Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Down

Author Topic: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G  (Read 21192 times)

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #60 on: March 05, 2020, 08:26:35 am »

The Canon's collapsible design has no impact on optical quality. It may or may not make it less sturdy, but certainly makes it more compact. It's made compromises that would make it less than ideal for some other roles, but it's a perfect candidate for a light and sharp setup. You could make an f/4 version even smaller and, probably, sharper, but, if you were to need one of the 'trinity' zooms in f/2.8, it would almost certainly be the 70-200.

The 14-30's zoom range certainly does have an impact on image quality. This makes it a less-than-ideal candidate for 'light and sharp', but a great candidate for a 'budget', versatile UWA, alongside lenses with a similar design philosophy,  such as the 24-120 or the various 24/105s. I'd lump Sony's 12-24/4 and Canon's 11-24/4 into the sane category - great for what they are, but with the potential to have achieved even higher image quality with a less ambitious focal length range and obviate the need for primes in that range, unless you specifically need a fast aperture.

Leave the 14-30 and various 16-35/4 lenses in the budget category where they do best and design some new, slow but super-sharp lenses able to equal the primes in the f/5.6-f/8 range and fill the 'bag of primes' replacement role that this light and sharp category would be best equipped to fill - lenses which leave the choice between prime and zoom solely down to the need for wide aperture and subject isolation, without a discernible edge in sharpness.

A collapsible design is an important design compromise that should be reserved for consumer lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #61 on: March 05, 2020, 08:40:02 am »

A collapsible design is an important design compromise that should be reserved for consumer lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not my favorite either. I use my equipment every day under all sorts of conditions. I don’t trust collapsible lens design under those stresses.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #62 on: March 05, 2020, 05:34:43 pm »

A collapsible design is an important design compromise that should be reserved for consumer lenses.

Cheers,
Bernard

Consumer lenses like the various 24-70/2.8 zooms from all manufacturers, many 16-35/2.8 zooms and the Canon and Sony 100-400 zooms? As seen in professional kits all around the world.
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2020, 05:10:11 am »

Consumer lenses like the various 24-70/2.8 zooms from all manufacturers, many 16-35/2.8 zooms and the Canon and Sony 100-400 zooms? As seen in professional kits all around the world.

There is a major difference btwn a lens extending a bit and one doubling in length.

I share your view that 100-400 with a design that extend don’t have a sufficient level of robustness.

Cheers,
Bernard
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 05:19:46 am by BernardLanguillier »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2020, 06:21:50 am »

There is a major difference btwn a lens extending a bit and one doubling in length.

I share your view that 100-400 with a design that extend don’t have a sufficient level of robustness.

Cheers,
Bernard

Seems plenty robust to me. I've had no problems shooting with it in snowstorms or tropical downpours, riding a horse for days with one clipped to the saddle, ready to shoot, or camping in the dust with one for weeks in Ethiopia's Danakil Depression. And that goes for both the Canon and Sony versions.

You can have shonky extending vs well-built extending, just like you can have cheap plastic vs high quality plastic.

Can an internally-zooming design be made more sturdy? Definitely? Is it always more sturdy? Definitely not - not if you've seen any teardowns of 70-200s and similar lenses. And does that mean that extending designs aren't sturdy enough for heavy use? Of course not.

A typical, internally-zooming 70-200/2.8 takes up twice the space in the kit compared to the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 or Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Even if weight wasn't an issue, airline carry-on capacity is still limited by volume. If you're carrying a whole arsenal of lenses and aren't using the 70-200 for the majority of your shots, that extra space is invaluable - room for another camera body, a macro, a fast prime or something else, instead of taking up twice the space for exactly the same capability. If you only need a few lenses and the 70-200 is your most-used lens, it may be a different story.
Logged

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2020, 06:57:51 am »

A typical, internally-zooming 70-200/2.8 takes up twice the space in the kit compared to the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 or Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Even if weight wasn't an issue, airline carry-on capacity ...

I'm sure size is all important , meantime here's Roger Cicala on the Canon ...

Quote
This lens was a new design from the ground up. There’s no ‘that’s the way we’ve always done it’ holdovers. That’s a lot more work for the designers, but the result is a beautifully engineered, fully modern lens. It’s clean, functional, and straightforward.

