I’ve not shot this kind of sport yet with the Sony but in a situation like this I’d use single point real time af with eye focus on and would make AF tracking as sticky as possible.
That is pretty much what I shot the second half and it worked very well
Do it Mike- the R4 and 200-600mm is a great wildlife combo buddy
DAMN YOU SONY!!Do it Mike- the R4 and 200-600mm is a great wildlife combo buddy
once again get the sony 20G and be done with it
once again get the sony 20G and be done with it
Its really the best 20mm across brands and mounts
but now and again I do use it or a film ere 17 or 19mm.
phillipreeve.net
There is a samyang 18mm f2.8 in sales section which may be a better option in that case. It's smaller and cheaper so won't be a burger to carry or a burden on your wallet
Excluding Milky Way images, I've not shot wide since mid May
That's a incredible price. Is that AF or MF version?
The AF versions seems to be advertised for around £500-ish normally
Still a great price
My statement still stands ... your Milky Way shots are mildly wide
My Flickr album shows 7 images in the 20G album 
Wow you carry some gear when hiking, I just usually take the 16-35mm f4 and that’s it
Do you really need 300-400mm reach?
Wow you carry some gear when hiking, I just usually take the 16-35mm f4 and that’s it
What about considering the Tamron 70-180mm then, would save you over 1kg in weight not having to carry the 24–105 and 100-400mm?
A7riii yes.
I’ve been thinking of this myself for quite a while. I’m thinking of getting a tamron 17-28 to compliment the tamron 28-200 I recently picked up as a lightweight longer lens option. My other lenses are the Sony 24-105 and 100-400. They are nice lenses but a bit bulky for taking up fells. The tamron combo could be a good lightweight landscape combination for hiking up fells/mountains. The thing that’s stopped me so far is wanting to keep both the 24-105 and 100-400 whilst also getting the 17-28 and 28-200, just need to get my head around justifying the extra cost.
In the lakes on top of fells I seem to like the 40-150mm range so this is why I bought the tamron 28-200. If it was 24-200 it would’ve perfect for me. The 17-28 seems to be a perfect partner that covers the missing 24mm range im used to but also gives the extra ultra wide 17-23mm range I’ve never had.
I think in time once I’m happy with both the tamrons it will be hard to justify keeping the 24-105. One of my reasons for keeping the 24-105 is that I bought it new a couple of years ago. current used prices are quite a bit lower than I paid and I don’t want to make the mistake of selling it cheap then rebut it at a more expensive price. I made that mistake selling a A7r3 for £1300 (same price as I bought on here). I’d like to rebuy one but 1.5 years after selling it they are more expensive than I sold it for so it doesn’t make any sense to buy one, especially when I’ve seen the A7r4 going for £300-400 more on here.
www.talkphotography.co.uk
