Jonas B wrote:
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.
Yes. That video has many comparison shots and I think enough to make a preliminary conclusion that the new lens behaves more like 35mm Gm than say the 24mm Gm or old 85mm Gm.
The difference is also small but it irritates me. I am another person who although own the 35mm Gm, still kept and use my heavy sigma 35mm f1.2.
Jonas B wrote:
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.
In the video I see one clear instance where Canon oof rendering is nicer (the flowers on the right side of the photo at 8:10), but that looks like it might be caused by different DoF. The more distant background is nearly identical in my eyes.
So... yeah, I don't see the issue clearly I guess.
Given the reports of softness at MFD....it might not be a slam dunk to say it's a "modern" Sony (or a "Classic" Sony)...it may be somewhere in between.
I watched a few videos on Youtube from guys I like and the overall vibe was "we're getting paid to say this, but this won't be a regular part of my kit". I like when companies take a flyer on lenses like this, but for the size this should have better IQ imo vs what I've seen examples of.
I’m not sure how much sense this lens makes unless it offers substantially better look and rendering than the 24-70 f/2.8 GM II. Sure, f/2 vs f/2.8 will make a difference in itself, but I would hope that this lens brings more on the look side than just that.
tsdevine wrote:
Given the reports of softness at MFD....it might not be a slam dunk to say it's a "modern" Sony (or a "Classic" Sony)...it may be somewhere in between.
I don't know if it's "modern" or "Classic" but for sure it is overpriced ...
wind30 wrote:
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 .
Only very few Sony lens has nice rendering.
The Sony rendering looks fantastic. There is no way it is harsh. I'm looking at that same timestamp:
?t=520
Sure, it's slightly different than the Canon, but lenses from different manufacturers never render exactly the same.
Nov 20, 2024 at 11:44 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
wind30 wrote:
Yes. That video has many comparison shots and I think enough to make a preliminary conclusion that the new lens behaves more like 35mm Gm than say the 24mm Gm or old 85mm Gm.
The difference is also small but it irritates me. I am another person who although own the 35mm Gm, still kept and use my heavy sigma 35mm f1.2.
And I too like the rendering of the Sigma 35 f/1.2 better than the 35 GM, but to each their own. If people like the 35 GM, they will probably like the new 85 GM II, they will probably like the 135 GM, they will probably like the Sigma 85 f/1.4 DG DN as well.
If like me and apparently you, they like the 24 GM, the old 85 GM, and the Sigma 35 f/1.2. They will probably like the Sigma 35 f/2 and if they want a 135, I would recommend the Sony/Zeiss A-mount 135 f/1.8 ZA, which works great on the LAEA-5 if you can stand the loud AF.
I like the 50 f/1.2 GM as well, but it is probably in the middle and might make both groups happy. The bottom line is that you have a ton of choice with Sony for primes regardless of what you like. At least that is how it seems to me.
j4nu wrote:
In the video I see one clear instance where Canon oof rendering is nicer (the flowers on the right side of the photo at 8:10), but that looks like it might be caused by different DoF. The more distant background is nearly identical in my eyes.
So... yeah, I don't see the issue clearly I guess.
I think you can see the same thing at 7:22 and there it is at both the left and right side of the model. To the left I think I see the result of the bright rim (OOF background bright spots) I mentioned earlier while the right side shows the same thing as at 8:10.
From 10:00 and on the difference with regards to flare is another negative for the Sony lens. The exposure difference made me open a screenshot in Photoshop. Trying to equalize exposure somewhat plus also reducing the contrast in the Canon image the Canon image still look better to me.
Are the differences importance? The same question again. For me yes. Probably not for "anyone".
Jonas B wrote:
I think you can see the same thing at 7:22 and there it is at both the left and right side of the model. To the left I think I see the result of the bright rim (OOF background bright spots) I mentioned earlier while the right side shows the same thing as at 8:10.
