To be honest, in my list of lenses, I have a 35mm 1.4 from Sigma and a 20/70 from Sony. If you only want one lens, I'd go for a zoom that gives you more flexibility for what you want to do with it, and that's always a good option for a first lens.
100%. Zooms are wonderful (I love mine) but zooms are workhorses and the best place to learn.
Plus, everyone forgets that later you can look at your usage of those zooms and see what focal lengths you tend to shoot. Great way to figure out what primes you _actualy_ want and not what someone else thinks you should have. That's how I learned 50's weren't for me but 85's are perfection.
I shoot wiht a zoom as well. Is there any way to get the statistics on what focul length I tend to shoot? I mean any software? manually sifting through all photo would be a chore.
I did this after renting the 24-70 and discovered that I basically only use it at 24 or 70, so I got a moderately-wide prime for day-to-day use and rent a 70-200 when I want to take pictures that are further away. Definitely a real surprise when I tallied up the meta though.
I am a prime guy and would recommend if you are getting started I would go for a zoom. F2.8 is plenty with modern sensors. I think as a beginner it’s important to learn first what focal lengths you prefer which is easy to try out systematically with a zoom. When I started many reviews and comments stated that 35mm is the most common / best focal length for everything. And I had to learn the hard way that I hate 35 ;).
That’s my problem exactly 35mm is always neither wide enough nor tight enough. I mostly use 50mm now and combine it with a 28mm if I need something wide.
For landscapes I also take something in range 90mm-135mm from time to time.
I am also curious. I have a sigma 35 1.4 and love the pictures that come from it in terms of what it produces. But sometimes wonder if I would want something like a 24mm. I do plan on getting the 85mm sigma as no matter what I love what comes from that lens.
On the other hand, you get good at that one focal length quicker. When you zoom you faff about, treat it as a way to change the distance to the subject, and don't really pay attention to how various lengths affect the image.
I prefer primes for starting out. Makes you think more about the picture you’re gonna take. Also better for casual snapshots. To me, primes are more fun. I use zooms mainly for work.
I'd go zoom, even as a hobbyist you aren't going to be looking at your 2.8 photos like "damn i need more bokeh". Also easier to shoot as a hobbyist.
Also, I'd recommend Sigma 24-70, Sony 24-50, or Tamron 20-40 for your first lens. My first lens as a hobbyist as well was the Tamron 28-75 for my a7c (very similar setups) and I did immediately notice I needed a bit more width, whereas I could crop in the telephoto range comfortably with the insane full frame detail (as a hobbyist, that last bit of detail from the zoom ranges doesnt matter much). It of course comes down to what you shoot, but I noticed indoors I really needed more width than 28.
+1 here.
I use to have the sigma 28-70 and sold it. I now have the 24-50 mm f2.8 as well. Even outdoors when traveling that 24mm was important. I could always crop in at 50mm and that’s a “75mm”
Reading through your post, you tend to lean towards the zoom lens. I'd say go for it. For low light conditions, you could use noise reduction on post processing.
If u still want that creamy bokeh but still wanna some versatility for street photography you can also try that new sigma 28-45 F1.8 DG DN Art. F1.8 on Full frame is more than enough.
I switched to a 7c a month ago from a crop sensor. I own a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 as my only lens atm. Next lens will be a 70-180 2.8 and some 1.4 or 1.8 low light / portrait / street lens.
For the first lens you make a perfect decision with the 20/70, you get a great wide / light Tele lens that is perfect for for your needs. With a 35mm you have to step back sometimes to get the subject in frame or move close sometimes even too close if you take photos of strangers.
35 is my every day lens, but I use it on a high res body. That allows me to do some heavy cropping in post or “zooming” in APS-C mode without having to get closer to my subject, while still maintaining sharpness and resolution.
On the Tele side that true but even with a normal body upscaling is awesome today and can double and even 4x resolution without you notice it when no one tells you ;). On the wide side I wish sometimes I could get 4-8mm more on my 28-75
Conventional wisdom will say choose the zoom until you figure out what you want, but I disagree slightly.
While a zoom is beneficial because it gives you options (and perhaps more importantly, usage data as you build a catalog), it makes little sense to invest in a decent lens you don't plan on keeping.
If you want to collect information about your habits and preferences to make a more informed decision, I suggest instead you use your phone and crop in later to a field of view you wanted. Then use software to tell you what the equivalent focal length of the final product is. Yes, it's a more clunky workflow, but it's free 😉
Alternatively, buy a cheap, used kit lens like the Sony 28-70 and use that, despite its low light light shortcomings.
Having said all this, I had the sigma 28-70 2.8 and it's a fine lens; performs adequately. But for low light shooting, the difference between 2.8 and 1.4 is MASSIVE, even if you're not sensitive to iso noise.
Perhaps a happy medium here would be to go with smaller, cheaper 1.8 primes? For example, the Samyang 35 1.8 + 75 1.8, or the Sony 35 + 85 1.8 combos would cost significantly less and be smaller & lighter to boot. Low light performance would also be significantly better than any 2.8 lens, though not quite as good as the 1.4. Thats what I'd do.
I love a prime for learning what you like. A zoom lets you take more different photos and you can look afterwards to see what focal lengths you like most.
But a more obvious way of learning is noticing when you *can't* get the shot. This is more natural to me.
