"Modest" is open to interpretation. The true meaning of it depends on the user. That is why I prefer just to say "about a stop". It avoids some conflict from those fighting the format "wars"
You and I don't have a problem so I won't touch this one. The format (sorry mind blank wrong term) difference of 3:2 and 4:3 throws a monkey wrench in the comparison numbers a bit
Those scores are relative not absolute. A7 scores are relative to full frame cameras and x-t1 are relative to aps-c cameras (at the time those reviews were written).Two things should help you decide actually. End-usage and operational convenience. Sony will give you the advantage of FF has over APSC as well as 4K Video recording.
Maybe the comparison at DPR may help. XT1 seems to score on Stills while A7 scores in Video :
Madhav Bodas
Absolutely matters. As the discussion pertains to Fuji and Sony they are both on average more expensive than their Canikon peers
The only problem with this comparison is that you are using an outdated lens. The canon 50 1.4 is not really up to today's standards and the price bears this out.
Yup. On average it is around 30% more (with FujI having a similar spread) than their canikon peers. Of course average doesn't matter if you are not collecting more than a few lenses. If cyou only plan to use a few then it is easy to see the exact cost difference.
Key word is slowly. They made an effort to maximize profitability in the beginning by focusing on premium lenses. Now that they have a little more market share they do seem to be SLOWLY rolling out relatively affordable lenses.
This all depends on how you want to draw it up. Fuji offers some "fast" designs that help the smaller sensor almost directly compete with the larger sensor of the FE but you will find costs and size largely comprable. You see this born out in the OP'S comparison. Of course the two bodies chosen hardly represent the pinnacle of desin from these manufacturers
I wish somebody had told me that before I went out of my way to buy one. All the "reviews" I could find of it were puff pieces. I have an adapted Tokina 28-70mm zoom from the 1980s that takes better photos.
I have to reinforce - it's garbage. If it's the worst zoom I've ever used, even among kit zooms, it's garbage. It's worse than the Nikkor 24-85 VR kit lens and that's really bad.
your free to use the terms you want. If you wanna call it "garbage" then there are a lot of lenses that will be poor
Have you used many......
Oh come on........there are plenty of worse kit zooms
You can pull up apples to apples on DXO and it is "worse" than the 24-85 but not by a lot
It is the worst FE lens in IQ no doubt. It is also small, stabilized, and has a good AF motor for $300 with a kit. Sorry but I think that makes it an ok lens if you want the compromise. If you want the ultimate IQ it isn't the lens to use.
I think it is just one of those things where it depends on how you judge a lens. A penny over 300 and my tune changes. If you want an OK small zoom I think it is a no brainer choice.
Maybe at this point I will take "pretty bad" over "garbage"
Weakest (or 70). Strongest in middle
Strongest
to the EF 24-105 STM @ 24:
No doubt the 28-70 is bad enough that you get nothing from using it on a better sensor
Mind you the EF is on a 20(?) MP 5D2 vs the 42MP A7RII sensor.
They have only made three. Well four counting the 24-105. Jury is out BUT initial reports are promising
Is what it is.
No doubt I think sony should do better. The 24-70 4 was a mistake IMO. They went after size instead of quality. User response shows the results. It isnt a popular lens.
It's all about opinion, but I think you agree that it's pretty weak. The object facts are clear.
It's all you have with Sony in that range unless you want the (better) Zony 24-70 f/4.
I don't think of garbage as "zero value". It's just a generic term to imply that something is of very low value. Another man's garbage is another man's treasure. Since this lens in discussion is my garbage, is it your treasure? :-D
Is what it is.
I assume you mean "don't". I can somewhat agree. No doubt it wouldn't be my go to landscape lens
Value is always relative. I had the Zeiss 55 which is in every way better except price. Sold it for the cheap 50 because it met my needs and freed up money for more glass. If someone is just starting out in FE or knowknows they want a basic knock about lens for vacations and kids events or something else "snap shotty" then it really is an ok to "good" lens
Forgive me if I some how came across wrong. I do fully agree that the 28-70 could be considered "weak". I just don't think "bad" or garbage" are the right terms. It is all about understanding what is available and the tradeoffs at the OP'S budget
4.
Ha. Not at all. When I first got a Sony a7 it came with the kit lens. It was my "treasure" because for $930 it was about as good as I could do. As I slowly changed my style and wound up with more money I replaced it. Doesn't make it "garbage" to me. Just is what it is.
I do... if I'm getting a picture of a bridge or wide building or street scene I want sharp corners. Most people aren't shooting portraits at 24-28mm.
Even that is debatable. I'd almost rather just stick with the PZ1650. Not much worse, much lighter, and the 24MP FF sensors are not much better than the 24MP APS-C sensors.
