It’s too bad this lens isn’t a half court three on image quality and rendering. I think others are right that this will be a great choice for event shooters who need low light and zoom versatility, but for many of us we’re probably better off with a 24-70 2.8 or primes.
bernardl wrote:
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.
Cheers,
Bernard
I can understand why some would want those extra 4mm on the wide end. I recall reading some technical articles that mentioned 24mm being a particularly difficult focal length to achieve, even as a prime. Seems this is due to varying optical and physical factors and would have further increased the size/weight while potentially reducing the image quality.
Personally, I always thought a 35-85mm f/2 (or even 2.8) would be more useful than 24/28-70, but I assume there are reasons this hasn't been done. Maybe physics, maybe they think it wouldn't sell, or both.
MMP wrote:
I can understand why some would want those extra 4mm on the wide end. I recall reading some technical articles that mentioned 24mm being a particularly difficult focal length to achieve, even as a prime. Seems this is due to varying optical and physical factors and would have further increased the size/weight while potentially reducing the image quality.
Personally, I always thought a 35-85mm f/2 (or even 2.8) would be more useful than 24/28-70, but I assume there are reasons this hasn't been done. Maybe physics, maybe they think it wouldn't sell, or both.
I tend to lean in the other direction. Likely not worth trying to make, but I'd prefer an ultra fast zoom from about 20-50mm-ish. Admittedly though, I love shooting wide. Because of this, every time I took the RF 28-70/2.0 out, I often found myself bumping up against 28mm and being disappointed that I couldn't go wider...very frustrating. Conversely, I seldom ever hit 70mm and wished it was longer.
Personally 28 just doesn't feel wide enough to be wide for my uses, and the 4mm on the wide end makes a lot more difference than the equivalent on the long end.
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?
https://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2022andfw/sony_canon_28-70_flare_exp.not.eq.jpg
and https://photos.imageevent.com/jonas_b/fotoforum2022andfw/sony_canon_28-70_flare_exp._eq.jpg
I don't understand how you attribute so much weight to this comparison video. Everything is post processed and obviously processed differently. And while the lady is certainly a much better portrait photographer than I am, listening to her trying to asses technicalites actually hurt. And even when (trying to) ignoring the differences in color processing (WTF is she doing to the reds?) and ignoring the differences in contrast and highlight processing and ignoring the differences in positioning, I see no clear winner. Sometimes one is sharper sometimes the other. In some places one has smoother background in other places the other has less harsh visible bokeh. Could all be the lenses. Could also be something else to an entirely unknown degree.
Sorry for the rant. Had to vent after reading this thread. Feel free to ignore me.
Daran wrote:
I don't understand how you attribute so much weight to this comparison video. Everything is post processed and obviously processed differently. And while the lady is certainly a much better portrait photographer than I am, listening to her trying to asses technicalites actually hurt. And even when (trying to) ignoring the differences in color processing (WTF is she doing to the reds?) and ignoring the differences in contrast and highlight processing and ignoring the differences in positioning, I see no clear winner. Sometimes one is sharper sometimes the other. In some places one has smoother background in other places the other has less harsh visible bokeh. Could all be the lenses. Could also be something else to an entirely unknown degree.
Sorry for the rant. Had to vent after reading this thread. Feel free to ignore me. ...Show more →
Didn't she ask chatGPT in the end?
I'm happy now that I watched the video on mute .
Daran wrote:
I don't understand how you attribute so much weight to this comparison video.[...]
Sorry for the rant. Had to vent after reading this thread. Feel free to ignore me.
Hi, I always feel free to ignore my fellow Sony users. I see no reason to ignore your comment though.
I (and you) had a look at the video as we are curious about the new lens and also as it is a try to compare lenses. The video seems to be made in a reasonably honest way (unlike some other works by Sony ambassadors often mentioned here). So, it's worth a look (parts of it, I didn't need the Chat GPT comments for example).
Things as flare and parts of rendering of OOF areas can be seen even if the images are processed differently.Together with the samples shown by Lenstip I have came to a personal conclusion about the lens and I have posted my opinion here. I sometimes do so out of disappointment. Sometimes because I'm happy. That's it.
Opinion stinks. They are also base for the majority of posts in the forum world. No wonder we all sometimes ignore stupidity/misunderstandings/ignorance or shit or just the common plain wrong opinion we see here.
MMP wrote:
Personally, I always thought a 35-85mm f/2 (or even 2.8) would be more useful than 24/28-70, but I assume there are reasons this hasn't been done. Maybe physics, maybe they think it wouldn't sell, or both.
No need to wait! Something like that (of sorts) already exists - it's called a Tamron or Samyang 35-150/2-2.8. Ignore the 85-150mm range if it's not useful to you 😛
IMO the writing was on the wall for 35-xx zooms decades ago when standard zooms started moving towards 28-xx and eventually 24-xx. 35mm just isn't wide enough for most people if you need wide. I doubt the Tamron/Samyang 35-150 would appeal to most people and having the long end is much more interesting (and adds a USP)
And ignore the fact that it weighs more than the 28-70. 35mm is technically a wide angle but in reality is more of a wide-normal lens.
People are always chasing the "one lens solution." For most enthusiasts/pros this is not a serious option. They simply want more lenses and are prepared to carry them. To me 28 vs 24 doesn't really matter as I would just take a prime wide or a wide angle zoom to complement the 28-70, and I suspect any person seriously interested in this lens would do too.
Robin Smith wrote:
And ignore the fact that it weighs more than the 28-70. 35mm is technically a wide angle but in reality is more of a wide-normal lens.
People are always chasing the "one lens solution." For most enthusiasts/pros this is not a serious option. They simply want more lenses and are prepared to carry them. To me 28 vs 24 doesn't really matter as I would just take a prime wide or a wide angle zoom to complement the 28-70, and I suspect any person seriously interested in this lens would do too.
I made a typo in my earlier post and meant to say " I doubt a 35-80 would appeal to most people". Of course I jest in suggesting that you could ignore the additional weight of a 35-150. The point I was really trying to make was that 28mm is only a little bit wider than 35mm, yes, but wider is wider. You can easily crop a 70mm to look like 85mm with a small loss in resolution (irrelevant if you don't print giant posters), but you can't "uncrop" a 35mm to look like 28mm. Therefore, a 28-70 is going to be more useful to most people than a 35-85. (Logically of course, the same argument applies for those who feel the 28-70 should have been a 24-70.)
You make a good point about people always chasing the"one lens solution", but as you put it most users are probably going to be bringing multiple lenses - for me the more interesting and practical dilemma is, which combinations of lenses? It's always about a tradeoffs and which qualities one favours over others. In my case, if I'm looking at the 20-70 range but I also know that I want fast apertures, do I go 20-70/4 with a 50/1.2? Or go with a 28-70/2 and add a Viltrox 20/2.8 to plug the wide end? Both would come to similar total weight and be equally sensible choices depending on whether I am willing to trade very very fast aperture at 50mm against a zoom range that starts a more restricted 28mm when I need to go in wide but then I get F/2 throughout the range. On balance the 28-70/2 and 20/2.8 combo is looking more attractive to me, but your choice may be different (or it may be different for me if I know I'll be shooting at 50 most of the time).
Stoffer wrote:
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.
You make it sound as if the difference between F/2 and 2.8 is in itself insignificant. It is not! Optically it is equally as significant as going from F/4 to F/2.8 - and as one would expect this is also the case perceptually, I see a similar magnitude of difference in an image going from F/4 to F/2.8 vs going from F/2.8 to F/2.
Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 = 1500 euro
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 did cost me 1700 euro
Combined: 3200 euro
Sony 28-70mm f/2.0 GM = 3600 euro.... and you would still need something like a Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 or a 135mm next to that if you really need that 70mm+ range the Tamron f/2.0-2.8 gives you.
I know, switching between 28-45mm and 35-150mm is not the same as getting your 70mm f/2.0 immediately, but....
- is it really that hard to predict at forehand if 35mm isn't gonna be wide enough or 45mm isn't gonna be long enough to plan your lens changes a bit economically?
- 70mm f/2.0 is a nice bright and telephoto place to be, but at the same time it's nowhere near as good as 85 or 105mm f/1.4 for isolating subjects when shooting more environmentally. It's hard to argue with the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 and a second body with a truly bright 85/105/135mm imo.
