• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter
Photo

Not so great, Sony ...


  • Please log in to reply
26 replies to this topic

#21 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 February 2018 - 10:57 AM

Yes, I may have been a little too laconic, Dave has explained what I had in mind for me. :)

See, even the Sigma 24-105/4 has 82mm threads. :) (oddly enough I've almost switched to all 77mm lineup with some 62mm and 67mm thrown in, but I don't have the filter sharing problem because I just keep the protective ones put on every lens, and apart from that, I only use a polarizer, and even that happens once in a blue moon).



#22 Brightcolours

Brightcolours

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,897 posts
  • LocationThe Netherlands

Posted 08 February 2018 - 11:15 AM

And see, the Sigma with the 82mm filter thread vignets a bit more than the Canon with 77mm filter thread. :huh:



#23 JoJu

JoJu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,973 posts
  • LocationSwitzerland

Posted 08 February 2018 - 12:04 PM

Yesterday I stumbled over an MTF test of the Sigma 24-105. A new one, although the lens is available since 2013. But it's from Roger at Lensrentals, so could be of interest: https://www.lensrent...rt-series-lens/

 

Although vignetting is not part of his tests. It's just a comparison to the Canon 24-105 and Nikon 24-120 (which was better than I thought). And one paragraph in his report says, the numbers stopped down to f/5.6 were amazing, too amazing to be true and he is retesting it. And I'm loooking at it like "maybe it is a bit more than just another 24-105..."



#24 Marco

Marco

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 159 posts

Posted 08 February 2018 - 01:54 PM

https://duckduckgo.c...mages&ia=images

 

There are many variables for a lens: weight, size, price, sharpness, bokeh etc..

I always find it funny if people argue that only one set of values should prevail.

 

I think many people wanted a small standard zoom with a little bit more tele, which is quite useable for travelling etc.. So size was a priority.



#25 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 08 February 2018 - 08:41 PM

As far as I know, most pro zooms in Canon land had 77mm filter which is practical since you will be buying a filter size that fits all your lenses, this is especially true for the trilogy 16-35 24-70 70-200, when 17-55 and 24-105 were added naturally 77mm was chosen since many had already the filters. The new 16-35 is an exception but aside polarizer very few use filters, and even a polarizer isn't practical on a ultrawide.
So yes 77mm was chosen for practical reason just like 58mm for entry level zooms

#26 Rover

Rover

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,641 posts
  • LocationRussia

Posted 08 February 2018 - 11:16 PM

The 24-70/2.8 lenses are all at 82mm now (except the Sony A mount one, and the non-VR Nikon which may or may not be discontinued).

There are many more new(ish) lenses with the 82mm filter threads: Nikon 105/1.4, Sigma 135/1.8, Canon 24/3.5 TSE II - and some of the new TSE bunch, I'm not sure which... It's slowly becoming the new normal, just like the 77mm size had replaced 72mm as the de facto standard years ago.

#27 toni-a

toni-a

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,342 posts
  • LocationLebanon

Posted 09 February 2018 - 06:59 PM

Btw if you think 24-105 has severe vignetting you should see 16-50, absolutely worse with black corners distortions correction removes it...by cropping so it won't have 16mm coverage nor 24MP claimed




2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 2 guests, 0 anonymous users



© by photozone.de