07-18-2023, 09:48 AM
(This post was last modified: 07-18-2023, 09:56 AM by stoppingdown.)
So, the Sony 16-70 f/4 has been repaired and it come back worse than it was. The lab refuses other repairs saying it's within the specifications. I'm now going to replace it with a new lens.
Rumours about a new 16-70 lens from Sony haven't been confirmed, so the game is: Tamron 17-70 mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD or Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN?
In short: Tamron is a more complete replacement of the focal range, but it's large and slow. More in detail my current evaluation is:
Reasons for Tamron 17-70 mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD:
Thanks.
Just to have an idea of sizes, here are the two lenses compared with the Sony 16-70mm ƒ/4 and the Sigma 105mm ƒ/2.8.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#831.938,...5.445,ha,t
Rumours about a new 16-70 lens from Sony haven't been confirmed, so the game is: Tamron 17-70 mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD or Sigma 18-50mm F2.8 DC DN?
In short: Tamron is a more complete replacement of the focal range, but it's large and slow. More in detail my current evaluation is:
Reasons for Tamron 17-70 mm F/2.8 Di III-A VC RXD:
- Almost full replacement of focal range; I lose 16mm, but they are covered by the Sony 10-18m; in any case it covers 17-18mm, which Sigma doesn't; and while the 10-18mm covers the missing range, it's handy to have one mm more without the need of changing lens; on the long side, it covers the 50-70mm range, even though can be emulated with cropping without an excessive loss of quality;
- Stabilisation (maybe useless for the wide end, but not bad for the long one). I only have a single camera body with IBIS and it's the one being more frequently matched with macro or long tele lenses. OTOH since I'm now routinely using auto ISO, a safe shutter time is always used at the expense of higher ISO; but this is not a problem unless in some critical light conditions.
- If I'm not wrong, some reviews say this lens is sharper at corners in the wide end. Looking at the numbers in the OL reviews, tough, I have the impression that Tamron performance is more uniform from the center to borders, while the Sigma has a slightly better centre. Probably not much difference.
- Cheaper (489-505€ vs 597-619€), but 130€ don't make a big difference;
- Lighter (290g vs 525g) and smaller (75mm vs 119mm in length); the size difference is really tempting me.
- Substantially better flare, especially at long end. I value this feature because it's not unlikely that I have the sun in the frame.
- Better built, even though this is a less relevant point for me.
- Better quality of bokeh, considering that both lenses are obviously mediocre in this aspect. Not really important for a landscape lens, but I've occasionally used the 16-70mm for plants.
- It has a specific lens profile in C1 (no profile for the Tamron).
Thanks.
Just to have an idea of sizes, here are the two lenses compared with the Sony 16-70mm ƒ/4 and the Sigma 105mm ƒ/2.8.
https://camerasize.com/compact/#831.938,...5.445,ha,t
stoppingdown.net
Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.
Sony a6300, Sony a6000, Sony NEX-6, Sony E 10-18mm F4 OSS, Sony Zeiss Vario-Tessar T* E 16-70mm F4 ZA OSS, Sony FE 70-200mm F4 G OSS, Sigma 150-600mm Æ’/5-6.3 DG OS HSM Contemporary, Samyang 12mm Æ’/2, Sigma 30mm F2.8 DN | A, Meyer Gorlitz Trioplan 100mm Æ’/2.8, Samyang 8mm Æ’/3.5 fish-eye II | Zenit Helios 44-2 58mm Æ’/2
Plus some legacy Nikkor lenses.