
I just usually end up either shooting wide or telephoto i’m rarely in the normal 35-50 range which is why I went for the 24 over the 35.
Thanks for this informative video . For enthusiasts but non professional wild life photographers how is 100-400 lens and 24-105 lens on Sony A7 IV as the reach becomes good enough and do not need to carry much gear during wildlife excursions. It will be good if you do a video on optimal gear for wildlife enthusiasts
The Sony 28-105, f4 is a great lens for all around shooting. It’s on my camera most of the time
It’s a 24-105, not 28-105, but yup, I agree!
@@MrPedalpaddle oops.BRAIN FART
I feel like the Sigma 85 1.4 DG DN deserves at least a mention. Although I do agree - the 135 is insane. Still wish Sony made a 105 1.4 GM.
Best 85 by far!👏🏻
Yeah it's weird he mentioned every 85 1.4 except easily the best one (sigma 85mn DG DN).
The Sigma 14-24mm f/2.8 is the best wide angle zoom. Why didn't they mention it?
Yeah, this was a strange omission. It's, by far, the best 85mm on the E-Mount. It outclasses Sony's offering (which is very old at this point), and greatly outclasses its competitors from other brands.
Very weird to omit the best 85mm of all time. The Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN Art
I really like this table at 11:32 which shows the maximum aperture over the focal length of all FF lenses. Does it exist somewhere outside of a film, can it be linked?
Even in 2024, the Sony/Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 remains my favorite lens of all time.
The spectacular 15mm Viogtlander for Sony is overlooked a lot. Many ultra wide lens shooters don't need wide apertures. This lens is small and light, built like a tank, and has amazing optics. I replaced it with the Sony 14mm and at f8, the difference is tiny. Might even go back to the Voigtlander for sheer portability.
I was about to buy it, but got the samyang 18mm f2.8 instead
@@pauldb5 I have that Samyang too. Great lens once you don't need the wider focal length. Super on a gimbal!
I bought Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 & Tamron 15-500mm f5.6-6.3 for my Sony A7 IV, I am quite happy with both of them, and APSC mode of Sony A 7 IV gives me *1.5 factor , so I could reach equivalent of 750mm with my Tamron lens. Unfortunately Sony don't allow tele convertors for 3rd party lenses
When I bought my A7R3, I bought the 24-240 superzoom. While it does give you a single lens that can get most of the shots you might want for travel, it's not as sharp or bright as the the Tamron 28-70 you mentioned. I have been lately seriously considering ditching the superzoom in favor of that one and possibly their 70-180 as replacements. They are both relatively budget friendly and are sharp and bright enough to take advantage of the A7R3's 42mb sensor. As people move up to the latest Sony bodies, they are going to really be looking for the sharpest glass they can afford to put an image on that sensor that can take advantage of all those megapixels.
I really like my Sigma 24-70mm. It is a little heavy, but I feel it's worth it for the quality I get. I hope Sigma releases a 70-200 soon.
Very fun list! I would've picked the Sigma 85mm 1.4 DG DN Art for the Portrait but I respect those picks.
I absolutely love my 55mm 1.8, after six years of using the lens I'm pretty sure I got a solid copy with no motor failure.
I need one of those 135 1.8 in my life...
The zeiss version? Yes I also have one and it is fantastic! The 135mm gm is also just a great lens. If u like the 85mm gm I would say wait for the version 2 of that lens
I had a Sony a7 II for about 2 years before i changed systems because sony just wasn't for me.
The camera was so easy to give away but the 55mm 1.8 was really hart. Such a lovely style and sharpness and bokeh. Very underrated lens.
@@ThisIsWideAngle I see. Glad you still enjoyed that zeiss 55mm lens. It is underrated because it is also quite expensive, but if you can find one with good prices it is absolutely worth it.
I can agree with most of the choices. I bought this year the 24 1.4 and the Tamron 70-180. Both are absolutely stellar. No comparison to some of the older quite disappointing lenses, like the sony 70-300 or the ZA 24-70 4.0.
Great AF, nice Bokeh, very sharp, compact...
What else do you expect?
Regarding the Super Teles: I only know and have the Tamron 150-500, but it is great. And with a A7Rx camera therre are still some cropping reserves, if needed. Compared to the Sigma or the Sony 200-600 it is also quite compact and it's not white.
I would also mention the Tamron 17-28 as a very compact UW Zoom.
I just bought a Sony a7riii with a sigma 150-600 mm sport lens and I can't wait to use them
I recently traded my 55-210 kitlens in for the Tamron 18-300. This is a great improvement to say the least. Of course it is bulkier/havier but you get so much in return! The lens is sooo much sharper! The winning side is not so much the xtra 90 mm but more on the other side the 18/55. Vibration control was a must for me and it works good enough. Now I have only 2 lenses in my case: The Tamron and my Zeiss Touit 12 mm.
I love 20G. It's such a compact lens and sharpness is amazing. I have to be careful shooting portraits with this a bit but when it's done right it also gives nice bokeh quality.
It's a beautiful combination of wide angle view while keeping the really egregious distortion of smaller lenses to a minimum.
Wanted to buy it and went for a walk with Sony 20mm 1.8 and Sigma 1.4. Sigma is just better. Long story short.
How do all of these lenses hold up to the additional demands of 61 Megapixels or more in terms of resolution and chromatic aberrations?
maybe talk about the compact nikon wildlife primes? THIS is a reason to change for the nikon z-mount.
That chart is amazing.
Great discussion! I feel this is probably the top of the line reason I entered E-mount couple of years ago and a good trend other manufacturers should consider following. The 3rd party lens choice is definitely very versatile and practical. Of course, I still hope to see some "Noct-level" lenses but please, try not to put a "Noct" weight on the Sony body...
The bigger lens designs and the switches/design options from GMaster and Sigma have really great uses. I hope Fujifilm understands that for more lens options for their GFX. The FX line are great for quality portable pictures. But the GFX needs better designs and ranges. The current GFX lenses don't really have the same clean designs as FX or the functionality of the GMaster. They need to use that bigger sensor to do more. Wider fstop lenses most of all.
I worked around people the entire time and even OT during lockdowns. Finally got it a month ago
I'm getting a Sony Mirrorless and going on an Alaska cruise with a photography heavy bent. What 2 lenses would you recommend?
I agree with most of your recommendations, but WRT third party super tele zooms, these have the significant limitation of not supporting 20FPS on the A9/A9ii or 30FPS on the A1 bodies. For many wildlife, sports and action shooters this is a significant consideration and would push the decision towards the 200-600mm or 100-400mm from Sony (or the 400/600 primes). As for APS-C, that 56mm is incredible... but as I use my A6600 for "holiday snaps", the best lens in recent years for APS-C and the one that I use by far the most is the Sigma 18-50mm F2.8. That thing is barely larger than a kit lens, and is so versatile.
I read that Tamron 35-150mm f/2-2.8 Di III VXD Lens for Sony E is a great lens except it does not handle sun flare well. What's your opinion on this issue for this lens?
Obviously in a video like this it is easy to forget some lenses, but I found it funny//strange that Jordan mentioned that the 135mm focal length needed some love/attention when Samyang just released an apparently excellent 135/1.8 AF.
There needs to be a super wide distinction. 24 is pretty well a standard lense for me.
Hehe, yeah. And there actually is - technically, on full frame 24-35mm are wide-angle and