08-06-2010, 07:15 AM
It certainly looks like it does better on APS-C than on FF, but then, most lenses actually do.
However, having said that, many people consider this to be an excellent lens, especially for the price. If you want a little better for quite a hike in price, you may want to consider the Nikkor 24-70. And looking at the Sigma 24-70, that isn't really better either on high resolution FF cameras.
I think you need to take into account that APS-C cameras only use the best portion of a FF lens, and that with the current series of high MP FF cameras the lens starts behaving similar to what we used to get on film. On paper it may look less good, but I doubt whether you will really see this unless you go to large size prints. It still scores quite high throughout the frame around F/5.6 and F/8, which is what you'd expect from a lens like this. The center is very good to excellent everywhere, and that is really what counts for such a lens. Do note that this lens also has the least distortion of lenses in this class. Granted, it only starts at 28 mm rather than 24, but that is quite something iMO regardless.
My advice would be to try one if you can, and see if you like the results. And do print a few of the photographs take with it as well, because that is where the real proof lies. If you do not like the results, I'd suggest you consider one or more primes in that range, because I doubt whether you will be happy with any FF standard zoom in that case: the range these zoom lenses are designed and built to cover is particularly complicated, as they cover WA to standard and short tele, all three really requiring different design techniques, which don't necessarily match up. Roll this into one, make it a rather wide aperture lens for a zoom, and you essentially get a lens of lots of compromises. However, use it what it was designed for, a reportage lens, and you could well find that you will be very happy with it.
Kind regards, Wim
However, having said that, many people consider this to be an excellent lens, especially for the price. If you want a little better for quite a hike in price, you may want to consider the Nikkor 24-70. And looking at the Sigma 24-70, that isn't really better either on high resolution FF cameras.
I think you need to take into account that APS-C cameras only use the best portion of a FF lens, and that with the current series of high MP FF cameras the lens starts behaving similar to what we used to get on film. On paper it may look less good, but I doubt whether you will really see this unless you go to large size prints. It still scores quite high throughout the frame around F/5.6 and F/8, which is what you'd expect from a lens like this. The center is very good to excellent everywhere, and that is really what counts for such a lens. Do note that this lens also has the least distortion of lenses in this class. Granted, it only starts at 28 mm rather than 24, but that is quite something iMO regardless.
My advice would be to try one if you can, and see if you like the results. And do print a few of the photographs take with it as well, because that is where the real proof lies. If you do not like the results, I'd suggest you consider one or more primes in that range, because I doubt whether you will be happy with any FF standard zoom in that case: the range these zoom lenses are designed and built to cover is particularly complicated, as they cover WA to standard and short tele, all three really requiring different design techniques, which don't necessarily match up. Roll this into one, make it a rather wide aperture lens for a zoom, and you essentially get a lens of lots of compromises. However, use it what it was designed for, a reportage lens, and you could well find that you will be very happy with it.
Kind regards, Wim
Gear: Canon EOS R with 3 primes and 2 zooms, 4 EF-R adapters, Canon EOS 5 (analog), 9 Canon EF primes, a lone Canon EF zoom, 2 extenders, 2 converters, tubes; Olympus OM-D 1 Mk II & Pen F with 12 primes, 6 zooms, and 3 Metabones EF-MFT adapters ....
