|
|
11-29-2020, 03:53 AM
Good (but not outstanding)
https://www.opticallimits.com/sonyalphaff/1101-sigma2470f28dn
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji 
11-29-2020, 07:29 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-29-2020, 07:47 AM by Brightcolours.)
"However, that doesn't mean that they aren't trying."
"The front element has also" also has "We mentioned it before - a 24-70mm f/2.8 doesn't really qualify as TERRIBLY fast really." "The general rendition in the focus transition zones is very smooth both in the background " and ...? "Bokeh fringing - also referred to as LoCAs - is a color fringing effect on the Z-axis. It shows up as purplish halos in front of the in-focus zone and greenish beyond. " This lens shows yellow in front and blue beyond.
Well, it's not as dismal as the SLR version...
 ZOMG @ distortion and vignetting though. Thanks, Klaus!A couple more typos. "SLR elements" (should be SLD) - in the specifications. "a qualiy bokeh." - in the very last words of the review. I'm also wondering about the visual comparisons. Is the Sigma really that tiny compared to the Sony GM? O_o
11-29-2020, 09:23 AM
(11-29-2020, 08:29 AM)Rover Wrote: Well, it's not as dismal as the SLR version... Well, one has the hood on it (Sigma), and one does not (Sony). If you take away that hood, the Sigma appears to be smaller than the Tamron?
Ok, you got me. I'm currently on vacation and wrote this in a hurry because the 16-80mm review didn't emerge as expected. *sigh*
I don't consider this lens to be "dismal" - pretty much all standard zoom lenses have been like that on high megapixel sensors. In real life, these lenses are fine really. Who cares for sharp corners at f/2.8? I think most will not even notice it. That all being said - this lens class is the most overrated of them all IMHO.
Chief Editor - opticallimits.com
Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
11-29-2020, 11:00 AM
No, this one isn't dismal, I was referring to the other 24-70 Art you tested on Canon... That one was "interesting".
On some focal lengths it didn't really get any good outside the center even stopped down. And remember that some people use large apertures not because they want only one eye in focus but because they need to shoot in low~ish light, where the DOF considerations are secondary, or the shallow DOF may become a detriment. In such cases, better cross-frame uniformity may be desired.
Okay, here's a new one I found here: the distortion chart for 24mm says "5.96% pincushion" while that's clearly not the case - there's 3.8% barrel as you said in the text.
Also the vignetting chart isn't CR'd from the previous paragraph, making two last word in the latter stick to it. 
08-28-2021, 10:28 AM
Thanks, Rover. I put the review back on the platen roller and hit the return lever at the end of that vignetting paragraph.
The distortion chart is something that only Klaus can fix, though.
Editor
opticallimits.com
08-28-2021, 10:56 AM
Thanks, Markus.
I remember promising a list of all the (still extant) misprints I find in the reviews - as up until recently I used to re-read some random articles in the free times - but it's gone belly up together with my free time. I'll return to that later, of course.
|
