Advice Wanted Lens recommendations for A7C?

Ming P

Regular
I got a good deal on a used Sony A7C, and it is arriving at the end of the week. I haven't bought any lenses yet. I'm thinking to sell off some of my less frequently used Micro Four-Thirds gear to fund one, maybe two, lenses for Sony FE. Micro Four-Thirds is still going to remain my primary system for the foreseeable future.

On Micro Four-Thirds, I shoot zooms, such as the Panasonic f/2.8 zooms, for convenience and primes, particularly the Olympus 45/1.2, for depth-of-field control.

With full frame, I could see fast zooms being shallow enough depth-of-field to not need primes, but I do still like both zooms and primes. In terms of weight, ~400 grams or less is ideal, ~600 grams is OK, and ~800 grams is tolerable.

My first lens will likely be a standard zoom. I'm considering the budget 3rd-party options: Sigma 28-70/2.8 Contemporary, Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2, and Sigma 2.8/24-70 Art. Price seems not too far apart and unlikely to be the deciding factor. YouTubers shooting test charts on tripods make the Sigma Art seem like a big improvement over the others, but I'm not sure if I'd actually see the difference in real-world use. I could tolerate the extra weight, if I were getting something good in exchange, but I'm not sure how much there really is. I could also think about a used Sony 24-105/4. I'm not sure how much I care about the extra zoom range at the tele end vs the extra stop of aperture. I'm inclined to believe that, if I needed more than 70mm, I'd probably also need more than 105mm.

I will probably get a tele zoom someday, but no rush. It will probably be the Tamron 70-180/2.8. It's not like there's really any other budget option. I suppose that a used Sony 70-200/4 is possible. I'm not sure why I'd prefer that, though. The weight is on the high side, but that seems to be unavoidable with large sensors and telephotos.

I'm also looking at primes. I'd ideally want one wide - 24mm, 28mm, or 35mm - and one tele - perhaps 85mm. Any recommendations? Samyang/Rokinon looks to be well-reviewed online. Anyone have first-hand experience there? I don't really need f/1.4 max aperture, but it could be nice to have. f/1.8 or f/2 is likely sufficient in most cases. Some of the f/1.4 max aperture primes have great reviews, though, and I could tolerate the additional weight.

I'm a bit conflicted about the Tamron 28-200. I like superzooms on paper, but the 28-200 is bulky enough that, for the same money and weight, I could be getting the 28-75 instead. Between the two, I'm leaning towards wanting the 28-75.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks in advance.
 
I really liked the Sigma 28-70. A notch smaller than the Tamrons(had both) and equal in performance imo.
The Tamron 70-180 is a very nice size and optically good.
The Samyang 85 1.4 was one of my favorites. Good AF, good sharpness, nice OOF render and fairly light in weight. Priced nicely also.
The Samyang 24 1.8, 35 1.8. 45 1.8 and 75 1.8 are all pretty good. The Sigma 24 3.5, 45 2.8, 65 2.0 and 90 2.8 as well.

Dustin Abott puts out great reviews. Check out his youtube channel.
So many choices. FE is a rabbit hole. Fun and very deep. ( :
 
The 28-200 Tamron is actually smaller and lighter than the 24-105 f/4 G. I have both, and I find it really difficult to recommend the G-lens instead of the cheaper and lighter Tamron. Pair it with the 17-28/2.8, and you're good for landscapes. No-one will tell you looking at a print that you've not shot them with red ringed lenses. If anything, some red rings might even be slightly worse optically.

The 28-60 is fun, it's small and light. But it's versatility is limited. IQ is surprisingly good, but I do find the rendering somewhat clinical. Something with the colours, maybe, it's hard to pinpoint the culprit.

For primes the field is really flooded. There's the Sony Zeiss Sonnar 55/1.8, Sony's own f/2.5 40mm and 50mm, then there's Samyang with their 45/1.8, and so on. For the wide end one wild card could be the Sony FE 2/28. It's a "character" lens, though, that's used and loved for it's rendering rather than for being superb optically. Basically it's soft at the edges unless stopped down to f/5.6-8. But it is small, lightweight and has the nicest bokeh I've seen for a 28mm. I love it... In the longer end one little thing that balances extremely nicely on the a7C is the Samyang 75/1.8. It also has a very nice rendering, though Sony's FE 1.8/85 is also nice yet still somewhat manageable on the C.

