On another forum it's thought that it will be heavier than the 28-200. Or about the same. Needs to be heavier with more glass to perform well. Will not be very fast. Will be better or worse than the 20-70/4 and/or 28-200 depending on the section of the range discussed. The 20-70/4 and 28-200 are good to really good and popular but meh lenses while the new one will be practically perfect for replacing both. Or not.
Supposed to be announced the 9th and 20-200 seems to be the established set of details.
f/6.3 might be a tough sell at 200mm. Yes, it is only a 1/3 of a stop. But there are psychological barriers at f/2.8, f/4 and f/5.6. Lenses spec'd with "whole" f-stops have a greater perceived market value even if 99% of people couldn't actually tell the difference comparing images at f/5.6 and 6.3. It is no accident that Tamron designed the 28-200 so they could print "f/2.8-5.6" on the barrel. Those f-stops are perceived as "better" by most folks when compared to a lens offering fractionally slower "f/3.5-6.3". Sales is all about perception.
I think it will be smaller than the Tamron 28-200. If the image quality is as good as the Tamron, I could see it being successful as a travel lens. Pair it with your favorite small fast prime and you would satisfy a lot of travelers.
I'm really happy with my Sony 20-70 f4 and I'm soon adding a 70-200 f4 Macro and I don't think that this would tempt me away from that combo. I usually pack a 50 f2.5 for something small and discrete and a bit faster since it takes up very little room in the bag.
For comparison, the Tamron 50-400 is f5.6 at ~100mm and f6.3 after ~150mm. The Sony 100-400 is f5.6 after 160mm. The range on this Sigma doesn't seem so bad to me. I used the Tamron 50-400 this summer for sports and it was just fine. There's still a decent amount of subject separation at even medium telephoto lengths. For a one-lens travel solution, if the image quality is there, this seems like a great solution.
The apparent small size is very interesting. I kind of think the 28-200 is a tad large for the A7CR. This looks like a really good match to the A7CR. I don't think I'd sell my A7Riv, new 20-70/4 and 28-200 for this and an A7CR. But if a good performer, I can see it as a pair to be considered for many.
20-200mm is an enormous range. 20mm vs the Tamron's 28mm on the wide end adds about 19° to the diagonal FOV; 200mm vs the Sony 20-70's 70mm adds 22° on the long end. For my purposes, this could be my do-it-all "things/landscapes" lens. I really hope the IQ holds up. And, it's a nitpick, but I'm bothered by Sigma zooms recording focal length EXIF to the decimal point. I don't care if a shot was taken at 32.7mm vs 33.2mm, just round it and keep my metadata tidy please
I had the Tamron 28-200 and was happy with its performance...but found for a true travel lens I needed wider as the goal for my use case would be to go out with one lens during the day and not need to pack a 2nd lens.
Pleasantly surprised with the projected size, will come down to IQ for me.
I’m definitely interested in this - my go to hiking setup has been the 28-200 with the Samyang 18mm f/2.8. Would be great to carry one lens as long as it competes and weighs the same or less.
j4nu wrote:
I don't believe this Sigma can match Tamron's IQ, but maybe it will still be good enough (for me at least) .
I would tend to agree with you, but I'm also having trouble thinking of the last time Sigma released a Sony lens that didn't have stellar IQ. Maybe I'm wrong?
I’m not interested. I had the Tamron 28-200 for a couple years and used it on two vacations (one to Yellowstone) and though the image quality was good, it wasn’t great. And it didn’t inspire me to use it. I’d rather have my 24-70gmii at 695 grams. Or better yet, a superb 16/1.8G or 20/1.8G with a 28/1.4 and a 50/1.4GM with the Sigma 90/2.8. I’m glad they are making it though for those who will benefit.
Because it’s a pain in the butt to carry all that nice gear along with you everywhere you go, particularly if you are walking a lot, and travel also entails risking damage or loss of the gear more so than at home. And often the purpose of the trip isn’t about photography, and the people you’re with might get tired of you delaying everything because you’re constantly having to change to different lenses.
I’d love to go hiking with a lens that covers 20-200. I’d love to travel with that and, if needed, a small bright prime. I found most of what I shot during my last travel was landscapes and some architecture. Small apertures were fine. I used the 20-70, and really appreciated the range but sometimes wanted longer, when outdoors. I just hope it works well in infrared, and then it’ll be my dream landscape/travel lens.
I’d rather have one lens that I always pick up when I’m going to unknown locations and don’t know what I might be photographing. Then I can keep my big fancy glass at home and just pull it out when I have specific purposes for it and in know that I’ll need the brighter aperture or other specific qualities of the more specialized tool.
Hard to imagine it could perform well throughout the zoom range but then there have been big advances in zoom lenses and digital distortion and vignetting correction helps as well. For me if it was very good at f8 throughout the range it could make a great hiking lens but would be limited for general travel use due to the slow aperture. Personally my current light weight travel set up is the the Samyang 18/2.8, Sony 24-50G, Sony 85/1.8 and the Tamron 50-500 4.5/6.3
I've hears these arguments but they don't ring true to me.
Your gear is easily insured and then you drop the worry.
Changing lenses? I estimate what would work for the day and stick with it. I bring 5 lenses or so per trip, but don't ever change while out.
Delaying? That's on you.
Yes, walking can be a lot. That is what backpacks are for, and it is totally worth it for me to carry.
Why shouldn't the trip be at least somewhat about photography? Seeing wonderful new things seems to match with the ability to capture it.
For hiking, a light set of gear makes sense.
If you can't bring good gear when seeing wonderful new things, I don't see much of a point to be honest. And gear is to use, not to be afraid of losing because you might lose or damage it...then don't buy it at all imo..there is no point.
StoneCrop wrote:
Because it’s a pain in the butt to carry all that nice gear along with you everywhere you go, particularly if you are walking a lot, and travel also entails risking damage or loss of the gear more so than at home. And often the purpose of the trip isn’t about photography, and the people you’re with might get tired of you delaying everything because you’re constantly having to change to different lenses.
I’d love to go hiking with a lens that covers 20-200. I’d love to travel with that and, if needed, a small bright prime. I found most of what I shot during my last travel was landscapes and some architecture. Small apertures were fine. I used the 20-70, and really appreciated the range but sometimes wanted longer, when outdoors. I just hope it works well in infrared, and then it’ll be my dream landscape/travel lens.
I’d rather have one lens that I always pick up when I’m going to unknown locations and don’t know what I might be photographing. Then I can keep my big fancy glass at home and just pull it out when I have specific purposes for it and in know that I’ll need the brighter aperture or other specific qualities of the more specialized tool....Show more →