It’s obviously very robustly engineered from a mechanical standpoint. The internal composites are strong as hell. There are double cams, rods, and posts everywhere. There’s no play in any moving parts. We can’t imagine there will ever be play in the moving parts unless you run over it with a truck. You could describe it as ruggedized, but I’m going to stick with Strong, Like Bull, and suggest we refer to this as the RF-SLB 70-200mm f/2.8 from now on.

It’s also the first lens in a decade that I can say was obviously designed with ease of repairability in mind, at least as far as they could. Replacing the filter ring or front or rear element is going to be quick and straightforward. The downside is, like many lenses with linear focusing systems, that focusing assembly is probably a ‘replace not repair’ part, and that will be an expensive, albeit rare, repair.

There are some of you who are going to scream about how you want metal lenses. OK, Boomer, go get you a metal lens and show us how strong you are. On every other 70-200mm lenses we’ve disassembled, there are multiple metal parts that we can bend with our fingers. There’s not a damn thing we can bend with our fingers in this bad boy. This is going to hold up better than a metal lens, it’s probably sturdier, and it weighs far less.

I haven’t tested it optically. I haven’t even shot with it. But after looking inside it, I want it. The engineering in here is pure art. And even I, the person who mocks construction at any chance I get, can’t find anything to complain about.
Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2020, 07:37:54 am »

Fascinating. I find the stuff from Lens Rental always very good.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

Manoli

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2296
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #67 on: March 06, 2020, 08:23:45 am »

Fascinating. I find the stuff from Lens Rental always very good.

On a desperately needed lighter note, here's Roger Cicala's first comment below his blog post.

Quote
Roger Cicala Mod • 3 months ago • edited

One of my favorite amusements is reading the whatever-to-English Google translation of the translations of my blog post into other languages. Today, courtesy of my new favorite blogger, Adolfo at fotochismes.com, I got this gem:

"The good of Roger Cicala, master and lord of Lens Rentals and owner of a machine that measures MTF's that would be the terror of the shopkeepers, today takes the knife of butchers and, blood stained to the eyebrows, offers us the scavenging of this lens beast that seems to be liked a lot."

I'm going to see if I can get my title changed from "Director of QA" to "Master and Lord of Lensrentals and Terror of Shopkeepers"


 ;D ;D
Logged

BernardLanguillier

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13983
    • http://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/sets/
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #68 on: March 06, 2020, 09:01:02 am »

Seems plenty robust to me. I've had no problems shooting with it in snowstorms or tropical downpours, riding a horse for days with one clipped to the saddle, ready to shoot, or camping in the dust with one for weeks in Ethiopia's Danakil Depression. And that goes for both the Canon and Sony versions.

You can have shonky extending vs well-built extending, just like you can have cheap plastic vs high quality plastic.

Can an internally-zooming design be made more sturdy? Definitely? Is it always more sturdy? Definitely not - not if you've seen any teardowns of 70-200s and similar lenses. And does that mean that extending designs aren't sturdy enough for heavy use? Of course not.

A typical, internally-zooming 70-200/2.8 takes up twice the space in the kit compared to the Canon RF 70-200/2.8 or Tamron's new 70-180/2.8. Even if weight wasn't an issue, airline carry-on capacity is still limited by volume. If you're carrying a whole arsenal of lenses and aren't using the 70-200 for the majority of your shots, that extra space is invaluable - room for another camera body, a macro, a fast prime or something else, instead of taking up twice the space for exactly the same capability. If you only need a few lenses and the 70-200 is your most-used lens, it may be a different story.

Very good, you are starting to understand my point.

Yes, a 16-18mm f4 zoom is less of a compromise than a 14-30mm f4. But why does it matter if a 14-30mm f4 can be made to be excellent as the Nikon Z is?

Similarly, it’s obvious that a non collapsing design will be more robust and superior optically because the need to make it collapsing has a tremendous impact of where the elements can be located etc... but does it really matter if a collapsible design can be made to be robust enough and optically good enough?

Cheers,
Bernard

scooby70

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 489
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #69 on: March 06, 2020, 06:48:27 pm »

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been said already.

On page 1 people are talking about f1.2 possibly being too much for the small Sony mount. I have two f1.2 lenses that seem to work well on my A7 and I remember reading someone from Sony quoting a formula for the maximum aperture the lens mount could support and I'm sure it was something like f0.6.