What else... Much choice.
 
You won’t do much better than the Tamrons, I love the 17-28. The 28-200 calls to me all the time, but since I have the 24-105/4 it‘s been put on the back burner.

I picked up a Samyang 35/1.4 a while back, KEH had some Like New factory refurbs with a full manufacturer’s warranty for in the $350 range. I think they may still have some. After a false start (the first one had a ding and wasn’t really ‘Like New’), the second one they sent has been excellent. This may be a good choice if you don’t need the extra FOV of the wider lenses.
 
Last edited:
Lots of great choices and it really depends on what sort of size you like and your budget. I had an A7C but sold it as it didn't offer an appreciable size benefit compared to my A1. When I sold the A7C I kept the 28-60 kit lens for its size and image quality.

I had the Sony 24-105 but sold it after getting the 28-200, the 28-200 wins easily for anything above 105mm:ROFLMAO: Honestly, I just didn't get along with the 24-105 but I love the 28-200, it really is very good, similar to my Olympus 12-100 in image quality and use.

For a constant aperture zoom, I like the Sigma 28-70 for its size and image quality. You mentioned the Sigma 24-70 which I also have but rarely use because of size and weight. It is an excellent lens but I definitely would not recommend it for an A7C, too big IMHO>

For primes, there is a choice for every size, quality and budget. The Samyangs are very good but they do feel cheap, which they are so I can't fault them. If budget is an issue, they are excellent. If you like MF, the Loxia's and Vogtlander's are tough to beat. The Loxia lineup has a rendering that is hard to beat. The Voigtlanders are excellent in their own right, both have excellent sunstars. For AF, look at the Sigma DG DN line up. They are well built, reasonably priced and a nice size. I have the 35, 45 and 90 Sigmas, all of them are quick to focus with excellent image quality. The 45 is a bargain and can be had new for $249 and under. The Zeiss 55mm has AF and is an excellent lens with a beautiful rendering, one of my favorites and it is small. You can probably find a nice used one since it has been out for sometime now. Don't for get about the much maligned Sony Zeiss 25/2.8. It is small, lightweight and again, IMHO, has excellent image quality. I hated the included lens hood but I found a JJC LH-LHP1 vented lens hood which I love.

My picks:
Sony 28-60
Sigma 28-70/2.8
Tamron 28-200
Tamron 17-28 or Sony 16-35 PZ(I recently got the Sony for the bigger range but both are excellent)
Voigtlander 21/1.4 or Loxia 21mm/2.8 (the Loxia is smaller but the Voigtlander is faster, unfortunately I have both :rolleyes: and can never decide between the two)
Thinking about picking up the Loxia 35/2 (they can be had for a nice price used)
Sigma 35 DG DN f2
Sigma 45mm DG DN (Adorama haș a used one right now in excellent condition for $199)
Sigma 90mm DG DN or the Loxia 85mm/2.4 (excellent lens)(AF or MF) but the Zeiss has that wonderful rendering and sunstars
Again, don't dismiss the Samyang/Rokinon lenses, they offer a great image/size/value proposition
 
I recently bought a brand-new a7c, and FE24-105 F4 G OSS. The combination can produce excellent images in terms of the clarity, color and sharpness. Nevertheless I am regretting about the choice of the lens, which is even versatile, but encumbers the handling of photographing more or less due to its weight. Now I realize a7c would be more efficient for use by vertue of its tiny size if it was with a compact/light prime.
I am considering the FE 55mm F/1.8 zeiss. Needless to say optically it can produce the same (even better) IQ as 24-105F4 can. It's inexpensive, solid and light. In super35 mode it's equivalent to 82mm F/1.8. This lens is recommendable.
Sigma FE65 F2 and Samyang FE85 F1.4 G2 are in my shortlist too. They are recommendable even cost a bit more.
MFT system is the excellent choice if it is with zoom lenses, which are usually lighter/compact compared to the ones for FE mount.
 
Thank you everyone for the input so far.