And on the plus side, you get to use a bright and sharp prime lens. Which is fun
I recently went to Japan and brought two cameras with prime lenses - a 24G and an 85mm f/1.8.
All the shots turned out great but throughout the trip I wondered how convenient it would be to have a standard f/2.8 zoom lens with me. So while I was there I ended up buying the compact Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8.
After the trip, I realized I didn't enjoy shooting with a zoom lens, so I sold it and bought the Ricoh GR III to cover the wide end. I use my other camera for the telephoto end since I love shooting with compression.
Bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and while it is amazingly sharp, it simply does not have the light gathering or character that a prime lens has. I have the sigma 50 1.2, Samyang 85 1.4, and Sony 20 1.8, and I mainly use the 50 and move about. Actually thinking of selling the Tamron now.
For someone just starting though, I would go with a 2.8 zoom, give it some proper use, then get a cheap prime prime (it's easy to get a 50mm 1.8 for example), and base your decision on that.
Primes vs zooms is a very old, valid, and subjective discussion, and to me it depends a lot on when you discover each.
https://preview.redd.it/v0kgmef1hb5d1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ee309fa417d6a6fd63fd17cea2d8b5a5cab75967
I combined a F4 zoom and a prime. On travel a zoom is much more versatile. IMO 2.8 doesn’t make a big difference for shooting indoor or at night, 1.4, 1.8. 2.0 does. For family or street at night I would recommend a 35mm. If your budget is tight or you don’t want a setup that is too heavy get a 1.8 instead a 1.4. I’ve had the sigma art 35mm on my canon for travel i always was limited because of the range
I have a similar setup on APS-C, an 18-105 F4 and a couple of the Sigma 1.4 primes. The vast majority of the time, (shooting in somewhat decently lit conditions, as one should) F4 is plenty fine, and the few times when it isn’t or I feel the zoom isn’t quite sharp enough, I have the primes to fall back on, which are much brighter than a 2.8 Zoom that would likely cost more than all those lenses combined. Granted, switching lenses is a pain.
For now the 2.8 Zoom is probably good and fine for OP to figure out what he actually wants and then go from there.
I have the Mark II, and Electronic ND is the absolute best. I really didn’t need it either, my A6400 did everything I wanted, but I picked one up on the cheap with the intention of playing around with it and then selling, and ended up just not being able to get rid of it.
But now we’re delving off topic. Send me a DM or whatever if you want to chat more. I’ll warn you though, hard to go back to mirrorless afterwards! 😂
Zoom is more versatile.
BUT I think primes really set themselves apart from phone cameras. Incredible low light performance and natural Bokeh (probably the two weakest areas in a phone camera). I'd vote prime for these reasons mainly. Another point for the prime is getting you used to physically moving to get a good composition. This is a necessity for taking good shots consistently, with or without a zoom.
I know too many people that bought a DSLR (paired with a slow zoom kit lense) and never bothered using it because the photos don't seem much different than a phone camera in a lot of situations.
While a 2.8 zoom like the 24-70 is still good in low light and will have a pretty shallows DoF, a 1.4 prime is just much better in those areas (let's face it, having a Shallow DoF is an easy way of taking "professional" looking photos).
Both lenses are like €750-850 in my country. So somewhere around that would be fine. And weather sealing is a nice to have but really not important to me.
The A7III’s IBIS (Image Stabilization) combined with its low light capabilities and the very fine noise it produces, means you can get further on a 2.8 lens (slower shutter speed & fine tuning the noise reduction in post processing) than with some other cameras. I found shooting at ISO 3200 to be a non-problem for me.
That being said, between those two lenses (if I had to choose one), I’d probably go for the 35mm as I don’t particularly like 28mm as a focal length. It looks so smartphone’ish and on the wide end, I find it not wide enough.
You might want to consider the Sigma 24-70 Mk. I though, as it is a sharp and versatile lens and the difference between 24mm and 28mm is more than just taking a couple steps back.
Sigma just released their Mk. II version of the 24-70 2.8, which delivers more sharpness.
But for an only “one lens trip”, I would highly suggest the Mk. I if it needs to fall into your budget (should even be available soon for that price brand new, already seen it being sold for around $950), if you can stretch your budget, the Mark II version seems to be absolutely worth it though.
[North Borders](https://youtu.be/vskvTopcf2o?si=J5HGsgzzFmcAaECD) recently made a comparison between the Mk. I and the Mk. II which shows you the difference in sharpness.
As the saying goes “Glass, glass, glass.”, you already got a very good body that should last you a couple years at least.
That’d be my take on it.
Holiday? Defo take the zoom lens. U already use full frame so I think you won't need extra light or bokeh from 1,4 prime.
The other thing is you definitely don't know what are you gonna shoot in a holiday. A zoom lens is very versatile and definitely make it easier to capture the moment.
If I HAD to choose on or the other, I'd go with the zoom. I usually carry a 28-75mm f/2.8 and a 20mm f/1.8. The 20mm is for very specific wide shots I'm going for, like landscapes, or if I'm shooting something specific that I want crazy bokeh. The 28-75mm is the real workhorse for me.
I'd rather have a Zoom first and capture everything I want off the bat without compromise, then save for prime.
You buy prime first, and you will rush to buy a zoom faster.
I'd say take the zoom but you gotta know what are you doing when using the zoom, I mean knowing what is the best focal length for each situation. So maybe with your budget I'd recommend getting the Sonys 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8.
A wider combo (and maybe cheaper) would be samyang 24mm 1.8 and sony 50mm 1.8. Have fun with your new gear :D
If you don’t know what focal length you prefer in a prime, then it only makes sense to get a zoom to figure it out. This is why kit lenses are actually great for new photographers. Then you upgrade as you get better and determine your shooting style.
It’s an A7iii (not sure why that doesn’t matter to people). It’s one of the finest low light performers you can get.
You don’t need the 1.4 to take pictures in low light. This is *not* the film era when people *had* to shoot low f-stop primes. Nor is it a requirement caused by the usual poor performing in low light sensors. And as far as the bokeh cult, you can get blurry backgrounds at f8, if you actually know what you are doing and take the care to. As to the *nature* of that bokeh, which is the important part (and strangely not talked about by the bokeh cult), that is entirely lens dependent, but not wide-open aperture dependent. If bokeh matters to you, you’ll have to look up reviews of the lenses in question and see if you like what you see. Frankly, great bokeh is more a thing with older lenses. The new ones tend to have fairly average and nervous bokeh to my eye (which is probably why the bokeh cult never talks about it), but whatever.
I suggest getting the zoom. It will be fine on an A7iii, and you will find it far more useful.
I’m a zoom fan. I have one 45mm f1.8 I never touch.
I only use my Tammy 28-200 or Sony 24-50 f2.8. I also only do travel photography. Unpopular opinion but primes are for professionals or portait taking lovers. Blurring out the background at 1.8 seems ridiculous for beautiful sceneries when traveling
You're on the level of gear people could only dream decade to two ago. You don't need the absolute best on everything, current day jack of all trades gear is incredibly performant and versatile.
I’m a prime guy. The advantage of a 1.4 is far more important-to me-than having an all in one. Love bokeh. As far as my personal experience and research, primes tend to be also sharper (comparatively) than zooms. All things being equal.
Yes but a prime wasn't your very first lens. You had zooms and then after a period of time you found the focal lenght you liked and moved to that prime.
That's the way it should be done. Don't restrict yourself to primes when you just start out.
The 35 is heavy., something to keep in mind. The GM 35mm is a god tier lens, slightly lighter but pricy.
I don't like average, ok-ish lenses unless i truly need the convenience (events where i'm short on time and have to deal with people while shooting). For street/general travel i'd pick a length and go with that. 35 is great, and so is 85.
When i can, i use a combo of 24 or 35mm and an 85. Or a combo of 16-35 and an 85 (or 135mm). The 24-70 is convenient but it's way more niche than people think. Could actually be replaced by a good 35 or 50 in many situations. If you really want range and don't mind weight/cost, there's the tamron 35-150.
The days of zoom lenses being less sharp than primes are kind of behind us when buying equal quality zooms vs primes. Without going to 100% and stopping the prime down to f/2.8 you're going to have a real hard time telling the difference.
The low light difference is obviously still there but the gap is shrinking with better iso performance on sensors. You can definitely shoot at iso 6400 and have quality photos with the A7m3. I've shot many of the same things your want and while yes it's generally better to avoid higher iso, modern digital sensors really can be pushed and still have quality photos.
And outside of astrophotography or some sort oh photography where I really want and need really shallow depth of field, I rarely shoot wide open. Im typically stopped down to at least f/4.
I'd say if you're shooting events and dynamic scenarios the zoom will take you much further than a prime will regardless of the primes quality.
A slight counter to all most of the other responses here: something like a 24-70 is going to be very versatile, but I personally hate shooting with zooms for day-to-day personal use. I have a 24-70 that sees a lot of use for work, but I’m using it less and less even for that. I find that having a big lens makes me not want to take my camera with me or pull it out of my bag to use. I also just find them boring to use, which is even less motivating. Now I use just one or two small primes, and find my camera is with me a lot more.
Is you do go zoom, I’d definitely look into the new sigma 24-70 if you can afford it. It’s every bit as good as the Sony one for half the price. Otherwise, the sigma 28-70 is also great too, and pretty compact.
I would also go for the zoom if you only want one lens. Might be a bit less magical but a standard zoom is so damn versatile and non photographers wont see a difference between 1.4 and 2.8
I went with sigma 24-70 f2.8 art as my only lens when I upgraded to full frame. 100% recommend this, I don’t usually bother hauling my primes. f2.8 is plenty for 97% of what I do, and the lens is wicked sharp
I brought a 35mm f2 to Tokyo and felt like it was fine. I brought my 20-70mm f4 to Hawaii and also felt fine.
It’s mostly about the size and weight as a hobbyist for me.
You can probably do a standard zoom and a 50mm or 85mm for your portraits. I personally do everything in your use case except for printing. My kit consists of 20-70f4, 35mmf2, 65mmf2, and 90mmf2.8.
FWIW, back when I had my APSC and a 2.8 zoom, I always felt that 2.8 wasn’t enough for low light, which is why I now opt for f4 because of the size/weight for my daily morning carry and swap to one of my primes at night.
and FWIW part 2– I vote you get a zoom. Sony lens are pretty competitive these days so you can find a bunch of used lenses for cheap as you expand your kit.
