Best Sony EF Lenses Money Can Buy

Good Day All,

Decided to change system from EOS to Sony FE.

Probably will be buying A7R III.

Would like to hear your opinion on best FE lenses.

My choice will be a wide zoom, a normal zoom, a tele (70-200), a macro and may be a normal prime for low light + portrait.

I travel a lot, so weight is important issue ...

Thanks

All of the G Master lenses are as sharp or sharper than the equivalent EF L-series. Some of the G series are also excellent, like the FE 12-24 G. I've got that, the FE 24-70mm GM, the FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS and the 1.4x and 2.0x FE teleconverters. I do a lot of wild bird photography, so I need the longer focal length. I've heard that the 70-200mm GM is exceptional.

All weigh a little less than the EF equivalents and are very fast AF, even at f/11. I don't use a macro, but I'm partial to ultra-wides and super-teles. I've kept my EF 14mm f/2.8L II and my 500mm f/4L II to use on my a7RIII, combined with the excellent Metabones EF-to-E t-adapter MkV. You don't have all of the AF functions of the native lenses, such as "lock-on" tracking, but it's as good or better than on a Canon body. If you already own a great EF macro, I'd just get a Metabones and continue to use that.

the24-70mm GM, the 70-200mm GM

Thanks,

Do you think there is much difference between f/2.8 and f/4 versions of these lenses ?

Thanks,

Do you think there is much difference between f/2.8 and f/4 versions of these lenses ?

Not really, except for astro-photography, which is where I use ultra-wides anyway. The high-ISO performance of my a9 and a7RIII is so good that I can really do without the extra light. Quality is reportedly equal. That said, if I were a wedding photographer, I'd have the f/2.8. As a wildlife photographer, the extra weight is a big problem, carrying a two-body kit through the woods.

I own a Sony 70-200 f/4 G, which is sharp and relatively light an compact. The f/2.8 version is over an inch longer and nearly twice as heavy, for which you get outstanding sharpness, even at f/2.8 (comparable to the best Nikon and Canon can offer). I rented a Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM for a recent vacation. It is very sharp, and the OSS in conjunction with internal IBIS stabilization produces nearly tripod sharpness. I actually never used it on a tripod during the trip. The 70-200/4 stayed home this trip.

I also own a 24-70/2.8 GM, which is as sharp as any of my prime lenses in this range. It is about the same size as a Nikon 24-70, which is to say, large. I use primes only when I need something less to carry, or possibly better color rendition.

Sony A9 + Sony 24-70 GM @ 64 mm, f/8, 1/500.

I rented a Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 GM for a recent vacation. It is very sharp, and the OSS in conjunction with internal IBIS stabilization produces nearly tripod sharpness. I actually never used it on a tripod during the trip. The 70-200/4 stayed home this trip.

Ed, nice coastal shot, BTW.

Don't even think about putting the FE 100-400mm GM OSS on a tripod. It's compact and light. All the men and women that shoot with me hand hold it.

White-faced Ibis Flies By by David Stephens, on Flickr

It may not matter much with an A9, 24 MP + AA filter, but with the 42 MP A7Riii sans AA, a tripod can make a noticeable difference at the pixel level of detail.

Other than ultimate resolution (which is more of a goal than a necessity), a tripod is good for consistency. Once leveled, the camera stays leveled. When shooting bracketed exposures (as above), lack of consistency results in cropping to remove the variations. The same for stitched panoramas. When taking photos of a large group, a tripod eliminates the minor variations between repeated shots. They might not matter in the end, but are painfully obvious when you (or the customer) compare frames. Other than for extremely short clips, a tripod is essential for video.

While not as heavy as a 400/2.8, the Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 is a beast if you have to carry it far. Even a few hundred yards to an historical site made me cradle the lens in my arm, rather than hang on a strap.

It may not matter much with an A9, 24 MP + AA filter, but with the 42 MP A7Riii sans AA, a tripod can make a noticeable difference at the pixel level of detail.

 

Other than ultimate resolution (which is more of a goal than a necessity), a tripod is good for consistency. Once leveled, the camera stays leveled. When shooting bracketed exposures (as above), lack of consistency results in cropping to remove the variations. The same for stitched panoramas. When taking photos of a large group, a tripod eliminates the minor variations between repeated shots. They might not matter in the end, but are painfully obvious when you (or the customer) compare frames. Other than for extremely short clips, a tripod is essential for video.

 

While not as heavy as a 400/2.8, the Sony 100-400/4.5-5.6 is a beast if you have to carry it far. Even a few hundred yards to an historical site made me cradle the lens in my arm, rather than hang on a strap.

