Prime GAS

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by dbmiller, Jan 6, 2018.

  1. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    879
    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Went into the local camera store to see if they had any used E-mount lenses. Last time they had a 35/2.8, but I didn't think I needed it. It was gone now, only used lens was a 70-300.

    I have the 24-240, so there isn't much need for the 70-300, but I put it on the R3 anyways to check it out. I have now gotten so used to the faster primes! The 70-300 wanted to shoot at ISO 12,800! (I think I may have Min SS set to "Fastest"). So most shot were baad, but a few did impress me. 100% crop, 1/250th @ f/5.6, ISO 12800, 300mm, Eye-AF:
    18-01-05 A7RM3 Testing 0051.
    They have been very good to my daughter and me as we have purchased a lot through them. I could get the 70-300 for about $800, but they would only give me $400 for the 24-240, and I couldn't pull the trigger.

    But I really was looking for a wider angle lens to go with the 55/1.8 and 90/2.8. I have been debating saving up for a 16-35, versus a wide prime. They did have a new 28mm f/2, which I tested, and it is sweet. 1/125th @ f/2, ISO 800:
    18-01-05 A7RM3 Testing 0064.
    100% crop:
    18-01-05 A7RM3 Testing 0064 1.
    But I left in hopes they might eventually get a used one I could pick up cheap.

    To make a long story short, I also have a Sony credit card, and the bonus points for the recent R3 and 90mm purchases just came through. So I checked the Sony Rewards website, and the 20mm is available. I had also forgotten that the 28mm takes the Ultra-Wide and Fish-Eye adapters. I have enough points for the 28mm and one adapter, so I have ordered the lens and Ultra-Wide converter.

    Kind of makes me wish I had gone with the 85/1.8 instead of the 90 Macro for the small total package. Maybe I'll get that at some point, too. I'm getting spoiled by the faster lenses, although I still want to save up for the 100-400 and 1.4 TC.

    Now I have to decide if I still need/want the 24-105. And what priority is the 100-400, 24-105, and 85/1.8.
     
    Last edited: Jan 6, 2018
    • Like Like x 2
  2. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    Now I'm confused! (it wouldn't be the 1st time. :D )

    Did you mean the 20mm f/2.8? I thought this was an APS-C lens. Didn't think it would work with a full-frame body. (Unless this was taken in cropped mode or zoomed mode)
     
  3. roundball

    roundball TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 8, 2013
    USA
    FWIW, some time ago I went through a spell thinking / wishing I had all sorts of fast lenses...but based upon my experience with landscape / lakescape / nature / wildlife photography I do 99% of the time, I could count on one hand the number of times I ever actually need / use a lens wide open at its fastest aperture...DOF always trumps speed for the kinds of shots I'm involved with so I'm normally stopped down some regardless.
    Others mileage will vary of course...
     
  4. dbmiller

    dbmiller TalkEmount Top Veteran

    879
    Mar 2, 2012
    New England
    Crap - 28mm f/2 - I keep making that mistake. Fixed, thanks!
     
  5. WNG

    WNG TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 12, 2014
    Arrid Zone-A, USA
    Will
    Ah, OK. Nice acquisition!
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. DigitalD

    DigitalD TalkEmount Veteran

    366
    Mar 2, 2014
    Miami
    David K Fonseca
    The 28/2 is a great lens and practically a must have. It was square in my sights until the 35/2.8 from Rokinon came out. I love the photojournalistic style of shooting and a sucker for a good cheap sharp 35mm. So now I feel like the 28 is just too close to warrant a purchase. Especially now that they came out with the 14/2.8 which seems like a more logical step for me to go wider. But enough about me...

    I think based on what you have now the 70-300 or the 100-300 make more sense as the 'next purchase '. Personally I don't like to have to have too much overlap in focal ranges and the 24-105 covers all 3 of your other lenses. But at the same time I would assume the 24-105 shines if you want to walk all day and not worry about switching at all. It just comes down to what you think will get more use and what excites you enough to use it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Deadbear77

    Deadbear77 TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Sep 14, 2012
    Northeast Ohio
    Kevin
    I basically only shoot primes. I do have some zooms but native only Apsc. I just picked up the 85 1.8 and it’s ridiculously good.
    Paired with my voigtlander 40 1.2 it’s a great combo.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  8. TedG954

    TedG954 TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Nov 29, 2014
    South Florida and NE Ohio
    Ted Gersdorf
    I had also forgotten that the 28mm takes the Ultra-Wide and Fish-Eye adapters. I have enough points for the 28mm and one adapter, so I have ordered the lens and Ultra-Wide converter.

    I truly believe you won't be disappointed with this lens. Enjoy!
     
    • Appreciate Appreciate x 1
  9. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran

    814
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    The 28mm is a great lens, I bought that and the 55 1.8 with my A7R2 when I first got into Sony.
    For a while it was a somewhat underrated lens until folk began to realise just what a little gem it is and for a good price.
    I have the Ziess Batis 25mm and the Sony 35mm f2.8 too, I find the Batis has a certain quality and feel about it that the 28 doesn't have but the Ziess is a far more expensive lens, I find the 35mm possibly has better resolution but the 28 stacks up very well compared to it.
     
    • Like Like x 1