Sigma 17-50 F2.8 OS. !!!!!!!

Thanks for taking on the role of a guinea pig. Just keep us informed on what you think of it.

It is supposed to be a really good lens.

Just keep us updated on how you like it.

GaryW said:

Dennis Bayer said:

The Sony A Mount 16-50 f/2.8 is also pretty expensive.

Click to expand...

Not used, it isn't! In a fit of G.A.S., I decided to give it a try. You guys are a bad influence. ;-)

OK, I looked at some reviews, and it looks like this lens is a real winner. I probably wouldn't have gotten it before, having to use it on LA-EA2, but on my new-to-me-but-used A6500, it should focus well with the EA1. As for sharpness, the DxOMark comparison about had me sold. Looks like it can beat cheaper primes, perhaps!

I don't see the point in using the Tamron 17-50 at f2.8, when it has such marginal performance on the edges and corners, but the Sony looks like it is still pretty usable at f2.8. I think that has a real advantage. And the SSM drive.

I'll probably hate the weight, but for situations where that's less of an issue, I hope this is better than what I have in order to justify the purchase. For times where weight is more of a concern, I have lighter lenses I can switch to. I find when I'm close to home, a bit of extra weight is not a problem, but for travel, or someplace where I'm walking all day, I'm less likely to take something heavy. Then again, I've hiked with the 18-105, so who knows?

Oh, I checked and DxO supports this lens on the A6500. That's fantastic, as it'll autocorrect for distortion, as well as other lens-specific enhancements it does (shapening corners).I

Click to expand...

I'll be very anxious to see your review. Please do one! I am especially interested in the sharpness in the corners and edges at wide settings. Glad you found a good price. The prices I saw used were about the same or more than a brand new new Sigma with USA warranty.

Dennis Bayer said:

GaryW said:

Dennis Bayer said:

The Sony A Mount 16-50 f/2.8 is also pretty expensive.

Click to expand...

Not used, it isn't! In a fit of G.A.S., I decided to give it a try. You guys are a bad influence. ;-)

OK, I looked at some reviews, and it looks like this lens is a real winner. I probably wouldn't have gotten it before, having to use it on LA-EA2, but on my new-to-me-but-used A6500, it should focus well with the EA1. As for sharpness, the DxOMark comparison about had me sold. Looks like it can beat cheaper primes, perhaps!

I don't see the point in using the Tamron 17-50 at f2.8, when it has such marginal performance on the edges and corners, but the Sony looks like it is still pretty usable at f2.8. I think that has a real advantage. And the SSM drive.

I'll probably hate the weight, but for situations where that's less of an issue, I hope this is better than what I have in order to justify the purchase. For times where weight is more of a concern, I have lighter lenses I can switch to. I find when I'm close to home, a bit of extra weight is not a problem, but for travel, or someplace where I'm walking all day, I'm less likely to take something heavy. Then again, I've hiked with the 18-105, so who knows?

Oh, I checked and DxO supports this lens on the A6500. That's fantastic, as it'll autocorrect for distortion, as well as other lens-specific enhancements it does (shapening corners).I

Click to expand...

I'll be very anxious to see your review. Please do one! I am especially interested in the sharpness in the corners and edges at wide settings. Glad you found a good price. The prices I saw used were about the same or more than a brand new new Sigma with USA warranty.

Click to expand...

I’d run a controlled test that can be compared against my other lenses, but I ruined my good test target last time I had it out, so I may have to go with a less strict test for first impressions. Reviews I saw looked pretty impressive though. (I had no idea!) In the meantime, if I have some time, I’ll try to set up a new test target. I’m curious to see if it can compete with prime lenses. So, yes, I’ll do something to test it.

I agree, I think the attraction to this lens is that it’s supposed to hold up pretty well at the edges (particularly compared to the similar Sigma and Tamron lenses ?). If it can be used at f2.8 without much degradation, I think that’d be impressive and make the lens pretty useful. Imagine a f2.8 lens that could realistically be used at f2.8!

Of course, I got hopeful the last time I bought an a-mount lens. The 55-300 was great until you got to the longer focal lengths where I need a telezoom. I sent it back. I’ll make do with my old adapted telezoom and the LA-EA2 for now.

--

Gary W.

GaryW said:

Dennis Bayer said:

GaryW said:

Dennis Bayer said:

The Sony A Mount 16-50 f/2.8 is also pretty expensive.

Click to expand...

