Sigma 24-105 on A7r ii?

Started Mar 25, 2016 | Discussions thread
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ERN812 Regular Member • Posts: 487
Sigma 24-105 on A7r ii?

Anyone use the Sigma 24-105 on the A7rii? How does it handle?

I'm close to pulling the trigger on the a7r ii and am trying to decide whether to go with the Sigma, the Sony Ziess 24-70 F/4, or shell out for the GM. Ultimately, I'd like to start using more primes, for a variety of reasons--the size, the wider aperture, and the advice of Jim Kasson and others on this forum that it makes you a better photographer. But I'd still like to have a decent zoom around, mostly for events where I won't have opportunity to swap out lenses and where a single prime would be too limiting. Plus, I don't have the money right now for the set of primes I'm hoping to pick up--Batis 25/85, and Sony 55--in addition to the camera. I figure I could get the zoom now, rely on that, and then build up the set of primes over the next couple years.

Right now, I'm leaning heavily towards the Sigma. My thinking is below, but I'd love to get the views from someone who currently uses that lens on the a7r ii. Seems like it has plenty resolution across the focal length and across frame, even wide open, for the a7r ii's sensor. But I can live with a lens that is merely "good" or "adequate." What I'd really be interested to hear about is the three-dimensionality of the images it renders and the microcontrast.

Here's my thinking for going with the Sigma for now:

The benefits of the Zeiss F/4 are cost and size. But the Sigma is about the same price, and I am not too concerned with the size. The sigma with an adapter would be only about 1.5 inches longer, and the weight wouldn't bother me. And, for the most part, even with the Zeiss F/4, the a7 series is not a "small" camera. To get that benefit, you really need to focus on primes.  The benefits of the Sigma are the extended range, and I do find that, when I'm outside at least, 70mm is a bit limiting. I had not considered this lens previously because I wanted full auto-focus functionality, but the new adapter seems to provide that. F/4 also probably isn't a huge problem. The a7r ii is such an improvement over my current a57 that it probably adds 2-3 stops of low light ability. (On the DPreview comparison widget, ISO3200 on my a57 looks as good as ISO12,800, maybe even 25,600, on the A7r ii.) And at F/4, I'd still get the same depth of field I'm used to shooting at 2.8 on the a57. (Plus, I'm planning to use primes for when I really need nice background blur.) The size is also a draw when compared to the GM.

The GM would deliver the 2.8 aperture, and potentially better image quality than the Sigma, but I'm not sure if it'd be significantly enough better for me to pay the extra money and give up the range.  It appears to be better in every way except size when compared to the Sony 24-70 F/4. All told, I just can't justify the cost for this thing. Seems like it would be too duplicative of the primes I'm planning to purchase anyway.  It would be hard to justify keeping something this expensive on top of a set of primes covering the same range with only one extra stop of light.

 ERN812's gear list:ERN812's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +2 more
Sony Alpha a7 Sony Alpha a7R Sony Alpha a7R II Sony FE 24-70mm F2.8 GM Sony SLT-A57
If you believe there are incorrect tags, please send us this post using our feedback form.
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Flat view
ForumParentFirstPrevious
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow