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...
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 and quality of materials, mechanical precision, etc.).
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...
Nov 24, 2010 at 12:00 AM
Previous versions of AhamB's message #9067360 « Canon to Sony?... »