Not used, it isn't! In a fit of G.A.S., I decided to give it a try. You guys are a bad influence. ;-)

OK, I looked at some reviews, and it looks like this lens is a real winner. I probably wouldn't have gotten it before, having to use it on LA-EA2, but on my new-to-me-but-used A6500, it should focus well with the EA1. As for sharpness, the DxOMark comparison about had me sold. Looks like it can beat cheaper primes, perhaps!

I don't see the point in using the Tamron 17-50 at f2.8, when it has such marginal performance on the edges and corners, but the Sony looks like it is still pretty usable at f2.8. I think that has a real advantage. And the SSM drive.

I'll probably hate the weight, but for situations where that's less of an issue, I hope this is better than what I have in order to justify the purchase. For times where weight is more of a concern, I have lighter lenses I can switch to. I find when I'm close to home, a bit of extra weight is not a problem, but for travel, or someplace where I'm walking all day, I'm less likely to take something heavy. Then again, I've hiked with the 18-105, so who knows?

Oh, I checked and DxO supports this lens on the A6500. That's fantastic, as it'll autocorrect for distortion, as well as other lens-specific enhancements it does (shapening corners).I

Click to expand...

I'll be very anxious to see your review. Please do one! I am especially interested in the sharpness in the corners and edges at wide settings. Glad you found a good price. The prices I saw used were about the same or more than a brand new new Sigma with USA warranty.

Click to expand...

I’d run a controlled test that can be compared against my other lenses, but I ruined my good test target last time I had it out, so I may have to go with a less strict test for first impressions. Reviews I saw looked pretty impressive though. (I had no idea!) In the meantime, if I have some time, I’ll try to set up a new test target. I’m curious to see if it can compete with prime lenses. So, yes, I’ll do something to test it.

I agree, I think the attraction to this lens is that it’s supposed to hold up pretty well at the edges (particularly compared to the similar Sigma and Tamron lenses ?). If it can be used at f2.8 without much degradation, I think that’d be impressive and make the lens pretty useful. Imagine a f2.8 lens that could realistically be used at f2.8!

Of course, I got hopeful the last time I bought an a-mount lens. The 55-300 was great until you got to the longer focal lengths where I need a telezoom. I sent it back. I’ll make do with my old adapted telezoom and the LA-EA2 for now.

Click to expand...

My guess is that there will be some degradation at 2.8, but if the edges are sharp at 4.0 I'd be happy. The Sigma 17-70 was very sharp in the center, but at wide angles the edges were soft even stopping down to f8 or more.

Dennis Bayer said:

GaryW said:

Dennis Bayer said:

GaryW said:

Dennis Bayer said:

The Sony A Mount 16-50 f/2.8 is also pretty expensive.

Click to expand...

Not used, it isn't! In a fit of G.A.S., I decided to give it a try. You guys are a bad influence. ;-)

OK, I looked at some reviews, and it looks like this lens is a real winner. I probably wouldn't have gotten it before, having to use it on LA-EA2, but on my new-to-me-but-used A6500, it should focus well with the EA1. As for sharpness, the DxOMark comparison about had me sold. Looks like it can beat cheaper primes, perhaps!

I don't see the point in using the Tamron 17-50 at f2.8, when it has such marginal performance on the edges and corners, but the Sony looks like it is still pretty usable at f2.8. I think that has a real advantage. And the SSM drive.

I'll probably hate the weight, but for situations where that's less of an issue, I hope this is better than what I have in order to justify the purchase. For times where weight is more of a concern, I have lighter lenses I can switch to. I find when I'm close to home, a bit of extra weight is not a problem, but for travel, or someplace where I'm walking all day, I'm less likely to take something heavy. Then again, I've hiked with the 18-105, so who knows?

Oh, I checked and DxO supports this lens on the A6500. That's fantastic, as it'll autocorrect for distortion, as well as other lens-specific enhancements it does (shapening corners).I

Click to expand...

I'll be very anxious to see your review. Please do one! I am especially interested in the sharpness in the corners and edges at wide settings. Glad you found a good price. The prices I saw used were about the same or more than a brand new new Sigma with USA warranty.

Click to expand...

I’d run a controlled test that can be compared against my other lenses, but I ruined my good test target last time I had it out, so I may have to go with a less strict test for first impressions. Reviews I saw looked pretty impressive though. (I had no idea!) In the meantime, if I have some time, I’ll try to set up a new test target. I’m curious to see if it can compete with prime lenses. So, yes, I’ll do something to test it.

I agree, I think the attraction to this lens is that it’s supposed to hold up pretty well at the edges (particularly compared to the similar Sigma and Tamron lenses ?). If it can be used at f2.8 without much degradation, I think that’d be impressive and make the lens pretty useful. Imagine a f2.8 lens that could realistically be used at f2.8!

