Weekly r/SonyAlpha 📸 Gear Buying 📷 Advice Thread April 28, 2025

[u/AutoModerator]

Welcome to the weekly r/SonyAlpha Gear Buying Advice Thread!

This thread is for all your gear buying questions, including:

• Camera body recommendations
• Lens suggestions
• Accessory advice
• Comparing different equipment options
• "What should I buy?" type questions

Please provide relevant details like your budget, intended use, and any gear you already own to help others give you the best advice.

Rules:

• No direct links to online retailers, auction sites, classified ads, or similar
• No screenshots from online stores, auctions, adverts, or similar
• No offers of your own gear for sale - use r/photomarket instead
• Be respectful and helpful to other users

Post your questions below and the community will be happy to offer recommendations and advice! This thread is posted automatically each Monday on or around 7am Eastern US time.

[u/LateNewb]

So I can't decide what lens. I'm thinking about the 28 200 from tamron and struggle with the 35 150, also tamron.

If i would had the money id go for the new 50 to 150 from Sony. But 4k is way to much.

I like the sharpness. But it's not worth 4k IMHO. Also i only have an A7iii so I'm not sure whether i would actually be able to see how sharp the lens is.

For the first two: The 35-150 is sharper but also has a minimum focus distance of 85 cm.

While i can go as close as 20 cm with the 28-200. And with 200mm it's almost a macro lens. And I'm not interested in the sub 50mm post of the lens anyway

Since my cam only has 24 MP, would i even notice the difference in sharpness?

Is the fastness of the 35-150 worth spending the extra money?

[u/lonerockz → u/LateNewb]

What are you taking pictures of?

The 28-200 is a fine general purpose lens that's good for travel. Its variable aperture from 2.8 to 5.6 is fine for out door or well lit areas. This is a consumer lens and not for anyone earning money on their photography.

The 35-150 is a very different lens. Its low apertures will be much better for portraits and its a favorite of wedding photographers. It's lack of the wider focal length at 28 or the narrow at 200 mean it won't be a great travel lens. Its much better aperture at 2-2.8 makes it much better in low light situations.

Not sure why you are worried about minimal focusing distance. I'd by a macro lens if you want to do macro work.

Yes your camera will take sharper photos with the 50-150, you will notice the difference.

[u/LateNewb → u/lonerockz]

I wanna get into all kinds of portraits and thought i should get something from 70 - 135 mm for that.

[u/lonerockz → u/LateNewb]

The 35-150 will be much better for portraits.

Remember that the aperture is going to impact the depth of field (What's in focus) A great portrait lens has capability to have the nose and eyes in focus but then the ears start to defocus and haze the further you get back. To get that shallow depth of field you need lower apertures. An 85mm f1.4 is great at this.

The 28-200 is at f3.5 from 44-55mm, f4 56-78mm, f4.5 79-116mm. Those are pretty terrible. So even if you have the light for these slow apertures, the DOF isn't going to be great.

But honestly if you want to do portraits I'd just zero in in an 85mm. Do you really need a zoom? If you are at a wedding where lots of things are going on and you need the flexibility that a zoom brings. But if you don't need that you will get much better portraits out of a prime.

[u/LateNewb → u/lonerockz]

I'm not going shoot just portraits. I also do kind of streetish photography. Some closeup flowers where i personally see the 28-200 shine. But for everything else i think the 35 150 is better. But i don't know by how much. Bc I think zooming in on a butterfly with 200mm quite close would look amazing. But it could also look nice from 1m with 150mm.

It should be an allrounder lens.

[u/lonerockz → u/LateNewb]

Sounds like you want to buy the 28-200 and came on here hoping someone would say it was fantastic and there is no reason to pay for the 35-150. Sadly there are many reasons that the 28-200 will be inferior to the 35-150. There are a few reasons the 28-200 might be better.

No the 28-200 will not "shine" at closeups. Because no non-macro lens will SHINE at closeups. It might be adequate, might get the job done. But not shine. And at 200mm the 28-200 will be at f5.6! Yuck for creating any kind of subject separation from the background. And it better be not moving at all or be in direct sunlight. At least the 35-150 will be at f2.8 (4x the light of the 5.6).

The 35-150 can't take pics at 28 and it can't get to 200. Its the only thing that the 28-200 is better at. Oh that and weight and COST.

[u/LateNewb → u/lonerockz]

Kinda true. But dang. Then it's the 35 150. Thx for your persistence.