How far reduced would the background blur be at 70mm f/2 vs 85mm f/1.8? The sample pictures are helpful, and I’m finding what I see to be pleasant, just trying to gauge this comparison as the 85 f/1.8 is my go to and, while not strictly my fastest lens, it has the (potentially) shallowest dof among my current lenses. I’m figuring 70 vs 85 is a noticeab fov difference…so maybe its too hard to characterize this.
A bit surprised, but my Adorama pre-order (made in the first minute) is still listed as backordered, while my local camera store, which is perpetually out of stock of everything, has it. B&H and Unique Photo have it in stock, Midwest and PictureLine don't. My guess is the units are arriving very close to the release date and not all made it in time.
Got my lens around 10 days ago and immediately took it for my 20 days trip to South Korea and China.
I used to bring my 20-70G and my 35mm 1.4GM for my holidays. This time, I decided to just bring the 28-70 F2GM. Best decision of my life. While I lose out on the 35mm 1.4, I gain F2 across the other ranges, 28mm, 50mm, 70mm. 35mm F2 is also perfectly useable. In fact when I use my 35mm 1.4, I don’t shoot wide open all the time.
As someone told me, it is like having a set of F2 prime lenses, without the need to swop lenses. Sharpness is great and colour is good. Weight wise it is heavy but the combo with the A7Cii is no heavier than my previous canon DSLR.
Am very happy with the purchase and am even thinking of selling the 35mm F1.4GM when I get back home, together with the 20-70mm F4G. 😂
Looking at the lens tip results, we have good sharpness across the range and less than 2.5 stops of Vignetting across the range. This sounds like it can truly replace a bag of primes, at least for most of my needs. Sony lens designers definitely deserve a round of congratulations on this lens.
It's not a lens I plan to buy soon, but I can definitely see a 28-70f2 and a a7rVI eventually finding their way into my setup.
I have the 24-70 GM 2, which is a great general purpose lens, surprisingly sharp.
This is more of a specialty lens. Although it’s not as heavy as it looks, it has more distinctive drawing but also seems to be a bit more susceptible to flare. I have not tried it for outdoors / architecture where 24mm comes in handy and f2 is less of a benefit, other than at dusk, perhaps.
The price is probably the main reason that this thread is quiet for a lens that will be one that will come to be favoured, such as the 50mm f1.2, which is only slightly lighter.
Has anyone properly assessed the optical distortion yet? Some reviewers imply that this new lens relies on software to correct massive distortion, other people appear to suggest the optical correction is quite extensive and the lens is close to rectilinear without the software doing all that much.
If a lens owner could have a little look at a raw file in Rawtherapee or similar, where all software interventions can be disabled, then that'd be most helpful. Especially at 28mm.
Lukacs wrote:
I had both 35 1.2 and 35GM, I hesitated 2 mounths what to do. I love Sigma's rendering, however on blind test I could distinguish them 30% of time. I could only see 35GM sharpness advantage if I pixel peeped the images, and the Sigma's CA at wide open easily removeable in LR. So the deciding factor was the size, 35 1.2DN is just too big I want handle 80% of time. I had to get a small 35/40mm lens for travel and walk arounds in case of Sigma, 35GM can work as an all around prime.
As the 35 1.2DN I adore both 28-45 f1.8 and 28-70f2 for the rendering and optical performance. I'd pick 28-45 because the price, and for the resolution on 28-40 range. But again, size is the deal breaker for me. The 20 1.8G size is perfect, 35GM is good, 1.2GM is the edge of acceptable limit.
Of course it's just me, professionals spend a day with large tele zooms on camera and second body, without whining about size, 'oh it's over 700g, it's just too heavy to bear...'...Show more →
Same here I have both the sigma 35mm and 35mm gm. I tried the 28-70mm in the shop and it feels amazingly well balanced, much better than the sigma. Bought the Sony and Going to take some bokeh comparisons.
So long distance bokeh comparison vs my sigma 35mm shot at f1.2. I actually think it is acceptable considering it is a zoom at f2. maybe I can finally leave my 24mm, 35mm and 85mm primes at home.
I'd miss that depth of the 35 1.2, but it's me.
Even with my 35gm I secretly hope that a bit larger 35 1.2 comes out. When I want that film MF film look I grab my 50 1.2GM. Sometimes I like more the 50mm more compressed natural look.
The main drawback of this lens is the price. That said, you get what you pay for, even if there is a bit of a premium because of the absence of competition. The Sigma may be even better optically, but I find myself using 50-70mm quite often.
Surprised people are not posting more about this lens. I’m quite interested in trading my sigma 24-70 and 35 and 50mm primes for this, as I just don’t use them all enough. Any one got any more image samples?
richard.o.shaw wrote:
Surprised people are not posting more about this lens. I’m quite interested in trading my sigma 24-70 and 35 and 50mm primes for this, as I just don’t use them all enough. Any one got any more image samples?
On one hand, I too am surprised that the gear-churners haven't begun doling out images. On the other, this dearth is understandable, given that the primary, event-shooting market for this fairly expensive, specialized lens is not apt to share it's work on an online forum.
