If the IQ match the MTF's, the better AF motor and other improvements make it value price increase IMO. Start worrying when you live in Australia and see Canon RF glass 30-50% dearer than EF glass that is often optically as good.
If the G2 is optically up there with the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8 S I'll sell my Canon 24-70L II for sure.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
That's why you pair it with a nice prime like the 20mm 1.8 and your good to go. 24 to me is not even wide enough.
Right...then I might as well take my Batis 40 and 85 and shelve the zoom. I'd only carry a zoom if it would handle what I need...28 falls short. Now the 17-28 fits into a sweet spot for landscape but I already have a 16-35 that works fine.
chez wrote:
Right...then I might as well take my Batis 40 and 85 and shelve the zoom. I'd only carry a zoom if it would handle what I need...28 falls short. Now the 17-28 fits into a sweet spot for landscape but I already have a 16-35 that works fine.
I don't care what you shoot personally. The point is 24-70 isn't wide enough for a one lens kit anyway for most. So what does it matter if it's 24 or 28? Your most likely going to be carrying another lens anyway. So if it's your 17-28 or 16-35 you have the range covered either way. So why complain about it being only 28. Makes no sense.
nhsonyshooter wrote:
I don't care what you shoot personally. The point is 24-70 isn't wide enough for a one lens kit anyway for most. So what does it matter if it's 24 or 28? Your most likely going to be carrying another lens anyway. So if it's your 17-28 or 16-35 you have the range covered either way. So why complain about it being only 28. Makes no sense.
And who are you talking for...yourself or for everyone else on FM? Who says 24 is not wide enough..you? For what? I find anything wider with people really distorts the image and 20mm for most cases does not involve people...for me.
As you said, I don't give diddly squat what you personally shoot...but don't come off as your opinion is be all and other's view is to be discarded. Funny how the standard normal zoom has been 24-70 and seems to have worked for many for many years.
1bwana1 wrote:
Exactly. I can take my 28-200 and my tiny CV 21mm or CV 15mm, both will fit in any pocket, and be very well set for travel and lanscape.
That's fine for landscapes, but a standard 2.8 zoom is bread and butter for events and switching to your 21mm during an event just won't cut it when you need something wider than 28. Again, there is a reason why the 24-70 is such a popular range.
Yes, 35-70 became 28-70 became 24-70. Those who can't live with 28-75 can eliminate this lens, no harm no foul. Sigma makes both a 24-70 and 28-70, and there's always the Sony GM, choice is good. Those who are okay with 28-75 that's good too. There are valid points which will cause people to not be interested or be interested.
I switched the Tamron 28-75mm + voigtlander 21mm f/3.5 to the Sigma 24-70mm. For me 24mm is wide enough , but I prefer a lighter lens.
The voigtlander 21mm is really a great compact lens but I almost never used it, so sold it. 28mm is a good min focal length for me. It’s very subjective. Some like shooting with a 12mm …
I don't mind starting at 28mm at all – my preference is for a smaller lens and I don't personally find 24mm that useful. If I need wider, I'd rather switch to a wide prime or zoom. Of course, others may have a greater need for 24mm. I think this G2 lens will be a huge seller, but I suspect Sigma has taken some of the air out of the balloon with their 28-70 lens, which is smaller and renders more nicely than the G1 in some respects. Perhaps the G2 will beat the Sigma in IQ and rendering, but it's going to be significantly bigger.
The other lens that took some of the air out of the balloon on this release is the 28-200. For those of us who don't need an f/2.8 zoom that often, the 28-200 is pretty attractive.
itai195 wrote:
The other lens that took some of the air out of the balloon on this release is the 28-200. For those of us who don't need an f/2.8 zoom that often, the 28-200 is pretty attractive.
I can understand your logic yet from a marketing and needs perspective I think the target users are much different. For example, pros more often insist on wide zooms that are f2.8 through the focal range.
I think the G2 is in a tough position really. People that are happy with their original 28-75 are unlikely to switch to this; and people that were unhappy with it largely made a switch to another lens by now (like I did); for example to the Sigma 24-70 or 28-70, to the Sony GM or another option. Those that are first time E mount buyers might be tempted, but I think the Sigma 28-70 prodives better value. At least in my area. The 28-70 costs you 749 EUR here, and the Tamron 28-75 G2 is due to be 900 EUR.
I think Tamron was in a tough spot if they didn't do a G2. Isn't the G1 even less compelling in the context of the competition you just mentioned? It sold well, and was a hit....but there is more competition now.
tsdevine wrote:
It sold well, and was a hit....but there is more competition now.
That's exactly right I think. When the G1 came to market it was the right lens at the right time filling an area that hadn't been properly addressed yet. You had the G1 and the GM with a large financial gap between them. Now that gap has been filled by other lenses and even below the G1 there's options now.
zz wrote:
That's exactly right I think. When the G1 came to market it was the right lens at the right time filling an area that hadn't been properly addressed yet. You had the G1 and the GM with a large financial gap between them. Now that gap has been filled by other lenses and even below the G1 there's options now.
It's pretty remarkable how much more competition there is in the Sony ecosystem now compared to even a few years ago. Users now have two or three solid options for most zoom and prime lens focal lengths where they'd be interested.
teddoman wrote:
It's pretty remarkable how much more competition there is in the Sony ecosystem now compared to even a few years ago. Users now have two or three solid options for most zoom and prime lens focal lengths where they'd be interested.
It's indeed really great to have all these lens options now. There are also rumors of Sony going to announce a new version of their 24-70 GM. The Sony platform starts to be really mature now, with a good selection from 12mm to 600mm.
The competition has been really good. My understanding is the 28-75 G1 was the best selling lens in the world, maybe caviated with non kit lens. At some point the competition from the Sigma 24-70 and 28-70 started eating their lunch and they had to respond. I'm guessing it was the 24-70 that caused the damage as Tamron's responce is better optics and focusing. It seems like Sony, Sigma, and Tamron have all been hiting it out of the park on recent designs. It seems fair to say the 24-70 & 70-180 are the main source of pressure for Sony to redesign the zoom GMs. That and I suspect the computer aided lens design has taken some leaps forward.
I keep checking for reviews on the new lenses. Not sure why there would be an NDA on reviews when people in Japan seem to be getting some stock already. If they did not send out review copies it seems like they missed a good marketing opportunity.
I don't see a problem with them upping their game some. It's a tough segment. I think they are looking more to new sales, not to tempt/transition current owners, of any of the current crop. I do think they want to be in a position to take advantage of the A7iv when it hits. I think anyone already wanting smaller might have gone to the smaller Sigma or eaking out more performance would have priced up, perhaps a little reluctantly to the Sigma 24-70/2.8. The 28-200 is a different critter. It's there for the users that don't want the two lens solution.
Craig Gillette wrote:
I don't see a problem with them upping their game some. It's a tough segment. I think they are looking more to new sales, not to tempt/transition current owners, of any of the current crop. I do think they want to be in a position to take advantage of the A7iv when it hits. I think anyone already wanting smaller might have gone to the smaller Sigma or eaking out more performance would have priced up, perhaps a little reluctantly to the Sigma 24-70/2.8. The 28-200 is a different critter. It's there for the users that don't want the two lens solution....Show more →
Yes, I agree I think the focus is more on new sales not to get people to switch. The timing with the a7iv release makes sense, but I suspect that is more luck. People here might be willing to switch to a new lens, but I think that is the minority.
zz wrote: