I'm really curious to see the size, weight and physical design of this lens. I can't afford it, but I like the idea of it. For me, I'd prefer the constant f/2 in this range to the 35-50mm of the Tamron.
Being bigger than the tamron would be an acceptable trade off for a 100, 135 and 150 f/2.0. But again, I won't be able to afford it, so I'm not the customer they'd need to convince.
TravelinBriNY wrote:
The Tamron 35-150 is such a great lens with such a useful focal length. If this is to replace it/out pace it, it needs to beat it on all counts (IQ, bokeh, size and weight) given the versatility it gives up by starting at 50 instead of 35. I do see where it may interest some as an alternative to the 70-200 or even 135/1.8 - but I don't have those lenses.
wordfool wrote:
I wonder if that $4000 is with or without the tariffs. I'd not be surprised if companies like Sony delay launches of products, at least in the US, due to "evolving market conditions", as Nintendo already has.
I also wonder, if this rumor turns out to be true, whether Sony plans a partner wide-angle f/2 zoom. Say a 20-50mm f/2. Yes it would overlap with the 28-70, but the 50-150 already does, too.
I think the 28–70mm f/2 is simply brilliant. The quality is on par with prime lenses. When I need a bit more reach, I just switch to APS-C mode, which gives me 105mm at 26 megapixels.
A 50–150mm wouldn’t be for me. The range between 100 and 200mm feels kind of boring to me. If you need telephoto, then go all in. 150mm is that in-between range that doesn't really do it for me. Even a 70–200mm has never truly impressed me. Don’t you feel the same?
Anyway, for those who can make good use of that focal range, I hope you're already getting excited. If the new lens really has a constant f/2 aperture, it’ll probably be on par with primes again. I’m pretty confident about that.
Stefan Official wrote:
I think the 28–70mm f/2 is simply brilliant. The quality is on par with prime lenses. When I need a bit more reach, I just switch to APS-C mode, which gives me 105mm at 26 megapixels.
A 50–150mm wouldn’t be for me. The range between 100 and 200mm feels kind of boring to me. If you need telephoto, then go all in. 150mm is that in-between range that doesn't really do it for me. Even a 70–200mm has never truly impressed me. Don’t you feel the same?
I don't
To each their own...a 50-150/2 is more appealing to me than a 28-70/2. I shoot far more in that focal range, including for landscapes, so I would use it more. I also don't think f/2 is overly fast in the 28-70 range - I'd rather have an f/1.4 prime - while it is fast in the 100 -150 range. If I'm honest, of course, if I had a lot more money than I do now, I'd buy both without even thinking.
The latest on Sony rumors is that it is 200mm long and 1340g - basically the exact same size as my Sigma 70-200/2.8. That's a hefty lens!!
I’d be interested. It’s essentially a 70-200/2.8 if you add a 1.4tc and a 100-300/4 with a 2x. Personally that appeals to me more than starting with a 70-200/2.8 and adding tc’s from there.
$4k is a bit much though, I’m hoping it’s closer to $3k. You can buy a lot of other lenses/primes for the same amount.
Personally, I am more interested in the 28-70 f2. But a kit with a 28-70 f2 and 50-150 f2 would cover almost all prime and zoom needs. Add in a 1.4x TC and you get a 70-210 f2.8 add a 2x TC and get a 100-300mm f4. Add in that current mirrorless zooms basically have the IQ of DSLR primes and I have to wonder if new photographers going forward may just have a few f2 zooms in their bag instead of zooms and primes.
Because of the high price, the market is pretty small overall. I've watched pretty much every post and video about the 28–70mm f/2 online, and the reactions have been relatively few. Lenses with f/2.8 or f/4 get way more attention worldwide. I got mine through a grey market deal for about 1000 euros less, and at that price, it's actually fair. But in general, it's a price range most people aren't willing to pay anymore.
If the new 50–150mm lens comes in at 1340 grams, that's already quite a bit of weight, especially for using it all the time or for longer sessions. The 28–70mm f/2 is much lighter, and I have no problem using it for hours. Once a lens goes over 1 kilogram, that's my personal limit. I'd rather switch between lighter primes at that point.
With a telephoto lens, I do use a monopod for support, but for me, that only really makes sense at 300mm and above. So in terms of focal length, the 50–150mm wouldn't be a good fit either. I think the market for it is also really small, even if it were cheaper. Price-wise, it'll probably end up around the same level as the 28–70mm f/2
Personally, I don't find the 28-70 f2 to be a crazy price, it's basically 600 over the 24-70 f2.8 GM II. If you buy the 24-70 and even one prime you will probably be even in price with the 28-70. The main reason I have not bought one yet is I already have my zoom and prime needs in the 24-70 range fairly well covered, which makes the 28-70 a nice to have compared to some other lenses that will do more to expand the type of images I can get.
