schristie11 wrote:
The Sony is heavier, larger, lacks IS, and has lower magnification ratio, so why the price so high?
The answer is the SONY badge.
quite honestly i've never heard anyone treat the sony badge as a good thing in photography. maybe 20 years ago in electronics but not photography. i've heard lots of people condescendingly disregard lenses because they have the sony badge. my understanding is that sony started the partnership with zeiss partially because they were (rightfully) worried that people wouldn't take a sony branded high end lens seriously.
Vignetting is worse on the sony 70-400 than Canon 100-400 at all F/ stops.
Resolution & chromatic aberrations is equal on both Sony and Canon.
Boarder Chromatic Aberrations (CAs)
Noticably (2 times) better on the Canon at 300-400mm but nearly equal at 100-200mm.
Sony Star Rating -
Optical Quality: 3 of 4 (slightly downgraded due to the bokeh issue)
Mechanical Quality: 4 of 5
Price/Performance: 4 of 4
Notes on the sSony conclusion:
"the AF speed isn't overly impressive."
Canon Star Rating -
Optical Quality: 3 of 4 (no downgraded due any bokeh issue)
Mechanical Quality: 5 of 5
Price/Performance: 4 of 4
Notes on Canon conclusion:
"you may need to get used to the push-pull zoom mechanism."
You can’t seriously suggest the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM has a resemblance to the Nikon or Canon 24-70 which use high speed motor designs for AF.= - and cost more because of it.
Sure, it is possible to buy a $500 lens with quality optics, but other characteristics do matter, like build quality, materials of the housing, the AF motor, etc.
All these add up, that is why Sony charges a premium for the model that DOES compare to the Canon 24-70L, and then they add $200 more to the price for their name badge? lol
Additionally,
You are going to have a hard time showing any evidence that the New Nikon 24-70 beats the Canon 24-70L in anything.
Though the Nikon does cost the most! lol
Please provide a source, if you disagree.
schristie11 wrote:
Another example:
Sony 24 -70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T Zoom Lens for Sony Alpha Digital SLR Cameras
The Sony cost $1400 where the Canon 24-70L cost $1200.
Neither lens has IS, but optically and AF performance on both are similar.
mawz wrote:
Optically? The 24-70L lags both the ZA 24-70 and the Nikkor 24-70G significantly in optical performance (the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM is optically on par with the 24-70L and is under $1000. Then again it's a great little design from Tamron with better QC than the Tamron version). AF performance is similar though.
oFrom an optical standpoint the Nikkor and Sony are fairly comparable in performance, albeit with a different set of tradeoffs (the Nikkors probably a bit better overall but the ZA's more comparable to the G than the L). The (much) older 24-70L is not in the same class in terms of performance. And once again it's an older design which has had price drops through the life of the lens unlike the much newer Nikon or Sony versions. ...Show more →
schristie11 wrote:
The Sony is heavier, larger, lacks IS, and has lower magnification ratio
With 1:4 the Sony has a higher reproduction ratio than the Canon with 1:5 (evidenced by the MFD's too). Know what you're talking about before making claims...
And from the same tests the MTF50 of the Sony wide open is noticeably better than the Canon at any aperture.
Sony, 400mm border is 1888, Canon f8, centre is 1785 (both lenses peak at f8). The Sony is sharper at the edge wide open than the Canon ever gets. A fairly convincing win for the Sony.
schristie11 wrote:
For doubters who say the Sony is "better":
Vignetting is worse on the sony 70-400 than Canon 100-400 at all F/ stops.
Resolution & chromatic aberrations is equal on both Sony and Canon.
Boarder Chromatic Aberrations (CAs)
Noticably (2 times) better on the Canon at 300-400mm but nearly equal at 100-200mm.
Sony Star Rating -
Optical Quality: 3 of 4 (slightly downgraded due to the bokeh issue)
Mechanical Quality: 4 of 5
Price/Performance: 4 of 4
Notes on the sSony conclusion:
"the AF speed isn't overly impressive."
Canon Star Rating -
Optical Quality: 3 of 4 (no downgraded due any bokeh issue)
Mechanical Quality: 5 of 5
Price/Performance: 4 of 4
Notes on Canon conclusion:
"you may need to get used to the push-pull zoom mechanism."...Show more →
You are not calculating the tests use different bodies, they not the Canon was on an 8mb pixl body so the chart line is lower.
The Sony was on a 10mpixl body so the chart line is higher.
If you test both on a 24mpixl body, the ratio seen in those tests shows the canon will beat the Sony!
