The use cases are definitely indoor sports (basketball, volleyball, futsol) or bullpen. I don't think it's better than a 70-200 2.8 for weddings. It does look like it could replace a bag of short tele to mid tele primes--50, 85, 135--but I'd have to ask myself when do I actually carry those three lenses? Almost never. I keep coming back to it needing a better value proposition and I just can't help myself that the 100-300 f4 with a 2x converter attached would have been a killer app.
octo wrote:
"most certainly will be narrower than the declared 75 deg" => why can't lenstip measure it? How do they know that Sony didn't take this into account and made it wider in order to reach 28mm after correction? Also "most certainly will" is not very scientific at all.
So far, all the Sony lenses I've seen were made wider than the given focal length exactly for this reason, and in many cases they were still a bit wider even after correction.
- They did measure it, as you might have noticed.
- The lens is not wider enough to fully account/correct for the considerable distortion AND maintain a FOV of 75 degrees (as one would expect of a 28mm lens).
- Doing the math, expect a focal length somewhere between 29 and 30mm after distortion correction.
Just a rough idea to what is lost:
After distortion correction you are only using 96.6% of the pixels in one dimension. Distortion is two dimensional, so using a 50mp camera and following through with distortion correction you will end up with the resulution of something like a 46mp cemera.
This is the minimum loss just from discarding pixels at the edges and does not account for loss of sharpness due to pixel interpolation. In the end expect a resolution around 40mp. This might or might not be relevant, but stating that distortion correction does not cost anything is not quite true.
On the other hand, many might not see the difference between a 60, 50 or 40mp camera. It is hardly discernable. A few who really push things do. In landscapes without architecture it might be best to carfully shut off lens correction to avoid such a resolution reduction. With architecture there is no choice and with 3,39% distortion, you have to do something.
The 28-70/f2 and the 50-150/f2 on the other hand are extremely powerful „event“ lenses!
They are not the do it all landscape lenses:
- high weight
- high distortion and
- slightly reduced resulution
make other lenses more suitable for lanscapes.
But couldn‘t a wedding photographer care less? He has a dream combo with these two lenses!
I mean, I have zero needs for this lens, but I'd love to have it in the case to bring out when wanted. I think it would be very cool to shoot street/travel with this one, if you can handle the weight, like Saul Leiter style.
Travel with THIS weight? 😲
Unobtrusive street photography with this flashy white lens?
I’m not sure…
It is rather when you want everyone to know that YOU are the photographer!
Weddings, birthdays, concerts, events… here it will shine.
People photography in general:
- extremely fast AF
- georgeous bokeh
Who cares that the lens is slightly soft in the edges wide open? It helps separation of the main subject.
Knut. wrote:
3,39% distortion is quite relevant (28-70)
Just a rough idea to what is lost:
After distortion correction you are only using 96.6% of the pixels in one dimension. Distortion is two dimensional, so using a 50mp camera and following through with distortion correction you will end up with the resulution of something like a 46mp cemera.
This is the minimum loss just from discarding pixels at the edges and does not account for loss of sharpness due to pixel interpolation. In the end expect a resolution around 40mp. This might or might not be relevant, but stating that distortion correction does not cost anything is not quite true.
On the other hand, many might not see the difference between a 60, 50 or 40mp camera. It is hardly discernable. A few who really push things do. In landscapes without architecture it might be best to carfully shut off lens correction to avoid such a resolution reduction. With architecture there is no choice and with 3,39% distortion, you have to do something.
The 28-70/f2 and the 50-150/f2 on the other hand are extremely powerful „event“ lenses!
They are not the do it all landscape lenses:
- high weight
- high distortion and
- slightly reduced resulution
make other lenses more suitable for lanscapes.
But couldn‘t a wedding photographer care less? He has a dream combo with these two lenses! ...Show more →
As a commercial shooter I first have to justify the costs and what kind of revenue can I pull off and what will a F2 do for me that I can get mostly with a 2.8 . Don't get me wrong a F2 is a F2 and not a 2.8 but you can cheat too. Those two lenses are what 8 grand or so and lets say for argument sake 4 2 grand jobs just to pay the freight . That right there maybe tough for some commercial shooters and for me two lenses that don't really work because of focal lengths. I need to start at 24 and end at 200 no matter how fast they are or not. I know I make enough to pull it off but im still restricted by focal lengths and that one is more important. You can cheat with like 3 Fast Primes 28/50/135 and still pull off a 85 1.4. I like zooms but if im spending 8 grand than it might be a better call to go all primes and hire an assistant.
Stuff yo chew on making these decisions as even selling it back to the market used maybe tough. I love fast glass and stuff like this but any commercial type shooter has to justify the books and worse their spouse. I maybe getting cheap as retirement is close to me now too. Of course when I taught many workshops the damn attendees had better gear than me. People love to spend money
Price aside, this would be very useful for me as I photograph fencing (indoor sports). My main focal length is 85 and 135. I've used a 70-200 and I'm typically around the 100 range, depending on the situation. 200 is useful when you're far away but is rarely used.
So, this is to say that the 50-150 range is very useful for this particular application coupled with the F2 aperture. Sometimes,1.4 is too shallow despite it allowing for faster SS and lower ISO.
Anyway, it's hard to put price aside given that this is $4k! I'm not getting paid to photograph, so it's really not worth the convenience, and it would be very convenient.
Hodie wrote:
Price aside, this would be very useful for me as I photograph fencing (indoor sports). My main focal length is 85 and 135. I've used a 70-200 and I'm typically around the 100 range, depending on the situation. 200 is useful when you're far away but is rarely used.
