tsdevine
Online
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
 p.6 #7 · Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098 | |
While it may seem silly, the Tamron 70-180 would be pushing it to fit vertically in one of my slots in my backpack. I think the Sony would fit, albeit barely. Maybe the Tamron would too, I'd have to measure. I could use my 1.4x TC with the Sony if I wanted more reach, or more magnification for macro (than the Tamron 70-180.) The Tamron 70-300 is slightly slower in overlapping range and doesn't really pass for trying to do macro, at least I don't think it would be as useful. And I believe the Sony would be better optimized for OSS+IBIS with my a7R V.
At the end of the day, I'm not saying they aren't good options, but they don't really tempt me at all. I'm predominantly a prime shooter, but the 70-200/4 G does tempt me somewhat. Cost isn't a huge factor in my lens choices...unless we're talking about big whites as I don't shoot enough wildlife/birds to make that investment.
I have the 20-70/4, so the only way the 24-50 would tempt me would be if it turned out to perform tangibly better, which I'm doubting. But I can see how some people would trade the range for a little more speed.
You seem so sure of exactly how everything is, there is no willingness to see nuances that people with other priorities may have. I respect that you don't see any value in these lenses, based on other options, but it would help if you soften your tone and not speak in so absolute terms that no one can have a differing opinion. No where did you say "in my opinion", or "I believe", or "I think". I definitely understand you see no value in these lenses (vs other available options.) I think maybe we can just leave it at that.
adcimagery wrote:
Yes, 200 f/2.8 vs f/4 is a more meaningful of a differentiator than at 50mm.
Also, I'm referring to the Tamron 70-300, not Sony's. For 1/3rd the price, these samples really look close enough, hence returning to my point that the 70-200 f/4 is too expensive for what it is. If it's all about IQ, just go for the 70-180 f/2.8, which is sharper, faster, cheaper, and weighs the same.
I'm curious what you see the 70-200 f/4 as having over the Tamron 70-300 or 70-180 f/2.8, for instance: similar weight and size, lower prices, better IQ on the 70-180 along with a 1 stop advantage, the 70-180 also has a .5x macro, the 70-300 gets to 300mm, etc.
The only thing in Sony's favor for the 70-200 f/4 is the artificial limitation to FPS when shooting, but really none of these lenses would make sense paired with an a1 or a9.
It's not a problem that Sony provides options - I appreciate both the range of native lenses and the openness of the mount enabling great third party options. My original point has always been that some of these announcements (24-50, 70-200 f/4, the rumored 16-25) are overpriced and not differentiated from what's already available. If you needed a faster midrange aperture, a 20-70 and 50mm f/1.8 is far more capable for around the same price and has already been around for a year.
Tamron 70-300 samples:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=1662&Camera=1538&Sample=0&FLI=3&API=0&LensComp=1533&CameraComp=1175&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=2&APIComp=1
...Show more →
|
As fas as I know the new 70-200/4 G2 has been taken very positively, a welcome step up from the older slightly large and optically mediocre older version. And the positive vibes seem to be repeated with 16-35 G, 20-70 G... ...and now the 24-50 G. These are all the kind of zooms that appeal wide audience, sell well, and are commercially important to Sony. Deffinately not niche!