You’re wrong if you think the Canon 24-70L lacks anything from the Sony or Nikon products, go look it up from reputable testing sources.
They have been making them a long time which is probably why they are so cheap.
But that speaks to my point also, with Canon you have it now and you have it cheaper, and equal or better than competition.
With Sony or Nikon you have a promise it will someday come and regardless it will be more expensive. lol
mawz said:
"And from the same tests the MTF50 of the Sony wide open is noticeably better than the Canon at any aperture.
Sony, 400mm border is 1888, Canon f8, centre is 1785 (both lenses peak at f8). The Sony is sharper at the edge wide open than the Canon ever gets. A fairly convincing win for the Sony.
From an optical standpoint the Nikkor and Sony are fairly comparable in performance, albeit with a different set of tradeoffs (the Nikkors probably a bit better overall but the ZA's more comparable to the G than the L). The (much) older 24-70L is not in the same class in terms of performance. And once again it's an older design which has had price drops through the life of the lens unlike the much newer Nikon or Sony versions.
That is exactly the point, and your not getting it.
The canon lens is superior to the sony lens since it has the IS at all.
Having in body IS does not make the LENS cost more does it?
Well to sony it does, which makes as much sence as their pricing model.
Pay for the Sony badge! lol
mawz wrote:
The Sony is also significantly better optically, has a closer MFD and has a better physical design (no push-pull) and is essentially brand new while the Canon is an older lens which has seen its price go down. IS is mostly irrelevant here (all Sony bodies have IS already, the 100-400 has an older, less effective IS unit).
schristie11 wrote:
You can’t seriously suggest the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM has a resemblance to the Nikon or Canon 24-70 which use high speed motor designs for AF.= - and cost more because of it.
Sure, it is possible to buy a $500 lens with quality optics, but other characteristics do matter, like build quality, materials of the housing, the AF motor, etc.
All these add up, that is why Sony charges a premium for the model that DOES compare to the Canon 24-70L, and then they add $200 more to the price for their name badge? lol
Additionally,
You are going to have a hard time showing any evidence that the New Nikon 24-70 beats the Canon 24-70L in anything.
Please provide a source, if you disagree. ...Show more →
I never claimed the Sony 28-75 matches the 24-70L in anything except optics (it doesn't. AF and build are both inferior. But optically? The two lenses are on par).
Look at any decent lens test of the three major 24-70's. In fact referencing Photozone.de for APS-C both the Nikkor and the Sony net 4 stars for optical performance where the Canon nets 3 stars. The Canon has more CA and less resolution than either of the others but distortion is better controlled at 24mm than the Zeiss
mawz wrote:
And from the same tests the MTF50 of the Sony wide open is noticeably better than the Canon at any aperture.
Sony, 400mm border is 1888, Canon f8, centre is 1785 (both lenses peak at f8). The Sony is sharper at the edge wide open than the Canon ever gets. A fairly convincing win for the Sony.
also, the canon was tested on a 8mp body versus the 12mp of the sony. this means CA values measured in number of pixels must be adjusted. there is also a dig against canon's sample variation with the 100-400 in the conclusion (poor copies of this lens have well documented and caused many canon people to think it was a dog). finally from the sony conclusion "The build quality of the lens is excellent and matching or even exceeding its Canon/Nikon counterparts."
Maw,
You’re wrong if you think the Canon 24-70L lacks anything from the Sony or Nikon products, go look it up from reputable testing sources.
They have been making them a long time which is probably why they are so cheap.
But that speaks to my point also, with Canon you have it now and you have it cheaper, and equal or better than competition.
With Sony or Nikon you have a promise it will someday come and regardless it will be more expensive. lol
IS is incidental to the costs here. New designs cost more than older ones and the Canon's been on the market for more than a decade. You aren't paying for the Sony badge, you're paying for a 2008 model lens vs a 1997 model lens.
And the IS doesn't make the Canon lens superior at all. It's a feature that the Sony doesn't need.
schristie11 wrote:
That is exactly the point, and your not getting it.
The canon lens is superior to the sony lens since it has the IS at all.
Having in body IS does not make the LENS cost more does it?
Well to sony it does, which makes as much sence as their pricing model.
Pay for the Sony badge! lol
So I have to pay more to Sony, so I have pleasure of waiting for Sony to catch up to what others perfected 10 years ago? lmao
That is the best line you said yet MAW.
Canon will come out with a IS enabled and optically upgraded 24-70L any day now (since they filled for the patent in 2008),
and you will still tell me the Sony is better for some unknown reason, MAW
schristie11 wrote:
You are not calculating the tests use different bodies, they not the Canon was on an 8mb pixl body so the chart line is lower.