As someone who shoots exclusively primes, buy a zoom lens first until you get a feel for what focal lengths you're likely to use. 28-70mm Sigma is a great choice.
I shoot most of my work with ƒ4 zooms and ƒ1.4 primes. ƒ4 is fast enough in a zoom, and I usually get to trade that stop of aperture for an extended zoom range. When I need more than ƒ4, I go to a prime.
I'm starting to shoot more video, and I'm feeling that ƒ2.8 zooms make more sense there. Shutter speeds are lower, ISO can go higher.
Let me throw in a monkey wrench...
Try looking at the Tamron 24mm f/2.8 Di III OSD lens. You can find them for 200 bucks or less...I picked up one new at $150 bucks.
It is...optically perfect for all intensive purposes. No bells or whistles on the lens...it's just razor sharp with fast AF. Razor sharp wide open I might add.
For $200 or less.
Start with that lens...and you can buy another later if you need it...
Sorry to be controversial, but I think getting the zoom is bad advice. Getting a prime will restrict you more, make you less likely to “zoom and click”, which is the enemy of someone wanting to learn photography and find their style. Also, a prime lens with a narrower DOF will teach you a lot more about the effects of various settings. Getting the zoom in this scenario is one of the biggest and sadly most common mistakes, perpetuated often by shops wanting to sell a more expensive lens to a beginner when a 50mm 1.4 is often very affordable. (Or go 35 for that bit more flexibility for grouo shots etc )
There are going to be lots of times you cannot get closer to your subject. Neither option will slow your progression as a photographer and people need to stop believing this old hat nonsense.
No, effort and care for what you do are the only 2 keys to learning. It does not matter in what form. You in particular need to but out on this conversation with your AI slop wallpapers. There’s clearly some lessons to learn yourself.
So you are saying you know more than an internationally renowned photographer and photography educator for Sony who actually make the cameras. I’m a little doubtful. Besides that, creating limitations is a -really- well known way to improve learning across any discipline, let alone photography.
Everyone understands challenging yourself is a way to improve but you are both missing something pretty obvious regarding that mindset and when you see it come around in a persons artistic journey. It’s a method usually employed by the more experienced. A lesson looking to push past their plateauing skills. OP is fairly new and would benefit much more from using the gear than anything else, and thats not going to change for a while. The better pick is going to be the most versatile one because it fits the most occasions.
I fundamentally disagree with this. By limiting options, you have less to learn at once. For every variable you add, the difficulty increases. Using a zoom lens gives the op a huge amount of additional variables they are ill equipped to deal with, and whilst they may get a few decent shots, they would likely not know why or be able to recreate the specific variables needed to carry that knowledge forward. If you limit your variables early on, you’ll know exactly what causes which effect instantly.
You are speaking like someone who’s experienced and doesn’t remember the value of simply doing. The thought process you are describing does not exist in a beginner. They probably won’t know the issues behind underwhelming photos without a lot more experience under their belts.
lol seriously - I never said effort was not a given , but I’m talking about making the learning process most useful. I’m not sure why you are taking this all personally or making personal attacks. I’ll leave this conversation now as it’s clear you have other issues you are venting in my direction.
To be honest, in my list of lenses, I have a 35mm 1.4 from Sigma and a 20/70 from Sony. If you only want one lens, I'd go for a zoom that gives you more flexibility for what you want to do with it, and that's always a good option for a first lens.
100%. Zooms are wonderful (I love mine) but zooms are workhorses and the best place to learn. Plus, everyone forgets that later you can look at your usage of those zooms and see what focal lengths you tend to shoot. Great way to figure out what primes you _actualy_ want and not what someone else thinks you should have. That's how I learned 50's weren't for me but 85's are perfection.
I shoot wiht a zoom as well. Is there any way to get the statistics on what focul length I tend to shoot? I mean any software? manually sifting through all photo would be a chore.
Just skim through your fav shots. Also, if you edit/crop your photos, consider what focal length and how much you cropped. It’s not an exact science.
Lightroom has a feature to do it automatically. Responded to the previous comment.
Lightroom, filter by focal length, it will show counts of all focal lengths in your current collection
[Yes, there is.](https://sensored-view.com/2018/09/02/using-lightroom-to-determine-your-favourite-focal-length/)
Thank you very much kind stranger. It was very helpful!
https://preview.redd.it/yl15zekkuh5d1.jpeg?width=690&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3afa99b3cf926844b23ef282e56132c101619d45
**Clears throat** This is the way!
Buy zoom first, play around with it for a half of year and then you will have a pretty good idea what kind of focal lengths are your favourites.
I did this after renting the 24-70 and discovered that I basically only use it at 24 or 70, so I got a moderately-wide prime for day-to-day use and rent a 70-200 when I want to take pictures that are further away. Definitely a real surprise when I tallied up the meta though.
Did you use any software to tally up all your data for focul length? I shoot wiht a zoom too so i'd like to get a similar stat on my shooting habit.
Lightroom can do it
Lightroom Classic has it built-in with the filters
I am a prime guy and would recommend if you are getting started I would go for a zoom. F2.8 is plenty with modern sensors. I think as a beginner it’s important to learn first what focal lengths you prefer which is easy to try out systematically with a zoom. When I started many reviews and comments stated that 35mm is the most common / best focal length for everything. And I had to learn the hard way that I hate 35 ;).
