I was never a fan of superzooms - over summer I tested the Panasonic 28-200 which was amazing in terms of how much it packed into such a tiny package, the IQ was surprisingly competent and sharp but just not terribly exciting (the relatively shallow bokeh reminded me of bridge digicams).
However, this Sigma 20-200 is making me think twice. It is not that much heavier in absolute terms than the Sony 20-70, yet at the cost of 1-stop at 50mm (the Sigma closes down to F/5.6 according to DPReview) you gain the entire FL range from 70-200mm. Assuming IQ holds up - which I have no reason to believe it wouldn't given Sigma's current track record - this lens is really worth looking at for a one-stop-shop travel or walkaround zoom.
The sample gallery at DPR shows about what I expected. Pretty sharp in the center zone; less so on the edges. Given the very interesting/convenient FL range, I think I could live with it. Unfortunately their gallery doesn't have any shots that help judge what the distortion might be like (although I assume it will be high/complicated, requiring a LR profile).
In any case, it's tempting.
Here's a shot at 20mm from the DPR gallery that I processed from their RAW; seems reasonable to me. Although I'm confident my 20-70mm would do better. However, it's difficult to shoot the 20-70mm at 200mm.
ILCE-7CR20-200mm F3.5-6.3 DG | Contemporary 025 lens20mmf/5.61/640s100 ISO-1.0 EV
It looks like a great lens to travel with for my Dolomites trip late next month. Currently, planning to take 20-70 and 100-400. But my age is asking me to travel as light as possible :-) And this lens will make the travel lot lighter.
Chris frost and Gordon laing have generally positive reviews of this lens. Though given the Tamron 25-200 announcement I'll likely wait for a comparison between the two. 2.8 and 67mm filters plus possibly better iq would win out over the range for me.
I thought these both contained nice examples of what this lens can do.
I am curious to see how this lens does for landscapes at f8. My Nikon 28-400 sharpens up quite a bit at f8 vs f5.6. The lens seems to have a nice rendering overall, but the initial landscape samples are lacking a bit of the bite I would be looking for. Granted, initial samples are usually not done under ideal circumstances due to time constraints, either.
I went to a local camera event and the Sigma reps brought a whole set of new lenses (i.e., 35/1.2, 135/1.4, 200/2, etc.), including this one. It's very small, skinny, light, and the focal range is amazing. I took a couple shots at 20mm and 200mm and both were sharp. One shot of the high ceiling lights had some CA, but mostly the CA was well controlled. The fit and finish are typical of Sigma's recent lenses. My spouse handled the lens, reviewed the shots, and pre-ordered on the spot. On my recent trip to Africa, I brought a 24-105 as my general purpose lens; this lens would have been much more useful because the range, size, weight, and the image quality looked good from the few shots I took.
shadow9d9 wrote:
Travel is when you should be bringing your best gear, not low quality ultrazooms. Why keep your best gear for only around your home?
Dug up this old thread because I just saw the review by PetaPixel on Youtube. I tend to agree with your way of looking at this lens. For me, it's more a hiking lens than a travel lens, unless the travel also involves some tough hiking. I have the 16-35 F4 PZ, the re-acquired Sony 20-70, 24-70 GM II, 70-200 F4 G II, 100-400 GM, and just bought a Tamron 50-400 that may replace the Sony 100-400 GM. I guess it depends where I am going, what I want to shoot and how much gear I want/can bring, I can choose the lens/lenses in this range from my existing collection. No doubt the small size and weight of this new Sigma can be very tempting for many whose priority is convenience.
Douglas L wrote:
Dug up this old thread because I just saw the review by PetaPixel on Youtube. I tend to agree with your way of looking at this lens. For me, it's more a hiking lens than a travel lens, unless the travel also involves some tough hiking. I have the 16-35 F4 PZ, the re-acquired Sony 20-70, 24-70 GM II, 70-200 F4 G II, 100-400 GM, and just bought a Tamron 50-400 that may replace the Sony 100-400 GM. I guess it depends where I am going, what I want to shoot and how much gear I want/can bring, I can choose the lens/lenses in this range from my existing collection. No doubt the small size and weight of this new Sigma can be very tempting for many whose priority is convenience....Show more →
When would you pick the 50-400 over the 100-400gm?
Luballs wrote:
When would you pick the 50-400 over the 100-400gm?
Most likely for landscape stuff. I may have the Sony PZ 16-35 F4 on one camera, the Tamron 50-400 on another body. I went to Colorado and Utah last month and did some landscape stuff, I had the Voigtlander 15, Sony 20-70 and the Sony 100-400 GM, and two bodies (not including the infrared Canon R5). The 100-400 GM is kind of big and heavy to pack/travel for that kind of shooting. I am waiting for the seller to send the Tamron 50-400. Will do some testing against the 100-400 GM. My copy of the 100-400 GM is very very sharp.
I just sold my golden copy of the 100-400 (fred's test copy) and worried i might regret it later. I had to be honest that after reviewing my catalogue at 200-400mm i was unimpressed by the frequency and quality of my landscape shots over 200mm. I really didn't think i shot that little over 200mm for landscape and the ones i did almost always had atmospheric distortion.
I decided to ditch my beloved 24-105/100-400 combo because the only time i shot at 400mm was before i had two young kids and frequently shot ski action at full zoom. I am so many years away from being able to do that again I decided to move to 24-70/70-200 for high IQ in a more useful range for my current life circumstances.
the 28-200 was a gem for easy outings after my first kid and i foresee the 25-200 or 20-200 replacing it (nothing wrong with the 28-200, just a cheap enough lens category to try out new for the sake of new)
