GHarris
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.2 #13 · What is the must-have FE lens in 24-70mm? | |
I'll try to elaborate a bit on why I suggested the 28-45 Sigma.
In reading this thread, I see you've already kind of touched on some of my points.
For one... regarding range... with your A7Rv, it kind of *is* a 70mm lens, too - as you've noticed. An APS-C crop, which there's plenty of room for on that camera, gets you to around 70mm, at about, or just wider than, an f/2.8 full-frame-equivalent aperture.
At every focal length short of the full 70mm APS-C crop, it's all gravy. You have more aperture.
The more relevant criticism, regarding range, concerns the wide end. You can't crop to a wider image. But... well, I don't see the aesthetic appeal in wide-angle photos of people, personally. Maybe that's just me. But I think that beyond a certain wideness, it just looks worse/wrong. My own cutoff, if I can manage it, is around 35mm. Wider works less badly for pictures of very young infants where the distortion is sometimes less noticeable, or even adds cuteness, but otherwise I just don't like it. I would personally not miss the 24mm, if I were in your shoes, but it's a matter of preference and taste. I tend to take the view that if a shot of people needs 24mm it's not going to be a great shot anyway, and should be reconsidered or reframed for at least a slightly longer FL, but that's just me.
I think f/1.8 is a significant advantage over f/2.8. I've taken family photos in various indoor settings with both my 35mm f/2.8 ZA prime and my 55mm f/1.8 ZA prime, and the shots (of the same scene/event) from the latter just flat-out look better. Not because there's anything wrong with the former lens, they're both pretty good. Not just because of the longer focal length giving what is often a nicer look. But because indoor lighting is frequently genuinely bad, worse than our eyes notice, and you just get a nicer RAW file to work with out of the lowered ISOs produced by an f/1.8 shot in my experience. The end result is better. Everything has more pop.
At 28mm, at 35mm, at 45mm, it's just plain giving you nicer images. At most modest crops beyond 45mm, it's still better. At its longest crop to match a typical 24-70 f/2.8, it's about the same, at last/at worst. Your A7Rv is the best camera of all to be doing APS-C crops with. And those small pixels will love the added light-gathering of the f/1.8 aperture at most focal lengths in indoor environments.
The biggest criticism of all of the Sigma 28-45, and the one I can most reasonably see being the dealbreaker, is the size and weight. That's a matter of personal choice. Only you can know where you stand on that one. You might not yet be used to big lenses and camera bodies - you don't have the A7Rv yet (I think)?... it's a big, long-evolved version of the Sony full frame bodies (which used to be smaller in earlier generations), and for sure a big step up in size and weight from the a6300 you're used to. Perhaps you should do a quick sanity-check, when you have the A7Rv and 70-200 in hand, to see whether that kind of heft is a problem to you, to help inform your decision on whether you'd reject the Sigma.
Ichinichi wrote:
Only problem is the Sigma 28-45/1.8 is hard to find used...and likely hard to sell if I decide to go another direction.
You're right, you won't find one to buy used... but what makes you think it wouldn't sell, used? Especially if there aren't many used copies of it on the market yet
|
.