The Petapixel review (at least I think it was that one) mentioned using 82mm filters with a step down ring and not getting any vignetting. I hope this is the case for me, as I have a bunch of expensive filters, including infrared filters, that I’d hate to have to replace…. tsdevine wrote:
The 86mm filter threads combined with the higher cost make it a pass for me right now, especially given how happy I am with the 28-45. The f/1.8 primes aren't the highest bar to clear to begin with, in terms of sharpness. I suspect the Sigma will resolve more in the corners at some FLs, especially at 28mm.
So I'm sure it will be very popular, and not taking anything away from it. It's a very useful range (even without 24mm). Just for my shooting I don't think it's worth the added cost. Not saying it doesn't make sense for others though. ...Show more →
Good to know. But even forgetting that, I’m so happy with the Sigma, I’d have to see it being incredible in comparison. And that’s a tough ask.
Jimi3 wrote:
The Petapixel review (at least I think it was that one) mentioned using 82mm filters with a step down ring and not getting any vignetting. I hope this is the case for me, as I have a bunch of expensive filters, including infrared filters, that I’d hate to have to replace….
I've always loved Mark Galer's reviews even given the fact that he's a Sony Ambassador and perhaps subconsciously biased, but in his review of the 28-70 f/2GM, he compares the 28-70 f/2GM with some quite old, perhaps classic, G lenses, but still older less ambitious f/1.8's.
I have the 85 f/1.8 and love it, but I bought it in 2017, with my first Sony A7RIII. I'd have preferred a comparison perhaps with the f/1.4's, eg 35mm GM, 50GM, and 85GMII, stopped down to f/2. I know that combo is heavier and more expensive but it should be more comparable in terms of image quality.
I'm mostly a landscape photographer and have the 24-70 f/2.8 GMII and am quite happy with it so have essentially no need or desire for this new lens but I remain intrigued by the cutting edge.
Not interested, since the price is high, and I don't need to have only one lens with me.
If you only want one lens, with great quality for portraits and wide enough for street photography (and even landscape, 28mm is not the widest, but still ok), I think this is the ultimate lens to consider. If you're like me, you don't mind switching lenses from time to time, then Sony has a whole line-up of f1.4 lenses that's difficult to complain about.
Honestly, I'm happy we can choose. I get the f1.4 lenses any day, but this is still a very nice option, and I'm sure some people will be happy not to have to switch to Canon anymore to get such a lens.
Already did this dance with the Canon RF version. It did a lot of sitting in my closet, as it just wasn’t a fun lens to lug around for a standard zoom that didn’t take me all the way out to 24mm. The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze, as it were. What ended up being my preference most of the time was just carrying two bodies instead, with a 24 and 85 prime on each respectively.
That’s not to say it wasn’t an optical marvel. Images looked pretty good throughout most of the focal length range. I suspect the Sony version will also be pretty great. Still though, it won’t do what a 24/1.4 and 85/1.4 do for my purposes.
JohnDizzo15 wrote:
Already did this dance with the Canon RF version. It did a lot of sitting in my closet, as it just wasn’t a fun lens to lug around for a standard zoom that didn’t take me all the way out to 24mm. The juice wasn’t worth the squeeze, as it were. What ended up being my preference most of the time was just carrying two bodies instead, with a 24 and 85 prime on each respectively.
Thanks for sharing your experience with the Canon. No question starting at 24mm would be much much more useful. But the Sony 28-70 is just over 900g - actually a little lighter than the 24GM and 85GM together - which is a whole different ballgame to lugging around the Canon 1.3kg monster.
Taylor Jackson expressed a similar sentiment: he was glad that Sony made it a 28-70 instead of 24-70 to keep the size and weight down, because he wouldn't have carried the latter around all day at a wedding.
Finished watching the video. The Sony rendering is harsher than canon… not sure why most sony lens has harsher rendering, it seems Sony engineers does not place as much weight on rendering than canon or Nikon. Seems to behave like the 35mm or 135mm Gm….
