adengappasami: For the price the quality looks pretty ok. Yes its not technically perfect, but considering the size and prize it looks like a winner.
Waiting to get hold of one.
Interested in the 90mm as well.
^^ You are also assuming that the zoom will match the prime in IQ or speed.
Honestly large lenses like a 24-70mm f2.8 are not very nice to use on a small mirrorless camera. I don't like using my Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 with adapter on the A7 as it just feels odd.
neod: Why not post the same images as out-of-camera JPEGs to see what kind of barrel distortion corrections the camera makes?
^^ Well then there is little to worry about ! The lens corrects distortion, vignetting and CA automatically so you will see very little of any of the above if you shoot JPEG. :)
I also feel the issues are blown out of proportion. This is a relatively inexpensive lens (compared to the Zeiss Sony lenses out there) and so one shouldn't expect the same performance as a $1k lens like the 55mm f1.8 or the 35mm f2.8
Zoron: Can't they make a 24-35mm F2.0 zoom....50-85mm F2.0.....kinda 2 prime lenses in one....a 1.45X zoom & a 1.7X zoom
Well nobody has ever made such a lens so far so the short answer is no but its possibly they just didn't want to try. Sigma made an APS-C f1.8 zoom that doesn't look like a tank and doesn't cost the moon so who knows if they can't make a f1.8/f2 zoom
Photoman: I think I will stick to my Minolta 28/2.8. A lot of distortion in this lens.
Sorry I misread it as a 28mm f2 lens. Yes the 28mm f2.8 is an AF lens. My point was more to do with older optics. Their contrast and flare resistance is lower than modern optics. Sharpness wise many are pretty good but I have found most old lenses to have pretty low contrast.
The Minolta and this lens is pretty differrent. The Minolta is no match for the sharpness and contrast that this Sony can offer.
If you are fine with the look of old lenses thats cool. I have a Tokina 17mm RMC lens that is nice but like most MF lenses the contrast is low and flare is a bit of an issue.
^^ Yes but the zoom will probably cost 4x the price (the Zeiss 24-70mm f4 costs $1100 already) and probably weigh 3 times as much too.
KL Matt: 33 images and not a single one tells us anything much about this lense's bokeh. I don't know about you, but if I'm gonna plunk down nearly 500 bucks for a fast prime lens, I'm absolutely going to want to know how it renders out-of-focus areas before I make a purchase. Yes, even if it's a wide angle, and yes, even if I do need to place my camera close to a foreground object. And yes, I do shoot that way with my wide angle lenses in the field and it's fun and can result in very pleasing and interesting images.
Thematic please have a look at the below examples also shot with the 28mm f2. Dpreview has done a fine job and I commend their efforts but they DID leave out bokeh photos which I was interested in seeing as I wanted to get this lens for a bit of wide angle bokeh photos.
naththo: Fairly soft in some of photos I think might be just from awful amount of distortion spoils the image unfortunately as you had to make a LOT of correction to distortion up to nearly 50% is not good sign.
Halfwaythere - Distortion correction affects the corners which I seriously don't care about. I have yet to have a good photo ruined by soft corners and if I really need everything sharpish I will stop down to f11.
This lens is pretty inexpensive if you compare it to their Zeiss lenses and I am willing to accept a few compromises that I can live with. Else I will buy their 35mm f1.4 lens if money was no object for me.
Tilted Plane: I own this. Huge (!) distortion, corrected well in jpgs. Focuses fast and quiet. Not especially small for an f/2, but light. No image stabilization. In all, very sharp and therefore competent but nothing to write home about for this price. I'm keeping it, but not with particular joy.
Thanks for your feedback. What body are you using it with btw ?
EDIT : Whoops ! Your profile mentions you use a A7r. I should have checked first.
Well I was deciding between the 35mm f2.8 and this lens and while the 35mm may be a bit sharper and smaller its also slower and more expensive.
For my needs I think this 28mm will be a good fit.
The lens does have pretty significant distortion. Luckily I use PS and the lens correction is already out so that will get corrected straight away. I find the lens pretty sharp even wide open so will probably pick it up once its launched.
straylightrun: Affordable Sony FE 50mm F2 and Sony FE 85mm F2 when?
