h_._jm

Dear photographers; I thought as courtesy to the readers but especially to the 2 members who kindly gave their advise I would put an update on how it went. Thanks to Ed-Ingold and dcstep. I ended up on a roadtrip visiting 7 countries starting from Austria; Germany; Switzerland; Italy; Slovenia and Hungary. I think countries may be relevant for someone going through the same dilemma as it's different setting for shooting etc... I took my Sony 16-35 F4; Canon 24-70 F2.8; Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sony 85 1.8. essentially: - I used primes far more than I thought because I saw the results were just outstanding - 85 1.8 clearly provided the best results and given its 350 grams of less no brainer; if won't take it at least take Zeiss 55 1.8 or equivalent light prime - 16-35 UWA very useful and as you can see lots of use there - On the field the 24-70 Canon 2.8 (which is clearly superior to the Sony one as per DXO and all the sites) seemed to produce better results than the UWA; but when I opened on the laptop; both produced nice photos but nothing magical whereas the Primes with wide apertures were magical. In hindsight I would probs take UWA and 85 1.8 next time. More profoundly; I overestimate and put too much time and questions about lenses and cameras; the experience of the trip was far more important, and photos would have worked out regardless if I wasn't OCD myself about quality probs would have saved myself a lot of time, money and had more peace. But I like the results so it's worth it. The Canon forum on this site where I came from likely was more subscribed with many senior photographers who I recognized for the many years I have been there and I realized I asked the same question 3 years ago there. I found advise about same topic from Canon forum was very useful even to my sony related gear. So probably other system's the general gist will be the same. I attached graph of what settings were used for my trip. General subjects were: Buildings; environmental portrait; Candid Portraits of my relatives children; landscape photos. Regards

Thanks to everyone and to dcstep! I will take the advise onboard. I have to alter and tailor make the advise to what I have and the time restrictions as my trip is in a week and I usually only buy online. Low on funds anyway so I can't buy new gear now. Since I posted I now have these sony lenses all in transit: Sony 85 1.8; Zeiss 55 1.8 and sony 16-35 F4. You are aware of my canon lenses posted in the question above from them I will likely bring the 24-70 F2.8 II or 35 1.4 II. So far I am considering this: Option 1: Sony 16-35 F4; Canon 24-70 F2.8 II; Zeiss 55 1.8 and Sony 85 1.8 (Super 35 mode to 135 is about as much as I want for reach this trip) Option 2: Sony 16-35 F4; Canon 35 1.4 II (By far my most Magical lens and indoor portraits it's a killer); 55 1.8 and 85 1.8 (but I haven't received any sony lens to test yet) Option 3: Sony 16-35 F4; 55 1.8 and 85 1.8. With 35 II OR 24-70 F2.8 I feel safest in that one of the highest quality standard lens is with me; just the 24-70 is clinical with nice bokeh and convenient/practical and 35 1.4 II is magical/stunning its shallow DOF with Sony eye focus works great too. So to me option 1 or 2 seems most complete and there isn't much weight different in between them maybe 150 grams; if anyone wants to kindly discuss their experience would be keen to hear. If not I will flip a coin and be decisive for once :) Happy shooting everyone! Thanks for having me here

Thanks for that I realize the 70-200 is such a practical lens here at home; what stops me is the 1.5 Kg weight. Once Canon releases their designed RF 70-200 2.8 which will be a light 700-800 grams I think for me that lens will becomes realistic on a Europe trip if I ever go back to Canon who knows. But thanks for highlighting the 50 practicality which I appreciated last trip and happy to repeat it; and yeh the 24-70 F2.8 may impress me because last time I shot with the 24-105 F4 and didn't find something much better/special than my UWA 17-40L and given many cathedrals/churches/small streets in Europe wide angle very useful unexpectedly where so I remember not being bothered to take the UWA out of the camera much. So In other words, I reckon one reason I used my UWA >60% of the time as opposed to you using it much less may have to do with the accompanying standard zoom lens being not so special (but practical offcourse) last trip whereas I know my 24-70 F2.8 produces wonderful bokeh and sharpness at 2.8. If listing the countries we plan to visit helps in this discussion our tentative plan would be visiting munich; venice/milan; austria probably hallstat only; and switzerland probably interlaken. So I reckon big chunk will be nature I hope and the other half will be cities.