I also think that within that group, given the multitude of exceptional offerings from Sony within the wide to normal focal range, uptake on this zoom will likely be slightly muted relative to it's Canon counterpart, despite being half a kilo lighter. The slot for whom this usurps a standard 2.8 zoom, with or without an accompanying fast prime is likely quite narrow outside of efficiency-minded, paid shooting environments.
nohandhoulihan wrote:
On one hand, I too am surprised that the gear-churners haven't begun doling out images. On the other, this dearth is understandable, given that the primary, event-shooting market for this fairly expensive, specialized lens is not apt to share it's work on an online forum.
I also think that within that group, given the multitude of exceptional offerings from Sony within the wide to normal focal range, uptake on this zoom will likely be slightly muted relative to it's Canon counterpart, despite being half a kilo lighter. The slot for whom this usurps a standard 2.8 zoom, with or without an accompanying fast prime is likely quite narrow outside of efficiency-minded, paid shooting environments....Show more →
On your first point, it's probably also the case that the true pros who own/can afford this lens are too busy shooting weddings and such. And those who are vloggers will already have posted samples on YouTube.
FWIW, mine has been ordered so I promise to shoot some comparisons against the Sigma 28-45 and Samyang 35-150 once I've got it in hand. (Since no longer having any paid customers, I'm a prosumer so the above doesn't apply to me )
ryanli wrote:
On your first point, it's probably also the case that the true pros who own/can afford this lens are too busy shooting weddings and such. And those who are vloggers will already have posted samples on YouTube.
FWIW, mine has been ordered so I promise to shoot some comparisons against the Sigma 28-45 and Samyang 35-150 once I've got it in hand. (Since no longer having any paid customers, I'm a prosumer so the above doesn't apply to me )
A nice comparison by Nguyen has just come up on YouTube comparing the 28-70 against the Sigma 28-45, Sony 35 GM, 50/1.4 GM, 24-50 plus a couple of other lenses.
?si=9gappdmwGcFucb4t
It mainly focuses on background separation and bokeh which is fine by me (tbh that's probably the biggest single reason one should even consider the 28-70 given that there are oodles of sharp and high performing normal zooms around).
My reading of the video is that from a bokeh perspective it compares favourably to the Sigma 28-45 - objectively the Sony gives rounder, more clinical bokeh at all FLs. I'd say this is particularly true at 35mm which from my own tests and others' is known to be "crunchy" for the Sigma. At 28 and 45mm they are similar enough that subject preferences will come heavily into play, the YouTuber prefers the rendering of the Sigma but I agree with him that the ability of the Sony to go up to 70mm is a critical advantage.
I was most struck by how much better the 28-70 looked at 50mm F2 against the 24-50 at 50mm F2.8. And also how close to my eyes the 28-70 looked against the 50/1.4 GM wide open - the 50/1.4 has bigger but also decidedly more cat's eye bokeh balls so it's not unreasonable to prefer the 28-70's rendering here. I'd say it's the 35 GM wide open which shows a clear advantage against the 28-70.
The other interesting reflection made by Nguyen in the video is that for video creators looking for smooth bokeh, a cheaper and equally (if not more) high performance alternative to the Sony 28-70 could be the Sigma 28-45 paired with a TTArtisans 75/2. The breadth of high quality and versatile choices now available for the E mount raises some interesting dilemmas in terms of optimal lens pairings for a given situation - for instance, as an occasional but serious traveller who needs fast apertures for those low light or bokeh scenes, do I go with a Sony 20-70 paired with say a 35 GM or 50 GM (1.4 or 1.2)? Or the 28-70 with a Viltrox 20/2.8? Ignoring cost for a moment, both pairings would weigh a similar amount in my camera bag so I'd have to decide based on use cases I'd be most likely to shoot and what the requirements will most likely be. Most principally: is it more important that I have instant access to fast apertures OR <28mm without changing lenses? Which FL(s) am I most likely to use?
ryanli wrote:
... The breadth of high quality and versatile choices now available for the E mount raises some interesting dilemmas in terms of optimal lens pairings for a given situation - for instance, as an occasional but serious traveller who needs fast apertures for those low light or bokeh scenes, do I go with a Sony 20-70 paired with say a 35 GM or 50 GM (1.4 or 1.2)? Or the 28-70 with a Viltrox 20/2.8? Ignoring cost for a moment, both pairings would weigh a similar amount in my camera bag so I'd have to decide based on use cases I'd be most likely to shoot and what the requirements will most likely be. Most principally: is it more important that I have instant access to fast apertures OR <28mm without changing lenses? Which FL(s) am I most likely to use?...Show more →
Outside of my aforementioned "narrow professional slot" use-case for this lens (and it's heavier Canon compatriot), the questions you pose here are on the money, and really can only be answered by one's focal length preferences, shooting style, and willingness to compromise some focal length and aperture options. Chances are, if you're one of those people for whom this lens will make a quantitative difference in your photography, you won't need to poll anyone for consensus, and you've likely been waiting for it for awhile.
Personally, if I were shooting light-starved events without strobes, and/or desired the separation of a larger aperture than the f/2.8 on (a good copy of) the 24-70 GMII, if I am in for a dime, I am in for a dollar. I will gladly deal with the inconvenience presented by a f/1.4 or faster prime at a few select focal lengths, versus gaining a stop with the 28-70. But that's just me.
)