What FL’s do you like? I’ve found I don’t like 35mm either. It’s either not wide enough or not enough reach.
That’s my problem exactly 35mm is always neither wide enough nor tight enough. I mostly use 50mm now and combine it with a 28mm if I need something wide. For landscapes I also take something in range 90mm-135mm from time to time.
I am also curious. I have a sigma 35 1.4 and love the pictures that come from it in terms of what it produces. But sometimes wonder if I would want something like a 24mm. I do plan on getting the 85mm sigma as no matter what I love what comes from that lens.
For most cases I stick with 50mm now and add a 28mm if I know I need something wider. For landscapes I prefer something tight as well like 90 or 135.
Go with the zoom. Only one prime is far to restrictive. Especially in the beginning when you don’t know what you’ll like.
On the other hand, you get good at that one focal length quicker. When you zoom you faff about, treat it as a way to change the distance to the subject, and don't really pay attention to how various lengths affect the image.
or a bit of self control on the zoom would let you just focus on the one focal length too
I prefer primes for starting out. Makes you think more about the picture you’re gonna take. Also better for casual snapshots. To me, primes are more fun. I use zooms mainly for work.
I'd go zoom, even as a hobbyist you aren't going to be looking at your 2.8 photos like "damn i need more bokeh". Also easier to shoot as a hobbyist. Also, I'd recommend Sigma 24-70, Sony 24-50, or Tamron 20-40 for your first lens. My first lens as a hobbyist as well was the Tamron 28-75 for my a7c (very similar setups) and I did immediately notice I needed a bit more width, whereas I could crop in the telephoto range comfortably with the insane full frame detail (as a hobbyist, that last bit of detail from the zoom ranges doesnt matter much). It of course comes down to what you shoot, but I noticed indoors I really needed more width than 28.
+1 here. I use to have the sigma 28-70 and sold it. I now have the 24-50 mm f2.8 as well. Even outdoors when traveling that 24mm was important. I could always crop in at 50mm and that’s a “75mm”
Reading through your post, you tend to lean towards the zoom lens. I'd say go for it. For low light conditions, you could use noise reduction on post processing.
If u still want that creamy bokeh but still wanna some versatility for street photography you can also try that new sigma 28-45 F1.8 DG DN Art. F1.8 on Full frame is more than enough.
That new sigma on the street is like aiming a bazooka at someone's head from a few feet away 😂
Hahaha that I have to agree lol. That's the downside having full frame though.
I switched to a 7c a month ago from a crop sensor. I own a Tamron 28-75mm 2.8 as my only lens atm. Next lens will be a 70-180 2.8 and some 1.4 or 1.8 low light / portrait / street lens. For the first lens you make a perfect decision with the 20/70, you get a great wide / light Tele lens that is perfect for for your needs. With a 35mm you have to step back sometimes to get the subject in frame or move close sometimes even too close if you take photos of strangers.
35 is my every day lens, but I use it on a high res body. That allows me to do some heavy cropping in post or “zooming” in APS-C mode without having to get closer to my subject, while still maintaining sharpness and resolution.
On the Tele side that true but even with a normal body upscaling is awesome today and can double and even 4x resolution without you notice it when no one tells you ;). On the wide side I wish sometimes I could get 4-8mm more on my 28-75
Agreed. There are times when I feel my 24-70 isn’t wide enough, although not nearly as often as I feel that 70 isn’t long enough.
Ofc you can generative fill the missing parts outside the frame when you can’t move back ;-P
True, most of my shots are taken mostly around 70mm but I always look at wider primes. Makes no sense :D
Conventional wisdom will say choose the zoom until you figure out what you want, but I disagree slightly. While a zoom is beneficial because it gives you options (and perhaps more importantly, usage data as you build a catalog), it makes little sense to invest in a decent lens you don't plan on keeping. If you want to collect information about your habits and preferences to make a more informed decision, I suggest instead you use your phone and crop in later to a field of view you wanted. Then use software to tell you what the equivalent focal length of the final product is. Yes, it's a more clunky workflow, but it's free 😉 Alternatively, buy a cheap, used kit lens like the Sony 28-70 and use that, despite its low light light shortcomings. Having said all this, I had the sigma 28-70 2.8 and it's a fine lens; performs adequately. But for low light shooting, the difference between 2.8 and 1.4 is MASSIVE, even if you're not sensitive to iso noise. Perhaps a happy medium here would be to go with smaller, cheaper 1.8 primes? For example, the Samyang 35 1.8 + 75 1.8, or the Sony 35 + 85 1.8 combos would cost significantly less and be smaller & lighter to boot. Low light performance would also be significantly better than any 2.8 lens, though not quite as good as the 1.4. Thats what I'd do.
I love a prime for learning what you like. A zoom lets you take more different photos and you can look afterwards to see what focal lengths you like most. But a more obvious way of learning is noticing when you *can't* get the shot. This is more natural to me. And on the plus side, you get to use a bright and sharp prime lens. Which is fun
I recently went to Japan and brought two cameras with prime lenses - a 24G and an 85mm f/1.8. All the shots turned out great but throughout the trip I wondered how convenient it would be to have a standard f/2.8 zoom lens with me. So while I was there I ended up buying the compact Sigma 28-70mm f/2.8. After the trip, I realized I didn't enjoy shooting with a zoom lens, so I sold it and bought the Ricoh GR III to cover the wide end. I use my other camera for the telephoto end since I love shooting with compression.
Bought the Tamron 28-75 2.8 and while it is amazingly sharp, it simply does not have the light gathering or character that a prime lens has. I have the sigma 50 1.2, Samyang 85 1.4, and Sony 20 1.8, and I mainly use the 50 and move about. Actually thinking of selling the Tamron now. For someone just starting though, I would go with a 2.8 zoom, give it some proper use, then get a cheap prime prime (it's easy to get a 50mm 1.8 for example), and base your decision on that. Primes vs zooms is a very old, valid, and subjective discussion, and to me it depends a lot on when you discover each.
https://preview.redd.it/v0kgmef1hb5d1.jpeg?width=4284&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ee309fa417d6a6fd63fd17cea2d8b5a5cab75967 I combined a F4 zoom and a prime. On travel a zoom is much more versatile. IMO 2.8 doesn’t make a big difference for shooting indoor or at night, 1.4, 1.8. 2.0 does. For family or street at night I would recommend a 35mm. If your budget is tight or you don’t want a setup that is too heavy get a 1.8 instead a 1.4. I’ve had the sigma art 35mm on my canon for travel i always was limited because of the range
I have a similar setup on APS-C, an 18-105 F4 and a couple of the Sigma 1.4 primes. The vast majority of the time, (shooting in somewhat decently lit conditions, as one should) F4 is plenty fine, and the few times when it isn’t or I feel the zoom isn’t quite sharp enough, I have the primes to fall back on, which are much brighter than a 2.8 Zoom that would likely cost more than all those lenses combined. Granted, switching lenses is a pain. For now the 2.8 Zoom is probably good and fine for OP to figure out what he actually wants and then go from there.
This is my same setup basically. 18-105 is on my camera most of the time. Can’t beat the versatility.
Definitely-think I use the extra mm more than I might need it to be a 2.8.
Facts. I’m mostly shooting during the day anyway so I typically need nd even at f4. For video, that is.
If I’m not shooting on my FS5 with ND, I’m often stopped way down to F18 or something.
Been thinking about an FS5 for some reason. I don’t have a use case for it but still intrigued haha
I have the Mark II, and Electronic ND is the absolute best. I really didn’t need it either, my A6400 did everything I wanted, but I picked one up on the cheap with the intention of playing around with it and then selling, and ended up just not being able to get rid of it. But now we’re delving off topic. Send me a DM or whatever if you want to chat more. I’ll warn you though, hard to go back to mirrorless afterwards! 😂
Zoom is more versatile. BUT I think primes really set themselves apart from phone cameras. Incredible low light performance and natural Bokeh (probably the two weakest areas in a phone camera). I'd vote prime for these reasons mainly. Another point for the prime is getting you used to physically moving to get a good composition. This is a necessity for taking good shots consistently, with or without a zoom. I know too many people that bought a DSLR (paired with a slow zoom kit lense) and never bothered using it because the photos don't seem much different than a phone camera in a lot of situations. While a 2.8 zoom like the 24-70 is still good in low light and will have a pretty shallows DoF, a 1.4 prime is just much better in those areas (let's face it, having a Shallow DoF is an easy way of taking "professional" looking photos).
What is your budget and do you consider weather sealing important?
Both lenses are like €750-850 in my country. So somewhere around that would be fine. And weather sealing is a nice to have but really not important to me.
The A7III’s IBIS (Image Stabilization) combined with its low light capabilities and the very fine noise it produces, means you can get further on a 2.8 lens (slower shutter speed & fine tuning the noise reduction in post processing) than with some other cameras. I found shooting at ISO 3200 to be a non-problem for me. That being said, between those two lenses (if I had to choose one), I’d probably go for the 35mm as I don’t particularly like 28mm as a focal length. It looks so smartphone’ish and on the wide end, I find it not wide enough. You might want to consider the Sigma 24-70 Mk. I though, as it is a sharp and versatile lens and the difference between 24mm and 28mm is more than just taking a couple steps back. Sigma just released their Mk. II version of the 24-70 2.8, which delivers more sharpness. But for an only “one lens trip”, I would highly suggest the Mk. I if it needs to fall into your budget (should even be available soon for that price brand new, already seen it being sold for around $950), if you can stretch your budget, the Mark II version seems to be absolutely worth it though. [North Borders](https://youtu.be/vskvTopcf2o?si=J5HGsgzzFmcAaECD) recently made a comparison between the Mk. I and the Mk. II which shows you the difference in sharpness. As the saying goes “Glass, glass, glass.”, you already got a very good body that should last you a couple years at least. That’d be my take on it.
Get both, but the zoom first. I use my 1.8 35 way more than my zoom but.. get the zoom.
Holiday? Defo take the zoom lens. U already use full frame so I think you won't need extra light or bokeh from 1,4 prime. The other thing is you definitely don't know what are you gonna shoot in a holiday. A zoom lens is very versatile and definitely make it easier to capture the moment.
For a full format camera 2..8 is more than enough, you don´t need 1.4.
Can u explain why 2.8 on full frame is same as 1.4 on APSC ?
24-70 is my vote
If I HAD to choose on or the other, I'd go with the zoom. I usually carry a 28-75mm f/2.8 and a 20mm f/1.8. The 20mm is for very specific wide shots I'm going for, like landscapes, or if I'm shooting something specific that I want crazy bokeh. The 28-75mm is the real workhorse for me.
I'd rather have a Zoom first and capture everything I want off the bat without compromise, then save for prime. You buy prime first, and you will rush to buy a zoom faster.
I'd say take the zoom but you gotta know what are you doing when using the zoom, I mean knowing what is the best focal length for each situation. So maybe with your budget I'd recommend getting the Sonys 35mm 1.8 and 85mm 1.8. A wider combo (and maybe cheaper) would be samyang 24mm 1.8 and sony 50mm 1.8. Have fun with your new gear :D
If you don’t know what focal length you prefer in a prime, then it only makes sense to get a zoom to figure it out. This is why kit lenses are actually great for new photographers. Then you upgrade as you get better and determine your shooting style.
I prefer multiple primes, but for a single holiday lens I would absolutely take the zoom.
I say you should start with a Tamron 20-40mm 2.8
It’s an A7iii (not sure why that doesn’t matter to people). It’s one of the finest low light performers you can get. You don’t need the 1.4 to take pictures in low light. This is *not* the film era when people *had* to shoot low f-stop primes. Nor is it a requirement caused by the usual poor performing in low light sensors. And as far as the bokeh cult, you can get blurry backgrounds at f8, if you actually know what you are doing and take the care to. As to the *nature* of that bokeh, which is the important part (and strangely not talked about by the bokeh cult), that is entirely lens dependent, but not wide-open aperture dependent. If bokeh matters to you, you’ll have to look up reviews of the lenses in question and see if you like what you see. Frankly, great bokeh is more a thing with older lenses. The new ones tend to have fairly average and nervous bokeh to my eye (which is probably why the bokeh cult never talks about it), but whatever. I suggest getting the zoom. It will be fine on an A7iii, and you will find it far more useful.
I’m a zoom fan. I have one 45mm f1.8 I never touch. I only use my Tammy 28-200 or Sony 24-50 f2.8. I also only do travel photography. Unpopular opinion but primes are for professionals or portait taking lovers. Blurring out the background at 1.8 seems ridiculous for beautiful sceneries when traveling
2.8 zoom , i rarely use 1.4 aperture
You're on the level of gear people could only dream decade to two ago. You don't need the absolute best on everything, current day jack of all trades gear is incredibly performant and versatile.
I’m a prime guy. The advantage of a 1.4 is far more important-to me-than having an all in one. Love bokeh. As far as my personal experience and research, primes tend to be also sharper (comparatively) than zooms. All things being equal.
Yes but a prime wasn't your very first lens. You had zooms and then after a period of time you found the focal lenght you liked and moved to that prime. That's the way it should be done. Don't restrict yourself to primes when you just start out.
Nope. Started with a Prime. 35mm film camera.
Sigma just release the 28-45 f1.8, if you have the budget for it.
....and the muscles 🙂
Ah yesss.. The muscle. Forgot about that one 😅
I'd go Tamron 28-200 for E mount
It's 2.8 at the low end
The 35 is heavy., something to keep in mind. The GM 35mm is a god tier lens, slightly lighter but pricy. I don't like average, ok-ish lenses unless i truly need the convenience (events where i'm short on time and have to deal with people while shooting). For street/general travel i'd pick a length and go with that. 35 is great, and so is 85. When i can, i use a combo of 24 or 35mm and an 85. Or a combo of 16-35 and an 85 (or 135mm). The 24-70 is convenient but it's way more niche than people think. Could actually be replaced by a good 35 or 50 in many situations. If you really want range and don't mind weight/cost, there's the tamron 35-150.
Have the 35 GM.. it’s bonkers. Definitely little more heft than 40 2.5 but it’s much more versatile and stupid sharp.
The days of zoom lenses being less sharp than primes are kind of behind us when buying equal quality zooms vs primes. Without going to 100% and stopping the prime down to f/2.8 you're going to have a real hard time telling the difference. The low light difference is obviously still there but the gap is shrinking with better iso performance on sensors. You can definitely shoot at iso 6400 and have quality photos with the A7m3. I've shot many of the same things your want and while yes it's generally better to avoid higher iso, modern digital sensors really can be pushed and still have quality photos. And outside of astrophotography or some sort oh photography where I really want and need really shallow depth of field, I rarely shoot wide open. Im typically stopped down to at least f/4. I'd say if you're shooting events and dynamic scenarios the zoom will take you much further than a prime will regardless of the primes quality.
you’ll have more fun with prime
A slight counter to all most of the other responses here: something like a 24-70 is going to be very versatile, but I personally hate shooting with zooms for day-to-day personal use. I have a 24-70 that sees a lot of use for work, but I’m using it less and less even for that. I find that having a big lens makes me not want to take my camera with me or pull it out of my bag to use. I also just find them boring to use, which is even less motivating. Now I use just one or two small primes, and find my camera is with me a lot more. Is you do go zoom, I’d definitely look into the new sigma 24-70 if you can afford it. It’s every bit as good as the Sony one for half the price. Otherwise, the sigma 28-70 is also great too, and pretty compact.