For whatever it's worth, I don't mind highly unbalanced lenses on rangefinder style bodies. For example, I rented the Olympus 12-100/4 before. At 561 grams, it was noticeably heavy but still workable. I'm not sure where the upper limit is for me.

I still have mixed feelings about the Tamron 28-200. As mentioned, I like superzooms, and it has great reviews. My only concern is that I intend to someday get the f/2.8 zooms. At which point, it feels redundant. Alternately, I could get the Tamron 28-200 now, skip a standard f/2.8 zoom entirely, and eventually get the f/2.8 wide and tele zooms. I don't know that that's actually a good idea.

Regarding the Samyang f/1.4 primes, are there significant improvements in the Mk 2 versions? I notice that both the 50mm and the 85mm cost a lot less used for Mk 1 versions. Those would be an excellent bargain, if there are no major pitfalls.

I mostly shoot autofocus. Sometimes I like some manual focus lenses, but they're so low on my priority list to actually own.
 
I still have mixed feelings about the Tamron 28-200. As mentioned, I like superzooms, and it has great reviews. My only concern is that I intend to someday get the f/2.8 zooms. At which point, it feels redundant. Alternately, I could get the Tamron 28-200 now, skip a standard f/2.8 zoom entirely, and eventually get the f/2.8 wide and tele zooms. I don't know that that's actually a good idea.

Regarding the Samyang f/1.4 primes, are there significant improvements in the Mk 2 versions? I notice that both the 50mm and the 85mm cost a lot less used for Mk 1 versions. Those would be an excellent bargain, if there are no major pitfalls.
Do you really need the speed in your zooms? Or would something slower but with a different zoom range serve you better? Depends so much on what you shoot. And for things like astro, a fast wide angle prime might serve you a ton better than a fast 16-35 zoom, and be much cheaper to buy.

The Sammy f/1.4 primes are a bit varying in nature. The 50/1.4 is reputed to be soft, Dustin Abbott has a thorough review on that. The mk II version is apparently much better. The 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 are both better, I had the RF-version of the latter before I ditched Canon and went with Sony. But I'd advise against f/1.4 primes on the a7C. The f/1.8 lenses balance so much nicer on the small body, and you're not really losing that much of anything else. I've gone back and forth through my lightroom catalogue to find if I would strongly prefer images taken with either the Sony 85/1.8 or the Samyang 85/1.4 over the other, but they're both great, though beware of shooting against bright light with the Sammy 1.4. One thing, though: the Sony is almost 200g lighter.

Capture.PNG


One thing I haven't tested, since I haven't had both of them on the same mount is AF speed. But in general f/1.8 lenses focus faster since they have less glass to move. There are exceptions, of course...
 
I have the Sigma 28-70 f/2.8 in L-mount and really like it. But I would suggest you check out the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8. It matches the A7c in terms of size and weight very nicely.

In terms of primes, Sony has a few nice ones for the A7c: the 24mm f/2.8, the 40mm f/2.5 and the 50mm f/2.5. Otherwise, there are nice options from Sigma, like the 24mm f/3.5, the 45mm f/2.8 and the 90mm f/2.8. Again, I have all three in L-mount.

Sigma also has a great line of larger f/2.0 primes: 20mm, 24mm, 35mm, 65mm. But they are a bit larger and heavier.
 
Do you really need the speed in your zooms? Or would something slower but with a different zoom range serve you better? Depends so much on what you shoot. And for things like astro, a fast wide angle prime might serve you a ton better than a fast 16-35 zoom, and be much cheaper to buy.

Mostly, I only need f/5.6, after accounting for equivalence. For a narrow subset of cases, I need the speed somewhere, though. Maybe I get the slow superzoom and fast primes. That's totally a valid option.

For an ultrawide option, an ultrawide prime could fit well. Those don't seem common, for whatever reason, though. I only know the Samyang 14mm and 18mm. (Depending on where one puts the ultrawide cutoff, there's also the Tamron and Sigma 20mm ones.)
 
For an ultrawide option, an ultrawide prime could fit well. Those don't seem common, for whatever reason, though. I only know the Samyang 14mm and 18mm. (Depending on where one puts the ultrawide cutoff, there's also the Tamron and Sigma 20mm ones.)
Well, there's the outstanding Sony 14/1.8 GeeMeister and Sigma also has an autofocusing 14/1.8. Then Laowa has a manual 15/2, there's the already mentioned Samyangs and a Zeiss 18mm f/2.8. And slower MF primes come from at least Laowa and Voigtländer. And Nisi. So there's that base covered.

