For me I need 24 no question about it and for 3k it just don't make sense. Honestly that Sigma 28-45 that Tim has looks great and less money plus it's a 1.8.
Honestly I have been with Sony since the A7R and this maybe the worst buy I have seen. And im not shy about buying expensive glass, far from it but I do want value.
You have not seen the buy yet.
Assuming the rumoured price is correct, it will 'fetch' sales, whatever that means.
To use unambiguous language, it will sell.
Why wouldn't Sony customers spend a similar amount that Canon customers have been?
GMPhotography wrote:
Honestly I have been with Sony since the A7R and this maybe the worst buy I have seen. And im not shy about buying expensive glass, far from it but I do want value.
This forum is the worst example of cost conscious. Almost every thread come directly into cost . So a lens at 1300 instead of 3 grand has no value to it
Sigma 28-45 is 1300 the Sony is 3 grand. No question people will look at the Sigma more. But worse 28mm is a major issue for an event work with people. 24 it be a maybe for me
Yes it’s big and heavy and expensive and “only” 28mm wide. But let’s reserve judgement. Maybe it’s a stunner throughout the range. Maybe its rendering is gorgeous. Maybe it’s under corrected for SA. Who among us hasn’t pined for a 28mm lens with exquisite rendering in native Sony glass? Big IFs here of course, but if it delivers that’s like a bag of three primes. 28, 35, 50 with a bonus aps-c-mode 105 2.8.
This forum has only the tiniest relevance to sales of the Sony 28-70.
28mm has not been an issue for the much heavier Canon offering, even those owners that are on FM.
Whether you like it has even less relevance.
GMPhotography wrote:
This forum is the worst example of cost conscious. Almost every thread come directly into cost . So a lens at 1300 instead of 3 grand has no value to it
Sigma 28-45 is 1300 the Sony is 3 grand. No question people will look at the Sigma more. But worse 28mm is a major issue for an event work with people. 24 it be a maybe for me
GMPhotography wrote:
This forum is the worst example of cost conscious. Almost every thread come directly into cost . So a lens at 1300 instead of 3 grand has no value to it
Sigma 28-45 is 1300 the Sony is 3 grand. No question people will look at the Sigma more. But worse 28mm is a major issue for an event work with people. 24 it be a maybe for me
No question that the Sigma 28-45 is the bargain of the century, but IMHO $3k is not unreasonable for the Sony. The 70-200/2.8 GM II is priced at $2,800 at launch and the 28-70 is arguably of a higher level of innovation.
A 1700 difference I beg to differ on that . Thats an extra GM lens you could buy. Sure if it was even 1000 difference I could see it but 1300 compared to 3000 im not sure anyone on this forum would do it. For Pros like me it's not the biggest deal to accept as we are making money. I just don't see the value when that stretch is that far.
Be it I like it or not is not the issue it's a 28mm that no Pro doing events, weddings and PR work can live with. We need at least 24mm to start. I been at this for 50 years and thousands of gigs it just don't work, not wide enough. Always a issue is space getting far enough away from subjects to get people in the shots
Anyway im out don't really care about this lens but given the focal lengths the shock value sucks. If it was 24mm I maybe standing in line for one. Thats all im saying .
Justin it maybe a stunner I have no doubt on that . Its just too long is my opinion
Its still a rumor until it hits the shelves so may not matter.
All fair points. Not having 24 for tight spaces for events is tough. I’d say carry another body for wide 16-25 or 16-35. Where I travel, working pros usually have the 70-200 on the other body. There’s no free lunch. I personally love wide attached to my standard zoom. It’s why the 20-70 is so compelling to me. In all honesty, the holy grail lens for me would be a Sony 20-70 2.8. I’d prefer it to a hypothetical 28-70 2.0.
No question the 70-200 version II is a gem I use it a lot on gigs and for me any price I pay is worth it. I make a lot of money on that lens just selling images
I will be surprised if the 28-70/2 will be as good (very vague, but using my judgement system) as the 28-45/1.8 within the shared range. Is it possible? Sure. It will just surprise me.
That being said. Having a focal range of 28-70 (vs 28-45) albeit at 1/3rd a stop slower, will be valuable to many people. And Sony lenses will probably always garner a price premium over third party (at least of the 3rd parties we have active in E mount right now.) There is a similar price difference between the 14-24/2.8 DG DN and the 12-24/2.8 GM, and the Sigma is excellent. I've not shot the GM, but it gives you more on the wide end and it's often said that it's slightly better. I personally think it's going to be tough to deliver a 28-70/2 that is better than 28-45/1.8 across the shared range, as I said above. It can still be an amazing lens in its own right given it truly covers a broader set of FLs, no matter how it compares to the Sigma.
