Fan boys ...
There comes a time when the quality of the shot is at odds with the quantity of ready cash you have in your pocket.
Basically, when it comes to photography, if you do not use decent enough equipment, no matter how great you are with a camera ... there will always exist a gaping margin for improvement that some critic is going to point out, because you did not use this or that piece of high-end optic.
There are a number of "serious-spending" users to make your laying claim to a decent enough shot almost impossible because you did not use the manufacturer's high-end glass. Argument abounds that unless it has the "label" ... you cannot get a truly exceptional shot.
Personally, I say "HOGWASH!" I am of the belief that you can certainly produce excellent work with "acceptable" level glass ... and it does not have to be the prime manufacturer's stuff, either.
If your efforts are at the point where you have to inspect your work at 300% or better to determine the quality of the shot,
Attachment 49896 I contest that you are simply looking too hard for flaws. What is the point, in the end? If you are selling the work, that is one thing, but if it is for your own edification ... try to enjoy taking the composition ... rather than inspecting it for edge focus flaws.
Lighten up! You certainly can enjoy this craft without buying into all the hype concerning high-end glass. For one thing, not only is it expensive ... it downright heavy to lug around. Before you buy your next lens, do some research on the class of the lens and various alternative lenses that are out there, before plunking down $1500.
A case in point is the SIGMA 24-70mm F2.8 IF EX DG HSM ø82mm (28 oz) versus the SONY 24-70mm f/2.8 CZ ø77mm (33 oz). After a couple of reviews, these two lenses are nearly identical in performance ... yet the Zeiss lens is almost twice the cost of the SIGMA.
Sorry ... I'm not a fan boy ... the SIGMA gets the job, lighter and for less cost.
lol i think someone stole Don's username and password.
Originally Posted by DonSchap
"Rooz" this was directed more toward another Board, rather than our own. I just wanted to see where it may lead.
As much as I have not liked SIGMA, in the past ... they came up with a winner in this particular zoom lens.
the sigma is quite highly regarded, thats true. 82mm filters though...ouch.
i wouldnt expect the performance to be the same though no matter what anyone tells you. i've run the sigma and tamron against the nikon 24-70 and they are chalk and cheese. i'd imagine the same would be true against the zeiss which is just as good as the nikkor. rememebr mtf is only 1 TINY part of the equation.
but which has a better resale value?
Your pockets are empty because you've spent it on multiple copies of same focal length mediocre glass. Choose wisely my friend. You continue to search for the grail with low cost glass, but $200 to $400 here and there for "inexpensive" glass adds up to the cost of the known quantity "expensive" glass. And yes Virginia there is difference, slight in a lot of cases, but it's there.
The Sigma is a darn good lens, many Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. are good lenses. I am pulling this out of my @$$ but I would hazard a guess they are probably 90-95% of the CZ or other first party lenses. That makes them a good value. When you get to a lens of high quality, even from the 3rd party manufacturers the cost of the lens goes up significantly. The Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 lens is Sharp Sharp Sharp and competes very well with 1st party glass, it's cost? $2900. But AFIK it's the only f/2.8 with that kind of zoom range. It was fully in the running when I was looking for a long zoom, I didn't buy it, why? Not because it wasn't first party, but because it cost too much. I bought first party instead, it was cheaper.
I wonder when Sony is going to finally dump Zeiss, because that relationship has probably moved way beyond where it's good for Sony.
They won't. If they lose CZ, they may buy a bigger stake in Tamron.
Originally Posted by jekostas
If they do, then Sony will have to ramp up R&D and manufacture their own lenses.
Well, they're already are doing that - Sony's been pushing their own "G" series lenses over Zeiss-branded stuff for a while now. I'm pretty sure Sony also knows the value of building up their own brand name instead of giving money to another company.
Originally Posted by Elisha82
The thing is, this isn't a "strategic partnership" - Zeiss forced the contract on Sony after Sony got caught violating some of Zeiss' lens patents in the early 2000s (I'm pretty sure Sony didn't do it knowingly, though).
Don't get me wrong, Zeiss has made some very, very nice lenses for the Sony system, but if Sony is in it for the long term (and you would hope so), they need the Sony G brand name to stand on it's own, like Canon L, or Nikkor, or Zuiko.
If they were smart, they would start re-manufacturing all the old G Minolta glass with updated digital coating and SSM.