p.2 #2 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
swldstn wrote:
Wonder if it’s worth considering it as a one lens replacement for the FE 24/2.8 G and 40 or 50mm f/2.5 G. Sure it’s bigger but no lens switching and it will do 28, 35 and 40mm as well. Can pair it with Sony’s or Zeiss’ 85/1.8 which is what I might do.
Note, The Sigma 28-70/2.8 is only 30 grams heavier at 470 grams. I got a good deal on that in used mint condition. They also have the lighter 16-28/2.8 DG DN Contemporary to pair with it.
.
I made the previous statement in my earlier post. Mark Galer’s new video on the Sony FE 24-50/2.8 G has done a complete and thorough comparison of the new lens to all the E mount alternatives and its excellent IMHO. Highly recommend it. Hopefully this link gets to it.
p.2 #3 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
It's not really talked about anywhere, but this lens has two "specifically optimized" Linear Motors, not the XD Linear motors. That said, I haven't ever seen AF side-by-side between the two types of linear motors. They do say this is compatible for the A9 III at 120fps, so I'm a bit confused. Does "specifically optimized" mean better than XD or worse?
p.2 #4 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
Sony has clearly taken notice of the requests for smaller/lighter gear. If you’re not someone that has been hoping for smaller/lighter gear then you are not the target market and it makes sense that you wouldn’t see the appeal. Clearly, if it was f/2 it would not fit in the market they’re targeting.
After the new A7Cii and A7CR, I’m glad to see that they’re considering the whole ecosystem of compact kits and not just the bodies. That’s very encouraging to me. I hope we continue to see lenses like this. Maybe a good but small tele zoom now?
The 24-50 range covers 90%+ of my needs. I’d also say 90% of my photos are between f/5.6 and f/11, so for me, the 20-70 still makes more sense. If the 20-70 didn’t exist I’d probably own the Tamron 20-40 and I’d be thinking about selling it to buy this one because I prefer having an aperture ring.
p.2 #6 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
Sony has from 10 years ago decided to prioritize or at least recognize the need for smaller lighter gear. In FF the only real maker to do so. The dedication to the mirrorless size and weight advantage purpose is clearly something they have not strayed from.
p.2 #7 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
I was hoping this lens would come in at under 400 grams and it could be a contender to replace my Tamron 20-40mm which has rather soft corners wide open at 40mm. This lens however has the softness at 24mm which may conceal it a bit more since I'm likely to shoot that FL at f/5.6.
However, since it's physically so close to the 20-70mm, that would probably be my upgrade.
By the way, does anyone else get annoyed by reviewers suggesting you can use crop mode to "shoot this at 75mm"? Sure you could, but you could crop the 20-70mm to 105mm or the 24-105mm to 157.5mm... Moot point imo. Considering you don't get the same depth of field and perspective, just get the focal length you need. We now have all the options out there.
p.2 #8 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
moncho wrote:
...
By the way, does anyone else get annoyed by reviewers suggesting you can use crop mode to "shoot this at 75mm"? Sure you could, but you could crop the 20-70mm to 105mm or the 24-105mm to 157.5mm... Moot point imo. Considering you don't get the same depth of field and perspective, just get the focal length you need. We now have all the options out there.
p.2 #9 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
MARKFER wrote:
Sony has from 10 years ago decided to prioritize or at least recognize the need for smaller lighter gear. In FF the only real maker to do so. The dedication to the mirrorless size and weight advantage purpose is clearly something they have not strayed from.
The bodies are still getting bigger with each new version. So much so that they felt the need to start a whole new line of compact bodies. Some of the older lenses were also quite large, to the point that both Tamron and Sigma released smaller versions to capitalize on the demand for smaller gear. Now Sony is responding with their version of what Tamron and Sigma released years ago.
Don’t get my wrong, I like my Sony gear, I just don’t agree that they never strayed. I think when they were the only game in town for FF mirrorless they slacked off and made some unnecessarily large lenses that lots of people complained about. I’m encouraged now because they seem to have taken notice and responded in a logical way by making (mostly) well thought out compromises.
All that said, to each their own. I know others have different needs and I think Sony has done a better job than the competition when it comes to making something for everyone.
p.2 #10 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
Making a smaller C body sort of is the point I'm making in never straying, not to mention their big bodies are not big as in Canon, Nikon etc. They are smaller to the point of people not liking them for that as in the A1 vs Z9 debate. Even toss in the Z8 it is still bigger than the A1 to a significant degree.
p.2 #11 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
For me Sony now offers both larger and smaller bodies that use similar sensors, focus and menu systems giving the user the ability to choose what’s right for their application. Even owning both Sony and Canon I had hoped , when I tried the Nikon Z9 there would be a smaller brother appropriate for travel. As nice as the Z8 was it was not that, nor are there any smaller lenses in their family. Sony provides that flexibility to me and I enjoy it. Let’s see if Canon, Nikon and Panasonic decide if addressing this market is important.
p.2 #12 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
As others have said, IQ being equal, I'd prefer the Tamron 20-40 range vs. 24-50. Easier to crop in than out. Then again, I'm liking Sony's commitment to smaller form-factor lenses that'll match well with the "c" line bodies. This lens is almost identical in size to the 24GM, which I find comfortable on the A7cR, but I wouldn't want bigger than that.
