Quality lens system for lightweight travel

tomscott

Photographer & Graphic Designer
If your interested in the A7/R here is a review on the difference between the 28-70 F3.5-5. vs zeiss 24-70 F4

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F3.5-5.6-OSS-Serious-contender-to-the-Zeiss/Sony-FE-28-70mm-F3.5-5.6-OSS-versus-Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Vario-Tessar-T-24-70mm-F4-ZA-OSS-both-mounted-on-Sony-A7R

Not much difference, the 35mm F2.8 looks stellar and is only 200g! but it is just a 2.8 for a prime thats not particularly quick. Expensive considering the 40mm pancake lens is not miles behind and is 1/5th the price and even smaller.
 
Upvote 0
Oct 18, 2011
1,026
81
DigglerDawg said:
My requirements probably extend further than I initially wrote, but they are secondary to the size/IQ priority (ie: I'll need something to take underwater and probably need 1080-60p too!). Landscape has always been my niche but I'm expecting much more reportage-style and even video opportunities coming my way too.
You might be able to kill two birds with one stone and consider a move to something like a Panasonic GH4. You get all the video features you'd need while still being able to landscape work, etc. And Panasonic actually has a decent upper end lens system (certainly not L's, but very good), not to mention all the legacy lenses you can use.

I use a GH2 and Canon FD lenses for all my video work, and a 60D with various canon lenses for my photography. If I had to shrink down my collection, I'd go exclusively Panasonic because its more versatile with video. And with all the speedboosters available, you dont even lose that much by going micro four-thirds over full-frame.

To a certain extent, I'm not so bothered by body recommendations; only if it is intrinsic to recommending a particular lens. As mentioned, my primary lens is a 24 T/S L II, followed by 16-35 f/2.8 L II, 100-400 L, 100 macro. I'd never forgive myself if I dropped these in favour of some that were massively inferior.
That said, you could easily get away with a 6D and shrinking your lenses. 16-35 could be downsized surely, as could the 100-400L. 24 T/S is hard to downsize, but if you were ok losing the T/S part, you'd be easily able to save a lot of weight. Heck, the 24-70 f/4L IS would cover the 24mm and macro in one, lighter lens.
 
Upvote 0

Rienzphotoz

Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Aug 22, 2012
3,303
0
Max ☢ said:
The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.
In my office bag I could carry my Mac Book Pro and Canon 5D MK III + 24-70 f/2.8 lens and a 16-35 f/2.8 lens ... but now I can carry 2 cameras (a7+a6000) and 5 lenses (10-18 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 55 + 85 with Metabones adapter) and a MBP in the same space. Lenses for the mirrorless cameras may not be as fast as the DSLR equivalents but they are a happy compromise.
Most people look at some camera/lens size comparison websites and come to incorrect conclusion that there isn't much of a difference in size, but one has to carry the mirrorless cameras and lenses around in bag to know the difference. What the mirrorless system does is reduce the overall weight and the space they occupy in your camera bag, plus you don't need to carry heavier tripods ... I now use Benro's MeFOTO Roadtrip tripod, (including ballhead) which fits inside my carry on luggage in the flight ... that's 2 mirrorless cameras, (1 full frame + 1 crop sensor), 5 lenses (with a FOV from 15mm - 300mm), 1 tripod with ball head, 2 speedlites and a Mac Book Pro as hand luggage in one single bag.
Only those who travel frequently can appreciate the flexibility and ease that such a setup provides ... also the resulting weight reduction only brings back the joy of being able to use the gear you want anywhere. Many photographers I know (including me) have carried lots of DSLR gear only to realize that sometimes the space and weight took away the fun factor of photography (bcoz on many occassions we didn't get to use the gear we carried), so we tried taking only a limited amount of gear only to feel guilty for not carrying a particular lens which would have been perfect for a given situation ... but the mirrorless system provides you with the luxury of being able to carry 2 cameras with half a dozen lenses along with a light weight tripod & a MBP as hand luggage ... now that is awesome. Yes, as of now the morrorless system cannot do everything what high end DSLRs or "L" quality lenses can do, nevertheless its a happy compromise, one which I am very happy with at the moment.
 
Upvote 0

Rienzphotoz

Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Aug 22, 2012
3,303
0
Rienzphotoz said:
Max ☢ said:
The A7 series certainly fit well the situation, but what is the point of using the exact same bulky FF-optimized lenses if the initial goal is to significantly reduces the overall system size and weight? The camera body size will be for sure smaller but not the lenses, so on the whole the size and weight reduction will be only minimal.
In my office bag I could carry my Mac Book Pro and Canon 5D MK III + 24-70 f/2.8 lens and a 16-35 f/2.8 lens ... but now I can carry 2 cameras (a7+a6000) and 5 lenses (10-18 + 24-70 + 70-200 + 55 + 85 with Metabones adapter) and a MBP in the same space (but this would not be possible even if I only carried my 70D & 5 equivalent EF-S lenses). Lenses for the mirrorless cameras may not be as fast as the DSLR equivalents but they are a happy compromise.
Most people look at some camera/lens size comparison websites and come to incorrect conclusion that there isn't much of a difference in size, but one has to carry the mirrorless cameras and lenses around in bag to know the difference. What the mirrorless system does is reduce the overall weight and the space they occupy in your camera bag, plus you don't need to carry heavier tripods ... I now use Benro's MeFOTO Roadtrip tripod, (including ballhead) which fits inside my carry on luggage in the flight ... that's 2 mirrorless cameras, (1 full frame + 1 crop sensor), 5 lenses (with a FOV from 15mm - 300mm), 1 tripod with ball head, 2 speedlites and a Mac Book Pro as hand luggage in one single bag.
Only those who travel frequently can appreciate the flexibility and ease that such a setup provides ... also the resulting weight reduction only brings back the joy of being able to use the gear you want anywhere. Many photographers I know (including me) have carried lots of DSLR gear only to realize that sometimes the space and weight took away the fun factor of photography (bcoz on many occassions we didn't get to use the gear we carried), so we tried taking only a limited amount of gear only to feel guilty for not carrying a particular lens which would have been perfect for a given situation ... but the mirrorless system provides you with the luxury of being able to carry 2 cameras with half a dozen lenses along with a light weight tripod & a MBP as hand luggage ... now that is awesome. Yes, as of now the morrorless system cannot do everything what high end DSLRs or "L" quality lenses can do, nevertheless its a happy compromise, one which I am very happy with at the moment.
 
Upvote 0
Nov 17, 2011
5,514
15
Max ☢ said:
Dylan777 said:
Have you ever hand-on a7 series with their native lenses: FE 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm etc...?

I did try the A7 at my local photo supplier when I was considering this option, but I did not test the whole set of native lenses. Although you're right that these are smaller than Canon's L equivalent, I did not find the size/weight reduction significant enough for me to step out from my 6D+ L lenses system (sure, the difference would be much more striking with a 1D body).

Your comment made me curious enough to dig the aspect of size difference further, and here are some side-by-side comparisons (keeping the equivalent focal length and apperture as constant as possible) :

¤ 35mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.368,487.394,520.422,ha,t

¤ 50/55mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.306,487.87,520.408,ha,t

¤ 24-70mm zoom (135 format) range: http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,487.393,520.421,ha,t

In some cases (like with the 35mm prime) the Sony system is indeed very compact and even smaller than the Fuji X, but in other instances the size difference with the 6D is very limited. Now, what would be interesting is to compare how the Sony lenses fare compared to Canon's L in terms of optical quality. That could be something to do on DxOmark next time I have time for that.

6D + 40mm pancake makes great combo to walk around.

Interesting on the camera comparison. The site only show top view? I wonder, why don't they show front, back and side view ::)
 
Upvote 0

Rienzphotoz

Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Aug 22, 2012
3,303
0
Dylan777 said:
Max ☢ said:
Dylan777 said:
Have you ever hand-on a7 series with their native lenses: FE 35mm, 55mm, 24-70mm etc...?

I did try the A7 at my local photo supplier when I was considering this option, but I did not test the whole set of native lenses. Although you're right that these are smaller than Canon's L equivalent, I did not find the size/weight reduction significant enough for me to step out from my 6D+ L lenses system (sure, the difference would be much more striking with a 1D body).

Your comment made me curious enough to dig the aspect of size difference further, and here are some side-by-side comparisons (keeping the equivalent focal length and apperture as constant as possible) :

¤ 35mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.368,487.394,520.422,ha,t

¤ 50/55mm prime (135 format): http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.306,487.87,520.408,ha,t

¤ 24-70mm zoom (135 format) range: http://camerasize.com/compact/#380.367,487.393,520.421,ha,t

In some cases (like with the 35mm prime) the Sony system is indeed very compact and even smaller than the Fuji X, but in other instances the size difference with the 6D is very limited. Now, what would be interesting is to compare how the Sony lenses fare compared to Canon's L in terms of optical quality. That could be something to do on DxOmark next time I have time for that.

Interesting on the camera comparison. The site only show top view? I wonder, why don't they show front, back and side view ::)
Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.
 
Upvote 0

drmikeinpdx

Celebrating 20 years of model photography!
I love my 5D3 and fast lenses, but I hate to carry them very far. If I'm on vacation I want to relax and not feel like a beast of burden. Since I wanted to stay in the Canon line, I use two smaller Canons when I travel. For motorcycle trips where space is really tight, I carry an S100. For car trips, I use a T2i with the rather nice stabilized kit lens.

Although the images don't have the smooth, fine detail of full frame images, they are perfectly usable for posting on the internet, which is where most of my photos end up.

I look at these small format images as a challenge to my processing skills. For example, I recently started using Photomatix to do 3-exposure HDR images with my T2i. Although the two images below were taken with a light tripod, I've had really good luck doing this hand held using the exposure bracketing function of the T2i.

This is Diablo dam near Seattle:

p696513535-5.jpg

This is Dry Falls, also in Washington state. The tiny objects along the horizon are large grain silos. Who says you can't shoot landscapes with an APS-C sensor? LOL

p734800364-5.jpg

A center crop:


p424575978-5.jpg

Debating the best photo equipment for travel is fun, as there is no best answer. It all depends on what kind of photos you take, what you do with them, and how sensitive you are to weight and bulk in your pack.

One other thing I take into consideration is the cost and what happens if my equipment is lost or damaged. I get a little paranoid carrying my expensive gear on trips, but if something happens to my obsolete T2i, I won't feel bad at all.

Edit: my images got cropped to a square format by the forum software, sorry about that.
 
Upvote 0
Mar 25, 2011
16,848
1,835
Dylan777 said:
Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.

Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?

Its a appropriate response, the OP asked for other brands. What generates complaints is where a different question was asked.
 
Upvote 0

rs

Dec 29, 2012
1,024
0
UK
Mt Spokane Photography said:
Dylan777 said:
Someone will give me crap for saying this AGAIN and AGAIN. The Sony a7 series fits best in this situation, much smaller and lighter.

Once again Mr. Sony/Zeiss, where is FE UWA for landscape?

Its a appropriate response, the OP asked for other brands. What generates complaints is where a different question was asked.
If you want telephoto, the A7 cameras don't make much sense. Take the Sony 70-200/4 OSS, and compare it to the Canon 70-200/4 IS. The Canon is shorter, narrower, lighter, and under half the price!
 
Upvote 0
JumboShrimp said:
Canon SL1 with 15-85 IS. That's all you need. This gives you great IQ for the size, good image controls, built-in flash, and a lens with an equivalent of 24-135.

The EF-S 15-85 might be a bit long for landscape photography; the OP may need the 10-22 as well.

Rienzphotoz said:
Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.

