JonPB Offline Upload & Sell: Off
|
It looks about the same size as my 21-35/Speed Booster combo, which is 93mm from the flange, about 75mm wide, and about 700g. This handles well on my NEX-7; with the camera resting against the base of my thumb, where the webbing of my thumb & index finger supports the adapter, my fingers fall nicely to the control rings. I will often support the camera entirely with my right hand if I'm making large adjustments, and the lens is too heavy to shoot like that with good stability, but the support-the-lens position works great to fine tune the shot, whether at waist- or eye-level. Honestly, adjusting the three dials might become difficult if the lens were any smaller. I suspect the size of Sony's 16-35 will only be an issue when the camera is packed up; in the field, it will be a non-issue, though it is pushing that limit for a 2-ring lens.
As far as 24mm lenses go, I'd say that no lens offers an across-the-board solution. Older, pre-aspheric lenses, for all their faults, still have the best almost-in-focus rendering; I'd happily put up a ca. 1970 Takumar 24/3.5 against the current Zeiss 25/2 for bokeh purposes. Newer lenses, though, are several-times-over substantially better when it comes to in-focus subjects. Come to think of it, 24mm would make a great test-case for a brief article on the recent history of optical design, simply because they all entail visible sacrifices. The question is, which sacrifices make the most sense for how you want to shoot?
Cheers,
Jon
|