So, this is to say that the 50-150 range is very useful for this particular application coupled with the F2 aperture. Sometimes,1.4 is too shallow despite it allowing for faster SS and lower ISO.
Anyway, it's hard to put price aside given that this is $4k! I'm not getting paid to photograph, so it's really not worth the convenience, and it would be very convenient....Show more →
Good point and than you got to tell your spouse that may not fly with your entusiam to spend that kind of money .
I used to spend thousands and thousands of money the best gear you can buy but I made a shit load of money doing it. Today given the world im nervous to do that again
Hodie wrote:
Price aside, this would be very useful for me as I photograph fencing (indoor sports). My main focal length is 85 and 135. I've used a 70-200 and I'm typically around the 100 range, depending on the situation. 200 is useful when you're far away but is rarely used.
So, this is to say that the 50-150 range is very useful for this particular application coupled with the F2 aperture. Sometimes,1.4 is too shallow despite it allowing for faster SS and lower ISO.
Anyway, it's hard to put price aside given that this is $4k! I'm not getting paid to photograph, so it's really not worth the convenience, and it would be very convenient....Show more →
You might try picking up the Tamron 35-150mm and seeing how it does here. You could easily do it used for 1/3 the price of the Sony. It's a pretty capable lens and, aside from the 15fps limit (if that is actually a limit for you). Firmware updates to that lens are also easily done so make sure to update it to the latest version.
Includes some tests shots against the 50/1.2, 85/1.4GM II, 135GM and the Tamron.
To be honest, I wouldn't decribe its bokeh as buttery smooth. I think it's pleasant to look at, but reminds me more of 135GM rather than some typical portrait lenses... It's kinda similar to Tamron's (which I like) too I think, with well-defined cats-eyes and some structure visible..
I think where the 50-150mm can be worth its price is if it could replace a 70-200mm and a few primes for you, especially if you don't already have fast lenses.
For example, the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II is 2,800 and the Sony 135mm f1.8 is 2,100. You are already ahead of the game with the 50-150mm. Just to add some more comparisons, a Sony 85mm f1.4 II is 1,800 and a Sony 50mm f1.4 is 1,300.
DWOfPaul wrote:
I think where the 50-150mm can be worth its price is if it could replace a 70-200mm and a few primes for you, especially if you don't already have fast lenses.
For example, the Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II is 2,800 and the Sony 135mm f1.8 is 2,100. You are already ahead of the game with the 50-150mm. Just to add some more comparisons, a Sony 85mm f1.4 II is 1,800 and a Sony 50mm f1.4 is 1,300.
It's tough to replace that Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II though. You can add a 2x TC to it to get to 400mm and still be in spitting range of the 100-400mm GM in IQ with less overall weight and gear in your bag (not the same IQ mind you, but not too far off).
1. Yes, travel is easy with a lens of this size and weight. I travel abroad 90-120 days a year and about to increase it dramatically. I use a suitcase that is sometimes full of camera gear..and i do much more than sit in megacities.
2. Off to the side, at a distance, a lens is a lens is a lens..plus, at night, even less important.
Knut. wrote:
Travel with THIS weight? 😲
Unobtrusive street photography with this flashy white lens?
I’m not sure…
It is rather when you want everyone to know that YOU are the photographer!
Weddings, birthdays, concerts, events… here it will shine.
People photography in general:
- extremely fast AF
- georgeous bokeh
Who cares that the lens is slightly soft in the edges wide open? It helps separation of the main subject.
shadow9d9 wrote:
1. Yes, travel is easy with a lens of this size and weight. I travel abroad 90-120 days a year and about to increase it dramatically. I use a suitcase that is sometimes full of camera gear..and i do much more than sit in megacities.
2. Off to the side, at a distance, a lens is a lens is a lens..plus, at night, even less important.
Easy is a relative term. I personally would find carrying this size of lens around for a day to be a real pain in the ass. I’d have zero enjoyment with that lens by the end of the day…no, by lunch time.
I really liked the Tamron 35-135 for the sport I shoot (teakwondo and Kick boxing). it was the perfect range for shooting while on the side of tatamis. I always wished sony would release a version to get access to the 20-30 fps speed. Now that would do it. Also as a side bonus, this also will make difference in ISO on most focal given the f2 aperture. I had recently gotten the 28-70 f2 and really liked the wider aperture but was bumping at the 70mm focal limit a bit too often. As mostly shooting inside poorly lit gym, when shooting at ss of 1/1250 or faster, will allow to keep ISO manageable.
Not really something I have much use for. Especially given the price. But it’s great to see Sony coming out with more non traditional focal length/aperture lenses
Shame it can’t take TC’s. That would have increased it’s usefulness greatly. And made the price tag a little easier to swallow
hevaKmaI wrote:
It's tough to replace that Sony 70-200mm f2.8 GM II though. You can add a 2x TC to it to get to 400mm and still be in spitting range of the 100-400mm GM in IQ with less overall weight and gear in your bag (not the same IQ mind you, but not too far off).
Agreed. That's why I said if the 50-150mm can replace a 70-200mm for you. Personally, the lack of TC compatibility makes it a no go for me. But many photographers are very happy with the Tamron 35-150mm, which lacks TC compatibility too. So there is definitely a market for such a lens. Hopefully it will sell well enough for Sony to eventually make a GM II that supports TC's, I have been wishing for a 100-300mm f4 for years.
