Just curious.... how good is this lens...I've read almost as good as the Minolta 400 prime. I am interested in how it compares with a sharp copy of the Canon 100-400 and the Nikon 200-400 VR (althought that lens is in a completely different price range / has twice less range, but I'm still curious if it is able to compete for sharpness)
Bill Caulfield-Brown is a good person to ask. Everything that Ive heard says that the Sony is quite a bit sharper than the Canon and Nikon equivalents, and the Sony has very low CA.
douglasf13 wrote:
Bill Caulfield-Brown is a good person to ask. Everything that Ive heard says that the Sony is quite a bit sharper than the Canon and Nikon equivalents, and the Sony has very low CA.
Is Bill on these forums? I bought my 1Ds II from him on ebay a year ago.
I had a good look at the MTF charts for this lens compared to the Canon 100-400 IS and canon 300mm f/4 IS on photozone. For all focal lengths, the MTF for the SONY was excellent, and *substantially* better than the canon 100-400mm at all focal lengths and f-stops. Interestingly, the reslution of 100-400mm is worse than even the sigma 80-400mm OS.
Mostly the resolution was on par with the super-sharp canon 300mm f/4 IS (perhaps a little better). Bokeh is not crash hot, but that is to be expected with slower lenses.
Im afraid youre comparison is not valid - due to differences in pixel resolution and AA filter strength between different manufacturers/models of camera a useful resolution comparison is not possible.
This lens was just tested at Pop Photo and claimed to be the best tested long zoom. The performance is worst at 400mm so hard to believe it would outperform a really exceptional prime there:
I think the results are reasonably helpful for photographers who are considering changing to a different brand. They confirm the anecdotal claims that the lens is extremely sharp wide open at 400mm.
Currently I am a Canon user and very happy!. But if I was a SONY user, I would not hesitate to buy the 70-400mm G, it is a great lens by all accounts. I think the main thing letting down SONY right now is they need an update for the A700.
Neither Nikon nor Canon are offering a lens that is as good currently in the comparable class. With Nikon, you have to pay $ to shell out on the 200-400 f4 VR.
I agree. I would have swapped to SONY when the 70-400mm was released , after I sold my Canon 400mm f/5.6 L (no IS) and 100-400mm IS( IQ not good enough wide open for the high price tag). But I felt that the A700 body was out-dated and I'm not sold on SONY's steady-shot (though I have no experience with it)
I'm fascinated with in body stabilisation though, and right now I'm giving the Olympus E-620/ Zuiko 50-200mm f/2.8 (100-400mm equivalent) a go as a second body. I'm liking the light weight, stabilised 100-400mm, and F2.8 a lot, though the micro 4/3 format is a bit noisier than I prefer.
For my main body, I currently use a 50D/ 300mm L f/4 IS + 1.4 TC. I'm extremely happy with that combination! If I could afford a 5d mk2 and 500mm f/4 L IS, I'd be very contented with Canon.
You're gonna have to give us details with that. I frequently handhold the A900 with IS giving better than 2 stops. What focal lengths did you test? What were the conditions, etc?
I think the longer the focal length, the less efficient in-body stabilization becomes. I have not seen any convincing comparisons so far, as it is something not easily reproduced, but it is not very surprising that at 400mm Canon's IS may be better, even though Sony's lens is probably optically superior.
Sorry about the late return. I tested at 200mm and 280mm repectively . Two factors are (1) twice as many pixels as my previous experience was with a 1ds 11MP and a canon 100-400mm. IT was really good to 1/200th at 400mm
Running shutter speeds up to 1/1250 on the Sony @200mm you could not distiguish any blurring until a 1/125th of sec. At 1/200th ther was no blurring with stabilization with out stabiliztion I had to hit about 1/500th to eliminate blurring. same was true with the 1.4 tc. with stabiliztion it was blur free at 1/300th.
I know the optical works better. I realize the terms of blurring without stabizattion are 2-3 times your focal length. I would say the sony is good at shutter speed the same as focal length. Whether that will hold true with a 400mm i dont know.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I think the longer the focal length, the less efficient in-body stabilization becomes. I have not seen any convincing comparisons so far, as it is something not easily reproduced, but it is not very surprising that at 400mm Canon's IS may be better, even though Sony's lens is probably optically superior.
That's definitely my experience in extensive shooting with both Pentax's ad Oly's system and a moderate amount with Sony's. It's very good with shorter lenses and a massive win for low-light/fast glass shooters like myself, but lens-based IS gets an increased advantage as the lenses get longer.
If you're a long-lens shooter primarily I'd stick with lens-IS setups unless I just had to have some of those wonderful R system Tele's.
He is over in the getdpi.com Sony forums.