Watch video time stamp. 8.38. Bokeh flowers on the right .
This lens seems to be very good optically (bokeh a bit questionable perhaps), light and reasonably compact. I am sure focusing will be fast as well. So many things to like.
GoroMajima wrote:
I take that weight difference over some slightly harsher rendering.
I think Sony can keep the same weight and give better rendering by sacrificing sharpness.
I am hoping more people realise things like rendering is more important once sharpness reaches a certain level... then Sony can realise they are optimising the wrong thing
To me, on a 4k screen looking at the side by side, the only obvious thing is color and rendering. No one can tell sharpness apart
As someone who was considering the 24-50 G, the 20-70 G, and the 28-100 G as my next purchase... or possibly selling my current kit in 5 years and grabbing the 28-45 ART I feel like I'm going to sell my current kit in a few years and grab the 28-70 GM. The only thing that might stop me are an rx1 II/rx1r III model with an updated everything, or the release of a α7 c model with the current swivel display model and a joystick alongside a standard wide (28/35/40) f2/1.8 prime on the current performance level of their prime G/GM series.
I think what interests me most about the 28-70 GM is that I've considered so many lenses that offered less to me while being heavier. The 35 1.2 ART, the 40 1.4 ART, the original 24-70 GM, the Tamron and Samyang 35-150 2-2.8, the DSLR Tamron 35 1.4, and both of Sigma's recent zooms I've mentioned above. From what I can see, the new GM outperforms zooms that are not the 28-45 ART or the GM II and either matches or comes within a slight technical disadvantage of the primes listed here or even my own 35 GM. Finally, we have here a heavy lens that justifies itself by being able to replace your entire kit if you're not a pro, though as someone who has worked professionally I'd say a lot of event kits could be completely replaced by this.
My desire for an uncompromised more svelte kit has been somewhat diminished by my increased pessimism that it will ever happen (the Q43 having the same CF problems as the Zeiss 40 CF), but if it were to ever come about as I've described above I might opt for it over the 28-70 GM. In the meantime I'd hardly consider it suffering to hold on to my current kit, but I'm really enjoying finally having an answer of how to just condense the entirety of my larger gear to a single point outside of some possible specialist equipment like a macro lens.
wind30 wrote:
I think Sony can keep the same weight and give better rendering by sacrificing sharpness.
I am hoping more people realise things like rendering is more important once sharpness reaches a certain level... then Sony can realise they are optimising the wrong thing
To me, on a 4k screen looking at the side by side, the only obvious thing is color and rendering. No one can tell sharpness apart
The bokeh varies between the shots and even depending on the location in the frame, so I'm not sure if we're not looking at DoF differences mostly...
Nov 20, 2024 at 08:10 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
wind30 wrote:
Only very few Sony lens has nice rendering.
Not really true. I think the 85 f/1.4 GM original version has beautiful rendering, and I very much like the 24 f/1.4 GM, the 50 f/1.2 GM, and although quite different the 50 f/1.4 ZA.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Not really true. I think the 85 f/1.4 GM original version has beautiful rendering, and I very much like the 24 f/1.4 GM, the 50 f/1.2 GM, and although quite different the 50 f/1.4 ZA.
I think there are several good lenses in the line. Saying very few are bad or very few are good will not lead to any insights.
We can however probably agree (?) that several of the new Sony lenses seem to be designed with "sharpness" as the main goal. So, I partly agree with wind30. The lenses Steve mentions... well, I can agree again.
I know people who like the FE 35/1.4 GM style of rendering a lot. I did my best to like the lens but sold it after not too long. But is it good or bad?
j4nu wrote:
The bokeh varies between the shots and even depending on the location in the frame, so I'm not sure if we're not looking at DoF differences mostly...
Thinking about the "sharpness" details that's possible.
Thinking about the rendering of background OOF stuff I see some more disturbing kind of rendering in the Sony images.
I doubt anyone more than I would care. I know my wife, my kids and their relatives wouldn't care (not even when i point it out).
OTOH, as I shoot mainly for my own pleasure it actually matters.
