chiron
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.1 #5 · p.1 #5 · Quality of rendering in Sigma 16-28 & 28-70 Zooms? | |
QuietOC wrote:
The Sigma 28-70mm is the nicest rendering normal zoom I've used so far. I haven't directly compared it to the i-series primes, but I have the 35/2, 45/2.8 and 65/2 in that range and the 90/2.8 that is a bit longer.
I was using the old Sony A-mount 28-75mm F2.8 SAM for a while, which was quite sharp, but had pretty nasty back out-of-focus rendering. I have the Sony 24-105mm F4 G OSS but don't use it much, though it always works well when I do use it. The Tamron 28-200mm RXD is alright too, and the little Sony FE 28-60mm is fine. I don't have much interest in the larger options.
I wasn't using the Tamron 17-28mm RXD much and don't miss it. The Sigma 16-28mm is at least a little wider....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
Juha Kannisto wrote:
I've also found the rendering of 28-70/2.8 to be very pleasant and comparable to the I-series primes in general although I haven't done any side-by-side comparisons.
I've never tried the 16-28/2.8 zoom so can't comment on that one.
---------------------------------------------
Peire wrote:
I got both 28-70/2.8 and 16-28/2.8 and treat them as lighter replacements of my GM2 24-70/2.8 and GM 12-24/2.8 or,in case of 16-28/2.8,a faster replacement for my 16-35/4 G.
Sigmas are in general optically good/very good lenses,while GMs are very good/excellent.Pro grade GMs are significantly,though not strikingly superior in sharpness/microcontrast/colour rendition,while Sigmas are rather prosumer grade with all these respects,i.e. very decent,but not spectacular.
16-28/2.8 is slightly sharper and contrastier overall than 28-70/2.8,especially at 70mm f2,8,where it lags behind.
All in all most of us will be pleased with optical performance of both 16-28/2.8 and 28-70/2.8 for general purpose photography.
Thos are very consistent and positive endorsements. Very helpful. Thank you!
|