As Guy noted, starting at 28mm may be a non-starter for a meaningful swath of the target market.
There are people who wouldn't even look at non-OEM options, so that's another thing to weigh.
Also, I think this is more a statement lens to counter Canon's 28-70/2 statement lens. I don't think Sony is thinking much about Sigma with this lens release.
And at the end of the day, it doesn't matter all that much what I think, or anyone posting on this thread thinks. It will come down to what the market thinks on a whole, is it worth $3K (assuming it's $3K).
I'm shooting the 14-24/2.8, 28-45/1.8 and 70-200/2.8 GM II as my general zoom kit. I could add the 200-600 to the mix as well, but that is more of a specialized lens for me. I usually "know" when I would need it.
Historically I've shot more with primes, so I'm used to having gaps in FLs. The above gives me prime'ish quality with less lens changes.
mudlake wrote:
Exactly! Like when I change my 24-70/2 to the 70-200/2.8 to the 200-600. 😉😉
tsdevine wrote:
I will be surprised if the 28-70/2 will be as good (very vague, but using my judgement system) as the 28-45/1.8 within the shared range. Is it possible? Sure. It will just surprise me.
.
Yeah, it will be interesting to see comparisons come out, as hopefully they will before too long. I have a kinda specialized use that would likely make this Sony useful, but at $3000 it’s kinda a nonstarter. I’ve never even spent that much on a body before. But I may pick up the Sigma soon and wait for used 28-70s to become available.
I'm shooting the 14-24/2.8, 28-45/1.8 and 70-200/2.8 GM II as my general zoom kit. I could add the 200-600 to the mix as well, but that is more of a specialized lens for me. I usually "know" when I would need it.
Historically I've shot more with primes, so I'm used to having gaps in FLs. The above gives me prime'ish quality with less lens changes.
Hi Tim. No, I meant the hoped for 24-70/2. It was just a fun, tongue-in-cheek response to jaybr’s tongue-in-cheek comment about interchangeable lens cameras. 🙂
Personally, my interest is close to zero, as that lens is too expensive for me and I want my standard zooms to start at 24mm.
Nonetheless, if Sony really managed to produce a sub-1kg lens 28-70 f2, then I would consider that to be quite an achievement, considering the Canon weighs 1.5 kg. I would think that Sony has a rough idea of what the market for this lens looks like, otherwise they wouldn't have made one.
We really are spoiled for choice in the UWA-standard zoom segement these days, especially when compared to the early days of e-mount.
I think it's fantastic. If I were doing portrait seriously I would get it immediately. With due respect, it's unrealistic to expect 24mm for this weight. Even 28mm is already magic from Sony.
If my wife would give me the ok, I would acquire, assuming initial tests showed a beautiful look at f/2. The weight is less than the Nikon 24-70/2.8 I carried everywhere up until 2-3 years ago so have no concerns about that, and I own lighter lenses for when that is crucial.
In 2023 I followed my niece around DisneyWorld for her Make-A-Wish trip (brain cancer patient) and having a full stop faster aperture would have been put to good use for better bokeh and lower light capability. I love my 50/1.2 for making images of Abigail, but the 28-70mm range on a zoom is even better for me due to her energetic activity - one moment I’m in close quarters and need wide, and the next instant she has an adorable expression or has burst into a run and I need to isolate with short tele.
I’ve also considered the Tamron 35-150 f/2-2.8 for such purposes. I’ll be fine with the 24-70/2.8 GMII next time, but I’d prefer the new f/2 lens if budget allowed. For me this would be a luxury item. Not a need, but a desire for a type of shooting I’m very passionate about.
Before I switched to Sony from Nikon I was also considering Canon, and the folks in that forum told me their 28-70/2 was very special with lots of magic. It will be interesting to see the look in people images from the new Sony.
ILCE-7RM5FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens70mmf/2.81/160s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens48mmf/2.81/500s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens70mmf/2.81/250s320 ISO-0.3 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens25mmf/2.81/100s3200 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens70mmf/2.81/250s100 ISO0.0 EV
ILCE-7RM5FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM II lens70mmf/2.81/1250s100 ISO0.0 EV
If you already have the f1.4 primes in the focal range (35, 50 and 85), I think it’s not an obvious decision to get this.
Heck, I only have the 35 and 50, but selling them both would still require me to add €1000 to the package, while for a bit more, I can complete the prime kit.
I’ll focus on getting an 85 instead, but I must say I feel happy to be able to make this choice. I hope the lens will find its public, I think Sony is really killing it at offering us a wide range of choices.
