Choderboy wrote:
Sony 70-200 f4 is 1kg. Sigma 50-120 2.8 is 390g. That's quite a difference.
EB-1 wroteJosh Lewis wroteVery little is known about the soon to be released Sigma 50–120mm f/2.8 for aps-c (75-180mm f/4 ff eq). Could be a bit smaller than a similar full frame lens like the 17-40mm.But there is the problem. Why use this "equivalent" on a cropper if you can use a 70-200/4 on FF?
EBH
To be fair, just the 70-200GII is just under 800g. Still a great savings, though.
As freaklikeme pointed out, I got the weight wrong.
The Sony 70-200 f4 II is 800 grams, not 1kg (almost the same as Canon EF 70-200 f4 IS II and Canon RF 70-200 f4).
But still, 390g vs 800g is obviously a huge difference.
A bit more than that too, as weights are without hoods and the Sigma hood is much smaller.
EB-1 wrote:
I didn't realize that. My Canon 70-200/4 is 700g.
But even a half kilo is just a few meals.
I think it makes more sense for Fuji and Sony. Canon seems to have put out a flurry of low to mid grade croppers, but nothing new to replace the R7 with a sensor from this decade.
Alright, I will eat my words now. Rolf was able to pick one up for me when he was in Japan last week and the Tamron has been traded away at work. I'm very impressed by how consistent the lens can be through most of the range regardless of focus distance, which puts it a step ahead of both their FF 70-200/2.8 and the Tamron 70-180/2.8. The last 10mm or so in the range suffers a bit in comparison to the early performance, but is still very usable. The overall build quality isn't vastly different from the first two lenses in their trinity, but it includes an aperture ring and the OS is handy.
The two downsides that jump out at me are the pincushion distortion that grows until it's fairly significant at the long end, and the AF, which did fine tracking high schoolers at footie practice and a few random running dogs, which is fine for my goal of getting family vacation snaps. What it won't do is replace the Sony 70-200GII for close focus or more demanding applications, but that wasn't my expectation. For the money, Sigma has scored again, but it is a consumer lens. The low weight and price don't buy you a lot of niceties in fit and feel and you'll need to keep an eye on that fancy little aperture ring, since it turns a little too freely.
Personally, I'm thrilled with it, but the change from 35-100 to 50-120 left me reconsidering the wide end of the kit, so I'm trying out the Sony 12-24/4G and Touit 32/1.8.
