how does this compare with the sony 16-35 f4? couldnt find any comparisons online.
1261650
Hi Chester, one big difference between the two lenses is that the SEL1635Z is a full frame lens while the SEL1670Z is APS-C. -Ely
75886
I have the 35mm 1.8, and that is my favorite lens of all time. Having had about 12 cameras over the course of my life, digital and film, I have to say, the 35mm 1.8 is the best lens I've had. It's bright and takes amazing photos in low light. Some people complain about the rough bokeh, but I actually like it. Gives me alot of creative latitude and just the right focal length for me. the 18-55 has VR, which helps keep pictures non-blurry despite the higher f-stop. There's really no comparing the two, one is a zoom and the other a fixed focal length with a much wider aperture. For indoor pictures, the 1.8 is much much better, unless you need the zoom. with the 1.8 there's really no need for flash.
503711
I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a... » Read More I've shot with the 14-35, 35-100, 50-200, and 50. I'm coming off a rather battle worn E-30. I think it's faster and more dependable by far. Coupled with such a big bright viewfinder and you can see exactly what is happening in AF and MF (with enlargement and peaking). The 14-35 screams. I'm sure the newer MFT lenses are optimized but I can't believe it would need to be much faster. Even the old 50 macro, which was never a speed demon, is behaving quite admirably. But do get the grip. Put that with some big glass and it is a very sweet shooting combo. Smaller and easier to handle than a comparable DSLR rig but still pro. « Show Less
1346890
These are 2 different focal lengths and on a crop camera it makes a big difference. I have both, and find the 50 f1.4 works best for indoors, portraits, etc. I use the 85 outside but must admit the 50 is a lot more used. Both wonderful--probably should get the 50 first.
2071193
Yes. It is WAY better in every aspect. Although it costs a bit more, the image quality is much higher with the Sony lens. The Sigma is very soft, especially above 300mm. I tried the Sigma and was not satisfied with the images. My Sony 70-400 never disappoints.
1373624
If you are willing to fork out $500 - $550, I highly recommend the SAL 18250 (This is the best range I have found so far for the A350). This lens is SOLID, no drift, extremely quick focusing. If you don't want to schlep around those low quality "kit lens's", just buy the sony body and invest in this GREAT lens. Pic quality turns out great!! I have had this now for almost 4 months. Took it on a trip to Alaska and found it extremely versatile, going from wide to telephoto. The convenience factor alone (of not having to swap lens's) means a reduction in camera inside gunk that can spot up your pics, and easy shooting under any situation. If you are willing to fork out $500 - $550, I highly recommend the SAL 18250 (This is the best range I have found so far for the A350). This lens is SOLID, no drift, extremely quick focusing. If you don't want to schlep around those low quality "kit lens's", just buy the sony body and invest in this GREAT lens. Pic quality turns out great!! I have had this now for almost 4 months. Took it on a trip to Alaska and found it extremely versatile, going from wide to telephoto. The convenience factor alone (of not having to swap lens's) means a reduction in camera inside gunk that can... » Read More If you are willing to fork out $500 - $550, I highly recommend the SAL 18250 (This is the best range I have found so far for the A350). This lens is SOLID, no drift, extremely quick focusing. If you don't want to schlep around those low quality "kit lens's", just buy the sony body and invest in this GREAT lens. Pic quality turns out great!! I have had this now for almost 4 months. Took it on a trip to Alaska and found it extremely versatile, going from wide to telephoto. The convenience factor alone (of not having to swap lens's) means a reduction in camera inside gunk that can spot up your pics, and easy shooting under any situation. « Show Less
368611
I tested both the Tamron and Sigma 70 to 200 f 2/8.`and this is my review. Every one is hot for fast AF, well the Sigma had fast AF, but the pictures it took sucked. The Tamron with its AF system took Great photos, but had slower AF. I don't know what you want, but I want great pictures. As far as sporting events go, set lens to inf., and shoot away, no problem. Thats the way it was done before all this AF. Hands down Tamron wins. I could have got the Nikon version of this lens, but even if you can afford it, what wrong with bang for the buck?
