05-17-2011, 05:35 PM
[quote name='oneguy' timestamp='1305652683' post='8431']
Not just the size which is smaller but it's twice cheaper too. So Canon lineup has hole that they don't have twice cheaper 85mm F2.8 lens that's twice smaller. That's a hole too.
[/quote]
Don't be silly.
Sony has no 85mm f1.8 lens. If you want to go wider than f2.8, you need to get a 85mm f1.4 lens. That is an REAL drawback, not a fake one. This actually determines the photos made.
Whether someone requires faster than f2.8, that is personal.
Size wise, the difference is quite marginal.
All 3 lenses have the same width, even though the Sony only is f2.8:
Nikon: 72mm.
Sony: 70mm
Canon: 71.5mm
So they occupy the same space in camera bags (the only time size actually matters).
There is a moderate difference in length:
Nikon: 59mm
Sony: 52mm
Canon: 75mm
But this difference is of no consequence.
The actual advantage of the Sony is a lighter weight, which may matter if one pairs it with a light weight APS-C body.
Here the Sony is about half the weight of the other lenses.
A downside of the Sony is AF speed. Even though it only needs to move a much lower weight, it can not compete with the Canon USM here. That only matters, of course, if one uses it for for instance indoor sports... where the Canon also can take advantage of its bigger max. aperture.
So... the Nikon and Canon offer more lens (f1.8 vs f2.8), for more money. The Sony offers less weight, for lens money. And the Canon can double as a great sports lens.
The Nikon and Canon offer a light, affordable substitute for 85mm f1.2/1.4 portrait lenses. The Sony does not, really, as f2.8 gets a bit slow.
Not just the size which is smaller but it's twice cheaper too. So Canon lineup has hole that they don't have twice cheaper 85mm F2.8 lens that's twice smaller. That's a hole too.
[/quote]
Don't be silly.
Sony has no 85mm f1.8 lens. If you want to go wider than f2.8, you need to get a 85mm f1.4 lens. That is an REAL drawback, not a fake one. This actually determines the photos made.
Whether someone requires faster than f2.8, that is personal.
Size wise, the difference is quite marginal.
All 3 lenses have the same width, even though the Sony only is f2.8:
Nikon: 72mm.
Sony: 70mm
Canon: 71.5mm
So they occupy the same space in camera bags (the only time size actually matters).
There is a moderate difference in length:
Nikon: 59mm
Sony: 52mm
Canon: 75mm
But this difference is of no consequence.
The actual advantage of the Sony is a lighter weight, which may matter if one pairs it with a light weight APS-C body.
Here the Sony is about half the weight of the other lenses.
A downside of the Sony is AF speed. Even though it only needs to move a much lower weight, it can not compete with the Canon USM here. That only matters, of course, if one uses it for for instance indoor sports... where the Canon also can take advantage of its bigger max. aperture.
So... the Nikon and Canon offer more lens (f1.8 vs f2.8), for more money. The Sony offers less weight, for lens money. And the Canon can double as a great sports lens.
The Nikon and Canon offer a light, affordable substitute for 85mm f1.2/1.4 portrait lenses. The Sony does not, really, as f2.8 gets a bit slow.