But truth be told, the Tamron 17-28/2.8 and Sigma's new 16-28/2.8 are great lenses that cost not lots. So if those are wide enough for you, go with either one. I haven't used the Sigma, but from what I've seen there's - once again - little between the two. I have the Tamron plus a Nisi 15mm f/4 for times I want wider than 17mm.

If there's one niche I find not covered on the FE mount, that is tilt-shift-lenses. Those you have to adapt. Virtually anything else is there and plentiful.
 
I can tell you from experience of owning both the Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 and Tamron 28-200 to be exceptional lenses. Though I have never used the GM or Art lenses (being considered a tier above in terms of quality and performance) I have used the Olympus 12-40mm f 2.8 Pro and 12-100mm f 4 IS Pro.
The Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 is very very close to what the Olympus offers, very good close up performance, with 1:2.8 at 28mm and 1:4 at 75mm. The lens is very very sharp and beautiful bokeh and it's a lot easier to blur the background then the Olympus. The Tamron also has significantly less chromatic aberration, especially at the wide angle but it has more Loca in the background and foreground. I never had them compared side by side as I'm going by memory and RAW file editing from my backlog. In terms of size Micro Four Thirds are unbeatable when it comes to compactness and light weight. But I find the G2 size and weight quite reasonable though you do have the Sigma 28-70mm f 2.8 Contemporary if you want lighter and tiny bit smaller.

The Tamron 28-200mm f 2.8-5.6 is an amazing lens for the price and what it offers. Optically is a class bellow the Olympus 12-100mm f 4 Pro but it has its own advantages. The Tamron has decent close focus ability, it is sharp enough for personal and day to day use, especially at 24 MP. The lens is slightly smaller then the Olympus and very close in weight (the Tamron is a bit lighter). For Chromatic Aberration I find full frame lenses a lot better control even compared to the Pro line from Olympus but that's for lenses above the bottom of the stack like Chinese lenses (Tokina, Viltrox, etc).
Personally, I live this lens so much athat I would trade in my G2 for the Tamron 28-200mm. I will get the super zoom once I have the Tamron 35-150mm f 2-2.8 for professional work and it will be my dogie-walk lens.

I can also attest to the Tiny and Super Tiny Samyang prime range. I have the Samyang AF 35mm f 1.8 and I have owned the Samyang AF 35mm f 2.8 (sold it because it became a bit less used after I got my Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2).
The 35mm f 1.8 is very sharp at the centre and good sharpness at the edge, the field curvature is well controlled and can be used for stitching panoramas even wide open, the CA is well controlled in general use but it can display wider then 5 pixels in the extreme edges and very strong backlit situations. The AF is very fast but I can't attract to the speed or accuracy with a more modern camera like Sony a7C, I would expect it would be even better. The only disappoining thing about this lens is it's mediocre close up capability and IQ at minimum focus distance, the Sony FE 35mm f 1.8 is better at this BUT the reason I went with Samyang is that the coma is significantly better then Sony's counterpart and I do love shooting at night so the lights are more pointy then smeared.
Both Samyang lenses have a very beautiful rendition with a character to them, flawed yes but I can tell it apart from my Tamy zoom. By reputation (I read everything I could find about the AF range of Samyang) the Tiny f 1.8 range match and sometimes exceed Sony's counterparts, like the 24mm and 35mm. The pancake 24mm f 2.8 and 35mm f 2.8 are excellent options that are dirt cheap and fit awesome with a Sony a7C.

BUT saying all of this, if you want compact lenses that fit very well with Sony a7C, I recommend the Sony G primes that have aperture ring, as well as the Sigma primes with aperture ring because they fix the lack of front dial for dual control of exposure on Sony a7C. If you prefer shooting in Aperture Priorit or Program then they are less of an advantage compared to Tamron and Samyang.

