Sony FE 28-60mm - the Best a7RC Lens?

[steverap]

I have a Sony a7R V with a 24-70mm GM II lens, but it's a large and fairly heavy camera, so I need a small walkaround camera. I am considering replacing my RX100 VI with the new a7RC and, to make it as compact as possible, pairing it with the 28-60 f/4-5.6 (under 2" in length, weighs only 6 ozs.). I considered the Sigma 28-70 DG DN, but it is 4" long and weighs a pound, and the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 is twice as long (3.5") and heavy (13 ozs.) as the 28-60. The 28-60 gets good reviews and seems like the perfect fit for the a7RC - does anyone have a experience with the lens?

 

[QuietOC]

I have a Sony a7R V with a 24-70mm GM II lens, but it's a large and fairly heavy camera, so I need a small walkaround camera. I am considering replacing my RX100 VI with the new a7RC and, to make it as compact as possible, pairing it with the 28-60 f/4-5.6 (under 2" in length, weighs only 6 ozs.). I considered the Sigma 28-70 DG DN, but it is 4" long and weighs a pound, and the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 is twice as long (3.5") and heavy (13 ozs.) as the 28-60. The 28-60 gets good reviews and seems like the perfect fit for the a7RC - does anyone have a experience with the lens?

I use the 28-60mm and the Sigma 28-70mm with my A7RIV and like both of them. The Sony rangefinder body styles haven't worked for me in the past, but if you like the RX100 they may be alright for you. They don't seem much more compact to me. Sonys are a mix of bulk and fiddly-ness. I was using a grip extension on the A7RIV yesterday, and pondering this.

 

[SamKnopf]

I do occasionally use it on my A7RIII in addition to my A7C. It is quite a good lens for its price and size. It is reasonably sharp even in the corners. The zoom feel is not the best, and it's hard to use a proper lens hood with it.

So if you want to go light and compact, it is well worth using. If I use the 28-60, I complement it with a lightweight 24mm prime.

The Tamron 20-40 is also a reasonably good fit on the A7C. It's larger than the 28-60, but still pretty small for what it does.

The Sony 20-70 is also manageable, as the combined package is still not too heavy. However, it does look a bit outsized on the tiny camera body.

 

[Euell]

I’ve not used the 28-60, but it’s slow with weak corners. Understandable that you would want a small, light lens to go on a 7c body, but maybe you should consider the original A7c and save money if you plan to avoid better lenses.

 

[blse59]

I have a Sony a7R V with a 24-70mm GM II lens, but it's a large and fairly heavy camera, so I need a small walkaround camera. I am considering replacing my RX100 VI with the new a7RC and, to make it as compact as possible, pairing it with the 28-60 f/4-5.6 (under 2" in length, weighs only 6 ozs.). I considered the Sigma 28-70 DG DN, but it is 4" long and weighs a pound, and the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 is twice as long (3.5") and heavy (13 ozs.) as the 28-60. The 28-60 gets good reviews and seems like the perfect fit for the a7RC - does anyone have a experience with the lens?

I'm not sure if it's the best, but it definitely is a quality lens.

 

[mrandom]

I have this lens, together with an a7c. It was my main lens at the beginning, but after a while I switched to primes.

My main reason was that the max aperture size of 28-60mm felt too limiting e.g. when I wanted to shoot a portrait or shoot in low light. I also wanted to have an aperture ring for better ergonomics.

I now usually shoot with either Sigma 35mm f2, or Sony 50mm f2.5 g. I carry only one at a time. I shoot a mix of street, pet, architecture, portrait and nature, I have my instagram login in my dpreview profile if you want to look.

Still, I never sold the 28-60mm, I consider it a good lens and I use it occasionally, when I want a change.

 

[Nielk Mike]

I have a Sony a7R V with a 24-70mm GM II lens, but it's a large and fairly heavy camera, so I need a small walkaround camera. I am considering replacing my RX100 VI with the new a7RC and, to make it as compact as possible, pairing it with the 28-60 f/4-5.6 (under 2" in length, weighs only 6 ozs.). I considered the Sigma 28-70 DG DN, but it is 4" long and weighs a pound, and the Tamron 20-40mm f/2.8 is twice as long (3.5") and heavy (13 ozs.) as the 28-60. The 28-60 gets good reviews and seems like the perfect fit for the a7RC - does anyone have a experience with the lens?

Why a7Rc? The a7CII and the 28-60 are a great combo. Already own the kit zoom and it serves me well in many situations. Great image quality, but a bit on the slow side.

 

[steverap]

Among other things, the a7CR (61MP) has a better sensor than the a7C II (33MP), and that mattes a great deal to me.

 

[Nielk Mike]

Among other things, the a7CR (61MP) has a better sensor than the a7C II (33MP), and that mattes a great deal to me.

Better depends. If you are into significant cropping, or birding, yes. Other than that, I 'd rather go with the 33MP sensor.

 

[steverap]

Interesting - why would you prefer a 33MP sensor to a 61MP sensor? Especially in larger prints, the difference is noticeable.

 

[Nielk Mike]

Interesting - why would you prefer a 33MP sensor to a 61MP sensor? Especially in larger prints, the difference is noticeable.

