MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've had two copies of the FE 35 ZA, and own the 70-200 GM. I regularly shoot both of these lenses in tandem with some other highly regarded glass...85GM, Loxia 21, and the Canon 24-70II. Not once have I looked back at a wedding or something else I shot and felt that the images coming out of the 70-200 GM were not up to par with everything else. I'm not the type to apologize for glass that doesn't perform well either....i.e. I find the performance of the 70-200 GM with the 1.4 the to be pretty poor actually, and am actually going to probably sell the 70-200 GM because I need something sharper at 200MM+ for reception shots and the 70-200 with the teleconverter isn't cutting it. But without the teleconverter the lens holds it's own next to everything else I own.
The bokeh is not the greatest and the rendering is flatter than I prefer, but I've never found issue with sharpness and overall I'm happy with the lens as it gets the job done. Again's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will.
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've had two copies of the FE 35 ZA, and own the 70-200 GM. I regularly shoot both of these lenses in tandem with some other highly regarded glass...85GM, Loxia 21, and the Canon 24-70II. Not once have I looked back at a wedding or something else I shot and felt that the images coming out of the 70-200 GM were not up to par with everything else. I'm not the type to apologize for glass that doesn't perform well either....i.e. I find the performance of the 70-200 GM with the 1.4 the to be pretty poor actually, and am actually going to probably sell the 70-200 GM because I need something sharper at 200MM+ for reception shots and the 70-200 with the teleconverter isn't cutting it. But without the teleconverter the lens holds it's own next to everything else I own.
The bokeh kinda sucks and the rendering is flatter than I prefer, but I've never found issue with sharpness and overall I'm happy with the lens as it gets the job done. Again's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will.
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've had two copies of the FE 35 ZA, and own the 70-200 GM. I regularly shoot both of these lenses in tandem with some other highly regarded glass...85GM, Loxia 21, and the Canon 24-70II. Not once have I looked back at a wedding or something else I shot and felt that the images coming out of the 70-200 GM were not up to par with everything else. I'm not the type to apologize for glass that doesn't perform well either....i.e. I find the performance of the 70-200 GM with the 1.4 the to be pretty poor actually, and am actually going to probably sell the 70-200 GM because I need something sharper at 200MM+ for reception shots and the 70-200 with the teleconverter isn't cutting it. But without the teleconverter the lens holds it's own next to everything else I own.
The bokeh kinda sucks and the rendering is flatter than I prefer, but I've nevver found issue with sharpness and overall I'm happy with the lens as it gets the job done. Again's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will.
MTF chart data is what it is...what I tend to question is the materiality of it all when it comes to actual photos being taken. The danger of putting too much weight into MTF charts and what not is the potential for confirmation bias....and basically looking for problems because of the reputation a particular lens has.
I can't speak for everyone, but I've had two copies of the FE 35 ZA, and own the 70-200 GM. I regularly shoot both of these lenses in tandem with some other highly regarded glass...85GM, Loxia 21, and the Canon 24-70II. Not once have I looked back at a wedding or something else I shot and felt that the images coming out of the 70-200 GM were not up to par with everything else. I'm not the type to apologize for glass that doesn't perform well either....i.e. I find the performance of the 70-200 GM with the 1.4 the to be pretty poor actually, and am actually going to probably sell the 70-200 GM because I need something sharper at 200MM+ for reception shots and the 70-200 with the teleconverter isn't cutting it. But without the teleconverter the lens holds it's own against everything else I own and I'm happy with it. Again that's my own personal experience and I'm not speaking for anyone else so take that for how you will.
Nov 03, 2017 at 07:51 AM
Previous versions of Mystik's message #14240227 « Does Sony 70-200/2.8 "still suck"? »
