wind30 wrote:
… we need full body Portrait distance to test rendering…
Every reviewer needs to know that. Why do everyone post rendering at close subject distance when almost every lens do well at that distance.
The sample I have is Julia YouTube review which shows some busy background but some looked good too.
Lens is too expensive and important since it replaces a lot of focal lengths for me to buy without more user feedback.
Seems like Sony is keeping this lens close to the vest before being released. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. Given how quiet it's been since it was announced, I'm not sure will see much more until it starts shipping.
I have the 28-75mm now. I find I really miss the 24-28mm......this lens is outside of my current budget, but looks to be great. I guess they assumed more people would like the smaller size compared to 24-28mm range.
I just find indoors I need more than 28mm. That is one reason I have not got the 35-150mm which seems excellent.
Can't wait to see all the pictures I know this lens will be great! (pictures look great to me so far)
tsdevine wrote:
Seems like Sony is keeping this lens close to the vest before being released. Or maybe I'm just imagining it. Given how quiet it's been since it was announced, I'm not sure will see much more until it starts shipping.
All the usual reviewers got the lens and already published their reviews...
Nothing special going on with 28-70/2.
wind30 wrote:
… we need full body Portrait distance to test rendering…
Every reviewer needs to know that. Why do everyone post rendering at close subject distance when almost every lens do well at that distance.
The sample I have is Julia YouTube review which shows some busy background but some looked good too.
Lens is too expensive and important since it replaces a lot of focal lengths for me to buy without more user feedback.
From the samples I've seen, I'd say the rendering is rather average. What is concerning is that onion rings show up under demanding conditions. On the plus side, vignetting is controlled very well AFAIR.
Too big and heavy for what is is. Personally I would go for a 28-50mm f2 lens if it was small or light enough. would be my ideal street lens. I tried the Sigma 28-45 in a store and it renders beautifully but again it was big and heavy and I wonder if they had settled for f2 what it would have been like
Viramati wrote:
Too big and heavy for what is is. Personally I would go for a 28-50mm f2 lens if it was small or light enough. would be my ideal street lens. I tried the Sigma 28-45 in a store and it renders beautifully but again it was big and heavy and I wonder if they had settled for f2 what it would have been like
All the years I shot I really never found a zoom lens that rendered like a great prime. Maybe the Leica 24-90 I think it was but hell that cost a fortune. I always looked at zooms like this as more utilitarian and for me it's always been kind of event stuff. I like my 24-50 Sony and for my use it's just fine for events and some travel. I want rendering right now I would throw my CV 21 1.4 on my body or a nice 35mm 1.4 lens. Even though this Sony and the Sigma 28-45 are fast as heck for zooms im just not sure they render enough. I do like Tims 28-45from all the shots he has posted im just not sure I could call it the best rendering zoom. It's nice as heck but I would lean more to primes for that look. Now on the other hand for event stuff these would be handy as hell but again starting at 28mm kinda limits me. Like to try them both and see what they do for me though.
Pair your 21 1.4 with Sigma 28-45 and get a good tele prime like Sony 85 1.8 or Sigma 85 1.4, done.
I'd do this if I have to built a system, but I'm addicted to 50 1.2 GM now.
What are you guys hearing about AF performance on the 28-70? It’s got to be a lot of glass to move, but if it can handle action as well as my 85 f/1.8 it may be a one lens solution for my dog shoots, and maybe I can justify the cost if I wait for used/greentoe/fm seller options….
Lukacs wrote:
Pair your 21 1.4 with Sigma 28-45 and get a good tele prime like Sony 85 1.8 or Sigma 85 1.4, done.
I'd do this if I have to built a system, but I'm addicted to 50 1.2 GM now.
The sigma f1.4 which I own is not great for rendering… it belongs to the new clinical harsh look. The old 85 Gm I heard is the lens but I don’t have that as it’s af is slow.
Looks like the focus is fast as hell, it's sharper than some primes, sharper than the comparable Canon lens. Also smaller, and a pound lighter.
I don't know what you all want from such a lens.
People in the forum saying there's nothing special about it, but if there *was* something special about it, people would be up in arms because it's distorting or got some weird swirls in the background or what not. This is what the old lenses are for - you know, the ones you get at a flea market and adapt to the EF mount.
I think what a lot of people forget is that the special bit is supposed to happen when you put something fascinating in *front* of the lens.
There are a thousand other lenses to pick from if you don't like it.
The limited samples I’ve seen so far with the lens have impressed me. It looks to render very nicely and the bokeh looks good
As I get older, I find myself placing more importance on the size and weight of a lens. But this lens intrigues me. Add the fact that it actually weighs a hair less than the 135mm 1.8 makes this lens a truly impressive accomplishment in lens design
Can’t say I need one. But I find myself considering selling my 24-70mm 2.8 II for this lens. Not a serious case of GAS. But I have considered it.
Looking forward to seeing samples from users when they get there copy
Pehaps, just perhaps, our obsession with rendering is reflective of our pursuit for the less-than-perfect aesthetic, the desire to stand out in the world flooded with flawless photos, a desire to mimic the greats of the film era and a bit of nostalgia etc. Or maybe just people's way to justify not always getting the best and newest lenses all the time.