As Chez referred to, f/2.8 zooms (for me under 70mm) aren't as necessary for me, as I'm either fine with f/4 or want something faster than 2.8. But if the range and size work for your needs, having f/2.8 included "just in case" isn't a bad thing at all.
p.2 #13 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
I find this lens very appealing. The range is what I mostly shoot. I have never liked the output of the 20-70/4.0. This new lens is smaller and lighter and faster. If its optical qualities and rendering are excellent, I'll be an early buyer.
It is actually very similar to one of the most popular and esteemed Fuji medium format zooms--the GF 32-64/4.0, which is a a 25-50 35mm equivalent.
p.2 #14 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
Looking forward to see what it can do for event type stuff its a perfect focal lengths for that type of work. I have the 16-55 in APSC but if I buy back in to full frame maybe an option. Im renting all gear in 35mm today
p.2 #15 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
Great to see more high-performance compact options from Sony, but I'm in the No camp. For me - a very happy owner of the 20-70 - the advantage of 20mm over 24mm is real. If I wanted F/2.8, I would have gone for the Tamron 20-40/2.8, which is a stellar performer.
p.2 #17 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
moncho wrote:
I was hoping this lens would come in at under 400 grams and it could be a contender to replace my Tamron 20-40mm which has rather soft corners wide open at 40mm. This lens however has the softness at 24mm which may conceal it a bit more since I'm likely to shoot that FL at f/5.6.
However, since it's physically so close to the 20-70mm, that would probably be my upgrade.
By the way, does anyone else get annoyed by reviewers suggesting you can use crop mode to "shoot this at 75mm"? Sure you could, but you could crop the 20-70mm to 105mm or the 24-105mm to 157.5mm... Moot point imo. Considering you don't get the same depth of field and perspective, just get the focal length you need. We now have all the options out there. ...Show more →
Technically you don't even get the focal length you need (ie you don't actually get the magnification you would have got if you shot with a longer lens). You just get a crop to the same field of view as the field of view of the focal length you need (and that should prompt you to shoot with the same perspective as you would have used if you shot with the focal lenght you need). And you get the other conseqenses of a crop, eg deeper depth of field than if you used a longer lens with the same aperture setting (so, say, cropping a full frame 50mm f/1.4 image to APS-C size will give the equivalent of 75mm f/2.1, giving deeper depth of field than if you had shot with a 75mm f/1.4 or even say a 75mm f/1.8), and more noise in the image. The output from newer, high resolution, sensors used in crop mode is very good, and I am sure it is good enough for many people much of the time (and of course that is what really matters practically), but all the same a crop is still a crop. I agree with you that it is annoying when you hear reviewers talking as if using crop mode actaully makes the focal lenght longer.
p.2 #18 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
moncho wrote:
I was hoping this lens would come in at under 400 grams and it could be a contender to replace my Tamron 20-40mm which has rather soft corners wide open at 40mm. This lens however has the softness at 24mm which may conceal it a bit more since I'm likely to shoot that FL at f/5.6.
However, since it's physically so close to the 20-70mm, that would probably be my upgrade.
By the way, does anyone else get annoyed by reviewers suggesting you can use crop mode to "shoot this at 75mm"? Sure you could, but you could crop the 20-70mm to 105mm or the 24-105mm to 157.5mm... Moot point imo. Considering you don't get the same depth of field and perspective, just get the focal length you need. We now have all the options out there. ...Show more →
The crop mode idea is reasonable if the lens is sharp enough at 50mm.
50/2.8 in crop mode gives you the equivalent of 75/4, so you can get a similar image to the 20-70/4 on the long end
These images were taken with primes from 24mm to 85mm off a tripod, and the tripod was not moved between shots
p.2 #19 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
ryanli wrote:
Great to see more high-performance compact options from Sony, but I'm in the No camp. For me - a very happy owner of the 20-70 - the advantage of 20mm over 24mm is real. If I wanted F/2.8, I would have gone for the Tamron 20-40/2.8, which is a stellar performer.
Agreed. I value the extra width more than the difference between 2.8 and 4.
2.8 is just not fast enough for a lens of this range for me. Very happy with the 20-70 compromise for now.
p.2 #20 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098
That's an interesting comparison. There does not seem to be much difference in image output.
I am a frequent cropper fwiw, and I will regularly crop to double the FL equivalent, but it'll exaggerate any CA, noise and unsharpness. Tripod shots at ISO 100 are not always the use case
aCuria wrote:
The crop mode idea is reasonable if the lens is sharp enough at 50mm.
50/2.8 in crop mode gives you the equivalent of 75/4, so you can get a similar image to the 20-70/4 on the long end
These images were taken with primes from 24mm to 85mm off a tripod, and the tripod was not moved between shots
