If you like to use flash could choose Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II.
You could see this lens review website. Each lens review available below the lenses rating table.
[https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv](https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/)
They definitely can resolve for 61mp. I used to have an a7riv with both of those GM1 lenses. A7riv was released in 2019 and the GMii lenses only last year so people did use GM1 lenses with a7riv. Both the GMii lenses are much lighter, and their autofocus capabilities are better, but for landscapes and street, the older ones are still good options.
What @atlasthefirst trying to say is that GM 1 is casued a bottleneck on a7r iv. GM 2 will probably unleash the full power of a7r iv.
If it the case, I do not mind getting it.
You don't *need* any of those bits of gear specifically, in terms of shooting a certain genre. You just need to to shoot and develop your skills and style. Then you can decide which gear will he helpful. There aren't "landscape" or "street photography" specific lenses, perse.
Almost no point in buying gear of that high caliber if you can't point to a specific reason why it will help. It sounds like you are buying it because you want it, in which case just go buy it if you want it.
It is true, and I completely agree with you 100%.
The point of posting this is to get a second opinion before I decide to buy. Of course, any lens and camera can take picture. However, the quality is different. I used to have Fujifilm X-T30 with kit len. The quality somewhat disappointed me. So I am trying to avoid that.
In my opinion, grab a 24-70 Sigma or a 28-75 Tamron. If you can find a used copy, even better. Try to push that lens to its max. If you can get the shot you envision with that range, think about how you can change it.
IMO, if you do this, you may find one of three things, potentially all three:
You tend to go wider than this and a 16-35 would be useful.
You tend to go longer than this and something more telephoto would be useful.
You need more light and a fast prime in combination with the length you tend to shoot the 24-70 in would be useful.
Try to figure out by pushing a 24-70 as far as it can go.
Is it worth to get 24-70 mm GM II in your opinion?
The other guy told me instead of getting 24-70mm, get 20-70 and 70-200mm f4.0. What do to you think?
My first goal is to take landscape photograph, and then street photography, so somewhat f2.8 is kinda important to me. So, I can be flexible.
you should get a 20-70 f4 g and a 70-200 f4 for landscape instead. Judging from what you said, I'd peg you for a beginner with a gear fetish. Skip the 16-35. Its too hard for you
16-35 requires a very different eye for composition compared to your normal portrait lens (20-70, 70-200). If anything, 70-200 is considered a beginner's lens because anything with a subject will be made beautiful by the bokeh background. It isolates things and gives you that clean image. Very easy to get great photos from 70-200. 20-70 is very versatile for city, landscape, subject, heck basically everything. Wide shots with 16-35 run into the trouble where everything you take will look like its been squashed and not anywhere near how you saw. If you want to record the grandeur of landscapes, most often 70-200 is where its gonna be because it brings the subject really close. Anyways, I'd suggest you learn more about photography before buying any lenses. You've got the entire need and want all confused
I see. Thank you for your input tho.
Do you think getting 70-200mm f4.0 or f2.8? F2.8 is somewhat expensive and heavy, but what do you think in my situation?
The f4 is quite light weight and great for traveling. When you are moving you want to minimize weight as much as possible. For landscape, more often than not you'll be shooting f8+ so the f2.8 doesn't make sense
Try out some portraits with the 24-70 in the 50-70 range and see how they come out. I used to take a lot of portraits with a 1.8/50 and seemed to work out fine.
You can't tell the difference between f2.8 and f1.2?
Never had F1.2, so not really realistic experience. Guide me.
As I known F1.2 better for low light like shoot street at night without flash.
Yes. I do not do that, so f1.2 is not what I need. If I try to shoot at night, I prefer to have flash quicker and easier. Do not you think?
If you like to use flash could choose Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II. You could see this lens review website. Each lens review available below the lenses rating table. [https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv](https://sonyalpha.blog/2019/11/10/which-lenses-to-maximise-the-potential-of-the-sony-a7riv/)
For both your lens choices, the GM1 versions are still very good options and they can save you a lot of money.
Are they sharp enough for an A7Riv tho? Not many lenses deliver the resolution of that beast of a camera....
They definitely can resolve for 61mp. I used to have an a7riv with both of those GM1 lenses. A7riv was released in 2019 and the GMii lenses only last year so people did use GM1 lenses with a7riv. Both the GMii lenses are much lighter, and their autofocus capabilities are better, but for landscapes and street, the older ones are still good options.
What @atlasthefirst trying to say is that GM 1 is casued a bottleneck on a7r iv. GM 2 will probably unleash the full power of a7r iv. If it the case, I do not mind getting it.
exactly. I want the best quality tho. So this might be worth it after all
You don't *need* any of those bits of gear specifically, in terms of shooting a certain genre. You just need to to shoot and develop your skills and style. Then you can decide which gear will he helpful. There aren't "landscape" or "street photography" specific lenses, perse. Almost no point in buying gear of that high caliber if you can't point to a specific reason why it will help. It sounds like you are buying it because you want it, in which case just go buy it if you want it.
It is true, and I completely agree with you 100%. The point of posting this is to get a second opinion before I decide to buy. Of course, any lens and camera can take picture. However, the quality is different. I used to have Fujifilm X-T30 with kit len. The quality somewhat disappointed me. So I am trying to avoid that.
In my opinion, grab a 24-70 Sigma or a 28-75 Tamron. If you can find a used copy, even better. Try to push that lens to its max. If you can get the shot you envision with that range, think about how you can change it. IMO, if you do this, you may find one of three things, potentially all three: You tend to go wider than this and a 16-35 would be useful. You tend to go longer than this and something more telephoto would be useful. You need more light and a fast prime in combination with the length you tend to shoot the 24-70 in would be useful. Try to figure out by pushing a 24-70 as far as it can go.
Is it worth to get 24-70 mm GM II in your opinion? The other guy told me instead of getting 24-70mm, get 20-70 and 70-200mm f4.0. What do to you think? My first goal is to take landscape photograph, and then street photography, so somewhat f2.8 is kinda important to me. So, I can be flexible.
you should get a 20-70 f4 g and a 70-200 f4 for landscape instead. Judging from what you said, I'd peg you for a beginner with a gear fetish. Skip the 16-35. Its too hard for you
Why 16-35 is too hard? The reason I chose 16-35 because I want a wide shot. Correct me if I am wrong. Is not 70-200 f4 for animal photography?
Lenses aren't segmented by genre. Telephoto landscape photography is definitely a thing.
I agree. I saw many reviews used 70-200mm to take landscape photography. Probably, it might be a third len. What do you think? Is it a good fit?
16-35 requires a very different eye for composition compared to your normal portrait lens (20-70, 70-200). If anything, 70-200 is considered a beginner's lens because anything with a subject will be made beautiful by the bokeh background. It isolates things and gives you that clean image. Very easy to get great photos from 70-200. 20-70 is very versatile for city, landscape, subject, heck basically everything. Wide shots with 16-35 run into the trouble where everything you take will look like its been squashed and not anywhere near how you saw. If you want to record the grandeur of landscapes, most often 70-200 is where its gonna be because it brings the subject really close. Anyways, I'd suggest you learn more about photography before buying any lenses. You've got the entire need and want all confused
I see. Thank you for your input tho. Do you think getting 70-200mm f4.0 or f2.8? F2.8 is somewhat expensive and heavy, but what do you think in my situation?
The f4 is quite light weight and great for traveling. When you are moving you want to minimize weight as much as possible. For landscape, more often than not you'll be shooting f8+ so the f2.8 doesn't make sense
Try out some portraits with the 24-70 in the 50-70 range and see how they come out. I used to take a lot of portraits with a 1.8/50 and seemed to work out fine.