Of course, I got hopeful the last time I bought an a-mount lens. The 55-300 was great until you got to the longer focal lengths where I need a telezoom. I sent it back. I’ll make do with my old adapted telezoom and the LA-EA2 for now.

Click to expand...

My guess is that there will be some degradation at 2.8, but if the edges are sharp at 4.0 I'd be happy. The Sigma 17-70 was very sharp in the center, but at wide angles the edges were soft even stopping down to f8 or more.

Click to expand...

From reviews I found online, there is some loss on the edges at f2.8, but f4 looks pretty solid. I think the Tamron and even the Sigma look much worse at f2.8. From personal experience, I know that the Tamron is pretty bad at the edges at f2.8.

OK, I got my lens today, but I haven't had a chance to give it a good test. So far, in the middle, it seems sharp even at f2.8. From just these initial shots, I am pretty excited about it. On one of the shots where I wasn't focusing on the corners, stuff in the corners is reasonably sharp; I'm not sure how much field curvature there is, as everything in my room is at a different distance and is kind of a mess, but anyway, to see it not soft in the corners at f2.8 is maybe a bit surprising and certainly satisfying.

The main negative I have is that the focus is a bit sluggish with the LA-EA1, at least indoors at night. I'll try it tomorrow in daylight, but so far, it looks like with the LA-EA1 it doesn't bother attempting to focus until you half-press. Then, it takes anywhere from a half-second to a full second to lock-in, with lots of hunting and associated noise. Video picks up a lot of focus noise from this. I suspect that the LA-EA2 (or 4) will work a lot better, but of course you add more bulk and lose at least 1/3 stop of light. As with a lot of adapted lenses, you're probably better off with native lenses if AF is a concern. If you can half-press before you're ready, it's much faster, though, when you finally do take the shot. I'm hoping that with bright light, it can lock-on better.

One feature that I didn't expect is that you can use it kind of like DMF -- after it focuses, you can rotate the focus ring and do what you want. You just don't get the focus magnification, as the camera doesn't know that you're doing something. And focus peaking isn't showing up at all -- is that normal?

Off The Mark said:

Hopefully someone will chime in with their experience.

Just one thing to mention: You can buy a used Sony A Mount 16-50 f/2.8 SSM around $325 or so and mount it on an LA-EA1 (I bought my LA-EA1 for $50 used), and you would most likely have more compatibility with Sony AF systems.

I believe that QuietOC might have used this combo in the past and might be able to share some insight.

The Sony a mount 16-50 f/2.8 SSM is supposed to be a very good lens, by the way. No optical stabilization in the lens though, so if you wanted stabilization you would need a camera body that provides IBIS.

Hope this helps, and look forward to anyone who might have experience with MC-21 and Sigma 17-50 f/2.8

Click to expand...

Where did you find an la-ea1 for $50. The prices I keep seeing are at least double if not triple that.

Dennis Bayer said:

Where did you find an la-ea1 for $50. The prices I keep seeing are at least double if not triple that.

Click to expand...

Got mine off Fredmiranda classifieds for $50 total (including shipping and paypal fees). This was about two years ago.

--
What Middle School Is Really Like:

GaryW said:

The main negative I have is that the focus is a bit sluggish with the LA-EA1, at least indoors at night. I'll try it tomorrow in daylight, but so far, it looks like with the LA-EA1 it doesn't bother attempting to focus until you half-press. Then, it takes anywhere from a half-second to a full second to lock-in, with lots of hunting and associated noise.

Click to expand...

I don't have the 17-50 f/2.8, but I have three a mount lenses; 85mm f/2.8 Easy Choice, Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Dt Sam, and Sony DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 SAM.

They are a little bit slower to focus than the respective E Mount versions that I own, but not a whole lot slower. Those three lenses have SAM motors, but I think the SSM motor in the 17-50 f/2.8 is supposed to be FASTER than SAM motors.

I wonder if the LA-EA 3 performs better than the LA-EA1??? Even with aps-c lenses.

Off The Mark said:

Off The Mark said:

The main negative I have is that the focus is a bit sluggish with the LA-EA1, at least indoors at night. I'll try it tomorrow in daylight, but so far, it looks like with the LA-EA1 it doesn't bother attempting to focus until you half-press. Then, it takes anywhere from a half-second to a full second to lock-in, with lots of hunting and associated noise.

Click to expand...

I don't have the 17-50 f/2.8, but I have three a mount lenses; 85mm f/2.8 Easy Choice, Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 Dt Sam, and Sony DT 55-200mm F4-5.6 SAM.

