Sony A7r iv with Sony 16-35 and 100-400, landscape/wildlife

[orangeframestudio]

Hi,
Currently on hols in outer Hebrides and having a rest bite from the midges.. staring at my camera bag, size and weight... it’s just getting too much.
D500, 11-16mm, 18-35mm, 70-200 and 200-500. - filters, tripod, mavic pro.... water, back-pain-killers.
Thinking of changing over to the combo in the title.. for weight and miss full frame for landscapes - used to own the d800.
My shooting is predominantly landscape, so the 16-35 seems like a no brainier, although the 20mm 1.8 could be even lighter.
I like landscapes at 70-100mm on my crop, so thinking the 100mm end would work well, but main question is how people in real world situations get on with wildlife/birds with the longer end of the 100-400mm.. Birds being kingfishers and waders, and the occasional eagle, bird of prey etc.
I’m sure the subject of changing from dslr to Sony mirrorless has been done to death, but anyone changed to this specific combo of lenses also with any experience/pros/cons ?
Appreciate as with all photography it’s compromise and every one draws personal lines on where exactly that compromise suits them best,but it seems like a fairly full coverage light package even if throwing in a nifty fifty to cover for ‘normal’ pics.
Couldn’t find thread on this specific package - although making my way through the mega Sony thread also.

 

[Fuji Dave]

I think @snerkler might have the set up you ask about.

 

[mstphoto]

I'm a Sony shooter but don't have any of the gear you mention.
For what you want it for, it sounds an ideal package.
You can shoot in ASPC mode giving the 100-400 an equivalent of 150-600 at 26mp
Or, shoot at 61mp and the scope for cropping would be phenomenal.

I have the a7iii but for wildlife I use the a6600 + Sony 70-350G
Even the 24mp sensor produces amazing images full of detail when cropping tight.
Examples can be seen in my Flickr photostream

 

[orangeframestudio]

Great shots @mstphoto - love the heron on the rocks. I’m on dial up internet up here at about 0.5mbps so followed and will take a proper look next week. Not used Flickr for years, so need to get on there and search too.

 

[mstphoto]

Great shots @mstphoto - love the heron on the rocks. I’m on dial up internet up here at about 0.5mbps so followed and will take a proper look next week. Not used Flickr for years, so need to get on there and search too.

Much appreciated, Ben
I'm lucky that I live near to a river so I spent an afternoon experimenting shooting the Heron with a 6 stop ND filter to blur the water

 

[snerkler]

As above moved from Nikon DSLR (D850) to Nikon mirrorless to Sony mirrorless all in the hunt of weight saving to help with my fibromyalgia.

The A7RIV and 16-35mm f4 is a great landscape combo imo, sharp and relatively lightweight weighing in 1183g, compared with 1685g for the D850 and 16-35mm f4. Also, as mentioned above I can use the 100-400mm in crop mode giving me 600mm reach and 26mp. The Sony 100-400mm is a stunner of a lens, IQ Is superb. Definitely a better combo than the D850 and Tamron 150-600mm I had before. For tele landscapes you could also use the Sony 70-200mm f4, or even the new Tamron 70-180mm f2.8, weighing 840g and 810g respectively.

Then if you want a really small lightweight walkabout package you could use the A7R IV with Sony-Zeiss 35mm f2.8 or Samyang 35mm f2.8, crazy small.

 

[orangeframestudio]

Thanks @snerkler - didn’t event know there was a 70-400 also, will go and have a google and compare that to the 100-400, I know there is also the new ish sigma 100-400 but the lack of close focusing put me off a little.
I know you don’t buy megapixels to crop them out, but with the Sony iv it does seem to allow room for manoeuvre in carrying less lens. The samyang looks very good.

 

[snerkler]

Thanks @snerkler - didn’t event know there was a 70-400 also, will go and have a google and compare that to the 100-400, I know there is also the new ish sigma 100-400 but the lack of close focusing put me off a little.
I know you don’t buy megapixels to crop them out, but with the Sony iv it does seem to allow room for manoeuvre in carrying less lens. The samyang looks very good.

Sorry that was a typo (now corrected), I meant 70-200mm.

TBH that’s why I did buy the megapixels, as I said it allows more reach with smaller lenses

 

[Jase]

I did the move a while ago, I have kit that you mention and more.

Based on what you've said the combo I would go for is 16-35, 24-105, 100-400. I would go for the 16-35 2.8 if you can, not much difference in size/weight than the f4 but a better lens.

 

[LeeRatters]

It's not something I'd shoot in your style/interests, but it sounds a good simple setup in all honesty.

 

[snerkler]

I did the move a while ago, I have kit that you mention and more.

Based on what you've said the combo I would go for is 16-35, 24-105, 100-400. I would go for the 16-35 2.8 if you can, not much difference in size/weight than the f4 but a better lens.

But £1000 more used price

 

[orangeframestudio]

Thanks for the replies - yep, was looking at the 2.8 but the f4 does seem very close in quality from reviews. £1k is a serious difference, which could buy a dedicated Astro lens and other bits. Will probably play it on how well selling my current gear goes.
Not sure about the 24-105 - I know they do it in a kit with the body - but does obviously cover more range than a 50mm that I’d be missing, but don’t shoot much in that range

 

[MonkeyWRENCH]

Thanks for the replies - yep, was looking at the 2.8 but the f4 does seem very close in quality from reviews. £1k is a serious difference, which could buy a dedicated Astro lens and other bits. Will probably play it on how well selling my current gear goes.
Not sure about the 24-105 - I know they do it in a kit with the body - but does obviously cover more range than a 50mm that I’d be missing, but don’t shoot much in that range

You may also want to consider the new Tamron 28-200mm f/2.8- 5.6 as an alternative to the 24-105mm.

It’s definitely a cheaper, more versatile lens. It gives you a range of 28-105mm @ f2.8 to 4.5 plus you get 105-200mm as a bonus.

It’s sharp too with decent close focusing abilities.

 

[Jase]

But £1000 more used price

Buy cheap buy twice

 

[Jase]

Thanks for the replies - yep, was looking at the 2.8 but the f4 does seem very close in quality from reviews. £1k is a serious difference, which could buy a dedicated Astro lens and other bits. Will probably play it on how well selling my current gear goes.
Not sure about the 24-105 - I know they do it in a kit with the body - but does obviously cover more range than a 50mm that I’d be missing, but don’t shoot much in that range

I wasn't sure about the 24-105 either when I got it but it turned out to be really good.

 

[snerkler]

Buy cheap buy twice

More than happy with my 16-35mm f4

 

[nandbytes]

My landscape/travel kit on Sony is 24-105mm f/4, 16-35mm f2.8 and tamron 70-180mm f2.8.

For wildlife I use Sony 200-600mm.

But at the moment I am not landscaping or traveling so a bunch of it is on sale

 

[orangeframestudio]

Haha buy cheap buy twice.... maybe, but £1k buys a lot of petrol to get to photo locations to use it too
Not sure how stupid a question this is... but on the 2.8 vs 4, and the diameter of the filter rings, would vignette be the same using a wa lee filter holder? On my 11-16 on dx 77mm I can get to about 12.5mm, so appreciate it may be from about 18mm on the full frame, but wondered if the same?
@nandbytes im on a sell the old stuff first then x £‘s per month allowance from the boss, but will keep an eye on the classifieds too and convince her of any bargains that might ‘save us’ money!

 

[snerkler]

Haha buy cheap buy twice.... maybe, but £1k buys a lot of petrol to get to photo locations to use it too
Not sure how stupid a question this is... but on the 2.8 vs 4, and the diameter of the filter rings, would vignette be the same using a wa lee filter holder? On my 11-16 on dx 77mm I can get to about 12.5mm, so appreciate it may be from about 18mm on the full frame, but wondered if the same?
@nandbytes im on a sell the old stuff first then x £‘s per month allowance from the boss, but will keep an eye on the classifieds too and convince her of any bargains that might ‘save us’ money!

Very true, and the F4 version is not a cheap lens either. Also, with landscapes we tend to stop down quite a bit at which point the gap between the lenses narrows and it's even harder to justify the extra £1000

 

[nandbytes]

Very true, and the F4 version is not a cheap lens either. Also, with landscapes we tend to stop down quite a bit at which point the gap between the lenses narrows and it's even harder to justify the extra £1000

Well extra £700-800 if buying used. But it doubles up nicely for astrophotography too thanks to f2.8. I wouldn't buy the GM version unless you'll make use of the f2.8. the Zeiss version is plenty good for just landscapes.

 

[snerkler]

Well extra £700-800 if buying used. But it doubles up nicely for astrophotography too thanks to f2.8. I wouldn't buy the GM version unless you'll make use of the f2.8. the Zeiss version is plenty good for just landscapes.

