When buying a new lens, a common dilemma is whether to go for a native or a third-party lens. The third-party lenses are usually much cheaper, but how good are they? In this video, Jay P Morgan and Kenneth Merrill compare two standard E-mount zoom lenses for full frame Sony cameras: an $879 Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 Di III RXD and a $2,198 Sony FE 24-70mm f/2.8 GM. How do they compare in terms of sharpness, image quality, and autofocus for both photo and video? Check out the video below for more details.
It feels like every year or to, my camera bags get heavier and heavier, even though the total amount of kit I carry hasn’t really changed. It just gets replaced by newer stuff. And despite the push towards mirrorless, cameras seem to be getting heavier, too. Or are they? Apparently not. It’s no the cameras that are getting heavier, but the lenses we attach to them.
The folks over at Photography Life just did a study of the weights of 733 lenses released since the year 2,000 to see how they all measure up. And their results show that lenses are most certainly heavier than they used to be.
Sigma has been crashing the competition with its Global vision line up. Combination of no compromise image quality and fair price is creating havoc in Canon and Nikon tents. And the recent launch of Sony E mount lenses will surely disturb Sony’s first party glass business. (will also drive Sony’s mirrorless business by providing true 3rd party lens support). In 2013 I bought my first prime lens Sigma 35 f/1.4 art till this day it never leaves my camera bag. Since then I have added Sigma’s 85 f/1.4 and 135 f/1.8 into my arsenal.
One of the most popular portrait focal lengths out there is 85mm. Most of us have one in our bag, or at least a zoom capable of 85mm. We’ve seen comparisons of 85mm lenses before, although they’re typically from different manufacturers.
But how do Canon’s 85mm f/1.2, 85mm f/1.4 and 85mm f/1.8 lenses stack up against each other? What are each of their strengths and weaknesses? Is there really an advantage to buying a $1,849 lens over a $349 one? That’s what photographer David Flores wanted to find out, so he made a video.
When it comes to the 24-70mm-ish range, there aren’t that many options for Sony. There’s the $2,200 Sony 24-70mm f/2.8 G-Master, of course. Or you could get the $1,300 Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 Art lens for Canon and use the $180 MC-11 adapter. But wouldn’t life be better if you could do it for $800 with a native E-Mount lens? Something like the Tamron 28-75mm f/2.8 RXD?
To find out if it’s worth paying almost three times as much money for the Sony, photographer Dustin Abbott compares the two in these videos on the Sony A7RIII. The first of the two videos deals with the more technical side of each lens’s resolution. And some of the results are quite surprising.
When it comes to buying lenses, you often get what you pay for, but is there a certain point where throwing more money at them doesn’t bring you any real benefit?
In this video, Freddie Wong of RocketJump Film School compares some inexpensive Canon EF Primes ranging up to about $500 with equivalent focal length $5,000 RED Cine Lenses and Zeiss Compact Primes and some $15,000 Zeiss Ultra Primes in an attempt to answer this question.
Got any projects on hold until you get that dream lens? Convinced your current gear isn’t good enough for the task?
As can be seen in the lens test created by Freddie and the gang over at RocketJump Film School, you may be wasting your time – and money.
Don’t expect to see focus charts (not as they were intended to be used, anyway), as this real-world lens test isn’t about lab results, but rather about perception.
Obviously a $15,000 Zeiss lens will score better than a $150 Canon Nifty Fifty in the lab, but will you be able to notice the difference where it actually counts?