I would like, in the future if Sony will make a Sony a7C successor without a mechanical shutter and use the 1st generation Sony a9 stacked sensor to keep the price down because I want ultimate size, lens interchangeable, silent and fast travel camera, the Tamron 24mm f 2.8 Di OSD for it's sharp output and 1:2 macro capabilities (for flowers and mushrooms) on the wide end, the Samyang AF 35mm f 1.8 for street photography and the Samyang AF 75mm f 1.8 for headshots and pet photography.
With the Tamron 28-200mm f 2.8-5.6 Di III RXD as a backup or when the weather gets wet or don't feel like lens swapping.
 
I'd be suspect of the 35/1.4 MKII being worth the hundreds of additional dollars over the closeout or good used prices of the MKI. I'm sure it's a fine lens, but using the MKI I can't imagine what they've improved to the tune of $400+/-. But as previously suggested, you may find the 1.8 a better match for that body.

I had forgotten about the 20-40/2.8 suggested by @Biro. This is a pretty new lens and is supposed to be in the same line as Tamron's other 2.8 zoom quality.
 
Thanks again, everyone. Here's an update for you.

I received the A7C earlier in the week, and briefly rented a Sony 40/2.5 for the holiday weekend. It's been great so far. This combination balances excellently. The viewfinder is admittedly small, dim, and clunky, but still usable. The flippy screen is excellent.

DSC00425.jpg
Join to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


It does make me think that I want some small primes, in the f/1.8 - f/3.5 maximum aperture range. I don't feel like I need an aperture ring. Thoughts on why to prefer the Sony (old FE 35, 85, etc.), Sigma (DG DN Contemporary primes), and Samyang (f/1.8 primes) options?

I still want the f/2.8 zooms someday, but maybe they can wait.
 
Thoughts on why to prefer the Sony (old FE 35, 85, etc.), Sigma (DG DN Contemporary primes), and Samyang (f/1.8 primes) options?
You get to say "I have Sony"? You get to spend more money? The big 'G' displayed prominently on the lens? 🤷‍♂️

I'm sure there's a difference between price points, but whether it's enough to matter is a personal decision. It still takes some homework to weed out any stinkers, but I worry more about that than which of the good lenses is that teeny bit better.

Love the shot, very well exposed. Great light, composition. I find myself wanting to look through the produce!
 
The main reasons to prefer Sony branded lenses is feature compatibility like a bit better autofocus and AF responsiveness for Eye AF, Real Time Tracking, Subject recognition. Weather proofing is a wash in terms of who has the better but Sony might deny weather proofing with other lenses that are not Sony branded and advertised.

I, so far, have found (and seen) that the high end Sony lenses are more clinical and over corrected in their optical design (something you migh prefer or hate). The mid and lowerend have less optically designed corrections but tends to give them a bit more character (personality/individualism) to their rendition.
Sigma ART are even more so as they are trying to compete for the best optical design to them, that's why they are big/er then most lenses.
Samyang and many other Chinese/Korean companies make lenses with a bit more character to them, which makes them quite a bit more identifiable in how they render the images.

The examples I can give you is my own research and decision to chose Tokina ATX-M 85mm f 1.8 over the Sony 85mm f 1.8 FE. The Tokina has smoother bokeh with more rounded bokeh balls in the specular highlights and less squishing towards the edge of the frame. But that is the opposite of the Sony 85mm's effect of swirling the background at close to medium distance from the subject. I prefer both looks but I have a Helios 44-2M 58mm f 2 for that.
Also part of the rendition character is the chromatic aberration of the highlights of a lens. Some have blue fringing and others have green fringing in the bokeh balls. It does give a look to the image that you find on the cheaper lenses because the GM and ART are correcting for those. But i am growing to like it on y Samyanf AF 35mm f 1.8, especially in nature shots where green is more dominant colour in the image. My Tamron 28-75mm f 2.8 G2 has greater correction on it but it makes the images look a bit more bland. Sometimes I correct for it myself with a brush adjustment with -66 to -100 Defringing in Lightroom.

I might consider getting/trying the Sony lenses one day when I need AF to keep up with running dogs in low light like forests, winter time, sunsets and sunrises. A trade of character rendition for reliability for paid work. For personal work such a trade is less needed.