The Sony was on a 10mpixl body so the chart line is higher.
If you test both on a 24mpixl body, the ratio seen in those tests shows the canon will beat the Sony!
the mtf score to max measurable mtf ratio doesn't scale that way - you'll notice the max value measurable is higher on the sony charts.
schristie11 wrote:
You are not calculating the tests use different bodies, they not the Canon was on an 8mb pixl body so the chart line is lower.
The Sony was on a 10mpixl body so the chart line is higher.
The difference in resolution between 10MP and 8MP is smaller than the difference in performance seen in the tests. Note that these are the tests _you_ posted to show a supposed advantage for the Canon, but they in fact show exactly the opposite.
If you test both on a 24mpixl body, the ratio seen in those tests shows the canon will beat the Sony!
I've seen comparisons between the two on high-MP FF bodies, the Sony has an even larger lead. The 100-400 was a gem in its day but current state of the art has moved on and the optical performance of the Sony is simply better, especially at the long end. Luckily for Canon, Nikon's 80-400 is even further behind (although Nikon's 200-400 stomps all of these cheaper lenses into the dust optically).
You’re wrong if you think the Canon 24-70L lacks anything from the Sony or Nikon products, go look it up from reputable testing sources.
They have been making them a long time which is probably why they are so cheap.
But that speaks to my point also, with Canon you have it now and you have it cheaper, and equal or better than competition.
With Sony or Nikon you have a promise it will someday come and regardless it will be more expensive. lol
The very same photozone.de test you quote show a commanding lead for the Sony and Nikon 24-70's over the Canon.
schristie11 wrote:
So I have to pay more to Sony, so I have pleasure of waiting for Sony to catch up to what others perfected 10 years ago? lmao
That's the best line you said yet MAW.
Perfected? The Sony's ahead in both cases you've quoted. Quite significantly in the case of the 70-400 which is sharper wide open at 400mm than the 100-400L ever gets.
And just for reading comprehension, the name's mawz (note the 'Z' and the lower case), not MAW.
Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 SSM G
Price: $1600
Dimensions 196 x 94.5mm
Weight 1490g
MFD: 1.5m (max. magnification ratio ~1:4)
Canon 100-400L
Price: $1600
size of 189 x9 2mm
Weight 1360g inc. the detachable tripod mount
MFD: 1.80m (max. magnification ratio ~1:5)
The Sony is heavier, larger, lacks IS, and has lower magnification ratio, so why the price so high?
The answer is the SONY badge.
...and the Sony starts out at 70mm and F4 while the Canon at 100mm and a slower 4.5 (an important spec missing from above). You also get in body IS with every lens with Sony.
I think Philip has summed up things quite nicely. I moved from Canon and to Sony instead of Nikon simply because neither offer the combination of features I required AT ANY PRICE (and, unbelievably, both still don't). For my uses, these requirements include the highest resolution and best file quality at low ISO in a body offering 100% viewfinder accuracy that is of a reasonable size and weight yet still offers some degree of robustness. The a900 is the only DSLR which meets all these requirements. Oh yes, it had to accept a decent amount of superior, alternative lenses.
schristie11 wrote:
You can’t seriously suggest the Sony 28-75 f2.8 SAM has a resemblance to the Nikon or Canon 24-70 which use high speed motor designs for AF.= - and cost more because of it.
Sure, it is possible to buy a $500 lens with quality optics, but other characteristics do matter, like build quality, materials of the housing, the AF motor, etc.
You are aware that you are in the Alternaternative Gear forum here (where manual focus lenses prevail)?
Also, using test results from Photozone to compare lenses is not very useful, especially when comparing between brands. If you browse around a bit you'll find that it's true that the new Nikon 24-70 beats the current Canon 24-70.
Forget those PZ resolution numbers. What you are saying about the difference aspects of a lens (build quality, electrical components, etc.) also counts for image quality: a couple of bar graphs for resolution/CA/distortion actually hide more about the real characteristics of a lens than they reveals. Those test results tell almost nothing about the difference between a Canon, Leica or Zeiss lens, while the differences in real-world images are considerable (not considering ergonomics, durability, mechanical precision, etc.).
We are all splitting hairs on performance anyhow; my real point should not be missed in all of the Sony fan boy’s posts.
Sony charges more for their name brand products than other MFG's in EVERY case, except the end of year close out sale.
Sony is late to delivery all of these products as well.
Even if there was some advantage to the latest Sony product,
if your can’t have the product in your hands for a few years or decades,
then what good is it?
and why pay more for it? - rewarding mediocrity
