trstahly
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: Pre-order: Sony FE 12-24mm f/2.8 GM ($2,998) | |
nhsonyshooter wrote:
trstahly wrote:
Holger wrote:
j4nu wrote:
trstahly wrote:
j4nu wrote:
So it seems Sony will be the cream of the crop, while Sigma becomes ironically the "value" option (until we see direct comparison at least), as Sony seems to me:
* extra 2mm wide
* practically the same weight
* bokeh seems a bit smoother (still hard to say without direct comparison), though fewer diaphragm blades
* similar sharpness (?), if maintained @12mm that's another plus
I wonder why it's premium priced, maybe because it's unique (12-24mm f2.8) - I just hope that's not an indication of future GM lenses prices  ...
Ordered mine at 5 sharp supposed to ship the 13th.
There is no question the Sony 12-24 .8 GM is the clear winner, the Sigma is not a 12-24 2.8 lens so the whole thing is kind of silly to compare one to the other.
I find it silly if someone has a 16-35 GM (and what serious Sony shooter doesn't) to consider a Sigma 14-24.
If you want to talk value that is a whole different subject and a subjective thing which will differ greatly from one person to the next.
If we are talking about the best bang for the buck in terms of what because the best bang for the buck is a cell phone or point and shoot.
I do not like paying what we have to pay for the best anymore than the next guy but I am about the best not second best which is why I own the lens and camera that I do.
Not everyone is willing to pay for the best or can which is why we have so many options in this world.
Hmm IQ-wise it's not that clear cut for me, I've seen a few reviewers saying sharpness is similar, Manny even stating contrast is higher on the Sigma ... Sigma is universally claimed to be "the" UWA zoom now...
Cost-wise, it's always a personal decision, but if this is going to be the price level of future GM lenses, I think it's safe to say my GM lineup is complete  .
What contrast? Low or high frequency detail?
All that is meaningless without detailed comparisons or lensrentals MTF measurements ;-) I like what I see so far, sun stars, sharpness, flare performance and 2mm more is quite a deal. So I don't know why one should call Sigma "the" WA lens anymore. Time will tell.
This discussion is silly and has drifted into people comparing a similar but lesser lens being a Sigma 14-24 to a very exciting and state-of-the-art Sony 12-24 2.8 GM zoom. Sigma does not make a 12-24 lens so end of story.
Why would anyone own a 14-24 to begin with? How many "serious" Sony shooters do not already own a far more useful 16-35 GM?
There are real differences between 12mm and 14mm and any UWA shooter understands this. 12mm is an entirely different perspective than 14mm not to mention benefits in post for architecture and other.
I find most threads involving Sigma lenses a waste of time unless the topic is bang for the buck which this thread is about Sony's exciting new one of a kind lens that was released today.
"Why would anyone own a 14-24 to begin with?
Because they can pair it with say a Laowa 12mm and save 500-600 bucks ?
One could also say why not save two thousand dollars and buy a Laowa 12mm and skip UWA zoom and keep your 16-35GM?
There are some on here myself includes are are excited to see Sony continue to push the envelope and that comes at a price.
A price that some will pay and some will or cannot pay.
I have yet to see anyone on here say they do not think the lens is an exciting and outstanding lens. Just a bunch of whiners complaining about how much it cost. Whats new?
|
