I don’t see any CA in any of the backlit shots. That looks really good. A little onion rings in the bokeh. So far so good. I do wish there was just a basic full face portrait at f2.8. Why does Sigma think I want to see the back of some guy’s head? 🙄
mudlake wrote:
I don’t see any CA in any of the backlit shots. That looks really good. A little onion rings in the bokeh. So far so good. I do wish there was just a basic full face portrait at f2.8. Why does Sigma think I want to see the back of some guy’s head? 🙄
Images look pretty nice, but agree that they're a bit too "artsy" for this purpose. Though I appreciate both the "man in silhouette at golden hour" and "back of guy's head on a bench" sub-genres of portraiture, would've liked to see a outdoor daylight portrait of someone looking at the camera!
That cyan fringing in the oof background of the Ginko(?) leaves picture is one of my least favorite manifestations of CA. It turns clusters of pine needles against cloudy bright sky in my part of the country into blue-green blobs. I had pre-ordered the L-mount version, but I'll wait to see more once the lens is out. Off topic, but the Lumix 24-70/2.8 (yeah, it's 2x the price) seems to have remarkably clean color from what little is available to look at.
I’m still shooting with an adapted Canon 24-70II and looking to replace it with a native mount so very interested in this. Any reports on how it compares to the Tamron 28-75? Slightly narrower and longer, but also a few bucks cheaper so probably the real competition vs this lens, not the GM.
GC5 wrote:
I’m still shooting with an adapted Canon 24-70II and looking to replace it with a native mount so very interested in this. Any reports on how it compares to the Tamron 28-75? Slightly narrower and longer, but also a few bucks cheaper so probably the real competition vs this lens, not the GM.
The Tamron was already quite close to the GM lens performance (except for corners and that it is only 28mm at the wide end).
So I expect this Sigma lens to exceed the GM.
In terms of price, the Tamron is considerably cheaper at 800€ vs the 1200€ of the Sigma. The latter will probably more compete with used GM lenses.
The Sigma has to really deliver in the IQ department, otherwise most probably not too many people will swallow the disadvantages compared to the Tamron - $400 more, bigger and heavier - for having 24mm (but not 75mm)...
Agree with you on all counts - at that pricing it had better be good - except that the 75mm isn't really an advantage for the Tamron. In the real world it's negligible.
I think what this does underscore is how much of a bargain the Tamron is. Or how overpriced the GM is.
hasenbein wrote:
The Sigma has to really deliver in the IQ department, otherwise most probably not too many people will swallow the disadvantages compared to the Tamron - $400 more, bigger and heavier - for having 24mm (but not 75mm)...
24mm vs 28mm are a pretty big deal IMHO, especially if the lens delivers at that FL (even stopped down a little), much more so than 5mm at the longest FL.
Of course average IQ should almost be at least equal (if not a bit better) than the Tamron, to really justify the price difference.
Really looking forward for the first real test reports
Tirpitz666 wrote:
24mm vs 28mm are a pretty big deal IMHO, especially if the lens delivers at that FL (even stopped down a little), much more so than 5mm at the longest FL.
I agree, but for the price difference, I could probably pick up the new Tamron 20 or 24 prime for when I want wide...
That's your call of course, usually most of the convenience of a quality zoom is exactly to allow you to minimize lens swap, i.e. when you are traveling or shooting events.
Currently I use an adapted Canon 28-70 F2.8L, which works pretty good and yields an overall decent IQ on my A7III, so if the Sigma would have been also a 28mm-only like the Tamron, probably I wouldn't have bothered, while like that I'm definitely more interested
Its all horses for courses, but I am usually only shooting wide when I deliberately set out to do it and in those cases, I don't mind having multiple lenses. I'll check my 24-70 shots, but I bet less than 10% are at less than 28mm.
I’m buying the 24-70 because of the extra 4mm on the wide end. If I’m going to pack a heavy zoom instead of my primes, I don’t want to have to change lenses if I’m on vacation and need a 24mm. That’s why the 28-75 won’t work for me. I’d have to bring along my 21mm which would make the combined weight the same as the 24-70.
Mam I can't wait to see the reviews of the sigma 24-70 😁 Seeing how great the 14-24 and 35 1.2 have been lately i suspect the same will continue. It's nice seeing lighter smaller sigma lenses on mirrorless. Hope they continue that trend into telephoto lenses.
sismailian wrote:
Mam I can't wait to see the reviews of the sigma 24-70 😁 Seeing how great the 14-24 and 35 1.2 have been lately i suspect the same will continue. It's nice seeing lighter smaller sigma lenses on mirrorless. Hope they continue that trend into telephoto lenses.
I am waiting for this one and will compare it to the Tamron 28-75/2.8 E-mount.
Will be interesting to see some real user reviews of this lens. My copy of the 24-70Gm is excellent in nearly all respects except for the 65-70mm range where it never really sharpens up towards the edges even stopped down. I do find the way it renders wide open at the long end to be really quite special for a zoom
mudlake wrote:
I’m buying the 24-70 because of the extra 4mm on the wide end. If I’m going to pack a heavy zoom instead of my primes, I don’t want to have to change lenses if I’m on vacation and need a 24mm. That’s why the 28-75 won’t work for me. I’d have to bring along my 21mm which would make the combined weight the same as the 24-70.
17-28 + 28-75 gives you substantially more range, and the same look all the way through *** except for the 75mm end where the Tamron bokeh can get busy.
The full combo is only 200g more.
Heck, even 21 + 28-75 is a good bit more, 21 to 24 is just as much angle as 24-28, and I feel like 21 barely gets you to the point of an ultrawide draw in the foreground type lens. That said, I really love what sigma did here, and I feel that the image quality is very good. I'm looking at the 24-70 sigma as a single do it all lens , when all I have is exactly one lens. I've travelled like that in the past, and the nostalgia....
, when all I have is exactly one lens. I've travelled like that in the past, and the nostalgia....