- what if Sigma comes up with a 45-90mm f/1.8? I will happily slap the old DSLR 28mm Art lens on another body and go with that combo in stead of this crazy expensive 28-70mm f/2.0
The sigma goes to 45mm for 50g more. With sony, you get 46-70, and lighter. But it is for people less price conscious. The sony is also shorter, which means packing is easier on intl hauls.
steamtrain wrote:
Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 = 1500 euro
Tamron 35-150mm f/2.0-2.8 did cost me 1700 euro
Combined: 3200 euro
Sony 28-70mm f/2.0 GM = 3600 euro.... and you would still need something like a Tamron 70-180mm f/2.8 or a 135mm next to that if you really need that 70mm+ range the Tamron f/2.0-2.8 gives you.
I know, switching between 28-45mm and 35-150mm is not the same as getting your 70mm f/2.0 immediately, but....
- is it really that hard to predict at forehand if 35mm isn't gonna be wide enough or 45mm isn't gonna be long enough to plan your lens changes a bit economically?
- 70mm f/2.0 is a nice bright and telephoto place to be, but at the same time it's nowhere near as good as 85 or 105mm f/1.4 for isolating subjects when shooting more environmentally. It's hard to argue with the Sigma 28-45mm f/1.8 and a second body with a truly bright 85/105/135mm imo.
- what if Sigma comes up with a 45-90mm f/1.8? I will happily slap the old DSLR 28mm Art lens on another body and go with that combo in stead of this crazy expensive 28-70mm f/2.0
Not a ton of reviews on the Sony yet, so it's a little hard to assess it in terms of how it performs.
shadow9d9 wrote:
The sigma goes to 45mm for 50g more. With sony, you get 46-70, and lighter. But it is for people less price conscious. The sony is also shorter, which means packing is easier on intl hauls.
Daran wrote:
I don't understand how you attribute so much weight to this comparison video. Everything is post processed and obviously processed differently. And while the lady is certainly a much better portrait photographer than I am, listening to her trying to asses technicalites actually hurt. And even when (trying to) ignoring the differences in color processing (WTF is she doing to the reds?) and ignoring the differences in contrast and highlight processing and ignoring the differences in positioning, I see no clear winner. Sometimes one is sharper sometimes the other. In some places one has smoother background in other places the other has less harsh visible bokeh. Could all be the lenses. Could also be something else to an entirely unknown degree.
Sorry for the rant. Had to vent after reading this thread. Feel free to ignore me. ...Show more →
I mean shouldn’t the difference in camera sensors play a role here too? The lack,of an AA filter in the Sony A7RV isn’t insignificant in the rendering and perceived sharpness, no
I would like to test it for sure. Not sure I would buy it unless it was out of this world. Today it's the 24-50 Sony and its good but great I would back off that comment . Its better longer than wider but again I would like to go test it again I did not have full sunlight on test. Fair warning im very critical so I maybe should be ignored in some ways
tsdevine wrote:
The Sigma is also faster and is nearly APO.
Having a SL3 with a number of Leica APO lenses, yes the Sigma is 90% there. Equal to the Q43 lens in my opinion.
I can't put to words how amazing the 28-45 is.
If Sony gets close I might switch to E mount. But from the sample images I've seen, I don't think so.
Sony is a native lens, for professionals the AF accuracy is critical, they want absolute best. And yes the 45-70 range is not marginal difference.
However as not professional I'd take Sigma without hesitation, because I'd never afford the GM.
Other factor that my most preferred range is 20-50mm, so beside the price another deciding factor is the optical quality my most used range. Sigma is excellent, better than 1.8 primes, and works quite well on 60MP sensor. We'll see the reviews and comparisons.
Not mentioned, but Sigma's internal zoom is a big plus or me, it's like a big (35 1.2DN) prime.
Boyadjian88 wrote:
Having a SL3 with a number of Leica APO lenses, yes the Sigma is 90% there. Equal to the Q43 lens in my opinion.
I can't put to words how amazing the 28-45 is.
If Sony gets close I might switch to E mount. But from the sample images I've seen, I don't think so.
I agree, I am really impressed by the 28-45mm, the rendering is so good it is hard to believe it's a zoom. Paired with the 135mm Batis FE, it covers most of my needs.
Keunish wrote:
I agree, I am really impressed by the 28-45mm, the rendering is so good it is hard to believe it's a zoom. Paired with the 135mm Batis FE, it covers most of my needs.
45 is just 1.5 times 28... it is actually more like a prime than a zoom.
.