There may never be a cheap affordable 50mm f2 lens considering their premier 50mm lens is f1.8. :(
An 85mm f2 lens however seems like a very likely release by maybe next year.
Aur: The Nikon D5500, a revolutionary camera, everything you know and love, in the same body. We heard your suggestions, and we changed absolutely nothing.
^^ The sensor which is the heart and soul of the camera is the same. The viewfinder, flash, AF, fps burst rate, buffer and many more are still just the same. And many people use GPS a lot.
tom1234567: pentax ks2 far better buy
The Pentax is a good camera but has poor lens choices for most people. Not too many care for slow high priced old limited lenses you know.
loock: What is si special and unparalleled ???
OK 105 micronikkor cost more new, but has AF, and even a fast one...SH is more afordable, and again pretty good AF...
Sigma 105 cost a little more.
Tamron non-VC is 499 USD new, and way-way less SH.
Tokina 100mm f/2.8 AT-X M100 AF Pro D Macro AF cost 379 USD new, and is very good.
Canon EF 100 f 2.8 MACRO L IS USM cost more, but, non - IS variant, Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 Macro USM Lens is 549-599 USD new.
Pentax smc Pentax-D FA 100mm f/2.8 WR Macro, 8 rounded !!! diaphragm blade is 549 to 699,95 USD new, but is more like a WR metalic LIMITED.
Anyway, MACRO lenses are the worst for portret, because of the exaggerated micro-contrast, rendering horror skin. For portret, there is EF 100 f 2 non L, and 85 f 1.8, etc., etc. Tamron 90 f 2.8 MACRO is so-so OK wide open, because at f 2.8 is soft.
MACRO lenses are used at f 11, f 8 - f 22, because of the extremely thin DOF, and f 2.8 is only for the viewfinder.
Agree with you that there are plenty of lower priced alternatives around that I would pick up over this lens but the old adage that macro lenses can't be used for portraits is a throwback to the film days.
Now within a minute you can soften ANY photo in Photoshop or any similar program. I can't believe people still believe in the story that macro lenses can't be used as portrait lenses !
DaGurney: Too bad their lenses suck the big wad. I bought the Rokinon 35mm cine lens, and it was abysmal. It ruined numerous shots with softness across the entire frame and ridiculous ghosting. Don't compromise your work with garbage like this.
So you used one lens out of 10+, disregarded the highly likely chance you had a bad copy seeing the so many glowing reviews of the 35mm out there and panned ALL lenses as bad ?
nerd2: So MF 20mm 1.8 equivalent for $1250 and 586gr? Nikon 20mm 1.8g weighs 357gr, has AF, costs $500 less....
And does the Nikon 20mm f1.8g allow you to get the same exposure value as the Voightlander 10.5mm f0.95 ? @ the same ISO value ?
Jostian: no EVF........
^^ My guess would be price all the way. A good EVF surely costs a decent amount of money to install and for sure will increase the size of the body.
brendon1000: A pretty good review and I agree that I feel the weight of the A7 II is a bit heavy. Was pretty happy with the weight of my A7 which I feel is ideal for a mirrorless camera.
Even I am clueless why Sony went from those lovely dials on the A7 to the crappy ones on the A7 II. Why Sony why ????
One area I don't agree on is the high ISO performance. The low pass filter on the A7 II is pretty weak and your own comparison tool shows that at high ISO the A7 II files are sharper than the D750 and I even downloaded both files to compare and honestly its a tie for me upto ISO 12800.
Thanks for replying Rishi. I appreciate that you guys take the time to sort through all these comments and engage with your readers.
You are correct in that I checked the JPEG as I am sure the Nikon does a fair bit of noise reduction with their RAW files.
I downloaded both RAW files and ran them through Noise ninja and the results were extremely close after that.
A pretty good review and I agree that I feel the weight of the A7 II is a bit heavy. Was pretty happy with the weight of my A7 which I feel is ideal for a mirrorless camera.
avijit1974: how we can shoot with pal version of this camera with an external 4k recorder with 24p?
Sorry posted incorrectly