I generally agree with your post.
Makes sense to me.
Same source "Egami blog" - http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sigma-patents-a-18-50mm-f3-5-5-6-lens-very-likely-for-e-mount/ spotted Sigma zoom back in 2011! Nothing came. I don't think Sigma will release new zoom for APS-C E-mount. However, even if that was true - look at size of front element - it's going to be huge. 16-70 will be like a pancake in comparison.
My J1 is only 12 mp and yet I've achieved great results in daylight. Your V2 is 14 mp, so how much better can that be?
Sounds like you're right on track. If I run across a higher-level N1 at a ridiculous price, I will grab it.
So you disregard also any critizism from people who owned the 1670 and returned it?
Central sharpness of my 1650 and my copy of the 1670 at 24 mm was equal.
Now come on, are you serious? Those who still own it have either a good copy or don't care. Those who didn't buy it or returned it are the ones who experienced a bad copy or were not satisfied with the performance. That is not strange, it is logical.
On Amazon today this lens runs at 800 Euros whereas the 18105 is at 480 Euros. If you are thinking about prices new on ebay same story. What is your point? This lens is still quite expensive.
Here's a ZA 135 f1.8 taken on FF A99 camera. This lens is known for one of the best bokeh ever. Draw your own conclusions. I personally think they are close.Since I can't do 16-50 comparison yet, I just did some transition test at 70mm f4 - sorry for bad lighting conditions again - it's dark and indoors (only room lamps).
You can't see the original plant - but the contrast and colors are something! Again OOC jpeg - no post processing at all. Green leaves behind flower petal are 1 inch away, wall and window background is 3 foot away - check the transition (or bokeh).
I would say not bad bokeh for a mid-range zoom - what say you? Circular aperture is a good thing to have!
P.S. I had to retreat to 1/60 - so excuse my handshake if any. But guys for a zoom that bokeh is creamy enough, no? At least for the worst zoom in E-mount lineup, eh?
For the most part, the SLR Gear review and the Photozone review showed similar performance. One of the few differences between the SLR Gear review and the Photozone review was the corner performance at 70mm. SLR Gear shows the corners to be little changed from the edges, which themselves are not too much worse than the centre, wide open at 70mm. Photozone has the corners worse than the edges which are much worse then the centre.
Handheld, turned off all corrections, no noise reduction, OOC jpeg, no post processing - just pure optical results. I tried to find some flat object, but all I can find was a dollar paper bill. Since it's small and at 70mm it's not covering all 4 corners, but upper corners and edges are there to check.
This shot was done indoors, lighting conditions are ok-ish - the only light is coming from window. So it's a real world test for edge and corner sharpness.
C&C welcome (ok, just in case I should state that - this pics are merely for enthusiast sharpness test, they are not scientific and don't hold any artistic value whatsoever)
Its not perfectly flat and I was holding my camera as straight as I could, so keep that in mind. Ideally I should have cranked up SS up to 1/160 to exclude any handshake error, but I guess 1/100 is close enough. After all it's real world situations we are trying to test.
Please open original and then zoom to 100% to pixel peep edges and corners.
Just let me know what kind of photo you want for evaluation of sharpness and I'll try to take it and post it. IMHO a lot of fuzz about 16-70 is exaggerated.
And BTW for those who wants to take shot at it - it's selling now at $740 new or $617 used on amazon. May be a grey copies or from Japan, but this price is much better than initial $1100.
BTW presidents last name WASHIGTON under his portrait is 1mm high (0.0393701 inch) - just so you know the scale of resolution. Green dots on his chin are around 0.1mm (0.00393701 inch) - can't say precisely. Come on guys - I mean what more resolution do you need? it's not a microscope for God's sake.
Ok - I took one more at 70mm f4 wide open - this time I managed to find some old chart from USA NAVY 1969 Physics Formulas - it's covering full frame this time and there's text - so you can judge by yourself if any corner is soft or not? Do tell me please!
Open original file and zoom in 100% as usual. BTW the paper is old, very worn out and ink is faded - and yet check the color reproduction of Zeiss T* coating - IMHO it's beautiful. This is what separates this from 16-50 for example - colors and contrast are top notch OOC without any post processing.
2nd photo shot again with distortion correction off, OOC jpeg, no post processing whatsoever - this is what comes from a6000 and 16-70mm f4 zeiss at its weakest spot at 70mm f4 wide open. Now you tell me if this lens has soft corners or edges? IMHO it's a better zoom than both 18-55 and 16-50 and has better range. It's no prime and can't match FE55 sharpness duh.
Not fantastic at 24 mm? The 1650 has its best point at 24mm, you only have to take care that you stop it down to at least f5.6.
The reality is more cruel and simple: "...this larger sensor facilitates larger photosite's, the F828 had a 2.7 µm pixel pitch, the DSC-R1 has a 5.49 µm pixel pitch (and hence has lower lens resolution requirements)". It's lens seemed good only because of this.
Come on man, lens is bulky and bigger than 16-70 and the whole setup was 1kg! Now an FF weighs less.
Thanks god you are not a Sony CEO.
Yeah, I was also thinking, thank goodness he hadn't been making the decisions, when I read that! I'm sure that the R1 was a fantastic camera, particularly or the time, but the APS-C cameras are what I've been using for years.
I agree, that would have been scary.
