Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
New FE Sigmas announced ...
And the Sigma version has 665 gr.

I don't say, heavy weight is a given with FF (although my joke implied so), but either you go lightweight and after purchasing a very good very light lens like that Sony, your money-purse also became lightweight.

Or you go for less expensive, yet heavier glass. In the Sigma vs Sony case, the Sigma costs 45% of the Sony, which weighs 67% of the Sigma. 1/3 weight saved, more than doubled the price. Once again: no free lunch... we can repeat this play with other combos and I'm afraid, the result will be rather the same.

In the old times the 3rd party lenses were about the same weight or lighter than the genuine ones - but optically no match. Weight or IQ? Low weight or low price?

And I think, the Sony is also better than the (compared to the rest of the Art-gang) mediocre Sigma. But the next better Sigma would be 28/1.4, double the weight of the Sony GM.
Now tell us, what side of the bed did you get out of?



..........the downside !! Smile
Dave's clichés
The 14-24mm seems stellar:

If this is at f/1.2, the 35mm should also be great:

The 45 ... well ... not so much (at this price point and a moderate f/2.8):
Chief Editor -

Doing all things Canon, MFT, Sony and Fuji
Klaus, what do you think about the MTF charts?
(07-12-2019, 12:01 AM)borisbg Wrote: Klaus, what do you think about the MTF charts?

That is in the post above yours?
I just checked the sample photos for 14-24 at DPR. I think the lens is amazing
I think so, too. And the lens is roughly only ⅔ of the weight of the DSLR version. So they can save weight...

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)