It was used that I saw that was circa £1k difference, £700 vs £1650 both like new

Yep 2.8 would help for Astro, but for my uses the f4 is the easy choice

 

[nandbytes]

It was used that I saw that was circa £1k difference, £700 vs £1650 both like new

Yep 2.8 would help for Astro, but for my uses the f4 is the easy choice

Have mine (also mint) listed for £1410 in sales. Time to go pick up a bargain then

 

[snerkler]

Have mine (also mint) listed for £1410 in sales. Time to go pick up a bargain then

Well I’d expect cheaper for a private sale

 

[nandbytes]

Well I’d expect cheaper for a private sale

may be I should just give it away

 

[rob-nikon]

Hi,
Currently on hols in outer Hebrides and having a rest bite from the midges.. staring at my camera bag, size and weight... it’s just getting too much.
D500, 11-16mm, 18-35mm, 70-200 and 200-500. - filters, tripod, mavic pro.... water, back-pain-killers.
Thinking of changing over to the combo in the title.. for weight and miss full frame for landscapes - used to own the d800.
My shooting is predominantly landscape, so the 16-35 seems like a no brainier, although the 20mm 1.8 could be even lighter.
I like landscapes at 70-100mm on my crop, so thinking the 100mm end would work well, but main question is how people in real world situations get on with wildlife/birds with the longer end of the 100-400mm.. Birds being kingfishers and waders, and the occasional eagle, bird of prey etc.
I’m sure the subject of changing from dslr to Sony mirrorless has been done to death, but anyone changed to this specific combo of lenses also with any experience/pros/cons ?
Appreciate as with all photography it’s compromise and every one draws personal lines on where exactly that compromise suits them best,but it seems like a fairly full coverage light package even if throwing in a nifty fifty to cover for ‘normal’ pics.
Couldn’t find thread on this specific package - although making my way through the mega Sony thread also.

One thing about full frame mirrorless is whilst the cameras are smaller and lighter the lens generally aren't. Sensor size dictates the size and weight of the lenses rather than it being 'mirrorless'. Its surprising when you properly compare a kit bag that there isn't much weight or size saving.

For your needs I'd look into what you use the most on your D500 and then workout the full frame equivalents if you want to go full frame. I'd also compare the size and weights of the sony's against your nikon equivalents as I'd say there probably won't be that much difference where its like for like comparisons.

I moved from Nikon to Sony around 20 months ago, mainly for similar reasons to yourself.....weight and size. For landscapes I haven't really dropped that much weight (I use a 24-105), especially if I'm taking along the 100-400 instead of the nikon 70-200 f4. I've lost quite a bit of weight with the wildlife lens as I've gone from a 200-400 f4 down to the 100-400. That said I could have made a similar weight saving by swapping the 200-400 for the Nikon 80-400.

If you take lots of birds at 500mm on the D500 the 100-400 will likely seem a bit short. Lots of sony users now go for the 200-600 for the 600m reach but that a similar size and weight to the nikon 200-500.

I'm currently thinking about moving to Olympus from Sony. My reasons are firstly to reduce outlay in photography kit (I find I'm not doing as much as I did so having thousands sat in the cupboard does make much sense) but also to make true savings in size and weight. I know you don't get the benefits of a full frame sensor but Olympus is probably good enough for my skills and needs. On Olympus I'm thinking of the OMD-M1 ii, 12-100 f4 and the yet to be released 100-400. The 12-100 f4 would cover all my landscape needs in one lens whilst the 100-400 would give me more reach than I have now and be my go to wildlife lens. I've not yet made the move as my head says move and my heart says stay. Its a difficult choice but I want to enjoy be outdoors. I'm finding photography is now an added bonus and not the main reason I'm out. Over the last few years I've often looked and my camera kit and left it behind because I didn't want the hassle of carrying it. When you reach that point you have to do something drastic to resolve the root cause of the problem. For me I think thats size and weight.

 

[rob-nikon]

I’ve just done this comparison via camerasize.com, it’s clear there isn’t much difference when you compare like for like.


D810 980g
24-120 710g
Total 1690g

A7Riv 665g
24-105 663g
Total 1328g

Don’t fall into the mirrorless is smaller and weighs a lot less camp. Granted there are some camera/lens combos that will be smaller and lighter (the one @snerkler mentions is one of them) but generally like for like is quite similar.

 

[nandbytes]

I’ve just done this comparison via camerasize.com, it’s clear there isn’t much difference when you compare like for like.
View attachment 290334

D810 980g
24-120 710g
Total 1690g

A7Riv 665g
24-105 663g
Total 1328g

Don’t fall into the mirrorless is smaller and weighs a lot less camp. Granted there are some camera/lens combos that will be smaller and lighter (the one @snerkler mentions is one of them) but generally like for like is quite similar.

what happens when you add in something like 16-35mm options and the tamron 70-180mm
there are plenty of smaller options available not just some at the same time things can get as big as if not bigger than DSLRs. But in case of DSLRs there is really only some small options.

 

[rob-nikon]

what happens when you add in something like 16-35mm options and the tamron 70-180mm
there are plenty of smaller options available not just some at the same time things can get as big as if not bigger than DSLRs. But in case of DSLRs there is really only some small options.

Definitely, there are some options where they are smaller but its not a case of every mirrorless lens being smaller than its DSLR equivalent. The tamron 70-180 f2.8 is an interesting one as its a newer and different design to the 70-200 f2.8's on DSLR's and even the sony 70-200 f2.8. Changing the lens design, dropping internal focus and weatherproofing does offer the potential for smaller telephotos. They aren't compromises that everyone would be happy with.

 

[snerkler]

may be I should just give it away

I didn't mean it like that You said yours was a bargain, but I'd expect private sales to be cheaper than store as your price reflects

 

[orangeframestudio]

Thanks @rob-nikon good food for thought!

No decisions made yet, and there is a thought of selling my 70-200 and 200-500 and getting the Nikon 80-400 instead.
Obviously money does come into the factor a bit, and that would be the cheapest option and Use it with the d500 and 11-16. That gives very similar focal lengths to the Sony combo in the title. So it’s just a case of money vs the other benefits of moving to mirrorless. In Sony’s case there is ‘some’ weight saving and the cropping ‘power’of the R iv to be full frame but still get the most out the 400mm end in dx mode.
Not that there’s massive image quality issues with my current gear, but would expect the Sony to be about as good as it can get also.

 

[woof woof]

I’ve just done this comparison via camerasize.com, it’s clear there isn’t much difference when you compare like for like.
View attachment 290334

D810 980g
24-120 710g
Total 1690g

A7Riv 665g
24-105 663g
Total 1328g

Don’t fall into the mirrorless is smaller and weighs a lot less camp. Granted there are some camera/lens combos that will be smaller and lighter (the one @snerkler mentions is one of them) but generally like for like is quite similar.

Every little helps.

And with the A7 and possibly some other mirrorless cameras too you have the choice of using something like this.

Try fitting a humongous FF DSLR and any lens in a winter coat pocket.

 

[rob-nikon]

Thanks @rob-nikon good food for thought!

No decisions made yet, and there is a thought of selling my 70-200 and 200-500 and getting the Nikon 80-400 instead.
Obviously money does come into the factor a bit, and that would be the cheapest option and Use it with the d500 and 11-16. That gives very similar focal lengths to the Sony combo in the title. So it’s just a case of money vs the other benefits of moving to mirrorless. In Sony’s case there is ‘some’ weight saving and the cropping ‘power’of the R iv to be full frame but still get the most out the 400mm end in dx mode.
Not that there’s massive image quality issues with my current gear, but would expect the Sony to be about as good as it can get also.

There will be other advantages other than weight. If you are carrying everything it may be a case of cutting down what you are carrying and go for minimal kit. That may be a short term solution.

I did a comparison of what I was thinking of moving to to save cost, weight and size.


I was surprised there isn’t any real size difference. Of course I’m not comparing like for like as the Olympus will give more ‘ reach’ and only one lens/camera will be needed for landscapes potentially replacing taking two lenses. When I compare the cost saving against buying new Olympus to selling used Sony there isn’t as big of difference as I was expecting/hoping for. I was hoping olympus would be around half the cost but it will probably be a saving of 30-35%. I can see myself staying with Sony and just taking out one lens for landscapes. If I didn’t have the Sony kit already it would make the choice a little easier, saying that there is the niggling feeling of moving from a FF sensor to a M4 3rds sensor.

 

[orangeframestudio]

Well taken the plunge and ordered the a7r4 and 24-105 for now, need to sell a few more bits before the 100-400.
Then plenty of time to think about 16-35 2.8 vs 4 vs 14-24 sigma vs 12-24 Sony,
thanks for input above - seemed the best route to go.

 

[snerkler]

Well taken the plunge and ordered the a7r4 and 24-105 for now, need to sell a few more bits before the 100-400.
Then plenty of time to think about 16-35 2.8 vs 4 vs 14-24 sigma vs 12-24 Sony,
thanks for input above - seemed the best route to go.

Nice, the 100-400mm is a great lens imo.

 

[orangeframestudio]

Nice, the 100-400mm is a great lens imo.

yeah - apparently the new washing machine we apparently need is great too next months payday now for the 100-400