For Sony a7C and aperture ring, the case is what kind of shooting style you have. If you like shooting two handed and shot Aperture Priority you might find an aperture ring invaluable because you have easy and quick access to DoF control at your finger tips. If you are like me and enjoy very shallow DoF but also the need for DoF control in street photography and architecture then an aperture ring compatible lens is very high on the list.
But if you prefer shooting one handed with your Sony a7C, if you shoot more in Shutter Priority or Program, if you use zone focusing and shoot mostly f 4 to f 8 then an aperture ring compatible lens would be a lot lower on the list to buy unless it (the lens) has other characteristics you need.
Sony 24/40/50mm G lenses are very sharp but quite a bit pricy compared to the other companies. The Sony GM lenses (whether it's prime or zoom) are very very pricy and probably needed by professionals or those who money is no objection in their life.
The Sigma DN primes are very very sharp (some even sharper then Sony, like the Sigma 60mm f 2 and 90mm f 2.8) but a bit less expensive then Sony lenses, though not by much because of their exception build quality.
The Samyang lenses are decently sharp and plastiky feel but they are very light, very cheap, fast focusing and full of character (every single one feels like a unique way to make an image). But the aperture control is more of a added bonus control with no indentation for each aperture value of a dedicated control ring and no way of telling what value it is at unless you look at the screen with the camera on.

I owned briefly a Sony a7C because it was the smallest, lightest, cheapest interchange 35mm FF camera AND with Real Time Tracking with Eye AF in both stills and video. Since last year the Sony a7 III has gotten cheaper then a7C (especially on used market). But I would still love to get the a7C back because it was extremely fun and a joy to use for myself and was amazing compact combo with Tamron 28-200mm f 2.8-5.6, awesome for travel and awesome for family/candid pictures.
 
It does make me think that I want some small primes, in the f/1.8 - f/3.5 maximum aperture range. I don't feel like I need an aperture ring. Thoughts on why to prefer the Sony (old FE 35, 85, etc.), Sigma (DG DN Contemporary primes), and Samyang (f/1.8 primes) options?
To be honest, I'd keep the 40mm, but that's just me. On the 35mm front the news is that you'd probably not regret getting any of the lenses mentioned; the Samyang is cheap and mostly excellent, the Sony is expensive but nicely built and has a really pleasing rendering, the Sigma is the sharpest of the bunch and built to a really high standard. I'd point you to the excellent reviews by lenstip and Dustin Abbott, but in short I'd bet you'd be hard pressed to tell those three apart looking at the images. There are differences, but they're all pretty good at being lenses...

Pretty much the same story on the 85mm front. Again, look for the Dustin Abbott shootout on the internets - there's little to distuingish them from each other. The Sony here is a safe bet since it's actually quite cheap for a name-brand lens, autofocuses well enough to track a three-year-old and is also rather lightweight and compact. But don't overlook the Viltrox/Tokina competition if you don't care about weight that much. A wildcard here is the Samyang 75/1.8 which is also an excellent lens at not much money. IMHO 75mm is a much easier focal length for indoor use, and the tiny size makes it better for candids. The larger 85/1.4 OTOH won't go unnoticed.

One thing I'll add in favor of Sony lenses compared to Samyang: in my experience of the lenses I've had, the Sony lenses handle flare and shooting against bright backgrounds better. The Sammies tend to flare or veil.
 
Have you ever used one? Did you like it? Asking because it's currently on sale for $289. That's pretty cheap for a compact-ish 1.8 prime.
Well, I haven't bought the one I have in my camera cabinet with the intention of letting it gather dust and/or mold. So yes, I have and here's an example, cross-posted from the kittykat-thread:

DSC08582-1-LR_s.jpg


And while we're at it, one shot with the Sony FE 85mm f/1.8:

DSC08106-2-LR_s.jpg


And then one shot with the Sony FE 35mm f/1.8:

DSC06738.JPG
 
Have you ever used one? Did you like it? Asking because it's currently on sale for $289. That's pretty cheap for a compact-ish 1.8 prime.
I tried it once and really liked it. I returned it along with the 35 at the time because I bought them both together on some sort of special deal so more or less, I had to return both. I have always thought about getting the 75 at some point when there was a great deal to be had :unsure: Maybe now is the time. It is small, light and I thought the out of focus was really nice. It is well worth it at that price.
 
Back
Top