1789044
The 2.8 works great for indoor pictures and the image quality difference is minimal. I've used both and I dont see any reason to buy the f/4 besides saving money. In April, Canon is updating the 2.8 lens with updated optics and the new IS. Alos the minimum focusing distance is shortened to just under 4 feet. I will be upgrading lenses at that time for sure. After having both lenses, my f/2.8 lens is the one that lives on the camera 95% of the time.
219910
Its a great lens but obviously very different from the 10-18mm f4. I use the 24mm Zeiss almost exclusively indoors because it gets me to an equivalent focal length close to 35mm and helps with low light because of the wide 1.8 aperture. It also gets the nice shallow depth of field with that wide aperture and nice bokeh. I would love to own the 10-18 f4 but it would really be for a totally different purpose - super wide outdoor landscapes. Also, it's a slower lens with that f4 aperture and won't get a shallow depth of field under really any circumstances.
1378177
No it's a Sony lens. It's quite good but not as much as the Zeiss. The big differences in lenses is that the Zeiss will shoot at f4 all the way, and is of better quality, and a bit more than 2X the price. Your only question then is do you need/want the f4 advantage. I did.
1150132
135L exceeds the 200L II in almost every respect. Contrast, sharpness, etc. The perspective one achieves with the 135 length is lovely. Rent them both if you're on the fence that much. I purchased the 70-200 F4L IS for event & wedding photography, and eventually sold it for the 200L II; every time I was using the 70-200, I was at the far end, and the prime is sharper, lighter, offers the extra stop (vs. the f4), etc. My 135L has been with me for years, is rarely matched in performance, and would be the last thing to go in my kit.
2120275
I own both lenses, but the 12-40 (24-80 in 35mm terms) with its constant f2.8 aperture and 24mm viewing angle of 84º makes it more useful to me. Statistically and chart-wise, I'm certain the 12-40 would beat the 14-45, but I've found the latter to be quite competent when used. "Mind-blowing" would not be accurate. You'd be hard-pressed to see a visual difference (unless you're an extreme pixel-peeper).
1324617
Thanks Gav, I appreciate it. I've been leaning more towards the 15-85 because of the extra focal length too. Do you know if the glass quality is the same?
2236560
I spent a lot of time researching and have decided that the wait is worth it (although, unbearable!) The FZ40 is an improvement over the FZ35 as far as startup speed, image quality (not only higher MP, but also a better sensor). The zoom also is worth it to me. If you do some searching, there are a lot of reviews now. The FZ40 also has panoramic, not sure if the FZ35 has that or not.I don't think that the FZ100 is worth the extra 1 hundred. There still is some debate over the quality of the images with the MOS sensor and the 1080 video vs 720 wasn't worth it for me.
874720
There's no comparison. The 16mm with converter is as good a substitute as you will find, but cannot hold a candle to the Rokinon. The latter is better corrected across the frame, better designed (Samyang patent), and very, very sharp. But the 16mm gives you the equivalent of a 24mm on a 35mm format - which may be a more useful combination for some shooters. I have a 16-50 PZ that covers 16mm acceptably.
709670
Honestly, the focal length, distortion (35mm has a bit more distortion but its unnoticable unless you correct it), depth of field...that type of thing. I got the 35mm because I wanted to be able to get closer to my subjects if I wanted to do macro-ish shots and portraits. Honestly, I would have both but the 35 suits me best.
473928
I have owned both lenses, still have the 400 prime. It focuses faster and more accurately, is sharper and light. With good technique and the right settings on your camera the results are pleasing. I hated the push/pull zoom of the 100-400. The only thing I miss is the IS, but if you spend most of your time photographing birds in flight you don't use IS anyway. I bought it used for $1030 and it is a gem.