Very, very large prints until anything shows. Prints way too large to hang in a home. My Q3 has 60MP and I only use it to crop - but was fine with the previous sensor, and I am fine with the a7IV sensor. The difference in money buys you a Voigtländer APO 35f2

 

[Euell]

PC Magazine tested the 28-60 on both the 24mpxl and 60mpxl sensors. While the higher rez sensor produced better resolution from the lens, it exacerbated the issue with the edge resolution.

 

[travelinbri_74]

I have this lens, together with an a7c. It was my main lens at the beginning, but after a while I switched to primes.

My main reason was that the max aperture size of 28-60mm felt too limiting e.g. when I wanted to shoot a portrait or shoot in low light. I also wanted to have an aperture ring for better ergonomics.

I now usually shoot with either Sigma 35mm f2, or Sony 50mm f2.5 g. I carry only one at a time. I shoot a mix of street, pet, architecture, portrait and nature, I have my instagram login in my dpreview profile if you want to look.

Still, I never sold the 28-60mm, I consider it a good lens and I use it occasionally, when I want a change.

Couldn't find your instagram account in your profile...

 

[Interceptor121]

I bought this lens in my underwater rig

it is always sharp in the center and the edges are good from 32-35mm

i think ergonomics are good with the A1 as well

if there is one remark is that the lens is expensive when bought separately so make sure you get it as kit

and of course this is a daylight lens

 

[Peter Foiles]

“Better” always needs to be coupled with for what. Higher resolution is good for some things but not for others. Higher resolution resolves high iso noise better which is not necessarily a good thing for example.

 

[Interceptor121]

“Better” always needs to be coupled with for what. Higher resolution is good for some things but not for others. Higher resolution resolves high iso noise better which is not necessarily a good thing for example.

Higher resolution has no implication on noise once you scale to a comparable resolution

The only drawback of higher resolution is slower readout time and larger resources required to process or store the data

 

[Peter Foiles]

“Better” always needs to be coupled with for what. Higher resolution is good for some things but not for others. Higher resolution resolves high iso noise better which is not necessarily a good thing for example.

Higher resolution has no implication on noise once you scale to a comparable resolution

Read my post more carefully, I never said it affected noise only that it resolved it better. Your comment on scaling is precisely why I worded my reply the way I did.

The only drawback of higher resolution is slower readout time and larger resources required to process or store the data

 

[Interceptor121]

“Better” always needs to be coupled with for what. Higher resolution is good for some things but not for others. Higher resolution resolves high iso noise better which is not necessarily a good thing for example.

Higher resolution has no implication on noise once you scale to a comparable resolution

Read my post more carefully, I never said it affected noise only that it resolved it better. Your comment on scaling is precisely why I worded my reply the way I did.

The only drawback of higher resolution is slower readout time and larger resources required to process or store the data

I don't understand what resolving noise means. Resolution is unrelated to image noise as pixel size is unrelated to image noise

 

[Peter Foiles]

“Better” always needs to be coupled with for what. Higher resolution is good for some things but not for others. Higher resolution resolves high iso noise better which is not necessarily a good thing for example.

Higher resolution has no implication on noise once you scale to a comparable resolution

Read my post more carefully, I never said it affected noise only that it resolved it better. Your comment on scaling is precisely why I worded my reply the way I did.

The only drawback of higher resolution is slower readout time and larger resources required to process or store the data

I don't understand what resolving noise means. Resolution is unrelated to image noise as pixel size is unrelated to image noise

We are not in disagreement, I am just trying to provide a simple explanation of why down sampling works to reduce noise. I am essentially equating noise with fine detail. The higher resolution sensor doesn't have more noise but the noise is more apparent. When you downsample (reduce resolution) the apparent noise goes away. So my saying high res sensors resolve noise better may be technically incorrect I think it is conceptually correct. If you have a better one sentence explanation I am all for it but other wise we are well off the topic of lenses for the A7cR so should probably move on.

 

[Interceptor121]

“Better” always needs to be coupled with for what. Higher resolution is good for some things but not for others. Higher resolution resolves high iso noise better which is not necessarily a good thing for example.

Higher resolution has no implication on noise once you scale to a comparable resolution

Read my post more carefully, I never said it affected noise only that it resolved it better. Your comment on scaling is precisely why I worded my reply the way I did.

The only drawback of higher resolution is slower readout time and larger resources required to process or store the data

I don't understand what resolving noise means. Resolution is unrelated to image noise as pixel size is unrelated to image noise

We are not in disagreement, I am just trying to provide a simple explanation of why down sampling works to reduce noise. I am essentially equating noise with fine detail. The higher resolution sensor doesn't have more noise but the noise is more apparent. When you downsample (reduce resolution) the apparent noise goes away. So my saying high res sensors resolve noise better may be technically incorrect I think it is conceptually correct. If you have a better one sentence explanation I am all for it but other wise we are well off the topic of lenses for the A7cR so should probably move on.

i see what you want to say is that at 1:1 magnification it will look more noisy on a higher rez this is plausible as the single pixel may be more affected by noise if small

however at comparable image size this is weighted out as only sensor size matters

we are good