Over at diglloyd. I know he can be a bit pedantic and controlling but he went through three or four copies before he got a keeper. I'm not expecting perfection but I am expecting something befitting the price. This is supposed to be a premium lens, but these days you don't always get premium quality control, unfortunately.
andyptak wrote:
Anyone experience this? I've been reading about it and it doesn't make me feel too confident.
I had the chance to test and compare three copies. All were good, one was a bit better when viewed at 400%. I would not say there was much copy variation in the copies I compared.
Thanks Chiron. Good to hear. Of course, the big question is, is it worth trading up for? I've been happy with the GM1 and don't
care less about the reduced size of the GM2. I don't even care if it's sharper - I just want to know if it has more of that "magic sauce" that makes a lens great rather than just good.
andyptak wrote:
Thanks Chiron. Good to hear. Of course, the big question is, is it worth trading up for? I've been happy with the GM1 and don't
care less about the reduced size of the GM2. I don't even care if it's sharper - I just want to know if it has more of that "magic sauce" that makes a lens great rather than just good.
I have always really like the rendering on the first version. I thought it had a beautiful draw and made lovely images. I don't feel able to compare the new GM II yet.
andyptak wrote:
Over at diglloyd. I know he can be a bit pedantic and controlling but he went through three or four copies before he got a keeper.
It probably took him that many copies before he figured out how to switch on the AF. I used to subscribe to his site, but it got to the point where it was best viewed as for entertainment purposes only.
I'm certainly not a fan on a personal level, and I wouldn't pay for his pointed opinions, but that doesn't mean he's always wrong. I'd prefer to take the word of someone like Philip Reeve but he hasn't tested it yet.
molson wrote:
It probably took him that many copies before he figured out how to switch on the AF. I used to subscribe to his site, but it got to the point where it was best viewed as for entertainment purposes only.
I also used to subscribe to his site, but his test results for lenses were too often different from my results, along with test results from, LensRentals, Marc Alhadeff, Optical Limits, Phillip Reeve, etc. I still sometimes read his non-subscription postings, but the red-flags went up, again, when he said he had to test four 24-70mm f2.8 II's to get an acceptable one.
With the exception of Philip Reeve I have problems with most review sites because all they seem to do is repeat the manufacturer's blurb on features and specs etc. Even the LensRentals review of this lens is dissapointing in this regard. I find Jim Kasson good but he is too technical for me and goes above my head often. Philip is good because he talks about distortion, flare etc - real world shooting issues rather than MTF charts, which won't be repeated in the real world. There used to be a Sony reviewer in the UK called David Kirkpatrick who was excellent. He claimed that the Samyang 12mm was better than the equivelent Leica costing ten times as much and his published tests proved it. I took him at his word and this $300 lens blows away many of my very expensive lenses. That's the kind of review I want to read.
I just got a demo version to trial today. As soon as I held it I though... 'I want this!'... beautiful lens to handle for a 2.8...
Anyway, stopped on my way home from some photo jobs and put it on my R4 for some tests against my good sample of the Sigma DG DN 24-70. Same scene, focus point etc etc.
@ 24mm my Sigma beats the Sony... in a rather obvious way. Id heard 24mm was the GM's worst focal length but I wasnt expecting that! Things tighten up after that but I would still give the Sigma the win overall in all honesty. Theres a tiny bit more micro contrast to the Sony which helps give a slightly more 3D look while you pixel peep but I was a bit shocked by that test.
Ill do a fresh test tomorrow along with a bokeh test...
Well, now you've thrown me a curve. I use 24 a lot but I prefer microcontrast over sharpness. I find my GM1 to be okay but it doesn't put a smile on my face - bit too "digital" looking for my taste. I prefer a lens with character and find many current offerings a bit too clinical. I had hoped that Sony might have improved some of this with the GM2.
andyptak wrote:
Well, now you've thrown me a curve. I use 24 a lot but I prefer microcontrast over sharpness. I find my GM1 to be okay but it doesn't put a smile on my face - bit too "digital" looking for my taste. I prefer a lens with character and find many current offerings a bit too clinical. I had hoped that Sony might have improved some of this with the GM2.
Funny; I've never seen anything "digital" come out of my Ver. 1.
MY copy was outstanding at 24 and 35 mm but 50-70 especially the later---was so off centered.. Never had a lens with such asymmetry. Sent it back. trying to decide if I should try again
mark1958 wrote:
MY copy was outstanding at 24 and 35 mm but 50-70 especially the later---was so off centered.. Never had a lens with such asymmetry. Sent it back. trying to decide if I should try again
I had the same experience, exactly, with my first copy. Received the replacement but haven't yet tested it...
