chiron
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: FE 24-50mm f/2.8 G Question | |
bwcolor wrote:
My wife wanted to use a camera for our last vacation. This was a first after decades together, so I didn’t think that she would actually use the camera. Well, I was wrong. After a day she progressed from program mode to Aperture Priority, Auto-ISO and Exposure Compensation. I was thinking small, so gave her an A7CR and 40mm G lens. She enjoyed shooting, but didn’t like the single focal length vs iPhone. So, remembering Guy’s positive review, I ordered the Sony 24-50mm f/2.8 G zoom. Size/weight is similar to the 24GM, so seems like a good compromise. My copy seems to be well centered, but at 24mm, the lens must be stopped down to sharpen the periphery. Only my best prime lenses are sharp peripherally wide open, but I expected a performance more like what I found at 50mm. The periphery is substantially degraded compared to 50mm, even when factoring in the difference in magnification between focal lengths. I assume that this is part of the compromise, with vignetting and focal plane curvature. Does your copy also suffer peripherally at f/2.8 & 24mm?
A7CR Sony 40mm f/2.5G
I have been very happy with my copy of the 24-50 f2.8 G. I have used it extensively for travel and also for shooting candids, street, landscape, and family pictures. It covers the fov range I am most drawn to photographically.
What I most value it for is its size and rendering, which I think is excellent--smooth and not distracting, much better than neutral. A very useful and appealing lens.
I am never that attentive to how sharp a lens is. Except for a decentered lens (I always test my lenses carefully) or something like the Voigtlander 40mm 1.2 when used wide-open at MFD, virtually all lenses seem sharp enough to me. Some lenses, like the Voigtlander 50mm f2 APO actually seem too sharp, so that the image sometimes has an artificial sharpness that creates an unnatural and distracting appearance, calling attention to itself rather than to the image (as though the lens were the point of the picture). I much prefer what Zeiss describes in its Batis and Loxia lenses as a "rounded sharpness." One of my favorite lenses, the Sigma i series 45mm f2.8, is not especially noted for sharpness because residual flaws were designed-in in order to obtain its superb rendering.
I don't think people looking at a photograph, including those who are sophisticated about visual art and images, ever really notice whether an image is a tad less sharp in the corners. Some photographers no doubt do notice this, but I think they are then more focused on technical characteristics than they are on the image itself.
In general, I would say that it is the quality of what is imaged that matters most, and this lens is very helpful in getting to good images.
|
