Rob Sims

Rob Sims

Lives in Singapore Singapore
Has a website at sims.smugmug.com
Joined on Feb 16, 2013

Comments

Total: 305, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »
On article Hands-on with the Sony a7 III (584 comments in total)
In reply to:

Roland Schulz: ...now Sony please bring us a fine and small 35 1.8 or 2.0 lens ;-)!
This is missing and would be great to have!
This old 35 1.4 Zeiss is TO BIG and also not the sharpest.

While we wait for that illusive 35/1.8 or 35/2.0, the cheap FE 28/2.0 actually works very nicely, and compliments the FE 55/1.8 nicely due to the wider seperation in their FoV.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 02:12 UTC
On article Hands-on with the Sony a7 III (584 comments in total)
In reply to:

tinternaut: Looking at AF and shooting performance.... Echoes of the old Nikon D700?

Exactly. The D700 was 90% of a D3 in a smaller package, with a significantly smaller price. I bought the D700 at launch and used it exclusively for 5 years. Shooting a number of weddings with it to boot. Wonderful camera, and a golden era for Nikon shooters.

Link | Posted on Mar 7, 2018 at 02:09 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Apparently the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is rather soft compared to the 10-year-old Canon, and given the popularity of 2.8 standard zooms if this is any better, or at least comparable at a far lower price point it should do extremely well. Sony glass has made their systems cost-prohibitive for a lot of people who've liked the look of the A7 series - does make me wonder whether they've been subsidising their bodies with expensive lenses, so how does that model change with Sigma and Tamron undercutting them?

For me though, losing the 2mm on the wide end turns this lens from 'brilliant!' to 'a bit of a compromise'.

If you read all the way down to the conclusion, he’s so impressed with the lens that he ends up building his system around it. So I’m not sure at which point you managed to read that he didn’t think the lens was that good... ?

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2018 at 12:16 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Apparently the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is rather soft compared to the 10-year-old Canon, and given the popularity of 2.8 standard zooms if this is any better, or at least comparable at a far lower price point it should do extremely well. Sony glass has made their systems cost-prohibitive for a lot of people who've liked the look of the A7 series - does make me wonder whether they've been subsidising their bodies with expensive lenses, so how does that model change with Sigma and Tamron undercutting them?

For me though, losing the 2mm on the wide end turns this lens from 'brilliant!' to 'a bit of a compromise'.

@ibell - that’s not my take away from his review at all:
“The sharpness of this lens is stunning, especially when it’s taken into account, that this is a zoom lens. At least from 24-50mm, this lens can keep up with many of the best prime lenses and it’s the sharpest native 35mm option in the system for landscape photography. Even at its weakest spot, the 70mm setting, the performance is not bad. The center is already very sharp wide open and the FE 2.8/24-70 sharpens up across the whole frame when the lens gets stopped down”

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2018 at 12:14 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Apparently the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is rather soft compared to the 10-year-old Canon, and given the popularity of 2.8 standard zooms if this is any better, or at least comparable at a far lower price point it should do extremely well. Sony glass has made their systems cost-prohibitive for a lot of people who've liked the look of the A7 series - does make me wonder whether they've been subsidising their bodies with expensive lenses, so how does that model change with Sigma and Tamron undercutting them?

For me though, losing the 2mm on the wide end turns this lens from 'brilliant!' to 'a bit of a compromise'.

I'm not really in the market for the FE 24-70/2.8 anyway, just too heavy for me (886g). I prefer shooting smaller primes but do own the FE 24-105/4.0 (660g) for when I want the versatility of a zoom. However this Tamron 28-75/2.8 has peaked my interest as it's over 20% lighter (550g) despite being a whole stop faster . If it's sharp wide-open, then F2.8 is already into prime territory for me. I don't really use 24mm on the zoom, i have dedicated wide angle primes for that which go much wider... so 28mm seems a good compromise for weight.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2018 at 03:06 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Apparently the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is rather soft compared to the 10-year-old Canon, and given the popularity of 2.8 standard zooms if this is any better, or at least comparable at a far lower price point it should do extremely well. Sony glass has made their systems cost-prohibitive for a lot of people who've liked the look of the A7 series - does make me wonder whether they've been subsidising their bodies with expensive lenses, so how does that model change with Sigma and Tamron undercutting them?

For me though, losing the 2mm on the wide end turns this lens from 'brilliant!' to 'a bit of a compromise'.

@FodgeandDurn
Thanks, as always, good to get multiple views. I don't think Tony Northrup is particarly against Sony, in fact he's often quite an advocate so cannot see an reason he'd mark down the lens unless he had good reason to. If it'd been Matt Granger (TheNikonGuy), then that might have been more divisive, although even he as of late seems to be ok with Sony these days. I think when a small subset of reviews show vastly poorer results, then that speaks more around QC issues - that should be unacceptable for a GM priced lens.