I'm of the camp that modern lenses are all quite well optimized; any tangible difference in "rendering" is probably not too impactful if we keep all other variables the same. Lenses that really had perceivable rendering differences to me are the nikkor DC lenses, and Fuji 56mm APD, but these feel more like the exception rather than the norm since they are purposefully designed for a particular rendering. A common discussion point is how some modern lenses are too "clinical", but I'm sure compared against the older manual lenses, most modern lenses are also too "clinical". While I won't go so far as to say that it is all just a placebo effect, we should definitely treat discussions on clinical rendering as a more subjective opinion that, at best, conveys that a lens is neutral; not good, not bad, just a characteristic that some people might value more than others.
macadphotos wrote:
Pehaps, just perhaps, our obsession with rendering is reflective of our pursuit for the less-than-perfect aesthetic, the desire to stand out in the world flooded with flawless photos, a desire to mimic the greats of the film era and a bit of nostalgia etc. Or maybe just people's way to justify not always getting the best and newest lenses all the time.
I'm of the camp that modern lenses are all quite well optimized; any tangible difference in "rendering" is probably not too impactful if we keep all other variables the same. Lenses that really had perceivable rendering differences to me are the nikkor DC lenses, and Fuji 56mm APD, but these feel more like the exception rather than the norm since they are purposefully designed for a particular rendering. A common discussion point is how some modern lenses are too "clinical", but I'm sure compared against the older manual lenses, most modern lenses are also too "clinical". While I won't go so far as to say that it is all just a placebo effect, we should definitely treat discussions on clinical rendering as a more subjective opinion that, at best, conveys that a lens is neutral; not good, not bad, just a characteristic that some people might value more than others.
Exactly. Go to the thrift store and get an eight dollar relic. Adapt it to your camera and there is your magic. Don’t expect it from a new $2000 -$3000 professional lens.
You can save yourself a lot of money and headaches this way. Especially the money.
macadphotos wrote:
Pehaps, just perhaps, our obsession with rendering is reflective of our pursuit for the less-than-perfect aesthetic, the desire to stand out in the world flooded with flawless photos, a desire to mimic the greats of the film era and a bit of nostalgia etc. Or maybe just people's way to justify not always getting the best and newest lenses all the time.
I'm of the camp that modern lenses are all quite well optimized; any tangible difference in "rendering" is probably not too impactful if we keep all other variables the same. Lenses that really had perceivable rendering differences to me are the nikkor DC lenses, and Fuji 56mm APD, but these feel more like the exception rather than the norm since they are purposefully designed for a particular rendering. A common discussion point is how some modern lenses are too "clinical", but I'm sure compared against the older manual lenses, most modern lenses are also too "clinical". While I won't go so far as to say that it is all just a placebo effect, we should definitely treat discussions on clinical rendering as a more subjective opinion that, at best, conveys that a lens is neutral; not good, not bad, just a characteristic that some people might value more than others.
Everything is subjective… some people might like a soft photo, or loca, etc. As photographers, unless u are shooting just for yourself, we try to appeal to the masses. Most people don’t like onion rings, most people prefer a softer edge to their bokeh balls. How hard the edge of a bokeh ball at full body portrait distance is easily quantifiable and much more noticeable than say slight decentering of the lens at corners.
The dc lens rendering is very nice and there are modern lens that render closer to that and other lens that have very sharp edges in the bokeh.
I think the internet focus on stuff like sharpness makes Sony overly optimize the lens in that direction…. The best example is the 85mm Gm 1 vs 2…. Sony needs to course correct or they will lose out in the future.
ronno wrote:
Exactly. Go to the thrift store and get an eight dollar relic. Adapt it to your camera and there is your magic. Don’t expect it from a new $2000 -$3000 professional lens.
You can save yourself a lot of money and headaches this way. Especially the money.
The Nikon plena which I own after owning the Sony and Canon latest 135mm shows a pretty good rendering. The Sony 135mm has the worst rendering. At least it shows Nikon places strong consideration on how the bokeh look during lens design.
A nice comparison from Magic Wedding Photographer between the 28-70 and 24, 35, and 50 GM primes. No real surprises but I was struck by how tiny the 50/1.2 GM looked compared to the 28-70/2.
?si=z6qCRFooqWC7B-is
wind30 wrote:
The Nikon plena which I own after owning the Sony and Canon latest 135mm shows a pretty good rendering. The Sony 135mm has the worst rendering. At least it shows Nikon places strong consideration on how the bokeh look during lens design.
I've never understood the 135GM drum beaters. It's has horribly clinical rendering for the types of subjects this length is historically used for.
ryanli wrote:
A nice comparison from Magic Wedding Photographer between the 28-70 and 24, 35, and 50 GM primes. No real surprises but I was struck by how tiny the 50/1.2 GM looked compared to the 28-70/2.
?si=z6qCRFooqWC7B-is
Interesting that some photographers in the comments only got 50% right when guessing which pics were from zoom or primes.
