Opticallimits

Full Version: Sony FE 24-105mm f/4 OSS announced
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
ah yes, the 80-400. Not exactly a cheapo at 2k$ or featherweight (1.6kg), that's why it didn't make it into my mental list of 100-400s

The awesome threesome (12-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm) is quite "slow".  If it's slow anyway, you can also go for smaller formats (Ok, ignoring extra DR and/or resolution).

That's true, but then, the holy trinity lenses are only one stop faster and a couple of kilos heavier*. OSS can compensate the speed to some effect and contrary to the smsaller formats, the Sony offers all kind of fast genuine or thrid-party lenses, together withan effective focus peaking.

 

I never had a speed problem with the 24-105 Sigma which could have been solved with only one stop more. On top of that, it's still the most effective OIS lens I have.

 

*Edit, just checked: 14-200/2.8 from Nikon are 3470 grams, 12-400/4 from Sony are 2623 kg. Plus, Sony makes your purse even lighter, so you don't  have to carry that much cash anymore after purchase  Wink Okay, f/4 from Nikon or Canon also are lighter.
Quote:The awesome threesome (12-24mm, 24-105mm, 100-400mm) is quite "slow".
 

Yes. But for landscapers... it's pretty ok. For the eventual shot with more isolation, one can buy some fast prime (there are many around, at this time, we're talking of them almost every day).
But for landscapers... APS-C is just as ok too. And but for landscapers... A few smaller, lighter primes seems to be a more sensible approach. An f4 standard+ zoom is not the most logical choice for someone who calls him/herself "landscaper".

Quote:And but for landscapers... A few smaller, lighter primes seems to be a more sensible approach. An f4 standard+ zoom is not the most logical choice for someone who calls him/herself "landscaper".
 

It was my choice fifteen years ago: primes with Æ’/1.8 or Æ’/2 (because they were the best in IQ). The only exception was the 12-24mm Æ’/4 (at the time buying fast primes in that range was too expensive). But five years ago I moved to zooms - now I have Æ’/4 on all the range (something slower of course beyond 400mm). Much better for flexibility: my portfolio has dramatically improved since then.

Since the landscapers usually stop down to kingdom come, f/4 (especially since it's f/4 on FF so "true" f/4 yadda yadda....) isn't going to bother them a lot.

My trinity set on Canon now is all f/3.5 or narrower (16-35/4, 24-85/3.5-4.5, 100-400/4.5-5.6) and it doesn't really bother me, when I need something drastically faster I have the 24/50 primes. In most cases, f/2.8 vs. f/4 is not a life saver anyway so I don't fret about my 16-35 not being faster (I had the f/2.8 L II... it went right to the chopping block after the f/4 hit the market). My main long lens is the 70-200/2.8L IS but it's in the sickbay for now, and the 100-400 does well.

(I do landscapes but I'm not earning my living from that, though, so take this with a grain of salt).

Guest

I'm confused. Though the slr was dead and the future was in mirror-less ? Or does this mean the a99 sold well ?

Pages: 1 2