Equipment & Techniques > Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear
Good Zoom for Sony A7RII ?
deanwork:
Yea, I'm going to tell her to return it and use the Canon 24-70/4 she already has. I'm telling you it makes no sense to have an amazing sensor like this and produce work that just isn't sharp.
I've been printing some files from this brand new Sony set up at 16x20 today on semi-gloss paper. They were shot at F9 at 1/250th of a second ISO 400 etc, and there is just nothing that is sharp about the files even with careful post sharpening. I do this kind of print work all the time with Nikon and Canson dls cameras and their 24-70 zooms. All this Sonny zoom landscape work with varied F stops as ISO combinations looks like it was shot from any mediocre lens on any cheap mediocre dsl. The same camera with the Sony Zeiss 50 is excellent. I'm going to advise her to buy a good 24mm prime, keep the 50 and use her Canon zoom with the adapter if she needs a walk around zoom. Personally I'd just use primes on this camera. It's so damn good when you stick with them. It's kinda sad because this Sony zoom is constructed so well and feels so solid.
--- Quote from: rainer_v on October 06, 2015, 05:46:44 pm ---i needed as well a good and especially a sharp zoom for an aereal shooting. I compared the Zeiss 24-70 with two samples of the sigma art 24-105 and the canon 24-70/4. By far the canon was the best lense, its really good. The Sigma wasnt bad too, but especially at the wide end not as sharp in the corners than the canon. The Zeiss was indiscutable bad, i would say unusuable if you want or need sharp corners. Af speed is very good with the metabones mark4 with fw 0.44.
--- End quote ---
Paulo Bizarro:
Sony chose to make a compromise on software correction for distortion, to have a smaller lens. The Canon 24-70 f4 has a 77mm filter thread, the Sony has 67mm.
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 MKII has an 82mm filter thread, and weighs a ton. Same for the new Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 MKII. The Sony Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II is stellar but a lot bigger and heavier.
So the Sony is a reasonably compromise, even though it is not the best lens to shoot landscapes for critical sharpness in the corners. But it is a good lens to shoot travel and events, as it is small and light, compared to other offers.
Sony have already publicly stated that they are coming out with f2.8 zooms for the Alpha 7 system.
deanwork:
It seems to be a compromise alright. The problem for me with that degree of distortion at the wide angle, which landscape photographers like me shoot with a lot, is that sure, you can correct it in post but you end up cropping into the top or bottom of the frame to such a degree that it is just unworkable unless you waste a third of the frame with buffer space. To me the point of having this amazing sensor is to produce exceptional frames, and the results I am seeing from this combination is not close to the output of the Canon M2 or M3 or the Nikon D800 with their 24-70 zooms. I'll have to look into heavier Sony, but in that case she might as well stick with the Canon she has. It isn't that much bigger.
john
--- Quote from: Paulo Bizarro on October 07, 2015, 03:54:57 am ---Sony chose to make a compromise on software correction for distortion, to have a smaller lens. The Canon 24-70 f4 has a 77mm filter thread, the Sony has 67mm.
The Canon 24-70 f2.8 MKII has an 82mm filter thread, and weighs a ton. Same for the new Nikkor 24-70 f2.8 MKII. The Sony Vario-Sonnar T* 24-70mm F2.8 ZA SSM II is stellar but a lot bigger and heavier.
So the Sony is a reasonably compromise, even though it is not the best lens to shoot landscapes for critical sharpness in the corners. But it is a good lens to shoot travel and events, as it is small and light, compared to other offers.
Sony have already publicly stated that they are coming out with f2.8 zooms for the Alpha 7 system.
--- End quote ---
AlterEgo:
--- Quote from: Paulo Bizarro on October 07, 2015, 03:54:57 am ---So the Sony is a reasonably compromise
--- End quote ---
unfortunately the compromise does not end with software corrections for geometric distortions - it also way too bad with all other parameters for f4 lens...
just compare :
uncompromised Canon 24-70/4 = $900 @ B&H, 77mm filter, 600g weight, 83.4 diameter x 93 length mm size vs compromised Sony 24-70/4 = $1200 @ B&H, 67mm filter, 430g weight, 73 diameter x 94.5 length mm size...
so 67mm vs 77mm filter for 10mm lesser lens body diameter and 200g less weight for $300 more dollars and simply horrible optical performance ? no wonder that 10mm less and 200g less do not entice nobody in sane mind to buy that junk... unless somebody is in general turisto-zoom-10...20x category anyways.
shadowblade:
The best standard zoom for the A7rII is probably the Canon 24-70L II - it autofocuses well, is very sharp and has minimal aberrations and has an odd number of aperture blades (for better sunstars). I'm not sure if the new Nikon will be better, but its AF performance (with Nikon adapters that allow AF) has yet to be seen.
I'm not sold on most of Sony's E-mount lenses - IMO they've gone too far down the 'small at any cost' route (good for casual users) and don't have enough fast, uncompromised lenses for high-end, discriminating users. While every lens lineup needs small lenses for weight-conscious or budget users, Sony, unlike Canon and Nikon, has not produced a line of fast and uncompromised lenses for its E-mount, which, these days, probably represents its premier line of cameras (more so than A-mount).
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version