shadow9d9 wrote:
According to Fro, he felt it compared favorably to the 135 1.8, which is 2019, but still considered quite nice.
Well, the sigma 135 1.8 was 2017, but the 135 end is where this new lens is still competitive with current offerings, but then, it ends up looking like a 135 1.8, which is, I think a boring focal length for a lot of things in part because it's become a standard look. The Sony 135mm 1.8 is an outstanding lens, but also around 1k used. But this is also why I don't love zooms, they are only ever mildly interesting lenses at the extreme end (for ultra-wides, that's the widest for tales its the long end). At the other end of the zoom, they are generally just compromises. If you don't need your lens to create some of the interest in your shot, then they are perfect. I just happen to like what unusual lenses do. This is definitely the best Swiss army knife available for any platform, but you're paying a lot of money for a lens that just spectacular at being ok at lots of things.
I will probably never buy this lens but I am happy it exists. A non standard zoom range from first party gives credential to third party lenses like 35-150, 28-45, 28-105 etc.
Sony is not only A-Okay with third party manufacturers, Sony is embracing unusual or unconventional, in a positive and accepting way.
chiron wrote:
Dustin Abbott does a good job reviewing the lens. He admires it, thinks it is the ultimate sports shooter's lens, and may be great for weddings/events, but has reservations about the rendering and bokeh as well as the handling of flare.
There is a comparison one-to-one image set of the Sony and the Tamron 35-150mm lens in the rendering section of the reivew that I found useful. It is a photograph of a statue of a little girl set in rough grass with a brush background. To me, the rendering of the Tamron is much more pleasing. Also, the colors of the Tamron seem better and more natural, with the Sony, at least on my screen, tending a bit toward grey.
At the moment, this looks to me more like a work-a-day lens rather than an enthusiast's or artist's lens.
I see the photo you're talking about. The Tamron (right) image looks better to me too, but only because of the colors and lower contrast. I prefer the rendering from the Sony (left) because it renders the background better. Basically once you process the images to match colors and contrast, I think the Sony looks noticeably better.
octo wrote:
I see the photo you're talking about. The Tamron (right) image looks better to me too, but only because of the colors and lower contrast. I prefer the rendering from the Sony (left) because it renders the background better. Basically once you process the images to match colors and contrast, I think the Sony looks noticeably better.
I don't think this photo is very telling, but from what I've seen so far, bokeh is not the reason you pay 4k$ for this lens .
It's not that it's bad, it's just nothing to write home about IMHO. Similar to 135GM or 85GMII in my eyes.
hevaKmaI wrote:
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.
I use an A9iii and the 15 fps limit is definitely a problem. I mostly use the 135 GM for fencing. Sometimes 85 GM II. Between the two, I'm pretty much covered. I did recently pick up the 35 GM (my second time owning it) for more creative shots.
octo wrote:
I see the photo you're talking about. The Tamron (right) image looks better to me too, but only because of the colors and lower contrast. I prefer the rendering from the Sony (left) because it renders the background better. Basically once you process the images to match colors and contrast, I think the Sony looks noticeably better.
People's opinions on rendering vary and are subjective, so of course YMMV. But did you see all the other rendering examples Abbott gave below this first one, for example those showing outlining of bokeh? He also thinks the rendering of the Sony 50-150/2.0 is sub-par and inferior to, for example, the Tamron's rendering.
I do think the lens is for working photographers in contexts where rendering is not an issue, for example in sports photography. But the look of its images does not appeal to me.
Alan Parker wrote:
Sony purposefully made this a 'big badge big white' lens. I think 'make sense' automatically goes out the window with that premise haha.
It's a signature piece for Sony, which will be used by some but not that many. Same audience as a 200F1.8 or 200F2 had.
patotts wrote:
That is just the thing. We are conditioned to think that travel or street photography has to be a certain way. That is why the outcome all look the same. Think back to Saul Leiter. She shot reflections, shapes, negative space, and colors, etc. Everyone thought street could only be done with a 28mm or 35mm, he shot a lot with 85mm.
I'm just saying that it would be fun to try this for travel or street. Do something different.
chiron wrote:
People's opinions on rendering vary and are subjective, so of course YMMV. But did you see all the other rendering examples Abbott gave below this first one, for example those showing outlining of bokeh? He also thinks the rendering of the Sony 50-150/2.0 is sub-par and inferior to, for example, the Tamron's rendering.
I do think the lens is for working photographers in contexts where rendering is not an issue, for example in sports photography. But the look of its images does not appeal to me.
My thoughts as well -- this is a lens for professionals in the field to get the image rather than worry about how it renders. I see it more as something for photojournalists and sports photogs rather than for weddings or portraits where rendering is arguably more of a factor.
That said I'm sure we'll continue to see myriad Sony Ambassadors falling over themselves to sing the praises of this lens for all manner of uses short of making the morning coffee
See I feel like this lens is quite similar to what Canon did with their 100-300/2.8, where they seemed to have thought to themselves "We can give the user a 300/2.8, or we could just give them a 100-300/2.8 if they are willing to pay through the nose anyway. Might as well". That's where photography is headed.
As other have said, if this lens only makes sense for people shooting baseball and a few other small applications then Sony is okay with that it seems. Who knows how this lenses' design started, but I am guessing it didn't start as a 50-150/2. A fast prime-replacement lens doesn't make sense <100mm, but over 100mm it starts making more sense. Who knows what Sony's R&D logic is.