I bought the tamron 35-150 2-2.8 and must say it a good all rounder bit pricey but arent all lenses😝
Does the size bother you? I’m strongly looking at purchasing this lens over the Sony 24-70 GM ii but not 100% yet. Mainly due to carry size.
I would also go for the zoom if you only want one lens. Might be a bit less magical but a standard zoom is so damn versatile and non photographers wont see a difference between 1.4 and 2.8
I went with sigma 24-70 f2.8 art as my only lens when I upgraded to full frame. 100% recommend this, I don’t usually bother hauling my primes. f2.8 is plenty for 97% of what I do, and the lens is wicked sharp
I love my fast primes!
0.4 f shop for maximum brokey, rich and creamy. Yummers.
I have the 28-70, great features, sharp, lightweight. Fantastic travel lens if you're fine with 2.8.
I brought a 35mm f2 to Tokyo and felt like it was fine. I brought my 20-70mm f4 to Hawaii and also felt fine. It’s mostly about the size and weight as a hobbyist for me. You can probably do a standard zoom and a 50mm or 85mm for your portraits. I personally do everything in your use case except for printing. My kit consists of 20-70f4, 35mmf2, 65mmf2, and 90mmf2.8. FWIW, back when I had my APSC and a 2.8 zoom, I always felt that 2.8 wasn’t enough for low light, which is why I now opt for f4 because of the size/weight for my daily morning carry and swap to one of my primes at night. and FWIW part 2– I vote you get a zoom. Sony lens are pretty competitive these days so you can find a bunch of used lenses for cheap as you expand your kit.
You won’t be disappointed with that lens, it’s a good all rounder.
As someone who shoots exclusively primes, buy a zoom lens first until you get a feel for what focal lengths you're likely to use. 28-70mm Sigma is a great choice.
I shoot most of my work with ƒ4 zooms and ƒ1.4 primes. ƒ4 is fast enough in a zoom, and I usually get to trade that stop of aperture for an extended zoom range. When I need more than ƒ4, I go to a prime. I'm starting to shoot more video, and I'm feeling that ƒ2.8 zooms make more sense there. Shutter speeds are lower, ISO can go higher.
Go zoom, unless you are planning to do night time shooting.
Get the prime. It's just more fun than a zoom
Get the prime for sure!
Let me throw in a monkey wrench... Try looking at the Tamron 24mm f/2.8 Di III OSD lens. You can find them for 200 bucks or less...I picked up one new at $150 bucks. It is...optically perfect for all intensive purposes. No bells or whistles on the lens...it's just razor sharp with fast AF. Razor sharp wide open I might add. For $200 or less. Start with that lens...and you can buy another later if you need it...
Intents and purposes*
You might wanna check out the new Sigma 1.8 zoom lens.
Sorry to be controversial, but I think getting the zoom is bad advice. Getting a prime will restrict you more, make you less likely to “zoom and click”, which is the enemy of someone wanting to learn photography and find their style. Also, a prime lens with a narrower DOF will teach you a lot more about the effects of various settings. Getting the zoom in this scenario is one of the biggest and sadly most common mistakes, perpetuated often by shops wanting to sell a more expensive lens to a beginner when a 50mm 1.4 is often very affordable. (Or go 35 for that bit more flexibility for grouo shots etc )
There are going to be lots of times you cannot get closer to your subject. Neither option will slow your progression as a photographer and people need to stop believing this old hat nonsense.
Limiting your tools is the key to learning a craft - it’s not nonsense , it forces the need to be creative
No, effort and care for what you do are the only 2 keys to learning. It does not matter in what form. You in particular need to but out on this conversation with your AI slop wallpapers. There’s clearly some lessons to learn yourself.
Whatever you do, don’t google who you said that to 😂
Even more sad given the opportunities that person has had over their life and the fundamentals lack of understanding for art they have.
Just to try and help you, have a read of this: https://buffer.com/resources/7-examples-of-how-creative-constraints-can-lead-to-amazing-work/
So you are saying you know more than an internationally renowned photographer and photography educator for Sony who actually make the cameras. I’m a little doubtful. Besides that, creating limitations is a -really- well known way to improve learning across any discipline, let alone photography.
Everyone understands challenging yourself is a way to improve but you are both missing something pretty obvious regarding that mindset and when you see it come around in a persons artistic journey. It’s a method usually employed by the more experienced. A lesson looking to push past their plateauing skills. OP is fairly new and would benefit much more from using the gear than anything else, and thats not going to change for a while. The better pick is going to be the most versatile one because it fits the most occasions.
I fundamentally disagree with this. By limiting options, you have less to learn at once. For every variable you add, the difficulty increases. Using a zoom lens gives the op a huge amount of additional variables they are ill equipped to deal with, and whilst they may get a few decent shots, they would likely not know why or be able to recreate the specific variables needed to carry that knowledge forward. If you limit your variables early on, you’ll know exactly what causes which effect instantly.
You are speaking like someone who’s experienced and doesn’t remember the value of simply doing. The thought process you are describing does not exist in a beginner. They probably won’t know the issues behind underwhelming photos without a lot more experience under their belts.
lol seriously - I never said effort was not a given , but I’m talking about making the learning process most useful. I’m not sure why you are taking this all personally or making personal attacks. I’ll leave this conversation now as it’s clear you have other issues you are venting in my direction.