Googling may lead anyone interested to the quote / formula but personally I think the whole argument that the Sony mount is too small is based on smoke and mirrors from the competition and that in the real world it's almost certainly a non issue.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #70 on: March 06, 2020, 07:17:49 pm »

Very good, you are starting to understand my point.

Yes, a 16-18mm f4 zoom is less of a compromise than a 14-30mm f4. But why does it matter if a 14-30mm f4 can be made to be excellent as the Nikon Z is?

Similarly, it’s obvious that a non collapsing design will be more robust and superior optically because the need to make it collapsing has a tremendous impact of where the elements can be located etc... but does it really matter if a collapsible design can be made to be robust enough and optically good enough?

Cheers,
Bernard

There's no difference in optical quality between internal focusing and extending designs. If anything, extending designs require fewer optical compromises, since you aren't restricted to a fixed front element and a rear element that can only move a few centimetres.

The issue with a 14-30mm lens (same with 24-105, 50-500, 12-24 and other similar large zoom ranges, telephotos being much more forgiving than WAs/UWAs) is not that they cannot be made sharp, but how they fit into a role.

F/4 zooms really fill two-and-a-half different roles. One is to be a cheaper alternative to f/2.8 zooms, for the budget minded. Another is to replace a bag of primes in a portable high-end kit, for those who need sharpness but not wide aperture, rather like Leica's Summicron line in relation to its Summilux line. The half, which overlaps both other roles, is to be small and lightweight - in absolute terms when considering the budget/consumer category, and relative to the bag of lenses they would replace in the high-end role.

Lenses like 12-24/4, 14-30/4, 16-35/4 and 24-105/4 fill the first role very well, when the aim is to cover a wide range of focal lengths with minimal weight, size and cost. Sharp as some of these lenses may be, though, they aren't as sharp as primes. This makes them less than ideal in the prime replacement role, particularly in front of high-resolution 42/45/50/61MP sensors.

Generally, a prime will be sharper than a zoom at the same aperture. The thing is, a typical prime will have an aperture of f/1.2-1.8, while the zooms we are dealing with here are f/4. The zoom may require some compromises to achieve a variable focal length, but the prime will, equally, require other compromises to achieve a wide aperture. Make the zoom range narrow enough and you can make it about as sharp as a prime, within its aperture limits (or, at least, from f/5.6 onwards). This makes such lenses ideal for landscape, archictectural (with distortion correction) and general travel photography, where you need something as sharp as possible, but not necessarily wide aperture (and you can easily add an 85/1.8 or similar if you want to shoot portraits as well, or a lightweight 70-200/2.8 for action, since the optical penalties for a zoom design seem much less pronounced at telephoto focal lengths). Extend the zoom range too much, though, and you'll never achieve this sharpness, making the lens less than ideal as a prime replacement.

No, this setup won't be as light as a kit with f/4 zooms with a large zoom ratio. But it's not meant to be, and doesn't replace those zooms, despite the similar-looking specs.

So, you might go 14-30/4, 24-105/4 and 70-200/4 if you want an ultralight, decently sharp kit.

Or you would go for a 14-21/4, 21-35/4, 35-105/4 and 100-300/4 if you wanted an ultrasharp travel/landscape kit that still weighed less than the bag of primes it replaces. Add in a 35/1.x, 85/1.x and a macro and you'd have an all-purpose travel photography kit that weighs about the same as an f/2.8 zoom event photography setup and is much more fit for purpose.

So, two types of f/4 lenses. 'Sharp enough', with a wide zoom range, for convenience and ultimate portability, where the aim is to minimise weight for a given capability. And super-sharp, with a restricted zoom range to achieve this, as part of a prime replacement setup, where the aim is to maximise capability for a given weight.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #71 on: March 06, 2020, 08:01:24 pm »

For me primes give three things these f4 zooms don't.

1.  Primes are faster with f1.8 being a great speed / weight balance.
2.  Primes are lighter when attached to the camera hanging off your wrist. Even though f4 zooms are much lighter than their f2.8 counterparts...they are still heavier / bulkier than primes.
3.  Primes have better image quality.

For these reasons plus my love of focusing on one focal length at a time has me gravitating to using primes for much of my photography.
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #72 on: March 06, 2020, 08:59:33 pm »

I haven't read the whole thread so forgive me if this has been said already.