They are a little bit slower to focus than the respective E Mount versions that I own, but not a whole lot slower. Those three lenses have SAM motors, but I think the SSM motor in the 17-50 f/2.8 is supposed to be FASTER than SAM motors.

I wonder if the LA-EA 3 performs better than the LA-EA1??? Even with aps-c lenses.

Click to expand...

Hmm, it's a thought, but I would have expected them to be functionally identical. Maybe Sony stopped supporting the EA1?

What happens is that it won't pre-focus (and it does not allow me to select it in the menu), but when I half-press, then it focuses. Tic-tic-tic, until it narrows in. I have it set for "phase detect AF" but it acts like contrast-detect, cycling back and forth until it focuses. (In low-light, it's much worse set to contrast AF.) Usually the ticking dance lasts less than a second, but it's still not like it should be. It focuses quickly when it's pre-focused close already.

On the LA-EA2, it's just as you describe. One tick for it to kick into motion, and pretty silent and almost instantaneous.

Apparently, the EA1/EA3 performance is expected behavior:

https://helpguide.sony.net/ilc/1640/v1/en/contents/TP0001273940.html

"It may take a long time or may be difficult for the product to focus, depending on the lens used or the subject."

I tried searching for differences between EA1 and 3, and found nothing.

EDIT: In this thread, someone says the 6300 and EA1 work perfectly with this lens, but someone later points out that the AF is not quite as good as native. It's accurate, it just takes its time to get there. Probably worse in low light too.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3980897

OH by the way, if I hadn't mentioned it -- the lens does have a cool DMF-style manual focus override that is really nice.

Using the 16-50/f2.8 in bright daylight, the focus is much faster. But it really helps if the focus is already close, in any situation. If it's already pre-focused around the correct distance, it snaps to focus very quickly. If swapping from near, far, near, far, it takes longer, but doesn't really hunt unless in low light. In daylight, I still found that it was a fraction of a second, probably not even 1/4 second, for the long changes, and nearly instantaneous for small focus changes, so that's not too bad. Pre-focus in the general area, and it'll be just fine. There are a couple of quirks about how it works. Like, it will not do the "continuous focus" that you are used to with live-view cameras. It doesn't focus at all until you half-press! A bit noisy for video, even with SSM. Continuous shooting needs to be "low" if you want it to refocus on each frame. Known limitations for the EA1/3. Anyway, I'm happier now, to see good performance in daylight; at least now I have an idea of how to get it to work for me.

EDIT: I guess I would summarize it as the 16-50/f2.8 is good for stills, less so for action. For action or movies, perhaps the 18-105 would be better. I have the feeling that the 16-50/f2.8 is just going to be sharper than about any similar E or A mount zoom short of the new E-mount 16-55/f2.8. I like this as a budget option, but it's not without compromise. I don't think I could rely on this lens alone, but I'm going to try to use it and see how it does.

--
Gary W.

Just keep us updated!!!

GarytW said:

Using the 16-50/f2.8 in bright daylight, the focus is much faster. But it really helps if the focus is already close, in any situation. If it's already pre-focused around the correct distance, it snaps to focus very quickly. If swapping from near, far, near, far, it takes longer, but doesn't really hunt unless in low light. In daylight, I still found that it was a fraction of a second, probably not even 1/4 second, for the long changes, and nearly instantaneous for small focus changes, so that's not too bad. Pre-focus in the general area, and it'll be just fine. There are a couple of quirks about how it works. Like, it will not do the "continuous focus" that you are used to with live-view cameras. It doesn't focus at all until you half-press! A bit noisy for video, even with SSM. Continuous shooting needs to be "low" if you want it to refocus on each frame. Known limitations for the EA1/3. Anyway, I'm happier now, to see good performance in daylight; at least now I have an idea of how to get it to work for me.

EDIT: I guess I would summarize it as the 16-50/f2.8 is good for stills, less so for action. For action or movies, perhaps the 18-105 would be better. I have the feeling that the 16-50/f2.8 is just going to be sharper than about any similar E or A mount zoom short of the new E-mount 16-55/f2.8. I like this as a budget option, but it's not without compromise. I don't think I could rely on this lens alone, but I'm going to try to use it and see how it does.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the report. Did you try back button focus? That is primarily what I do. As for testing IQ, I think keeping it simple would be fine. If you could take some shots of the same scene at 17, 20, 24, or something in that range and at 2.8, 4.0, and 5.6 we could probably get a good idea of how sharp the images are at the edges and corners.

Keep us posted!