Hi Everyone,

I'm hooked on good quality lenses, after buying my Sony 70-200mm f/2.8 G lens. The other lenses I'm using are a Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8 and a Minolta 50mm f/1.7 prime lens. I've spent a lot of money on camera equipment recently and would love to have the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm f/2.8, but don't want to spend that much.

I've searched a lot and found individual reviews of both the Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5 and the Sigma 18-50mm f/2.8, but no one that compares the two. The Sigma isn't a bad lens. I bot it used from a buddy who is a professional writer/photographer for automotive magazines and he made a living with it. Does anyone have experience or knowledge of both lenses that could advise me whether I should sell the Sigma and get the Zeiss. The 16-80 seems to be the lower end of the Sony Zeiss line, but is the glass that much better that it would make up for smaller maximum aperture of 3.5 vs the 2.8 in the Sigma, AND is it really a significant step-up from the Sigma?

So here are the options I'm considering:

• Buy the Sony Zeiss 16-80mm f/3.5 lens and sell the Sigma, or...
• Wait and buy the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm after the sticker shock wears off from my recent camera purchases, or...
• Watch eBay for a Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 (kind of rare), or...
• Live with the Sigma

Thanks for the opinions.

Bob

You might try http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-a...report?start=2

This site, while in the process of redoing their tests for sony alpha, has tests up for the 18-70 and the Tamron 17-50, which I believe tends to be rated a bit better than the sigma 18-50 in the same price bracket. Just remember you can't compare the specific numbers for resolution, but it should still give a global idea of each lens' qualities.

Bob,

The Sony Zeiss 16-80mm is an f3.5-f4.5, which means that at the long end it is about 1 1/3 stops slower than the Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC. I suspect that the Zeiss has less chroma aberration than the Sigma at the edges but, according to PopPhoto tests, the Sigma might be generally sharper at the wide end.

Besides more light gathering ability wide open, the Sigma will probably have more creative DOF control.

I doubt that the Zeiss would be much of a visual improvement over the Sigma, but in good light it offers more range and convenience.

If it were my choice I would stay with the Sigma for now and acquire the Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm, f2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* SSM as you can. Ultimately you could then replace the Sigma with the Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16-35mm, f2.8 ZA SSM.

Originally Posted by ziggy53 If it were my choice I would stay with the Sigma for now and acquire the Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm, f2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* SSM as you can. Ultimately you could then replace the Sigma with the Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16-35mm, f2.8 ZA SSM.

And they say that Tamron lenses have long names - Just couldn't resist.

Originally Posted by Robinivich You might try http://www.photozone.de/sony-alpha-a...report?start=2 This site, while in the process of redoing their tests for sony alpha, has tests up for the 18-70 and the Tamron 17-50, which I believe tends to be rated a bit better than the sigma 18-50 in the same price bracket. Just remember you can't compare the specific numbers for resolution, but it should still give a global idea of each lens' qualities.

Hi Robin,

Thanks for your advice. Photozone.de is a great site for the few lenses they have reviewed. I saw reviews on the Sony & Tamron, but didn't know how to compare the two, since I didn't know how the Sigma & Tamron compare. You know, the old if a=b, and b=c, then a=c, thing?

Bob

Originally Posted by ziggy53 Bob, The Sony Zeiss 16-80mm is an f3.5-f4.5, which means that at the long end it is about 1 1/3 stops slower than the Sigma 18-50mm, f/2.8 EX DC. I suspect that the Zeiss has less chroma aberration than the Sigma at the edges but, according to PopPhoto tests, the Sigma might be generally sharper at the wide end. Besides more light gathering ability wide open, the Sigma will probably have more creative DOF control. I doubt that the Zeiss would be much of a visual improvement over the Sigma, but in good light it offers more range and convenience. If it were my choice I would stay with the Sigma for now and acquire the Sony SAL-2470Z 24-70mm, f2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* SSM as you can. Ultimately you could then replace the Sigma with the Sony Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* 16-35mm, f2.8 ZA SSM.

Hi Ziggy,

As usual, you are a wealth if useful info. Even though I'm a newb, I've already learned I need lenses with the largest aperture I can get. My concert photos came out substantially better with my Sony 70-200 F2.8 than my Sigma 70-300 f4.5, and I'm sure the more open aperture had a lot to do the quality of my low-light shots. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems you can always stop down a lens, but once you've hit it's wide open aperture, you can only increase ISO, or decrease shutter speed to get more light. It's always the maximum aperture people are concerned about, not the minimum

I have another question for you. It seems I have another option I didn't mention above. I've found the Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 G lens might be a good choice, as well. They seem to go for about $800-$1000 on eBay, and appear to be the predecessor to the 24-70 Sony. The Minolta isn't a Zeiss, but it might be a good option due to the color quality associated with Minolta. Whatcha think???

Thanks again,

Bob

Originally Posted by BimmerBob Hi Robin, