The subject refers to lenses with FL in the range of about 50-150 mm. The admirable GM 50-150/f2 is forbidding in cost except for well-earning professionals. It is, at over 1.3 kg in weight, too heavy for many. I wish a lens in a similar range with f4 and much lesser weight were available in E mount. We need a lens like Nikon 24-120/f4, in optical perfo. and compactness. I wonder if there are others who also aspire for such zooms in the Sony system.
Coincidentally, I looked at the 50-150 f2 GM yesterday, on the Sony website. My photography kit is in transition. With a recently added GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 camera system (FF equivalent 16-28mm), I would like to have a second camera that covers a range from 50 to at least 100mm and preferably longer. The 50 to 150mm would be nearly perfect. Thus, I looked at the Sony zoom, among the options, but there's no way I can use a white lens for travel photography. This would be insane, in my vocabulary. If a smaller and black 50-150mm f2.8 lens existed, I might have considered adding this.
Aps-c fans are lusting after a 50-150 sort, too. Something smaller than an f2. I'd expect it would be an ff lens, if nothing else to sell to both user groups.
murthyksk wrote:
The subject refers to lenses with FL in the range of about 50-150 mm. The admirable GM 50-150/f2 is forbidding in cost except for well-earning professionals. It is, at over 1.3 kg in weight, too heavy for many. I wish a lens in a similar range with f4 and much lesser weight were available in E mount. We need a lens like Nikon 24-120/f4, in optical perfo. and compactness. I wonder if there are others who also aspire for such zooms in the Sony system.
Luckily, Tamron already made a black 35-150 f2-2.8 which is a marvelous lens, and which should be perfect for your needs (unless you simply must have an aperture ring etc)
ruthenium wrote:
Coincidentally, I looked at the 50-150 f2 GM yesterday, on the Sony website. My photography kit is in transition. With a recently added GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 camera system (FF equivalent 16-28mm), I would like to have a second camera that covers a range from 50 to at least 100mm and preferably longer. The 50 to 150mm would be nearly perfect. Thus, I looked at the Sony zoom, among the options, but there's no way I can use a white lens for travel photography. This would be insane, in my vocabulary. If a smaller and black 50-150mm f2.8 lens existed, I might have considered adding this....Show more →
ruthenium wrote:
Coincidentally, I looked at the 50-150 f2 GM yesterday, on the Sony website. My photography kit is in transition. With a recently added GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 camera system (FF equivalent 16-28mm), I would like to have a second camera that covers a range from 50 to at least 100mm and preferably longer. The 50 to 150mm would be nearly perfect. Thus, I looked at the Sony zoom, among the options, but there's no way I can use a white lens for travel photography. This would be insane, in my vocabulary. If a smaller and black 50-150mm f2.8 lens existed, I might have considered adding this....Show more →
Knowing your long term use of the Tamron 35-150, how do you consider it deficient in that range. Is there anything about the 50-150 other than it is white that you find objectionable? Curios as I have a 35-150. For the 50-150, there is always the option of a black skin for it.
ruthenium wrote:
Coincidentally, I looked at the 50-150 f2 GM yesterday, on the Sony website. My photography kit is in transition. With a recently added GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 camera system (FF equivalent 16-28mm), I would like to have a second camera that covers a range from 50 to at least 100mm and preferably longer. The 50 to 150mm would be nearly perfect. Thus, I looked at the Sony zoom, among the options, but there's no way I can use a white lens for travel photography. This would be insane, in my vocabulary. If a smaller and black 50-150mm f2.8 lens existed, I might have considered adding this....Show more →
I have a couple white lenses that I traveled with…no problems at all. Why do you say traveling with a white lens being insane?
I don’t travel much, but fwiw I spent a week in Michigan with the GFX100S II, 20-35 and 35-70….and the a7R V, 50-150, and a couple other lenses. I pretty much exclusively shot the 50-150 along with the Fuji.
ruthenium wrote:
Coincidentally, I looked at the 50-150 f2 GM yesterday, on the Sony website. My photography kit is in transition. With a recently added GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 camera system (FF equivalent 16-28mm), I would like to have a second camera that covers a range from 50 to at least 100mm and preferably longer. The 50 to 150mm would be nearly perfect. Thus, I looked at the Sony zoom, among the options, but there's no way I can use a white lens for travel photography. This would be insane, in my vocabulary. If a smaller and black 50-150mm f2.8 lens existed, I might have considered adding this....Show more →
tschopp wrote:
Knowing your long term use of the Tamron 35-150, how do you consider it deficient in that range. Is there anything about the 50-150 other than it is white that you find objectionable? Curios as I have a 35-150. For the 50-150, there is always the option of a black skin for it.
Indeed, I have the Tamron zoom that I added when it was released several years ago. I have always liked the 35-150 f2-2.8. My first-world "problem" is rethinking the minimal travel kit where the newly added GFX100S II with the wide zoom GF 20-35mm F4 has taken a prominent place. I have been using this camera for the last 10 days in Costa Rica, and it is clear now that the wide zoom needs to be complemented by another camera system covering the range from 40/50 mm to 150 or 200 mm. Considering that the GFX100S II with the lens is about 1.6 kg/3.5 lb, I would like the second camera system to be relatively compact and light for travel (this is where my A1 with the 35-150mm f2-2.8 isn't an ideal option - I have no other concerns).
I also have two micro-four-thirds cameras, OM-1 II and G9 II. Despite all understandable differences between the FF and micro-four-thirds sensors, I have always liked the images taken with the OM-1 II and the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 zoom. Thus, this is yet another option at 760g for the lens. However, this zoom starts at 80 mm FF equivalent, that is a bit too wide. Two other micro-four-thirds zooms (that I don’t have) are relatively light:
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Elmarit 35-100mm f/2.8 ≈ 360 g (70-200mm FF equivalent), and
Panasonic Leica DG Vario-Summilux 25-50mm f/1.7 ≈ 654 g (50-100mm FF equivalent).
Sorry for the long answer. I expect that my "problems" are too niche for 99% of people on this forum. I am sure I should have two cameras for travel, and the GFX100S II with the wide zoom covers about 70% of my photography interests; thus, the other longer zoom system is complimentary/less important. I have another trip coming on Dec 16; thus, I can try traveling with the OM-1 II & 40-150mm f2.8 as the second system. Maybe this would work for me.
I get lazier as I get older. The GFX kit stays home when I travel.
Nowadays it’s the A1 II, 20-70, 35 1.4 and 70-200 GMII 2.8 with TC. 90% of the shots are with the 20-70.
My minimalist kit used to be A1, 17-28 + 28-200 Tamron but now I don’t even need a bag for most days. Just toss an extra battery in a pocket and go unless I know I’ll need the reach of the 70-200.
IMO the 35-150 Tamron is a great lens but I only use it for events. Pretty heavy and not nearly wide enough as a one and only for vacation shooting.
The only time I take the GFX kit is when I’m not getting on a plane and I know I’ll benefit from the nth degree of IQ.
liggy wrote:
I get lazier as I get older. The GFX kit stays home when I travel.
Nowadays it’s the A1 II, 20-70, 35 1.4 and 70-200 GMII 2.8 with TC. 90% of the shots are with the 20-70.
My minimalist kit used to be A1, 17-28 + 28-200 Tamron but now I don’t even need a bag for most days. Just toss an extra battery in a pocket and go unless I know I’ll need the reach of the 70-200.
IMO the 35-150 Tamron is a great lens but I only use it for events. Pretty heavy and not nearly wide enough as a one and only for vacation shooting.
The only time I take the GFX kit is when I’m not getting on a plane and I know I’ll benefit from the nth degree of IQ. ...Show more →
I am still willing to travel internationally with two cameras, with the total weight up to or around 3kg/6.6lb. As my interests seem to have shifted from longer to wider focal lengths, I tried (and still own) three wider zooms: 16-35 f2.8 GM ver 1, Tamron 20-40mm f2.8, and a micro-four-thirds Panasonic Leica 10-25mm f1.7 (FF equivalent 20-50mm). I liked the 16-35mm zoom the least. The Tamron is an o.k. lens, perfectly usable, compact and light, and my copy is slightly better than the Sony 16-35. The PanaLeica is an outstanding lens, throughout the entire range, however the 20 - 24 MP size of the micro-four-thirds sensors isn't ideal for the wider shots (not a problem for macro, telephoto and portraits, however, in my experience). I do like the 4x3 sensor format. The GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 tick all the boxes: the lens is outstanding, the IBIS is excellent, and the dynamic range, the image quality are arguably the best one can dream of. Thus, for now I am infatuated with the GFX system, and handling the 1.6kg/3.5lb system turned out not to be a problem at all; it is in a holster by my side, with a wrist strap attached for safety, and I can quickly take it out and use without much if a delay. Understandably, this experience is very personal, and I don't mean to influence others. In the few years that I have been on this forum, I came to realize how drastically different are the interests and preferences of the diverse FM community. Like, I cannot help feeling that there is something unreasonable about buying a white lens, then dressing it in a black skin. Others are o.k. with this. I care a lot about IBIS and image stabilization in general, while others are willing to use cameras without any stabilization.