Dear Sony forum visitors, I am Peter and I am brand new into sony. I recently switched from Canon and bought an A7III. I have a nice roadtrip kind of trip in Europe coming up in 2 weeks and I am busy shopping native Sony lenses and choosing what to take with me. My plan is to buy Zeiss 16-35 F4 and add one native sony prime to the trip; but then thinking about adding my standard zoom too. I've had one Europe trip before in 2016 and my gear I took was: Canon 6D; 24-105F4L; 17-40L and the nifty fifty. Suprisingly when I analyzed the photos 80% were focal length 17-60 and whilst most where F4 or above; quality matters definitely the best and most special photos were shot with the nifty fifty at F~ 2. So I realized UWA zoom is the number 1 bread and butter lens. Plus had in mind to take one of Sony's light primes 55 1.8 zeiss or sony 85 1.8 and be done with it. But others have told me and it makes sense to be safe and take my 24-70 Canon 2.8 II; very sharp on my sony and amazing Bokeh. To have me covered from the 16-35's weak performance in the tele end. To be honest being weak on one end bothers me; because it's very common that one uses a lens on it's extreme zoom one end or the other. Any suggestions? Here is my gear to help you help me with thanks! : A7III; Canon lenses: 17-40L (poor sharpness want to upgrade to native lens); 24-70 F2.8 II; 35 1.4 II; Sigma 85 art (process of selling once I like the Sony 85); Tamron 70-200 2.8 Sony lenses: only one bought so far Sony 85 1.8 on it's way; but got great deals on the Zeiss 55 1.8 and I am hunting for a reasonably priced 16-35 F4 lens. Thanks Heaps, Peter Regards Peter

hjoseph7 thanks for the link; yes I am familiar with the 85 1.2 II having slow AF for a Canon L lens

Thanks to everyone; thanks for the link comparing the Sigma to the 85 1.2 II; Robin I surely do hope that for sports there is a noticeable difference if I upgrade my 6D. I made a more challenging task than Shooting Kids today, I shot tennis with friends. Keeper rate: Sigma 85 art, 18/28 = 64% Tamron 70-200 F2.8 23/36= 64% * I feel honestly the low keeper rate is due to the 6D's basic AF; just a bit worried but asking anyone who knows do you think upon upgrading one day to 5D IV or another camera with more capable AF this keeper rate will surely improve? or not necessarily? Just inside me this fear given it's unknown if it's the basic AF or the 3rd party lenses doing this. Surely I should try one of my Canon lenses during tennis to compare and find out. It was casual to Fast paced tennis with friends. Used Central point only on my 6D. Sigma shot at F1.6-F1.8; Tamron shot at F2.8 and shutter speed been 1/400 or faster. Actually given the narrow field of view on my Sigma I think thats relatively impressive.

Thanks Guys for every single comment here; I had my daughters birthday yesterday indoors and I intentionally tried different lenses and shot with 35 II; 24-70 II; sigma 50 and 85 art. I made the following observations: - Glad the Sigma 85 is very sharp now - The keeper rate between my 24-70, 35 and 85 are very similar now perhaps lower with the primes a little - This is the first time I used all in same setting; thus similar apertures and shutter speeds for the primes. - Very impressed with the Sigma 85 (but after at least 5-6 hours learning and doing the USB dock calibration thing many times over and over till I got it right). Settings indoors; shooting ISO 1600 ideally but max 3200; shutter speeds I tried to be 1/160 or faster and aperture of about 1.8. I do feel the bigger factors are thus Camera AF speed/accuracy and subject motion blur (KIDS who couldn't care less about me photographing them!) Definitely time to sell my Sigma 50 it's a little redundant now and 35 is such a useful focal length indoors. I'm glad my 85 worked out. Once again thanks to you all

Sorry with this number comparison; let me summarize it or phrase my experience in a sentence or two. Basically when shooting kids, The 35L II even when used in an indoor cafe setting with slower shutter speed has noticeably better keeper rate than Sigma 85 art when shooting kids in daylight in a park. Sigma 50 art is slightly better than my 85.