Admittedly I can't say price isn't a factor at all. If it was priced around 1,500 I may have very well ended up impulse buying it, but realistically I can't call it overpriced for what it offers either.
Stefan Official wrote:
I think the 28–70mm f/2 is simply brilliant. The quality is on par with prime lenses.
…
Anyway, for those who can make good use of that focal range, I hope you're already getting excited. If the new lens really has a constant f/2 aperture, it’ll probably be on par with primes again. I’m pretty confident about that.
RCicala wrote:
It depends greatly on which prime and how sensitive we look. Our standard is <10% variation at 30 lp/mm is perfect (I really careful pixel peeper with a high resolution camera might be able to see that, just barely, in some shots. But they would have to work hard to do it.)
At that standard there are a few primes where none are perfect. A really good prime would be over 90% perfect rate though, and most get to 95%.
There are good zooms where 95% are perfect at one focal length but never seen one perfect at all 3 we test (both extremes and the mid point). There's just too many things moving. ...Show more →
When Fred Miranda asked Roger Cicala about the variance frequency of PRIMES,
Roger Cicala who has tested > 5000 zooms on an optical bench states that none, not even one zoom was perfect at all focal lengths. It is a truth, that quite obviously many are reluctant to accept. Zooms have gotten, as I accept, very good and have convenience in their favour but unfortunately not excellence. It is allways a compromise on convenience.
Knut. wrote:
When Fred Miranda asked Roger Cicala about the variance frequency of PRIMES,
Roger Cicala who has tested > 5000 zooms on an optical bench states that none, not even one zoom was perfect at all focal lengths. It is a truth, that quite obviously many are reluctant to accept. Zooms have gotten, as I accept, very good and have convenience in their favour but unfortunately not excellence. It is allways a compromise on convenience.
Show me a photo that I couldn't take with the f/2 zoom and that would actually look better with a prime. I prefer to judge things based on real-world results rather than 1% lab differences. My 28–70mm f/2 zoom is optically better than my 35mm f/1.4 simply because the coating on the zoom is significantly more advanced.
I can't help but be intrigued by this lens. As someone who prefers lenses that can serve multiple purposes, if this thing takes TC's, and takes them well, along with good AF for action, it's tempting as I could use it for sports (I already own both TC's) & portrait work.
Problem would still be the 70-200 2.8 II is just so good, and can split time with my 50GM for portrait work.
Either way I hope this lens happens, more choice is never a bad thing.
Stefan Official wrote:
Show me a photo that I couldn't take with the f/2 zoom and that would actually look better with a prime. I prefer to judge things based on real-world results rather than 1% lab differences. My 28–70mm f/2 zoom is optically better than my 35mm f/1.4 simply because the coating on the zoom is significantly more advanced.
Lens tip states exactly what I cited from Roger. Zooms may have one extraordinary focal length, in the the case of the 28-70 it is 50mm, and the other focal lengths are, well, OKish. Beaten by a prime at 28mm and at 70mm.
There is no doubt, if it reaches your level of good enough, there is no arguing, how could I? The point is, three fixed focal lenses will most likely exceed a zoom at two of the three focal lengths. Do you need it? Everyone has to decide for himself. Is it only 1%? No, more likely in the range of 10%. As Roger said „You can see it in your images, but you have to try hard“. For some it is worth it, for many not, and that is fine (technical perfection might be overrated in many cases).
But claiming that a zoom can reach the performance of fixed focal length at all the focal lengths covered is just simply wrong, even if it doesn‘t matter in practice to many.
„At 28 mm you deal with barrel distortions of -3.39%. It''s a level that can be noticed on real life photos without any problems and, at the same time, if you want to correct it the resulting field of view most certainly will be narrower than the declared 75 deg. It's clear Sony could have given us a bit more reserve.“
So you have to to consider two points:
1) Correcting distortion will eat some of your resolution, when corrected. It might not matter to you, but as you asked which lens would be better?
- Definitely an Otus, the Sigma 28/f1.4 or the upcoming Voigtländer 28mm Apo Lanthar.
(Again, will it matter to you? You have to decide)
2) For architecture the 28-70/f2.0 zoom will need distortion correction. Will it cover 75 degrees as a 28mm lens should? No, it will not (more likely something like 31mm after distortion correction). Do you need 28mm? Then you you should go for a prime. Otherwise you are fine.
