Charlie N Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
zlatko wrote:
Sony isn't killing it with their system for the A7 series -
- missing 24-70/2.8 ... but who uses one of those anyway?;
- missing 70-200/2.8 ... ditto;
- missing 50/1.4 & 50/1.2;
- missing all primes over 90mm (100mm through 800mm);
- missing fisheye, T-S lenses, etc.
- 24-70/4 with crazy distortion of 3.84% barrel at 24 and 3% pin at 70, and costs $200 more than Canon's;
- 70-200/4 that weighs 80g more than Canon's, is bigger than Canon's, costs $300 more than Canon's; and despite the new A7 cameras having in-body stabilization, you still have to pay for the OSS;
- missing radio-control flash system;
- Zeiss isn't helping with the 85/1.8 Batis that costs 3X what Canon's 85/1.8 costs and has 12X as much distortion as Canon's.
Give Sony credit for a few excellent primes (35, 55, 90) and more lenses on the way. And, sure, you can make up for some of these major shortcomings by using Canon lenses, but then you've got to use an adapter, which places the lens out to ___________________ here, and you've got to believe the guy who says the AF is almost as good.
But the sensor is good. ...Show more →
take into account that sony is relatively new to the FE mount and got tons of lenses out in a short amount of time. They've got a bunch of good primes, 25, 28, 35, 55, 85, 90. Their 16-35 is pretty good, and having the ability to adapt lenses gives them a huge stopgap ability. Another thing is that in the past, shooters would have to decide between the big two and commit to one or the other. With sony, you can stray with minimal risk. You like it, well they're developing their native lenses at a quick pace, and if you dont, well you can go back.
I wouldnt compare the zeiss to canons. The canon primes are cheap, without LD glass (they would be considered L glass if they had LD glass or aspherical). Another thing is that the sony glass covers different classes, they have their cheapo stuff and zeiss stuff. 28/2 is a stop faster than canon's version, as ED glass, and cost less, so it's not exactly black and white.
Canon may have more lenses, however, you can use canon lenses if you choose, no one forces you to buy sony glass.... in fact, I have more canon, than sony glass. However when shooting with sony, I can also shoot with leica M mount, or FD mount, or ect. I'm not bound to one set of lens, so the argument that canon has better glass is somewhat a mixed bag. Technically canon will AF better with EF lenses, however the adaptability of sony gives you a whole lot more options in realistic lens selection. For instance, I have a 200/2 nikkor. I've used it on a 5D3.... impossible to nail focus consistently via viewfinder, hence unusable on Canon. Pop the same lens on sony and I'm good, a completely usable 200/2. I cant really spend 4K on a second hand 200/2 for my canon system, my wife wouldnt allow it. A lens, that I likely would not own on canon till I finished mortgage payments, is now a lens I have for the sony setup. I am pretty happy about it.
|