I have no doubt that you can pack more lenses and camera bodies using Sony's system than the one from Canon, but this is something which is also due the particular size/configuration of your bag and how you arrange your lenses and cameras. So, this really goes beyond the scope of the comparison provided in Camerasize.com, which shows only the side-by-side differences between different camera+lens combinations and the actual gain in space is something that has to be assessed by the user considering his/her bags and means of gear transportation. Finally, unless camerasize.com got the relative dimensions of the cameras and lenses wrong, the information provided are in no way misleading - but of course this information does not garantee that the photographer will make the best judgment out of it...

The point I tried to make earlier is not that absolutely no gain in space/volume is possible by changing from FF DSLR to mirrorless FF systems (i.e. keeping the same sensor), as you say you can carry more lenses and bodies by switching from Canon to Sony. My point is that more gain in space is possible by going from a FF system, which intrinsically requires large lenses for a given f/ apperture and image quality, to an APS-C system - mirrorless vs DSLR has all in all a lesser impact on total camera+lens volume/weight than FF vs APS-C.
I am convinced that using an APS-C system with fully optimized lenses (top build and optical quality) can deliver a higher image quality in a smaller package than a FF mirorrless systems with reduced-sized lenses having a compromized design and construction.
 
Upvote 0

Rienzphotoz

Peace unto all ye Canon, Nikon & Sony shooters
Aug 22, 2012
3,303
0
Max ☢ said:
JumboShrimp said:
Canon SL1 with 15-85 IS. That's all you need. This gives you great IQ for the size, good image controls, built-in flash, and a lens with an equivalent of 24-135.

The EF-S 15-85 might be a bit long for landscape photography; the OP may need the 10-22 as well.

Rienzphotoz said:
Those camera size comparisons are very misleading ... in reality there is a significant difference in the space that a 6D+24-70 f/4 & a7+24-70 f/4 occupy in the camera bag. In the space that 6D+24-70 f/4 occupies I can fit in an a7+a6000 cameras and 24-70+10-18mm lenses.

I have no doubt that you can pack more lenses and camera bodies using Sony's system than the one from Canon, but this is something which is also due the particular size/configuration of your bag and how you arrange your lenses and cameras. So, this really goes beyond the scope of the comparison provided in Camerasize.com, which shows only the side-by-side differences between different camera+lens combinations and the actual gain in space is something that has to be assessed by the user considering his/her bags and means of gear transportation. Finally, unless camerasize.com got the relative dimensions of the cameras and lenses wrong, the information provided are in no way misleading - but of course this information does not garantee that the photographer will make the best judgment out of it...

The point I tried to make earlier is not that absolutely no gain in space/volume is possible by changing from FF DSLR to mirrorless FF systems (i.e. keeping the same sensor), as you say you can carry more lenses and bodies by switching from Canon to Sony. My point is that more gain in space is possible by going from a FF system, which intrinsically requires large lenses for a given f/ apperture and image quality, to an APS-C system - mirrorless vs DSLR has all in all a lesser impact on total camera+lens volume/weight than FF vs APS-C.
I am convinced that using an APS-C system with fully optimized lenses (top build and optical quality) can deliver a higher image quality in a smaller package than a FF mirorrless systems with reduced-sized lenses having a compromized design and construction.
I understand what you are saying ... but I was not saying the the dimensions provided by camerasize.com are incorrect, however they are misleading in the way they display the sizes by just giving one dimensional view.
Also, I shoot with FF DSLRs (2 of them) and a 70D ... I have owned numerous APS-C DSLR cameras "with fully optimised lenses (top build quality and optical quality)" e.g. Canon 7D with 17-55 f/2.8 L IS and Nikon D7000+D7100 with 17-55 f/2.8 lens and they were all bulky ... even if you put el-chepo 50 f/1.8 lens on a crop sensored 7D or 7100 they are still much bigger than a7 FF mirrorless camera with FE 55 f/1.8 lens or a FE 35 f/2.8 lens and the FF mirrorless will deliver superior image quality in a much smaller package.
 
Upvote 0