Ed, my friend, let me present an alternative view, if you will. I DO agree that we should be going for "ultimate resolution" whenever possible; otherwise, our cell phones would be fine for everything. Yes, I have printed 72" x 36" with a handheld file from my 5DS-R, now for sale. (The Canon beats the a7RIII in resolution, but it requires good light and the dynamic range of the Sony really brings out shadow details). With neither the 5DS-R or the a7RIII has hand holding created a resolution issue.

Here's a handheld shot, with the a7RIII, the Canon 500/f4, EF 1.4x TC-III, Metabones converter, at ISO 2500 and 1/640-sec. The IS in the lens and the IBIS were both on. Half the guys running around with their tripods missed the shot. Bird-in-flight are whole other matter:

Our Hero Poses For Masses by David Stephens, on Flickr

I don't think, "I'm going from 24-mp to 42.3-mp, so I need to up the shutter speed or get my tripod out of the trunk." When I'm shooting landscape or sunsets, I pull out my highest resolution body and I usually pull the ISO down to 50 and handhold, down to 1/25-sec., now with IBIS. When I shot the Grand Canyon in 2011, with my 5D2 and an EF 24-105mm, I was on a tripod, at ISO 100. I doubt that I'd use the tripod today. In situations other than landscapes, I'm very free with upping the ISO, particularly with my Sony's incredible DR. With landscapes, I go up from ISO 50 to 100 quite freely, but I would pull out the tripod for SS below 1/25-sec. (F-stop is usually in the f/8 to f/11 range for landscapes).

In the sample shot, several old rules are broken, particularly hand holding a 700mm rig at 1/640-sec. Part of it is me (I hand hold thousands of big rig shots per month), but the combined stabilization of the excellent EF lens and the IBIS so make it easier for me. Pixel density doesn't enter my thinking. After all, the 7D MkII has had much higher pixel-density for years and didn't present problems.

About the FE 100-400mm being a "beast", it's in the eye of the beholder. I have a linebacker build and would be the guy tasked with lugging the 50-cal machine gun in the Army. However, I shot with a young woman last weekend, hand holding her Tamron 150-600mm/7D MkII rig, with good results. She's going for, successfully, bird in flight shots. (I met her a few weeks ago, chasing bald eagles in a 30-mph sleet storm, so she's hard core, but her build is that of an average woman, in her 30s). I'm old, so many of my friends are old. I've got some arthritis here and there, but some of my friends have rotator cuff issues and arthritis that interferes with hand holding. If you're going to shoot birds in flight, I recommend trying hand holding. If you can do it and it's uncomfortable, work through the discomfort and you'll get stronger. My young friend told me it took her about three-weeks of regular shooting to start getting comfortable with her 150-600mm.

Here's what a guy that doesn't want to miss any shots, me, carried around 15-miles last weekend. Sony a9/FE 100-400 around neck, Sony a7RIII/EF500/1.4x hanging off right shoulder, small backpack containing 12-24/f4, 24-70/f2.8, 2.0x teleconverter, extra battery, micro-fiber cloth. I've found that if I leave any of those items in the trunk of the car, I'll miss an opportunity. That kit really covers the whole waterfront. I've been carrying that, or something equivalent for several years. Oh yeah, I often carry a folding stool and, of course, water.

Not everyone can do that.

Not everyone can do that, on which we are in total agreement. Some people age better than others. I have no problem with an over-the-shoulder strap which places the weight in line with my spine, but even a light load in front is a strain. A tripod simply adds to that load. Ansel Adams supposedly quipped, "Anything further than 100 yards from the car is probably not photogenic."

I think the objectives and methods of wildlife photography emphasize speed and agility over raw detail. A tripod does make a difference, but only if you exercise the utmost care - sturdy tripod, IBIS/OSS turned off, careful focusing, electronic front shutter and cable release. Image stabilization leaves a 2-3 pixel uncertainty under the best conditions. If you wish to pare that down to one, at 42 MP, you have to go that extra mile. Given a bold subject which fills the frame, like the owl and ibis, resolution is of secondary importance, and limited by residual camera shake, electronic perturbations and subject motion. Consider that if the smallest object rendered is 2 pixels wide, the equivalent resolution drops from 42 MP to about 10 MP. At least with GM lenses, you are limited by technique rather than optics.

. At least with GM lenses, you are limited by technique rather than optics.

We totally agree on that.

Someday I'll do a pixel-level test. My handheld shooting with the 5DS-R and now the a7RIII, tells me that there's not much to be gained with a tripod. I may be an exception, and I'll give you that, since I've shot hundreds of thousands of handheld super-telephoto shots and over 1-million handheld. My handhold technique is probably as good as it gets. Still, a real world test would be informative.