I really like it. I use it on my A7Riv with great results. In good light, it is tough to beat particularly when you realize how small and light weight it is. I recently used it and the Tamron 17-28 on a trip to London, a very nice combination.
I really like it so far, though I haven't used it much yet, I just recently got one. I prefer smaller lenses so this was an easy pick.
I've used the 24-105 in the past and loved it for the flexible zoom range but ended up disliking the size. It was a near perfect copy though, barely any decentering even when testing indoors at 1 to 4 meters, but I rarely brought it with me so it just sat around.
My copy of the 28-60 isn't as perfect... I tested indoors and found that 28-40mm showed moderate decentering in the corners, but when I did an infinity test it was just mild which is acceptable to me. I have a feeling that my copy may not be as good as say Freds, or others who have a great experience with this lens. Or maybe my expectations for these tests were too high for this little affordable zoom. But regardless of those tests I'm bringing it with me a lot more than I did the 24-105mm.
Just got this lens yesterday and so far I'm impressed (Have been shooting it a lot outside this morning testing it out). The OOF rendering looks nicer than than I expected. It doesn't seem all that cheap to me. The only thing that feels cheap is the plastic zoom and focusing rings, but the barrel itself is nice. I believe the front trim in metal like the 50mm 1.8. TBH, I wish it was plastic because Sony's metal trim rings always loose paint at some point. I can go all the way back to the 16-50mm 2.8 A mount. That's just my experience though.
I wanted something for more casual use without needing to pick up an M43 or Sony APSC camera. I feel like I may be able to get rid of those now with the Sigma 45mm 2.8 and this kit lens (Plus after I acquire the 90mm 2.8 after I see a few user reviews on here). The size is small enough and the IQ so far seems very good...a bit soft at 60mm but still holds up surprisingly well. Not to shabby!
Considering this little lens to pair with my a7RIVa for bike rides (and city tours) - as far as I read through this thread (and the one where this lens has hiked the Grand Canyon ) I am pretty sure I would be very happy with it image Q wise.
What I would like to ask owners of this lens how is the build - will it survive getting tossed around on my back while riding a bike on rugged gravel roads?
bobek13 wrote:
Considering this little lens to pair with my a7RIVa for bike rides (and city tours) - as far as I read through this thread (and the one where this lens has hiked the Grand Canyon ) I am pretty sure I would be very happy with it image Q wise.
What I would like to ask owners of this lens how is the build - will it survive getting tossed around on my back while riding a bike on rugged gravel roads?
Cheers, A.
As you can image at this price point, build quality is not very good. It is an all-plastic construction (except for the mount). However, I think it should be fine if it gets tossed around in a backpack as long as you collapse the lens before putting it back. If you leave the lens extended, I don't think it would survive long.
That`s why I am worried it wouldn`t survive for long.
A.
I think there every chance it is just as rugged as “better built” lenses.
It seems built to good tolerances, very right. Being light makes it safer in some ways and the composite material is very rugged.
I think a lot of the “build quality” we like is boy toy quality: mote luxurious finish that is nice to have but doesn’t correlate with ruggedness. Our brains are wired up in a away that made sense with hand made metal things, where look and feel really did correlate with careful hand manufacture and consequent ruggedness.
OK, I hear what you are saying, could be a valid point.
The reason I am asking is the following - I've been using CV 3.5/21mm and CV 1.2/40mm on my rides for a couple of years now. And lately I find I cannot get "clean" sunstars with them and I worry it has something to do with them lenses being (miss)used on my bike rides. Could the "swinging" on my back cause the aperture blades of the lens to misalign? Or is this some other problem I am facing?
Thanks for your answer.
Cheers A.
p.s.: aren't you the one writing reviews on PhillipRevee blog? You might be responsible for my CV 1.2/40mm purchase.
DavidBM wrote:
I think there every chance it is just as rugged as “better built” lenses.
It seems built to good tolerances, very right. Being light makes it safer in some ways and the composite material is very rugged.
I think a lot of the “build quality” we like is boy toy quality: mote luxurious finish that is nice to have but doesn’t correlate with ruggedness. Our brains are wired up in a away that made sense with hand made metal things, where look and feel really did correlate with careful hand manufacture and consequent ruggedness.
bobek13 wrote:
OK, I hear what you are saying, could be a valid point.
The reason I am asking is the following - I've been using CV 3.5/21mm and CV 1.2/40mm on my rides for a couple of years now. And lately I find I cannot get "clean" sunstars with them and I worry it has something to do with them lenses being (miss)used on my bike rides. Could the "swinging" on my back cause the aperture blades of the lens to misalign? Or is this some other problem I am facing?
Thanks for your answer.
Cheers A.
p.s.: aren't you the one writing reviews on PhillipRevee blog? You might be responsible for my CV 1.2/40mm purchase.
So have the sunstars changed since you bought it?
And you are sure you are comparing at the same apertures, subject distances, and location in the frame?