Alan Parker wrote:
See I feel like this lens is quite similar to what Canon did with their 100-300/2.8, where they seemed to have thought to themselves "We can give the user a 300/2.8, or we could just give them a 100-300/2.8 if they are willing to pay through the nose anyway. Might as well". That's where photography is headed.
As other have said, if this lens only makes sense for people shooting baseball and a few other small applications then Sony is okay with that it seems. Who knows how this lenses' design started, but I am guessing it didn't start as a 50-150/2. A fast prime-replacement lens doesn't make sense <100mm, but over 100mm it starts making more sense. Who knows what Sony's R&D logic is....Show more →
I see. I guess this paired with the 28-70 F2 would replace primes. A few photographers said that 28-70 was sharp throughout the range. Some said 28 wasn't wide enough, and the same will be said about this lens. But if it works for some, why not. No one is forced to buy it and is useful to those who need it.
I shoot a lot of sports, sometimes professionally and a lot of portrait team and individual shoots, and a myriad of other stuff. I can't name one thing this lens would do for me that another, much cheaper lens already does for me.
1. Team and Individual and walk around portrait sessions. Don't need FPS and the the Tamron easily wins with the much better focal range.
2. Second body lens at a large field sports event. I'm almost never need wider and the 70-200 gets the win here too. The Tamron would get the nod, but the FPS is a deal breaker. So it's the Sony 70-200 GM II, which is probably one of the sharpest lenses I own. The very slight advantage of f2 is not enough to outweigh the 200mm for me. If I transition from the 400 to the 70-200 during the game, I probably almost never need 50 and it's usually much closer to 200. For guys I see that need wider, they will often carry a third body with a 24-70 and I think the 50 is just not wide enough for that scenario.
3. For basketball, when I'm shooting near the basket, 50 is too long. From the corner, the 50-150 might be a winner and at poorly lit venues, f2 would be nice. But again, most of the time from the corner I'm shooting the 70-200 and probably more at 200 than I am at 70.
Maybe I'm missing something, but who is this lens for? I'd much rather have a 100-300 like the canon lens or the 120-300 like the Nikon. Or even a Sony 35-150 like the tamron. Anyway, feel free to enlighten me as I don't see any good argument for that focal length. 50 is not wide enough and 150 is not long enough.
timgangloff wrote:
I shoot a lot of sports, sometimes professionally and a lot of portrait team and individual shoots, and a myriad of other stuff. I can't name one thing this lens would do for me that another, much cheaper lens already does for me.
1. Team and Individual and walk around portrait sessions. Don't need FPS and the the Tamron easily wins with the much better focal range.
2. Second body lens at a large field sports event. I'm almost never need wider and the 70-200 gets the win here too. The Tamron would get the nod, but the FPS is a deal breaker. So it's the Sony 70-200 GM II, which is probably one of the sharpest lenses I own. The very slight advantage of f2 is not enough to outweigh the 200mm for me. If I transition from the 400 to the 70-200 during the game, I probably almost never need 50 and it's usually much closer to 200. For guys I see that need wider, they will often carry a third body with a 24-70 and I think the 50 is just not wide enough for that scenario.
3. For basketball, when I'm shooting near the basket, 50 is too long. From the corner, the 50-150 might be a winner and at poorly lit venues, f2 would be nice. But again, most of the time from the corner I'm shooting the 70-200 and probably more at 200 than I am at 70.
Maybe I'm missing something, but who is this lens for? I'd much rather have a 100-300 like the canon lens or the 120-300 like the Nikon. Or even a Sony 35-150 like the tamron. Anyway, feel free to enlighten me as I don't see any good argument for that focal length. 50 is not wide enough and 150 is not long enough. ...Show more →
I sometimes feel Tamron might of figured out how to fly close enough to the sun but not get burned. The 35-150 really is an amazing all round lens. Frankly when I chose sony a big part of it was that lens. Imagine if Sony would let it fly with higher fps and also if they'd give Tamron access to the AF they use and oss. But like you said.. feel a Sony 35-150 with maybe an f2.2 or something would of been a complete hit out of the park. I know oss isn't required really for this focal range but I do wonder why they left it out. Has there been an explanation? Gerald undone kind of seemed bummed by it as well
I put my order in a few days ago. As a travel photographer (not street, really) it’ll consolidate my kit a lot. And I really like the 28-70 f2. Traditionally I’d carry primes (mostly 1.8’s) as I like that aperture plus zooms for when conditions really don’t allow lens changes. This along with the 28-70 allows me to have both in one (two) lens(es). It’ll simplify what I carry dramatically. My Q’s can cover when I need something small/light. I also have a miniMF kit.
When I landed in a new city I’ll usually spend a day or two with a pair of zooms and then go back with primes for shots I want to re-do. This will save time and complexity.
The 50-150 has a limited use case but I’m in it. As a now retired wedding shooter I suspect this will also be the lens of choice for wedding and event photographers.
PixiPhotography wrote:
I see. I guess this paired with the 28-70 F2 would replace primes. A few photographers said that 28-70 was sharp throughout the range. Some said 28 wasn't wide enough, and the same will be said about this lens. But if it works for some, why not. No one is forced to buy it and is useful to those who need it.
Or carry a 16-35/2.8 GM II on one camera and a 50-150/2 mounted on the other. That would cover a lot of ground.
If you don't need faster than f/2, this can replace a 50, 85 & 135mm (and all FL's in the middle and a little longer), where you'd be trading size for convenience. But it's going to have to be sharp to justify the price compared to say a 55 1.8, 85 1.8, & 135 1.8. Then again, it's all the FL's in-between too.
So I get it...I just don't need it without the ability to use TC's.
.