On page 1 people are talking about f1.2 possibly being too much for the small Sony mount. I have two f1.2 lenses that seem to work well on my A7 and I remember reading someone from Sony quoting a formula for the maximum aperture the lens mount could support and I'm sure it was something like f0.6.

That sounds like an exaggerated paraphrase of what I said:
... it’s only in the realm of f/1.2 and faster that Sony E mount could be cramped.
Let me explain what I mean by "cramped", but I note up front that the limitations of E mount are either very slight or only at extremes of very low f-stop.

The potential problem of a narrower (or deeper) lens mount is that with a combination of low aperture ratio and high exit pupil (desirable with electronic sensors in order to have light strike the sensor close to square-on even near the edges and corners, to avoid "microlens vignetting"), some of the light-cone heading to near the corners and edges will be blocked by the lens mount. With all these new mounts (and even the rather long and narrow Nikon F mount) this vignetting can be avoided by having a low enough exit pupil, but it seems desirable to keep it about 60mm or higher for 36x24mm sensors. An approximate formula for the maximum allowable exit pupil height to avoid any "lens mount vignetting" is

exit pupil height <= (sensor diagonal) * (mount depth) * (aperture ratio)/((mount depth) + (aperture ratio)*((mount width) - (sensor diagonal)))

Here are some values for Sony E mount, which has mount depth = 18mm, mount width = 46.1mm:

f/1.4: 77mm (comfortably high); f/1.2: 64mm (probably OK); f/1.0: 51mm (problematic?); f/0.95: 48mm (probably some noticeable problems with vignetting)

That fits with f/1.2 being OK, but about the lower limit, and with extreme designs like Nikon's 58/0.95 of reach.

This is a lot better than Nikon SLR F mount; slightly worse than Canon's SLR EF mount, and somewhat worse than any of the other modern mirrorless mounts: Leica/Panasonic/Sigma L, Canon R, Nikon Z, Micro Four Thirds, Fujifilm X.
The next most "cramped" option is Leica/Panasonic/Sigma L mount, 20mm deep, 51.6mm wide, giving:

f/1.4: 145mm (very comfortably); f/1.2: 103mm (still very comfortably); f/1.0: 74mm (still OK); f/0.95: 68mm (probably still OK)

For Nikon Z mount, even f/0.95 works with exit pupil height up to 134mm; it seems "over engineered" in this respect at least.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2020, 09:04:34 pm by BJL »
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #73 on: March 06, 2020, 09:01:04 pm »

For me primes give three things these f4 zooms don't.

1.  Primes are faster with f1.8 being a great speed / weight balance.
2.  Primes are lighter when attached to the camera hanging off your wrist. Even though f4 zooms are much lighter than their f2.8 counterparts...they are still heavier / bulkier than primes.
3.  Primes have better image quality.

For these reasons plus my love of focusing on one focal length at a time has me gravitating to using primes for much of my photography.

Different shooting styles and different needs call for different equipment.

If I were to use primes, I'd have to carry 20 of them around and still end up cropping a lot - for instance, if I needed 26mm instead of 24mm. I'd also never use most of their potential, since I'd almost exclusively be  shooting at f/5.6, f/8 or narrower, so I'd be carrying most of this weight for nothing - it's not like they make any f/4 primes, superteles and tilt-shifts notwithstanding. And the constant lens changing, just to find the right focal length, would be a source of endless frustration.

Make a zoom with a narrow aperture and a small enough zoom range and you can make it as sharp as a prime within that f4-f/11 focal length range. With these, I could carry four lenses instead of twenty. Add in one or two fast primes for those focal lengths where I would occasionally need a fast aperture and I'm set.

Both of these setups would be useless for the event or wedding photographer crowd, who need more subject isolation and low-light ability than the slow zooms and instant access to multiple focal lengths, which the primes can't provide, but don't need the absolute sharpness of either.

And all of these would be far too heavy and bulky for the lightweight backpacking, climbing or trail running photographer, who just needs something small and lightweight to take photos for a travel blog.
Logged

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #74 on: March 06, 2020, 09:36:16 pm »

Different shooting styles and different needs call for different equipment.

If I were to use primes, I'd have to carry 20 of them around and still end up cropping a lot - for instance, if I needed 26mm instead of 24mm. I'd also never use most of their potential, since I'd almost exclusively be  shooting at f/5.6, f/8 or narrower, so I'd be carrying most of this weight for nothing - it's not like they make any f/4 primes, superteles and tilt-shifts notwithstanding. And the constant lens changing, just to find the right focal length, would be a source of endless frustration.