Link | Posted on Mar 5, 2018 at 03:06 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Apparently the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is rather soft compared to the 10-year-old Canon, and given the popularity of 2.8 standard zooms if this is any better, or at least comparable at a far lower price point it should do extremely well. Sony glass has made their systems cost-prohibitive for a lot of people who've liked the look of the A7 series - does make me wonder whether they've been subsidising their bodies with expensive lenses, so how does that model change with Sigma and Tamron undercutting them?

For me though, losing the 2mm on the wide end turns this lens from 'brilliant!' to 'a bit of a compromise'.

@cricnours
Thanks for the link. An interesting read. Shame they haven’t tested the lens on a higher resolution sensor (like an A7rii or A7riii), so we have a fairer comparison... however it does still look like the Canon lens is sharper.

To me the biggest issue with the Sony is the size and weight. Corner sharpness wide-open is irrelevant to me for portrait subjects, for landscape / architecture id always be stepping down anyway. I’m waiting with anticipation on the results of this Tamron 28-75/2.8 which comes in at only 500g... a much more suitable weight for general purpose/travel.

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2018 at 13:55 UTC
In reply to:

FodgeandDurn: Apparently the Sony 24-70 2.8 GM is rather soft compared to the 10-year-old Canon, and given the popularity of 2.8 standard zooms if this is any better, or at least comparable at a far lower price point it should do extremely well. Sony glass has made their systems cost-prohibitive for a lot of people who've liked the look of the A7 series - does make me wonder whether they've been subsidising their bodies with expensive lenses, so how does that model change with Sigma and Tamron undercutting them?

For me though, losing the 2mm on the wide end turns this lens from 'brilliant!' to 'a bit of a compromise'.

Hi, please could you provide a link where it shows the Sony 24-70/2.8 is soft?

For reference a quick google and the first three that came up all say it’s super sharp:
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Sony-FE-24-70mm-f-2.8-GM-Lens.aspx
https://northrup.photo/sony-24-70-f2-8-g-master-gm-review/
https://phillipreeve.net/blog/review-sony-fe-2-824-70mm-gm/

Link | Posted on Mar 4, 2018 at 11:03 UTC
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Between this and the Sony 24-105/4 G , I see very little reason now for the Sony-Zeiss 24-70/4.

(Of course, this statement is conditional on how image quality turns out on production copies)

I actually owned the FE2470z and was pretty happy with it, especially in terms of it's rending, colour output, micro-contrast and sharpness... etc. Also, it was super light for a FF zoom lens and complimented the FE55/1.8 nicely. If it'd been a kit lens people would have been gushing over it I think. However, at the price it was launched, and the reported QC issues, I fully understand the harsh treatment it received.

I sold it within a year, however, due to relatively slow apperture / Zoom-range ratio - as I found it was more fun for me to carry two small bodies with primes (an RX1 and an A7) than single body with zoom and prime. The extra stop of light / reduced DoF of the Tamron would make a good travel combo though.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 05:10 UTC

Between this and the Sony 24-105/4 G , I see very little reason now for the Sony-Zeiss 24-70/4.

(Of course, this statement is conditional on how image quality turns out on production copies)

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 04:01 UTC as 51st comment | 6 replies
In reply to:

Charles Chien: Too bad Tamron does not include VC feature on this one. If it isn't way less expensive than 24-70 VC version, it's not going to be tempting for me as I don't have IBIS in my cameras.

Seeing as the last 7 e-mount bodies that Sony launched (A6500, A7ii, A7rii, A7sii, A9, A7riii, A7iii) all have IBIS, I'd say it was probably a good idea for Tamron to save on the VC to reduce cost (and increase margins!).

I'm waiting on samples and reviews on this lens, and may pick it up as a brother to the 24-105/4, for when I want to save weight or need an extra stop of light... and won't be needing the extra reach.

Link | Posted on Mar 2, 2018 at 03:56 UTC
On article Sigma unveils 105mm F1.4 Art 'bokeh master' (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: It's not stabilised! How rubbish is that? I'll have to get the canon 85 1.4 l instead...

I used to shoot Nikon exclusively. Now only Leica and Sony. I find your comment slightly peculiar, but each to their own!

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 14:05 UTC
On article Sigma unveils 105mm F1.4 Art 'bokeh master' (326 comments in total)
In reply to:

Nikoncanonfan: It's not stabilised! How rubbish is that? I'll have to get the canon 85 1.4 l instead...

The last 7 e-mount cameras Sony have release have all had IBIS...

