Recent covert to a7rII. still using it entirely with metabones and my canon lenses. have some E mount sony (the 16-50, 35 1.8 OSS, 50 1.8 OSS) which I have used for video, since the 4K is best in crop mode anyways.
I see the kit lens selling for 200 bucks. I know that it will not do the sensor justice. but I wont be using it for landscape, when I will be using my excellent canon 24-70 2.8. Its just to put it as a smaller walk around lens, or travel lens. How is the image quality on it, from users?
What would make it garbage?
It's periphery is not good. But there are wonderful, wonderful images that you can make that don't have sharp edges or corners. And those images will be, viewed at most print sizes (or screen sizes) as good as vastly more pricey lenses.
So sure, why not, if you like zooms and your style doesn't require more speed, and the kinds of images you typically see when walking around don't depend for impact on crispy edges.
In the case of the FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6, it's not so much an issue with the edges but the center and mid-zone. I think it's a great lens for the 12MP and 24MP Sony E-mount bodies. At 28mm, the edges are actually sharper than the much more expensive FE 24-70/4 ZA but it can't compete in resolution/micro-contrast/color at center and mid area.
I tested both side by side but unfortunately don't have the images anymore...so take my word for it.
I kept wrestling 18-105 or 16-70 for walk around on the a6500. In the end
I chose what was already on my shelf, the 28-70 and I'm perfectly happy, but in the
pocket is the 10-18 or a Touit.
Fred Miranda wrote:
In the case of the FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6, it's not so much an issue with the edges but the center and mid-zone. I think it's a great lens for the 12MP and 24MP Sony E-mount bodies. At 28mm, the edges are actually sharper than the much more expensive FE 24-70/4 ZA but it can't compete in resolution/micro-contrast/color at center and mid area.
I tested both side by side but unfortunately don't have the images anymore...so take my word for it.
Interesting Fred,
I have always thought it was the other way around and that it seems a bit sharper in the centre than the 24-70.
I have not used the other lens though. That is just the impression I get from what I see and also from DXO.
It is just a kit lens but mine at least is the best kit lens I have used (and that is a lot).
I don't use it all that much but it is handy to have in the bag with an A7 or A7s at least.
I also think it makes a half decent lens for video being almost parfocal and can be used as a constant 5.6 lens FF and compete ok with APSC f4 or M43 2.8.
Fred Miranda wrote:
In the case of the FE 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6, it's not so much an issue with the edges but the center and mid-zone. I think it's a great lens for the 12MP and 24MP Sony E-mount bodies. At 28mm, the edges are actually sharper than the much more expensive FE 24-70/4 ZA but it can't compete in resolution/micro-contrast/color at center and mid area.
I tested both side by side but unfortunately don't have the images anymore...so take my word for it.
Ah, OK, I take your word for it never having used the lens!
My advice can be rewritten using your performance data!
I guess I was just trying to say there are few modern lenses around that, if you can work around their limitations, can't produce some amazing stuff technically as well as artistically. It's just the better lenses can do it in more conditions.
DavidBM wrote:
Ah, OK, I take your word for it never having used the lens!
My advice can be rewritten using your performance data!
I guess I was just trying to say there are few modern lenses around that, if you can work around their limitations, can't produce some amazing stuff technically as well as artistically. It's just the better lenses can do it in more conditions.
I totally agree. Nothing is 'garbage'. If I could only have the FE 28-70 and nothing else, I would probably be happy with my images, especially when posting them on the web.
I wish Zeiss would develop a Loxia 28-50/3.4 lens (52mm thread) with 10-aperture blade.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I totally agree. Nothing is 'garbage'. If I could only have the FE 28-70 and nothing else, I would probably be happy with my images, especially when posting them on the web.
I wish Zeiss would develop a Loxia 28-50/3.4 lens (52mm thread) with 10-aperture blade.
I think I started a thread once (or maybe hopped on board one) hoping for a 28-45 f2.8 10 blade Loxia; which is near enough the same thing!
There's some severe copy variation out there in this lens. I bought a copy shortly after I got my first A7R and it was well and truly awful. I seem to recall DPReview had a really terrible copy in one of their early reviews as well. That said, I've seen some perfectly nice images out of the lens from others and it seems to perform similar to the 24-70 f/4 if you get a decent copy.
Fred Miranda wrote:
I totally agree. Nothing is 'garbage'. If I could only have the FE 28-70 and nothing else, I would probably be happy with my images, especially when posting them on the web.
I wish Zeiss would develop a Loxia 28-50/3.4 lens (52mm thread) with 10-aperture blade.
---------------------------------------------
DavidBM wrote:
I think I started a thread once (or maybe hopped on board one) hoping for a 28-45 f2.8 10 blade Loxia; which is near enough the same thing!
If we're patient, surely Zeiss will eventually release a Loxia 28-50/3.4. After all, Samyang has just announced the 35mm FE lens that everyone's been waiting for...
I've got Adam's (snapsy) 28-70, and it is certainly worth the $200 I paid for it.
But I also have Joshua Ong's old 24-70/4 OSS, and it smokes the 28-70 at every focal length and aperture. It's incredibly sharp in center, suffering only on the far edges/corners when stopped down. It also has impressive color and contrast at all focal lengths. I've gotten a lot a amazing shots at f/6.3 with careful framing and use of its field curvature.
There is a lot of variation in both lenses, but my 24-70 is far superior, especially for the $700 I paid for it.
Both will eventually be replaced by the 24-70/2.8 GM in my line-up.
a lot of good thoughts, thank you. No consnesus. I may just use my canon 24-70 f4 IS as a walk around and see how it works for starters.
the sample test on a7 was very useful. thanks.
Personal opinion only here but for me it is too cheap/light/occasionally handy not to have it. Apart from 16-35 f4 and a Sigma 19mm with rear baffle removed it is my only other AF lens now. For the odd grab shot where AF is helpful like grandchildren or new kitten (at the moment) - it is fine if expectations not too high - a bit bland but OK. Rarely use it now, but I hang on to it, and as M M says it it does not play too badly on A6XXX's
Couple of grab shots here of Jane and Billy with it in Dec 2014 with A7R - there were not that many FE lenses around then, FE 55 would have been better in several ways but Billy was not hanging around for anyone to change lenses and the zoom was on there as it was a Christmas Market, but Jane was happy with what we got, and if you zoom in to the higher res versions on smugmug they are not too bad for OOC jpegs and a kit lens.
I think there is no reasonable world in which the kit zoom is trash. Is it as the good as the best? No way. So what? It's a kit zoom and performs admirably. More things won't be perfect under certain conditions, than with pricier lenses.
