Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
|
gdanmitchell wrote:
Jack, those focal lengths would be my default choices since they basically match what I use on my Canon system.
One thing that still confuses me about Sony offerings though: On Canon, some of my f/4 EF L lenses match the image quality of their EF L f/2.8 counterparts. Two of these are standbys for my photography with my 5DsR:
- EF 16-35mm f/4L IS
- EF 70-200mm f/4L IS
(Since I don't use the 16-35mm lens a lot, I may use the EF lens with an adapter rather than buy a new Sony lens.)
But there seems to be a notion by some on the Sony side that Sony f/4 lenses aren't optically in the same league as the f/2.8 lenses. If that's really true, I'll likely get the f/2.8 versions, but I'd prefer to have, at least, the f/4 version of the 70-200mm lens. I don't really need f/2.8 on that lens, and I refer a smaller and lighter lens if possible. (I had the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS, and it was a fantastic lens... but the f/4 alternative is essentially equivalent in optical terms.)
So, I'm interested in experience and impressions from those who have used the f/2.8 and f/4 versions of Sony's 16-35mm and 70-200mm lenses in particular. (I'm more willing to go with the f/2.8 24-70, since that's what I have on the Canon system now — though I' consider an optically first class f/4 version here, too.)
The 100-400mm f/4.5 is virtually a certainty at this point, though a little nagging voice keeps asking if it will really be better optically than the newer f/4.5 lens and by how much and it what ways. I appreciate the smaller packed size of the telescoping zooms.
And...
... thinking a little further outside the box, lenses like the 24-105 f/4 aren't out of the question since they have some functional attractions, but only if optical quality is truly first rate. There are a few other oddball (to a person with my Canon background) but interesting options that I'd like to know more about, too:
12-24mm f/4 and f/2.8 lenses
15-25mm f/2.8 compact (I know nothing about this but saw it listed)
20-70mm f/4
Ross, if you are reading this, this is more or less the subject that I was going to ask you about...
Dan...Show more →
Hi Dan,
Sony has two designations for their professional lenses G and GM. Sony/Zeiss lenses are a third category of professional lenses but mostly irrelevant to this discussion as I wouldn't recommend any of the Sony/Zeiss zooms. Some people see the GM lenses as stronger than the G lenses and all the f/4 lenses are G lenses instead of GM and I think that is the source of some seeing the f/2.8 lenses as stronger. I think there is some truth to GM lenses being slightly stronger on average, but that doesn't mean some of the G lenses aren't excellent. What I have used personally is the older Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 OSS, the 24-105 f/4 OSS G, and the 200-600 f/5.6-6.3 OSS G, I wouldn't really recommend any of these at this point. The first two are older and superceded by newer model and the 200-600 is quite large and obviously has a slower max aperture.
I think using your Canon EF 16-35 f/4L IS and your 70-200 f/4L iS is a good idea. They are both wonderful lenses, will adapt well, and Sony doesn't really have lenses quite as good that are directly comparable.
At 16-35 f/4 they have the Sony/Zeiss which I have used. It is a quite decent lens but has weaker corners which as a landscape photographer might not always have the resolution you want especially with the high resolution camera. The also have the 16-35 f/4 power zoom, which is nice and small, but personally I don't like using the power zoom in the field and find it pretty annoying, YMMV. It is sharp, however. You could always go with the 16-35 f/2.8 GM II. It, however, is not one of the highest regarded GM's but primarily people complain about its performance on the long end and that may not bother you if it overlaps with a lens that starts at 20 or 24. I think part of the issue here is the Mark II is better than the first model which people complained about but the complaints carried over to the Mark II version. You might also consider the 12-24 f/2.8 GM, which is considered by most the premium ultra-wide zoom. I think part of the reputation problems with the 16-35 f/2.8 (even the Mark II) is that it isn't seen as good as the 12-24 f/2.8 even if the 16-35 f/2.8 Mark II is still a really good lens. Finally, the 12-24 f/4 G is a bit of a sleeper. It is sharp and a good performer, but people mostly ignore it. Keep in mind I am mostly sharing reputation here as I have only used the Sony/Zeiss 16-35 f/4 OSS.
At 70-200 there are 3 basic lenses to consider from Sony. The premium lens is the 70-200 f/2.8 OSS GM II (here there is a rather large different between the first model and the Mark II with the Mark II being seen as much better and pretty universally praised). The Sony 70-200 f/4 OSS Macro G II (here again the Mark II is seen as much better than the first model that is seen as pretty weak) is a polarizing lens. Some love it and the macro capability of this lens is pretty unique, but others note it isn't as light as they expected and some complain about the performance on the long end. The are regular threads about whether this lens or the Tamron 70-180 f/2.8 VR G2 is better to get. The f/2.8 Tamron is actually a little lighter than the f/4 Canon, I think, but they are similar in size, and the Tamron is a very sharp and capable lens. Some question why not get the faster aperture if there really isn't a weight penalty. Again for a landscape shooter, that may not be a very compelling argument, but as I wrote above staying with your Canon lens might be the best choice.
You also mentioned the 16-25 f/2.8 G, which is in my view a really interesting small lens. It would be much smaller than you Canon lens and might serve the same purpose so worth thinking about as an interesting option instead of the Canon. You also mentioned the 20-70 f/4 G which is very well liked. It is a G lens that most people seem to think as highly or almost as highly of as the GM lenses.
So here is my take. It sounds like you are basically planning on this kit:
Canon 16-35 f/4L IS, Sony 24-70 f/2.8 GM II (again the Mark II is generally consider a pretty big improvement), the Canon 70-200 f/4L IS, and the Sony 100-400 f/4.5-5.6 OSS GM. That is a very good kit and should serve you well.
I might consider swapping out the first two lens for the Sony 16-25 f/2.8 G and the 20-70 f/4 G, which by reputation are great lenses and would let you have a much smaller kit.
I hope this is helpful.
|