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 12:44 UTC
On article Sigma announces nine full-frame E-mount Art primes (371 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Overall good news, but just bear in mind that at least seven of these nine appear to be exactly the same as their existing dSLR counter-parts, but with a tube extender at the end (to fill out the smaller flange of e-mount).

I'm sure it makes sense as it's v.low addtional R&D and retooling costs for Sigma, removes the need for an MC-11 adaptor for the end-user, but results in none of the size/weight advantages that wide-angle lenses can get from the reduced flange on a mirrorless system.

...but Rubberdials is right. Light hitting the sensor at acute angles can cause vignetting and colour shifts, so not all rangefinder wide-angle non-retrofocused lenses designed for film work that well on all sensors. A7S was one of the better sensors in dealing with it.

For FF cameras, the small flange distance is a lesser advantage than on cropped sensors... limited more to the sub 40-50mm lenses. Anything longer that losss most of the design/size advantages.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 12:41 UTC
On article Sigma announces nine full-frame E-mount Art primes (371 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Overall good news, but just bear in mind that at least seven of these nine appear to be exactly the same as their existing dSLR counter-parts, but with a tube extender at the end (to fill out the smaller flange of e-mount).

I'm sure it makes sense as it's v.low addtional R&D and retooling costs for Sigma, removes the need for an MC-11 adaptor for the end-user, but results in none of the size/weight advantages that wide-angle lenses can get from the reduced flange on a mirrorless system.

Scroll down to the ‘Construction’ section of the wiki article gives a simple overview as to why wide angle (anything less than 35mm) typically needed to be retrofocused on a camera with a mirror box:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wide-angle_lens

Part of the reason nifty 50s were so popular for film SLRs, was that 50mm lenses didn’t need to have retrofocusing with the longer flange distance, and hence could be made brighter, smaller and cheaper. Rangefinders of the day could make 28mm, 35mm...etc lenses without issue. The same physics carries over to modern dSLRs vs Mirrorless.

The issue is actually a bigger deal on aps-c, where 50mm is not really a standard lens, but more a short portrait, so it’s harder to design a cheap / light standard lens for an aps-c dSLR vs. aps-c Mirrorless.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 12:34 UTC
On article Sigma announces nine full-frame E-mount Art primes (371 comments in total)
In reply to:

Rob Sims: Overall good news, but just bear in mind that at least seven of these nine appear to be exactly the same as their existing dSLR counter-parts, but with a tube extender at the end (to fill out the smaller flange of e-mount).

I'm sure it makes sense as it's v.low addtional R&D and retooling costs for Sigma, removes the need for an MC-11 adaptor for the end-user, but results in none of the size/weight advantages that wide-angle lenses can get from the reduced flange on a mirrorless system.

@enenzo - But that's precisely the point. You could already buy these exact lenses in Canon EF-mount and use the MC-11 just fine for the most part. The missed opportunity was to redesign some of these lenses, such as the 16mm, 20mm and 24mm (maybe even the 35mm) which likely have retro-focusing designed for dSLRs, something not required for native e-mount which could have made them even better (not to mention considerably smaller/lighter).

But I understand why they wouldn't got to the hassle and cost to do this.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 09:29 UTC
On article Sigma announces nine full-frame E-mount Art primes (371 comments in total)

Overall good news, but just bear in mind that at least seven of these nine appear to be exactly the same as their existing dSLR counter-parts, but with a tube extender at the end (to fill out the smaller flange of e-mount).

I'm sure it makes sense as it's v.low addtional R&D and retooling costs for Sigma, removes the need for an MC-11 adaptor for the end-user, but results in none of the size/weight advantages that wide-angle lenses can get from the reduced flange on a mirrorless system.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 06:37 UTC as 102nd comment | 9 replies
In reply to:

Rob Sims: So around $3k for a Sony A7iii + Tamron 28-75/2.8...

...Boom.

@Neez - The newly announced Tamron 28-75/2.8 is a new optical design. It's small, light (only 500g) and rumoured to be around the $1k mark. Just have to wait until we see samples and reviews to see if it lives up to its promise.

I own the FE 24-105/4 which is great, but had this lens been announced earlier I may have held off a bit, as I'd value the weight reduction and extra stop more than the extra reach.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 05:49 UTC

So around $3k for a Sony A7iii + Tamron 28-75/2.8...

...Boom.

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 03:04 UTC as 249th comment | 4 replies
In reply to:

Joseph K Boston: 93% EVF coverage?

Come on.

100% EVF coverage.
(93% AF points coverage)

Link | Posted on Feb 27, 2018 at 02:59 UTC
Total: 305, showing: 1 – 20
« First‹ Previous12345Next ›Last »