Gets a bad rap as it’s not technically perfect but I love it on the 7R2. Small, light, cheap and sharp from wide open. Some of my favourite shots of my son over the last year or two are shot with the FE28
Better for street and people than general landscape photography. I'm on my third copy, and it is the best of them, but still can't produce as high IQ as other alt 28's that I have. Works better on the 24MP bodies than the 42MP, where it's deficiencies become more apparent. Lot's of vignetting and distortion, which can be corrected in camera (I think the later firmware doesn't give you an option anymore) or in PP, but at as cost in IQ. Colors are not the best either, having the Sony greens and lacking in the reds and browns. Regardless of all that; given the size, weight, and price it is a nice lens for many uses, especially wide open.
xpfloyd wrote:
Gets a bad rap as it’s not technically perfect but I love it on the 7R2. Small, light, cheap and sharp from wide open. Some of my favourite shots of my son over the last year or two are shot with the FE28
Indeed, for its application (much like the Fuji 18 f/2, but infinitely better)-- it's a rock start. Fast AF, centrally sharp right from f/2, great for reportage and travel and moving quickly and lightly.
pdmphoto wrote:
Better for street and people than general landscape photography. I'm on my third copy, and it is the best of them, but still can't produce as high IQ as other alt 28's that I have. Works better on the 24MP bodies than the 42MP, where it's deficiencies become more apparent. Lot's of vignetting and distortion, which can be corrected in camera (I think the later firmware doesn't give you an option anymore) or in PP, but at as cost in IQ. Colors are not the best either, having the Sony greens and lacking in the reds and browns. Regardless of all that; given the size, weight, and price it is a nice lens for many uses, especially wide open....Show more →
The biggest weaknesses for me are: oof peripheral region fringing/muddy rendering, light fallout, high distortion. The good thing is that since the lens itself can resolve high resolution, fixing these things works well without major IQ penalty, particularly w/ 42mp. But, my other lenses are Batis lenses, and I far prefer their rendering.
Agree re colors, but I find colors one of the more easy to improve in post problems.
I actually think it's a great lens for the cost and size and intent. Sony should take the philosophy to other FLs as well...
I like mine, although it only gets used in specific scenarios. Good in low-light situations, and when you don't need the corners to be super-sharp e.g. casual indoor shots with a subject near the center of the frame. So for me it's not a landscape lens (have the Batis 18 & FE 35 2.8 in that FL range for that) but if you need something wide, fast, small, and inexpensive, it's great for that.
Here is an example of when it got used in the past year.
I find this to be an interesting lens. When I test it for individual characteristics, it always tests fairly well... sometimes extremely well. I love its tiny size & weight and the cost-performance ratio is off the charts.
When I actually use the lens, my assessment is often 'meh', however. I find that the 'sum of the parts' does not always yield the spectacular images that I am looking for and more consistently find with other Sony lenses. This is not to say you cannot obtain outstanding images from this lens... you can.
My copy is like new, with carton, if you want to buy one.
It's a good lens if you get a good copy. I got a good one only after dealing with Sony (several times) for a while. The engineer from Sony told me it's one of the better copy they have tested (I asked for repair, not a replacement so they need to test).
There are certainly better lens around, but I would not hesitate to use it even for landscape (even the edges are good). It's very good for its size, weight and price, and I probably like it being an underdog.
First time I saw the RAW images i was surprised by the amount of distortion but it can be corrected easily.
I knew it has distortion before I brought the 28 so I wasn't surprised (free fish-eye? ). But I feel the same when I saw the raw files from 24-70 GM (haven't seen anyone complained about distortion before I got mine so I often felt people are more harsh to cheap lens)
it reminds me of the nikkor 24 1.8 g ed
it's fine for many
but there are other options that are better, albeit more expensive and probably heavier.
I replaced mine with the batis 25mm, which is actually 23mm.
it's not much bigger or heavier, a lot more expensive.
but cost is not a factor for me.
for me, 25mm and 55mm make a wonderful pairing, for when I want a small and light kit.
25 (23) is wide enough to be my widest prime. excellent indoor FL.
--
the 28 is a fine lens for street/travel
for cost/weight it's great for the avg consumer.
I just wanted a little more.
justruss wrote:
I actually think it's a great lens for the cost and size and intent. Sony should take the philosophy to other FLs as well...
gocolts wrote:
I like mine, although it only gets used in specific scenarios. Good in low-light situations, and when you don't need the corners to be super-sharp e.g. casual indoor shots with a subject near the center of the frame. So for me it's not a landscape lens (have the Batis 18 & FE 35 2.8 in that FL range for that) but if you need something wide, fast, small, and inexpensive, it's great for that.
Gunzorro wrote:
Sony 28/2 is a nice little lens -- a keeper that I often include in my bag.
ytwong wrote:
There are certainly better lens around, but I would not hesitate to use it even for landscape (even the edges are good). It's very good for its size, weight and price, and I probably like it being an underdog.
The above (partial or full) quotes carry a lot truth about this lens. Here is one of a recent images captured with this lowly lens. I also took some pano shots of similar scenery but this is a single frame.
seems a bit redundant since AOV is kind of close, but I do use the 35 when I want ultimate portability. I have a very small clippable bag that only the 35 combo would fit... and barely. in practice, it's easier to carry that, than my slightly bigger think tank holster 5. I'll use the think tank holster with 28/50/85, those bigger lenses fit that holster better, but it's noticeably bigger.
). But I feel the same when I saw the raw files from 24-70 GM (haven't seen anyone complained about distortion before I got mine so I often felt people are more harsh to cheap lens)