From 10:00 and on the difference with regards to flare is another negative for the Sony lens. The exposure difference made me open a screenshot in Photoshop. Trying to equalize exposure somewhat plus also reducing the contrast in the Canon image the Canon image still look better to me.
Are the differences importance? The same question again. For me yes. Probably not for "anyone".
Yeah, but at 5:55, background seem nicer in the center on Canon, but in top-left on Sony, so it's kinda hard for me to tell if one lens is indeed smoother than the other. It might be though, as the close-up on the eye shows Sony is a bit sharper and that in most cases mean worse bokeh...
Anyways, I don' see here a difference similar to the one between 35/1.2DN and 35GM for example... but maybe I need to watch the videon again, fullscreen this time .
j4nu wrote:
Yeah, but at 5:55, background seem nicer in the center on Canon, but in top-left on Sony, so it's kinda hard for me to tell if one lens is indeed smoother than the other. It might be though, as the close-up on the eye shows Sony is a bit sharper and that in most cases mean worse bokeh...
Anyways, I don' see here a difference similar to the one between 35/1.2DN and 35GM for example... but maybe I need to watch the videon again, fullscreen this time .
The differences between these zoom is not at all as big as the differences between the 35mm lenses. But they are there. If you have a second round with the video please don't miss the flare example at 10:00. Is it a big difference or is it something that really is about exposure and PP?
Jonas B wrote:
The differences between these zoom is not at all as big as the differences between the 35mm lenses. But they are there. If you have a second round with the video please don't miss the flare example at 10:00. Is it a big difference or is it something that really is about exposure and PP?
There are probably combinations of focal lengths, focus distances and background distances one should avoid.
And now I'm out of here. It's not a lens I'm interested in after having seen the videos and the stills.
There are probably combinations of focal lengths, focus distances and background distances one should avoid.
And now I'm out of here. It's not a lens I'm interested in after having seen the videos and the stills.
Yes, this is what I called "crunchy" bokeh in the Sigma thread on a different photo I guess.
These look like LED lights though, which are quite challenging, so it would be nice to see how other lenses deal with them.
I think these shots were taken not that far from my office, I'll see if I can find the place (if I ever get back to the office that is) .
For people considering this lens, I'd put most of your consideration in the size and weight and intended purpose rather than the optics. The optics will be more than good enough, but the weight may become a burden if you are planning to use this as a single lens solution, or just to cut down on the number of lenses you carry for personal use. Having owned the Canon version, I can tell you that quite often I left the lens at home because I didn't want the hassle of carrying a 3lb lens, nor did I appreciate some of the attention it garnered during casual outings.
Granted, the Sony version in significantly lighter than Canon's, but the heavier weight wears on both your wrist and your mind in the sense that you may end up taking the lens much less often than you think.
If you are shooting events, weddings in particular, I'd choose a 28-70 f/2 over the 24-70 f/2.8 every single time. I paired the 28-70 with an ultrawide prime and a 70-200 for weddings. It provided amazing versatility while minimizing lens changes.
There are probably combinations of focal lengths, focus distances and background distances one should avoid.
And now I'm out of here. It's not a lens I'm interested in after having seen the videos and the stills.
The bokeh balls look pretty good, nicely shaped across the frame, reasonably nice texture,...
Way nicer than the horrendous bokeh balls of the Canon 28-70mm f2.0 that are riddled with aspherical element grinding marks. Plain unusable without post-processing. At least not something I would be willing to include in my portfolio or hand over to paying clients.
MMP wrote:
If you are shooting events, weddings in particular, I'd choose a 28-70 f/2 over the 24-70 f/2.8 every single time. I paired the 28-70 with an ultrawide prime and a 70-200 for weddings. It provided amazing versatility while minimizing lens changes.
The best option would have been a 24-70mm f2.0 I feel. I would personally have far preferred a slightly heavier 24-70mm f2.0 with only 90% of image quality over this lens.
...
.