If none of the Sony workarounds mentioned work, then perhaps just get the Nikon 24-120/4 Z and an entry level Nikon Z body to go with it.
Nikon also offer some features (like pre-capture and multi exposure) which is not readily available on Sony.
murthyksk wrote:
..We need a lens like Nikon 24-120/f4, in optical perfo. and compactness. I wonder if there are others who also aspire for such zooms in the Sony system.
liggy wrote:
I get lazier as I get older. The GFX kit stays home when I travel.
Nowadays it’s the A1 II, 20-70, 35 1.4 and 70-200 GMII 2.8 with TC. 90% of the shots are with the 20-70.
My minimalist kit used to be A1, 17-28 + 28-200 Tamron but now I don’t even need a bag for most days. Just toss an extra battery in a pocket and go unless I know I’ll need the reach of the 70-200.
IMO the 35-150 Tamron is a great lens but I only use it for events. Pretty heavy and not nearly wide enough as a one and only for vacation shooting.
The only time I take the GFX kit is when I’m not getting on a plane and I know I’ll benefit from the nth degree of IQ. ...Show more →
I picked up the 20–70 to complement my 35–150. The focal length overlap does bug me at times, but the 20–70 is light, compact, and delivers excellent IQ (I tried the 24–105 before and it felt flat to me). Ultra‑wide isn’t usually my comfort zone, yet when it’s built into a lens this versatile, I actually end up using it. My 20G hardly sees any action anymore, and as much as I love it, I should probably sell it so someone else can put it to good use.
ruthenium wrote:
I am still willing to travel internationally with two cameras, with the total weight up to or around 3kg/6.6lb. As my interests seem to have shifted from longer to wider focal lengths, I tried (and still own) three wider zooms: 16-35 f2.8 GM ver 1, Tamron 20-40mm f2.8, and a micro-four-thirds Panasonic Leica 10-25mm f1.7 (FF equivalent 20-50mm). I liked the 16-35mm zoom the least. The Tamron is an o.k. lens, perfectly usable, compact and light, and my copy is slightly better than the Sony 16-35. The PanaLeica is an outstanding lens, throughout the entire range, however the 20 - 24 MP size of the micro-four-thirds sensors isn't ideal for the wider shots (not a problem for macro, telephoto and portraits, however, in my experience). I do like the 4x3 sensor format. The GFX100S II & 20-35mm f4 tick all the boxes: the lens is outstanding, the IBIS is excellent, and the dynamic range, the image quality are arguably the best one can dream of. Thus, for now I am infatuated with the GFX system, and handling the 1.6kg/3.5lb system turned out not to be a problem at all; it is in a holster by my side, with a wrist strap attached for safety, and I can quickly take it out and use without much if a delay. Understandably, this experience is very personal, and I don't mean to influence others. In the few years that I have been on this forum, I came to realize how drastically different are the interests and preferences of the diverse FM community. Like, I cannot help feeling that there is something unreasonable about buying a white lens, then dressing it in a black skin. Others are o.k. with this. I care a lot about IBIS and image stabilization in general, while others are willing to use cameras without any stabilization....Show more →
There's no doubt that the GFX system just flat out delivers. The problem is all me. . Just too lazy to lug it around these days. I did find that I'd take more photos with intention with the GFX which was good.
@ramesesthe2nd - same here. My 20 G only comes out for nighttime / astro use now. Too good to just sell off though.
It's just that the 20-70 is so useful in so many settings without a weight or width penalty.
.
. Just too lazy to lug it around these days. I did find that I'd take more photos with intention with the GFX which was good.