But less clean sunstars can be due to imperfectly aligned aperture blades with even numbered blades (because each ray is th composite of two thy need to overlap).
I would be mildly surprised if the alignment changed from bike riding. And eg. Roger Circala says that lens performance doesn’t seem to change from rough use unless there’s traumatic damage. But I guess we can’t rule it out completely.
Definitly worse, unusable as far as sunstars go. Even in bright sky with sun in it without obstacles makes same as the example here (shot at f8, that used to produce beautiful sunstars). But other than sunstars both lenses perform as good as ever, can`t find any other issue with them. Also can`t find any other reason the lenses would behave like this
So have the sunstars changed since you bought it?
And you are sure you are comparing at the same apertures, subject distances, and location in the frame?
But less clean sunstars can be due to imperfectly aligned aperture blades with even numbered blades (because each ray is th composite of two thy need to overlap).
I would be mildly surprised if the alignment changed from bike riding. And eg. Roger Circala says that lens performance doesn’t seem to change from rough use unless there’s traumatic damage. But I guess we can’t rule it out completely.
bobek13 wrote:
Definitly worse, unusable as far as sunstars go. Even in bright sky with sun in it without obstacles makes same as the example here (shot at f8, that used to produce beautiful sunstars). But other than sunstars both lenses perform as good as ever, can`t find any other issue with them. Also can`t find any other reason the lenses would behave like this
In this image I’d say there isn’t an issue with the iris alignment. Rather there is some kind of flare issue happening, localised veiling, overlaying the iris. If that’s got worse in exactly the same conditions (especially regarding exposure, shadow lifting, dn positions I frame) I can’t imagine why, unless dirty filter or front or rear element. But I’m sure you have checked that so I’m mystified!
I'll try to find another with clear skies where it clearly shows the issue, especially with cv21 where one of the sunstar rays would run across the whole image frame and I'll start a thread about the issue so I don't totally screw this one up.
Thanks for your help.
Cheers, A.
DavidBM wrote:
In this image I’d say there isn’t an issue with the iris alignment. Rather there is some kind of flare issue happening, localised veiling, overlaying the iris. If that’s got worse in exactly the same conditions (especially regarding exposure, shadow lifting, dn positions I frame) I can’t imagine why, unless dirty filter or front or rear element. But I’m sure you have checked that so I’m mystified!
DavidBM wrote:
In this image I’d say there isn’t an issue with the iris alignment. Rather there is some kind of flare issue happening, localised veiling, overlaying the iris. If that’s got worse in exactly the same conditions (especially regarding exposure, shadow lifting, dn positions I frame) I can’t imagine why, unless dirty filter or front or rear element. But I’m sure you have checked that so I’m mystified!
I sincerely hope not, these lenses are 2-3years old. Isn't that a problem with decades old lenses?
If it is, how can I check for it? I was thinking of sending them to service for cleaning and checking the aperture blades for alignment - would a regular camera repair shop be able to clean the mold out of the lens, or would that require a special voiglander repair service?
I sincerely hope not, these lenses are 2-3years old. Isn't that a problem with decades old lenses?
If it is, how can I check for it? I was thinking of sending them to service for cleaning and checking the aperture blades for alignment - would a regular camera repair shop be able to clean the mold out of the lens, or would that require a special voiglander repair service?
bobek13 wrote:
I sincerely hope not, these lenses are 2-3years old. Isn't that a problem with decades old lenses?
If it is, how can I check for it? I was thinking of sending them to service for cleaning and checking the aperture blades for alignment - would a regular camera repair shop be able to clean the mold out of the lens, or would that require a special voiglander repair service?
A.
It is certainly possible. I once had a one year old Tamron 15-30 (superb lens) diagnosed with early stage mold. I'd get it checked out.
It is sometimes possible to see a mold infection yourself with a magnifying glass and a torch shone through the back.
Frogfish wrote:
It is certainly possible. I once had a one year old Tamron 15-30 (superb lens) diagnosed with early stage mold. I'd get it checked out.
It is sometimes possible to see a mold infection yourself with a magnifying glass and a torch shone through the back.
Thanks, I will try that. And in any case, I think I am sending them for check&clean to Sony authorised service here, Voigtlander hasn`t got a service center here, and what I read, every repair under warranty in EU gets shipped of to Japan, so a long wait for your lenses...
bobek13 wrote:
Considering this little lens to pair with my a7RIVa for bike rides (and city tours) - as far as I read through this thread (and the one where this lens has hiked the Grand Canyon ) I am pretty sure I would be very happy with it image Q wise.
What I would like to ask owners of this lens how is the build - will it survive getting tossed around on my back while riding a bike on rugged gravel roads?
Cheers, A.
It's so tiny just put it in a protective bag/case (that'll be tiny too). Or to save weight bubble wrap !
EDIT. I've been through this thread before haven't I
At this price point if you are not using a bag I'd still give it a go. What do you do with this lens when it rains may be a bigger issue than ruggedness.
) I am pretty sure I would be very happy with it image Q wise.
