Having poured over the images here (some better examples of the 20-70/4 I’ve seen, thanks!) and many many many reviews / images of the 16-25/25-50, I genuinely think this lens seems better than that combo, with the benefit of all in one. I appreciate the stop faster combo, but those lenses seem super sterile to me, and frankly when I don’t use >=f4 I usually want 1.4-8. I think I may pick this up and keep it paired with the locks 50
With the 28-200 being a second travel lens.
Thought I'd give it a go at an anti racist protest yesterday and while I enjoyed have the wider view in future I'll stick to my tried and tested combo of the Tamron 35-150 and 16-35GM
I've owned this lens since November last; it replaces a 24-105. I miss the long end a little, of course, but the extra 4mm on the wide side are wonderful, as is its weight and balance on camera. All images shot on an A7RV.
I’m not sure why you feel one can’t form a personal opinion based on reviewed images of a lens. Perhaps that can be clarified. From my view, the nature of a statement like “seems super sterile to me” is an opinion, and therefore can be made in such circumstances. Perhaps I’m missing something.
hasenbein wrote:
You can't judge the "sterility" of a lens from posted photos.
It's just that somehow more photos in this thread appeal to you.
I agree. Some here complain about sterile and clinical modern imaging tools but when I click through their post histories rarely do I see any striking images, usually just pictures of rocks or trees from their backyard. I like my CV lenses too but sometimes you just need to get on with making images and maximize the tools you have.
For instance the 20-70 gives me 20-105 on my a7cr, fits in a hyperlite mountain gear small camera pod and comes anywhere without requiring lens changes which my favorite rendering lenses could never give me.
molson wrote:
From the Oxford Dictionary:
Sterile - lacking in imagination, creativity, or excitement
That sounds like more of an indictment of the photographer than of an inanimate object like a lens.
No backyards! Off to the Dolomites in a couple of days which is my main reason for buying this lens as it will be great for hiking. Very versatile for this and general use and I don't need a faster lens in the range as I have others for that
It’s probably just some great tasteful editing from you all, but does anyone else feel like this lens renders better (or is sharper maybe?) than the 24-70 gm ii?
Definitely at the same level. I tested both and couldn't see a difference between the two and it was better at controlling flare as well.
Swimming_trouble_718 wrote:
It’s probably just some great tasteful editing from you all, but does anyone else feel like this lens renders better (or is sharper maybe?) than the 24-70 gm ii?
