Well I came from MF digital. I think you need to remember that your 2.8 is really like a 1.8 or even a 1.4 in 35mm. I always felt it as a 1.5 stop difference in bokeh rendering. Certainly
a different animal. I agree bokeh sometimes can be overdone , kinda like fisheye lenses . From a Pros seat a lot of clients do not like razor thin at all. It’s actually interesting the reaction from paid clients what they like or not. For instance a 135 lens at 1.4 doing portraits would never fly on a corporate client. I always went DOF to the ears at least. That I could get away with that. On MF that was like F11 or more. 35mm more like F8
Maybe the pendulum will swing back now there is a glut of f1.2 trophy lenses, and C/N still have to 'prove' they can make even faster/larger lenses to justify the superiority of their new mounts. They are maybe hoping to goad Sony into a new fast lens arms race.
One thing we lack is sales data; yes, lensrentals can offer something but many lenses are rented rather than people buying them, a quite different data set. We'd like to hear from B&H/Adorama people about what they are seeing, even anecdotally like member Juha in Tokyo with Cosina.
We have lost the great richness of 20th century lens ranges, especially F, FD and CY and the Leica ranges. These encompassed everything from f1.2 specials to mid-apertures of f2-f2.8 to many f3.5-4 lenses. The arrival of the a7c might help change minds too. Having Sigma on side is a great win, and may tell us something about the sales volumes they expect. For them, ART is pretty full, now the small ones please.
In fact the only normal-range zoom I would really be interested in would be, at present, a design problem (can it be done?): a 24-70 f4 (doesn't need to be faster - keep the size and weight really low) that is super-sharp (as is the Nikon Z 24-70 S for example), but that included something like sony's STF (in their 100 mm) or Nikon's old DC-Nikkor's (defocus control) so you could get a controllable OOF rendering without the size/weight cost of every prime having this control currently in existence. It's perfectly fine if the design tradeoff is distortion, which is easy to correct in software & no one need ever know the difference. (The necessary interpolation might have been an issue at 16-24 megapixels but is irrelevant at 60).
photonoclast wrote:
In fact the only normal-range zoom I would really be interested in would be, at present, a design problem (can it be done?): a 24-70 f4 (doesn't need to be faster - keep the size and weight really low) that is super-sharp (as is the Nikon Z 24-70 S for example), but that included something like sony's STF (in their 100 mm) or Nikon's old DC-Nikkor's (defocus control) so you could get a controllable OOF rendering without the size/weight cost of every prime having this control currently in existence. It's perfectly fine if the design tradeoff is distortion, which is easy to correct in software & no one need ever know the difference. (The necessary interpolation might have been an issue at 16-24 megapixels but is irrelevant at 60)....Show more →
If you can go bigger the Sigma 24-70 2.8 is quite good not a F4 but very good for a zoom. I don’t know a mid range F4 zoom that great to be honest but I tend to at least try and avoid them
@GMPhotography you should look at the 24-70 f4 S, it's really remarkably good. I might like Sony's 20mm G and 24mm GM (included here because Sony's 24 1.4 is both lighter and smaller than Nikon's 24 1.8) better, but Nikon has really been killing it with their optics since they started the platform.
JVan_02 wrote:
@GMPhotography@ you should look at the 24-70 f4 S, it's really remarkably good. I might like Sony's 20mm G and 24mm GM (included here because Sony's 24 1.4 is both lighter and smaller than Nikon's 24 1.8) better, but Nikon has really been killing it with their optics since they started the platform.
Unless one is determined to stick with first party optics, Nikon system presents a less flexible system with some very high grade optics, but bigger and heavier than the equivalence from other makers. I mean eventually Sigma will release these small lenses for the Z system, but I bet it will take at least 2 more years.
JVan_02 wrote:
@GMPhotography@ you should look at the 24-70 f4 S, it's really remarkably good. I might like Sony's 20mm G and 24mm GM (included here because Sony's 24 1.4 is both lighter and smaller than Nikon's 24 1.8) better, but Nikon has really been killing it with their optics since they started the platform.
Recent lenses from all of the manufacturers have been great, if we are to believe Thom Hogan. Modern mirrorless lenses are on another level than their old DSLR counterparts.
hiepphotog wrote:
Unless one is determined to stick with first party optics, Nikon system presents a less flexible system with some very high grade optics, but bigger and heavier than the equivalence from other makers. I mean eventually Sigma will release these small lenses for the Z system, but I bet it will take at least 2 more years.
More limited, yes, but they've done a better job maintaining a consistency of quality across the S-line when compared to Sony's patchwork offerings (FE, G, ZA, GM).
@hiepphotog yeah, options are where all mounts are behind the E-mount for sure—at the same time, I think not appreciating what Nikon has managed with their S-line mid-range options is a bit strange. Canon likes to segment their market too much to copy it, I could be really wrong here (Sony did release the 20mm G after the 18mm Batis & 21mm Loxia existed after all) but Sony's market is so absolutely flooded with options dancing around but never quite equaling Nikon's 1.8 S line that I doubt they'll think it profitable to extend the 1.8 G series for another 5-10 years (with exceptions for their 50mm 1.8 FE & 28mm f2 FE lenses that are both showing their age), and with the L-mount the line is currently occupied by Leica's $5k Summicrons—which while probably unequaled in optics are just dimishingly better than Nikon's S-line and laughably more expensive & large.
To clarify what I mean about Nikon's optics being unequaled on Sony: let's take the 45mm 2.8 Sigma, which we might presume this upcoming line is based around. It is admittedly the king of smooth rendering... but that comes at the cost of functionality (AF-C thrown off by all that SA) and optical performance under 1m. Additionally, the lens for all its metal construction is only sealed at the front element and the lens mount. By contrast, while Nikon's 35 & 50 might not have as pleasing a performance—they excel in literally every area. Well corrected, well resolving, sealed, great AF motor with first party understanding of AF algorithm implementation, etc. We can go down the line for every option on Sony, I think: every competitor will have some advantage over Nikon's S-line primes but fall short in overall performance. For anyone who wants a line of lenses that excel in optics, features, and construction and doesn't want to have any more to carry (or charge to their wallets) than needed—Nikon is the only game in town until Sony actually expands their 1.8 G series (or they can shrink 1.4 primes even more ludicrously small than they did with the 24 GM).
Okay... is that clutch mechanism only there for more water ingress? I know I was joking about it before but no mention of it was made in the presentation. Since it's been called Art-level performance I'm verrrrry curious.
JVan_02 wrote:
Okay... is that clutch mechanism only there for more water ingress? I know I was joking about it before but no mention of it was made in the presentation. Since it's been called Art-level performance I'm verrrrry curious.
JVan_02 wrote:
Okay... is that clutch mechanism only there for more water ingress? I know I was joking about it before but no mention of it was made in the presentation. Since it's been called Art-level performance I'm verrrrry curious.
Not a clutch, but I don't necessary think water will be an issue. It's probably just a decorative element that's been carved out.
