gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.3 #11 · Observation/Question about Forum Lens Topics | |
JD07 wrote:
If you have an EF EF 24-70 f/f2.8L IS, keep it becuase it will be a collector's item! :.
Heh, oops. Maybe wishful thinking triggered that typo? ;-)
As you may have figured out, I’m not one to just jump in and buy a body and the start to think about lenses. My goal is to identify a full system that will accomplish what I need. With that in mind:
1. For what I’ll use the system for, f/2.8 zooms are not necessary. Though I still have (and like!) the Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 (NON-IS!), I get that for a particular project and no longer need f/2.8 at those focal lengths. (I had the f/2.8 version of the EF 70-200, sold it, a moved the f/4 version and don’t regret it at all. Same with the wider 16-35m range. (More on that in a second.)
2. While the 100-400mm range is what was available when I got my long zoom, I do sometimes use it with the 1.4x TC, so something with longer range than 100-400 could be on the table. If I were sticking with Canon I’d almost certainly get the RF 100-500, so something like a 200-600 could be a good alternative on the Sony side. (I’d actually miss the 100-200mm part of the 100-400 range though, since I often use the 100-400 for landscape photography.)
3. At the wide end, given that a 24-70 usually suffices, I don’t necessarily need to overlap with the 16-35mm range, and I would consider something with a 12 or 14mm to 24mm range, too.
I lean toward native lenses rather than third party alternatives except in cases where the OEM stuff doesn’t have features I need, so my first inclination will be to acquire Sony lenses unless the options are significantly deficient in some way to specific third-party alternatives.
(FWIW, “vintage lenses” don’t interest me at all — beyond the warm feelings i occasionally get when I hold one in my hand. As a person who started photography back in the vintage lens era, I’m far more interested in the solid performance of modern lenses.)
- - -
Craig Gillette wrote:
1. Nope, I don't think Sony lenses are deficient in general. There are some that aren't great, perhaps a few awful. And some seriously good lenses, several "lines" like the GM, G, etc. I'd think that's the case for all of them.
The G versus GM thing still confuses me just a bit, though a conversation with a photographer friend who uses Sony tended to confirm an assumption of mine that the differences are more about certain features (notably maximum aperture) more than about optical performance. IIRC, So a rough parallel might be to the differences between the old EF 70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4 lenses on Canon. Honestly, both perform essentially the same in optical terms when it comes to real world photography, but the f/2.8 has a larger maximum aperture, is bigger, and more expensive. If you need f/2.8 it is “better,” but if you don’t it isn’t. (As I wrote above, I had the f/2.8 version and moved “down” to the f/4 version, and IQ is, for all intents and purposes, the same.)
So, it at least seems to me that when it comes to optical performance the G and GM series lenses are in essentially the same class?
|
I enjoy many old optics that couldn't mount on DSLR due to registration distance. All MILC can now provide this service, but Sony did it first. Only their thick sensor cover can occasionally spoil the fun.