Steve Spencer wrote:
The extent of sample variation is very difficult to determine without testing a large number of lenses. Ideally you would want to test at least 50 lenses and nobody does that as far as I know. As zooms are complex we can, however, expect more sample variation.
I haven't seen any evidence of sample variation so far. Reviews tend to give similar results. Not as sharp in the corners at 24mm f/2.8 and some LoCA at macro distance (which may or may not matter for some). Else no significant flaw, nice rendering, good sharpness, fast AF, strong flare resistance, ...
Fboss wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence of sample variation so far. Reviews tend to give similar results. Not as sharp in the corners at 24mm f/2.8 and some LoCA at macro distance (which may or may not matter for some). Else no significant flaw, nice rendering, good sharpness, fast AF, strong flare resistance, ...
Looking at TheDigitalPicture comparison, Sigma's actually better in the midfield and periphery, but worse in the center and corners. More uniform performance on the Sigma I think in this case (24mm)...
I am drawn to this lens. It looks like it ticks a lot of the boxes for me: good focal range, an aperture ring, good optical qualities, decent price in comparison to the Sony equivalent, but I will have to try it out to see if the weight is an issue. I currently use the Sigma 28-70 dg dn and like its f2.8. aperture, its size and weight, but dislike not having an aperture ring and would like a softer background rendering when the background gets busy. I have thought of the Sony 20-70, but the f4 puts me off, and its rendering is just ok, though its size and weight are a plus.Soon we will have the new Sigma lens in users’ hands and will get more personal reviews of the lens.
j4nu wrote:
I guess this means there's not much choice for L-mount ...
Seriously though, nearly all your comments in this thread are negative:
which triggered my question.
People reading them might get an impression that somehow Sigma is more often decentered than the GMII, which GM's thread does not seem to confirm...
That's just my L-Mount shelf. I didn't show you my E-Mount Sigma glass
I have an intense dislike for copy variation in lenses, particularly decentering because I'm primarily a landscape shooter. I've posted about this for many lenses, including Sony's. IMO, if a lens can't be made with a reasonable amount of consistency then there is something wrong with the design and they need to go back to the drawing board and change the optical formula to one that is more realistic based on typical tolerances in manufacturing.
snapsy wrote:
That's just my L-Mount shelf. I didn't show you my E-Mount Sigma glass
I have an intense dislike for copy variation in lenses, particularly decentering because I'm primarily a landscape shooter. I've posted about this for many lenses, including Sony's. IMO, if a lens can't be made with a reasonable amount of consistency then there is something wrong with the design and they need to go back to the drawing board and change the optical formula to one that is more realistic based on typical tolerances in manufacturing.
That's the sad truth nowadays I'm afraid. Take 24-70/2.8 for example, there is no model currently sold for e-mount that is not plagued by IQ issuess...
I think about it from time to time and my take on it is that the other side of the coin is that we would never see some of the designs/performance at their current prices if it were not for the accepted "tolerances".
j4nu wrote:
That's the sad truth nowadays I'm afraid. Take 24-70/2.8 for example, there is no model currently sold for e-mount that is not plagued by IQ issuess...
I think about it from time to time and my take on it is that the other side of the coin is that we would never see some of the designs/performance at their current prices if it were not for the accepted "tolerances".
This has been posited before. It's a reasonable take and I'd accept it, provided the manufacturers disclosed the sample variation in their official specifications, including MTF. The current strategy of just hoping most wont notice or complain isn't very ethical IMO.
Mine has just shipped, I should get it on Monday. After 3 unsuccessful attempts with the 24-70 GMII, I'm curious to see if it's going to be the one ! At nearly half the price of the Sony, I'm willing to accept some LoCA at macro distance and imperfect corners at 24mm 2.8. As long as there is no other significant flaw.
hlansing wrote:
I just received my copy today. It's much beefier than I expected.
Really? I also received mine today, I traded my original 24-70 DG DN for it, and it's more noticeably smaller and lighter than I expected from the specs.
I picked mine up yesterday, its a bit smaller and lighter than the MK1 but has more in the way of features. The aperture ring alone was worth the upgrade for me as silly as that may sound.
SNJOps wrote:
I picked mine up yesterday, its a bit smaller and lighter than the MK1 but has more in the way of features. The aperture ring alone was worth the upgrade for me as silly as that may sound.
Not silly at all — the aperture ring is the only thing I miss from my Fujis. My brain wanted to upgrade because of the size/weight reduction is why I upgraded. My heart upgraded because of the aperture ring.
I actually love the aperture lock switch either locks in A orlocks out of A. That was unexpected from the reviews, and actually quite nice.
Fboss wrote:
Mine has just shipped, I should get it on Monday. After 3 unsuccessful attempts with the 24-70 GMII, I'm curious to see if it's going to be the one ! At nearly half the price of the Sony, I'm willing to accept some LoCA at macro distance and imperfect corners at 24mm 2.8. As long as there is no other significant flaw.
Before going on the Sigma 24-70 II bandwagon I decided to give the Sony 24-70 GMII a last chance(!) and have just finished the testing. In short: this sample is great! So it's possible, a good 24-70 GMII is a marvel of a lens. Today I am a happy photographer, the 24-70 will se a lot of good use. So goodbye to Sigma this time.
...