Search the Community

What's the consensus on the Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 lens? I have been shooting with primes since I got my Sony A7rii about a year and a half ago. I have the Sony Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, the Sony Master FE 90mm f/2.8 macro, and a Rokinon 12mm fish-eye lens, and have also been using legacy Nikon and Olympus lenses with a couple of different adapters (the Zuiko 50mm, 28mm and 200mm's from my old OM-1 film days and my Nikon 20mm, 50mm and lensbaby). I like using primes and find that my favorite lens on the camera is the Nikon 20mm, with the 90mm Macro a close second. The 35mm is a great walking around lens since it's so light. Love the ultra wide fisheye too but it's heavy and not something I'm going to lug around all day. Both of the 50mm's have beautiful bokeh - the Nikon is an f/1.4 from the 1970's, around the same age as my legacy Olympus Zuiko's. There's something about those old film lenses I really like... but carrying a bag full of primes along with assorted adapters defeats the idea of going light - that's where my Oly and the Sony differ since the Oly mirrorless lenses I have are all so tiny and light. So, I need some advice. Is the convenience worth the price? Will I regret not filling my bag with primes? I resisted buying the 24-105mm or one of the 24-70mm's when I got the camera, but now I'm thinking it would be nice to have a lens that covers so many situations. For example, if I'm headed into NYC for the day, I usually pop on the light 35mm and zoom with my feet, but I'll be doing a photo walk during PhotoExpo in a couple of weeks and realize that it might be really nice to have one lens that will cover so much ground. Can it satisfy a pixel peeper? Is it worth the price for the convenience and is it a good lens or will I find myself in pixel-peeping hell? Alamy has made me into a pixel-peeper, so I worry that I might not find a lens that covers so much ground is going to hold up under such scrutiny, but it would really cover nearly any situation. Is Weight an issue? I think it weighs a tad more than the camera, but less than any of the zooms I used regularly with my Nikons. I made the switch to mirrorless to keep my kit light, and have a bad neck and back, but I don't think it would be too heavy, especially if it was the only lens I took along for the day. Is it fast enough to shoot at night? I like the fixed focal length and given Sony's low light capabilities, I'm thinking it would be fine to use even at night. Thoughts on whether you can use it all day and at night too, without a tripod, also appreciated. I'm used to some fast primes but I think that f/4 will be okay, especially if I use it toward the wider end at night. Sony anti-shake isn't as good as IBIS on the Olympus, but I'm guessing between cranking up the ISO and taking advantage of the OSS, night shooting sans tripod isn't an issue. Am I right? Advice welcome. Thanks!

Question: What is YOUR favorite lens, and why should everyone else agree with you?

I've recently purchased a Sony A7r and am now considering lens options. My main interest is FL 35/50mm with 75mm occasionally. The Zeiss "top of the range" selection is out of my budget and I wonder what would you consider a suitable quality lens (or two) within the "more affordable" bracket. Maybe a zoom, maybe primes. I have no idea of Sony lenses and your advices would be most appreciated. Thanks Ray

I've been reading mixed reviews about the Sony 35mm f2.8 za Although I am considering renting it for the weekend, I'd like to find out what lenses find the best balance between portability and size (i.e., small & light) (A7rii)

Can anyone think of a reason why Adobe ACR (latest cc version) is only correcting for chromatic aberration when opening RAF (RAW) files from Fuji X-T1 with 35mm f/1.4 lens and not applying a correction for distortion or vignetting? There is no separate lens profile available as I understand it, Adobe simply apply what Fuji supply in the RAF file. An information box bottom right corner in ACR confirms it "The RAW file contains a built-in lens profile for correcting chromatic aberration. The profile has already been applied automatically to this image." I have seen other people comment that the box (for other Fuji lenses) sometimes states "chromatic aberration and vignetting". When I open RAF files from my Fuji 50-140mm f/2.8 the box states "distortion, chromatic aberration and vignetting". Are Fuji suggesting that the 35mm f/1.4 is free from distortion? It clearly isn't, I use it every day to document books and artwork, almost always with lots of vertical and horizontal lines in the subject, and there is often very significant distortion (barrel). At the moment I have to adjust the distortion manually which is very time consuming. I have the latest firmware loaded in the X-T1 body and in the lens, and am using the very latest version of Photoshop CC and ACR. Any ideas? Marc

Hi Folks's, i have a planned trip to shoot wildlife in Africa this coming March. All of my telephotos are Canon L series, for the ease of getting close and distant shots in a hurry from a car without working to cameras and big prime telephotos i was considering the Sigma 150-600 sports Telezoom. Has anybody here used or own this lens and are there any serious problems or downfalls? my biggest concern is lack of sharpness. I will be very happy to know of your experiences before shelving out €2000. Thanks everybody, Paul.

I am looking at purchasing a Nikon D810 for landscape photography, can any current users of this camera recommend a suitable lens to go with the D810, keeping in mind that it is mainly for landscape photography, i have heard that the 14 to 24 is a great lens is it? or is there a better lens? Thank's to all. Paul.

I got my Fuji 18-135mm lens yesterday and while generally pleased, especially with the range (simplifies walkaround kit) I do have a couple of concerns. First: do other people find the last bit of the zoom range ~100-135mm a bit tight and not as smooth as the rest of the action? Secondly: I am finding significant chromatic aberration at the 18mm end of the range. It just about cleans up with the CA correction in Capture 1 Pro but there seems to be a hint of residual fringing. (I will sort out some 100% crops in due course). In the light of recent discussions about QC failing images for CA I am very concerned that this lens might not be usable for Alamy! I need to run more tests as all the images I noticed it on were taken at around f13-14 which will be getting into diffraction territory or is it perhaps an artifact from the C1Pro demosaicing of the X-Trans data? The ooc jpegs seem well corrected (see below). First the uncorrected raw: And now the ooc JPEG Anybody else with this lens have any thoughts? Thanks Martin

Anybody here using the Canon 16-35mm f/4 L lens. I have been struggling for some time with the 17-40mm and it's soft corners on a full frame, i understand that the 16-35 f/4 is better in this area. Some real user advice would be very appreciated. Thanks! Paul.

I've had a Tamron SP AF Di 90mm macro lens for about 6 years and during that time it's produced some brilliant images (on a Canon 5D mk II). However, yesterday, it came up with an error message; "Err1communications between the camera and lens is faulty. Clean the lens contacts" I did as I was told but the error keeps coming up. Anybody had any experience with this sort of thing or will I have to have the lens repaired/replaced? John.