Dear Pros and Enthusiasts Some insight into this would help me very much and be much appreciated. I have the following gear: Canon 6D (waiting for this years announcement of next Mirrorless Canon's to upgrade hopefully); 24-70 F2.8 II; 17-40L; Sigma 50 art; Sigma 85 art; Tamron 70-200 F2.8. I then spoke to a friend at work who highly recommended the 35L II and given back in the days the Mark 1 was my favourite and most regretful sale; I bought the II. It blew me away; mainly because of Canon AF speed and accuracy but also straight cinematic colours coming out of the lens. My main subject is kids and family. My daughter is 2; my nephews are 4 and 2 months. So the 35L II with Canon's AF just was so perfect. This made me re-assess my Sigma gear. I realized the 85 art had terrible back-focusing; lucky I have the dock and after spending many many hours I think I fixed it almost completely. I done a sample photoshoot and tally how many photos are in focus and out of focus with those cute crazy children. I can't blame it all on the lenses; my 6D AF is not the best and children walking; jumping running is not easy. Anyway: Sigma 85 art after calibration-> 20 pics in focus; 17 out of focus. Despite many where outdoors and shutter speeds of around 1/250 or faster. If I shoot static/adults I get >90% keeper rate. Canon 35 II-> roughly 60 in focus and 20 out of focus. But admittedly many pics where slow shutter speeds for kids i.e. 1/100 or 1/125. Anyway; I have 2 months sigma warranty left and I'm feeling a little underwhelmed by Sigma Art given now I have kids and I feel AF is something that Sigma/Tamron cannot deliver upon when it comes to sport/children fast moving photography. My wife wants me to sell both sigma's and the USB dock :) I also feel that if I sell both and get any Canon 85 or 100 or 135 I would actually have far higher keeper rate. I'm realizing DXO stupidly doesn't assess factors like AF speed and accuracy isn't it? Like Optics alone isn't everything. Any opinions highly welcome I can get 85 1.8 nice, affordable new and small; USM new for ~ 300 USD 100 F2 also interested but relatively expensive...like about 400-450 USD 135L biggest bargain when used I had it and sold it for being too zoomed in; but now that I have kids and AF is very important happy to bring it back and can get it used on ebay for ~ 450-500 USD I guess if I sell I will lose ebay merchant fees; time; etc... and wanted to share my thoughts and dilemma and get some guidance first. Regards to you all Peter

Thanks for Everyone; and esp to Gary for your detailed answer. tbh i remembered now about 3-4 years ago I shot with the same 6D but different lens it was 135L and yes I did get the right moment but I am pretty sure as you said I used my brain to do the timing instead of what I done the other day lazily using continuous shutter mode. I also like and will try the video idea and choose the perfect frame. Yes I will not decide on an upgrade based on such as small niche momentary desire to get tennis ball hitting the racquet the very fact I got amazing results prior with the same camera is enough!

Dear Enthusiasts and Pros I have had 6D ever since the year it got released. I like it I know it has a very basic AF but I knew that before buying. My issue is I have become more into sports and healthy lifestyle myself and with it a focus on sport photography started. I was shooting tennis yesterday and realised I don't like the continuous shooting speed; like I tried shooting my friend 5-6 in continuous shutter mode and each time I would shoot 3-4 continuous shots and none of them captured the moment the racket hit the ball. Maybe me using a Tamron 70-200 got to do with AF performance being worse. But nevertheless my 6D has glue and plastic falling off on the side; it's wifi connection is starting to show issue and sometime this year is right to upgrade. So for the 5DIV Vs eos R the difference in price between them is about 400 more for the 5D IV. All I am interested is how much better/worse is the AF between the two cameras and in sport photography is there one that stands out or not really? I am also seriously considering selling the Tamron and upgrading to the 70-200 F2.8 is III as I am pretty sure this will boost the AF significiantly. Much appreciated Peter

This was the quickest forum for me to act upon; So after the first reply I looked around and was surprised that a local shop had really great discounts on all Gitzo models. I got the GT2545TUS and as you said Ed_Ingold it's only 17.5" Inches so seems like a very practical and well rounded tripod. Thanks a lot guys

Hey Guys; I've always been about buying tripods under $30. Now I am making a massive jump; given I have good equipment; I figured a good tripod is a must. I have brought a Sirui K20x ballhead which looks amazing to me coming from the $30 tripods :) Now I am puzzled what to get; I do want a compromise between weight/size and stability on one hand. My ball head is rated at 55lb My heaviest set up would be a 6D coupled with a 70-200 F2.8 These are my choices the ones I liked: 1) FEISOL CT-3441S Traveler Rapid Carbon Fiber Tripod for about $410 USD 2) Gitzo GT1544T Series 1 tripod. New is about $650 but I got deal used in excellent condition for $480. Feisol is rated 44lb whereas Gitzo is 22lb. However manufacturer ratings are not accurate; and Gitzo is Gitzo. What would you recommend. I went for these small folding height of about 16 inch only so I can truly take with me overseas in the cabin bag. Regards Peter

Thanks Mark, Both of these shots were awesome... but esp that second one at F8 remarkable sharpness! very nice shot.

Thanks for all this great discussion. I’ve sold my Canon 100 macro. Yes only useful for macro and futile for me given I have a 70-200 F2.8 for portraits. As for focal range I am perfectly happy with a prime in the 85-100 mm range. As for 85; only one I tried was 85 1.8 it’s good to very good but given how happy I am with my tamron 70-200 F2.8 and its only 1 stop difference if I invest in an 85; I needed one that stands out. Now with exams in 2 months I’ve put it all on hold lol but most likely will reach for sigma 85 art and test it later