Make a zoom with a narrow aperture and a small enough zoom range and you can make it as sharp as a prime within that f4-f/11 focal length range. With these, I could carry four lenses instead of twenty. Add in one or two fast primes for those focal lengths where I would occasionally need a fast aperture and I'm set.

Both of these setups would be useless for the event or wedding photographer crowd, who need more subject isolation and low-light ability than the slow zooms and instant access to multiple focal lengths, which the primes can't provide, but don't need the absolute sharpness of either.

And all of these would be far too heavy and bulky for the lightweight backpacking, climbing or trail running photographer, who just needs something small and lightweight to take photos for a travel blog.

I've shot concerts and theatre using two cameras and two primes. I don't need every single focal length in order to get my shots. F4 zooms just are in no man lands as far as I'm concerned. Not light enough to be lugged around for 12 hour days, three weeks in a row, not fast enough to be used in many dim situations I shoot in...and image quality just not cut it many times.

I'm happy with a 25, 35, 85 setup for travel...maybe a 20mm for tighter closeup images.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #75 on: March 07, 2020, 12:23:42 am »

I've shot concerts and theatre using two cameras and two primes. I don't need every single focal length in order to get my shots. F4 zooms just are in no man lands as far as I'm concerned. Not light enough to be lugged around for 12 hour days, three weeks in a row, not fast enough to be used in many dim situations I shoot in...and image quality just not cut it many times.

I'm happy with a 25, 35, 85 setup for travel...maybe a 20mm for tighter closeup images.

Image quality is the issue here - it's due to design of individual lenses rather than an inherent property of f/4 zooms.

Too often, f/4 zooms are treated as the cheap, 'budget' option, with compromised build and optical quality, aimed at consumers wanting something on the cheap. f/2.8 zooms, on the other hand, are built for the high end.

But, unless you're shooting action or events, what use is an f/2.8 zoom? Either you're shooting stopped down for depth of field, in which case you're not getting anything out of the lens' f/2.8 capability, or you're trying to really isolate the subject, in which case you'd be better off with a faster and sharper prime anyway. And, when you're going for subject isolation, you only need a few focal lengths, so primes fit the bill here. For many purposes, f/2.8 is really just dead weight over f/4, weighing twice as much without any actual benefit.

f/4 zooms (good ones, at least) and primes complement each other really well. You want to be able to isolate subjects, and/or shoot in low light, and, for this, primes are perfect. But, usually, you only need this capability at one or two focal lengths. At the same time, as a general photographer - not just shooting motor sports, or concerts, or macro, for example, but a bit of everything - you want a wide range of focal lengths available, but don't need particularly wide apertures at most of these focal lengths. f/4 zooms are perfect for this - or would be, if they actually made some more of them optimised for image quality rather than low price and/or large zoom range. At 'normal' (14-200mm) focal lengths, it's really f/2.8 zooms that are stuck out there in the middle - big and heavy, slower than primes, not as sharp as primes and not as sharp as f/4 zooms could be. Highly versatile, hence their attractiveness for photojournalistic-style shooting, but almost never the best lens for any given situation. The only reason many of us buy them is because the f/4 versions are often shoddy and of lesser optical quality. Were there more high-quality f/4 lenses available - optimised for image quality rather than price - there would be a lot of people buying them, even if they were no cheaper than their f/2.8 counterparts. I would certainly ditch my f/2.8 zooms straight away.
Logged

kers

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4388
    • Pieter Kers
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #76 on: March 07, 2020, 05:22:56 am »

Not Zooms, but Tamron jumps in the gap of 2.8 primes at the moment delivering small, very good lenses
they just released a 20, 24 and 35mm f2.8
Not expensive about 450$,  and not heavy about 200-300 gram

https://www.tamron.jp/en/

Tamron has seen the Sigma light and are producing better optics than ever before, focussing on small and beautiful.

so yes i would like to see a comparison between the sony , nikon and the tamron 20mm
-
off topic: this is a major downside of the nikon S system of today- there are no third party lenses. Sony has this great luxury. Hopefully they will come soon.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2020, 06:02:18 am by kers »
Logged
Pieter Kers
www.beeld.nu/la

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #77 on: March 07, 2020, 06:45:40 am »

I don’t currently own any Tamron lenses but I am considering the newly released 85mm 1.8. It’s good that at the 85mm length I choose between two Sony lenses, A Batis, a Sigma and now a Tamron. Spoilt for choice.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #78 on: March 07, 2020, 10:55:20 am »

Image quality is the issue here - it's due to design of individual lenses rather than an inherent property of f/4 zooms.

