aCuria
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Sony FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Lens Sony E $1098 | |
freaklikeme wrote:
adcimagery wrote:
I'm curious what you see the 70-200 f/4 as having over the Tamron 70-300 or 70-180 f/2.8, for instance: similar weight and size, lower prices, better IQ on the 70-180 along with a 1 stop advantage, the 70-180 also has a .5x macro, the 70-300 gets to 300mm, etc.
The Tamron never does .5x. It gets to 1:2.6 on the wide end and 1:4.7 on the tele. And, if you treat the Tamron G2 like a constant f/4 lens, their overall IQ is more similar than different. There are combinations of focal length and focus distance where one presents a slight resolution advantage over the other or has slightly less vignetting. Overall, both are capable but nothing special landscapers stopped down, the Tamron generally has smoother mid-to-portrait distance bokeh regardless of aperture, and the Sony very much differentiates itself .3m and closer, not only in optical performance, but also in operational speed and on-lens control.
The idea of a constant 1:2 RR isn't as universally appealing as a constant f/2.8 max aperture, but it's a very big deal if you spend time focusing on the small things. Without touching the aperture or changing your framing, you can impact apparent depth of field, the focus roll-off, the appearance of the bokeh, and, because it's still a zoom and has a sweet spot, the overall resolution. It also gives you more control over working distance without having to change lenses. There's certainly room for improvement there (I can only imagine what Sony would charge for it if it were perfect), but that's no more or less true for the Tamron. They're both compromises (the Tamron over the bigger, higher performing 70-200/2.8 options, the Sony over a closer focusing prime macro), but my feeling is you wouldn't gravitate to one or the other with the exact same usage and expectations in mind. The Sony certainly wouldn't be worth the extra cash if its unique advantage is meaningless to you.
I'm not sure why the Tamron 70-300 is in the conversation. It's a fine lens of it's type, but its performance is even more distance sensitive than the other two and, yes, it gets to 300, but the overall performance takes a big dive getting there. If size and weight are critical, it's a solid option, but it doesn't present any other advantages.
The 70-200/4Gii has quad xd linear motors and a lens design which moves two optical groups to focus even faster.
Faster autofocus also seems to mean more af calculations per second, even if you are happy with the 15fps cap.
Ultimately the 70-200 type lens is a sports oriented focal length, autofocus capability is more important than one stop.
|