Too often, f/4 zooms are treated as the cheap, 'budget' option, with compromised build and optical quality, aimed at consumers wanting something on the cheap. f/2.8 zooms, on the other hand, are built for the high end.

But, unless you're shooting action or events, what use is an f/2.8 zoom? Either you're shooting stopped down for depth of field, in which case you're not getting anything out of the lens' f/2.8 capability, or you're trying to really isolate the subject, in which case you'd be better off with a faster and sharper prime anyway. And, when you're going for subject isolation, you only need a few focal lengths, so primes fit the bill here. For many purposes, f/2.8 is really just dead weight over f/4, weighing twice as much without any actual benefit.

f/4 zooms (good ones, at least) and primes complement each other really well. You want to be able to isolate subjects, and/or shoot in low light, and, for this, primes are perfect. But, usually, you only need this capability at one or two focal lengths. At the same time, as a general photographer - not just shooting motor sports, or concerts, or macro, for example, but a bit of everything - you want a wide range of focal lengths available, but don't need particularly wide apertures at most of these focal lengths. f/4 zooms are perfect for this - or would be, if they actually made some more of them optimised for image quality rather than low price and/or large zoom range. At 'normal' (14-200mm) focal lengths, it's really f/2.8 zooms that are stuck out there in the middle - big and heavy, slower than primes, not as sharp as primes and not as sharp as f/4 zooms could be. Highly versatile, hence their attractiveness for photojournalistic-style shooting, but almost never the best lens for any given situation. The only reason many of us buy them is because the f/4 versions are often shoddy and of lesser optical quality. Were there more high-quality f/4 lenses available - optimised for image quality rather than price - there would be a lot of people buying them, even if they were no cheaper than their f/2.8 counterparts. I would certainly ditch my f/2.8 zooms straight away.

There is a reason why the holy trinity of zooms ( 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 ) at f2.8 are the staple of many professional photographers...they deliver. I've assisted with numerous weddings and have photographed many concerts and the pros here all had 2.8 zooms.

F4 zooms are really the ones in no man lands. They are not light, they are not fast enough for many situations, they don't provide the isolation abilities when required, and their image quality is not good enough. Bottom line the f4 speed is really a consumer level lens where the lighter weight and much cheaper cost is what draws the consumer to f4 rather than f2.8 zooms. I use my f4 zooms for landscapes stopped down to f8 or f11...where they are fine. If a manufacturer would come out with a super duper image quality f4 lens...it will be priced out of the consumer market and would fail as f4 just does not cut the cake for professional use.

I think manufactures have it right...f4 zooms are targeted at the consumer market and 2.8 zooms at the professional market. Best not to blend these two as that blend will not meet either consumer or professional markets.

Logged

Martin Kristiansen

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1527
    • Martin Kristiansen
Re: Nikkor Z 20mm f/1.8S vs Sony 20mm f/1.8G
« Reply #79 on: March 07, 2020, 11:31:46 am »

Couldn’t agree less Chez. Event photography and weddings are a tiny part of professional photography and currently not a very lucrative part. I have one F2.8 zoom and it’s my least used men’s commercially. I have done one shoot with it this year. The 70-200 Sony F4 is my most used lens akin with the 90mm macro. Not everyone is trying to blur out backgrounds.

It seems at the moment that most photographers are either trying to totally blur out backgrounds or are trying for infinite focus. Well every aperture is there to be used and all have a purpose.  Sometimes you want to blur totally, sometimes a little, sometimes just a touch and sometimes not at all.

What I can tell you is if you want to totally blur a background then 2,8 doesn’t do it. You will need a very fast prime. To me that means the fast 2,8 zooms fall into an uncomfortable middle ground. Not as good or as fast as a prime. Not as convenient or as light as a F4 zoom.
Logged
Commercial photography is 10% inspiration and 90% moving furniture around.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 9   Go Up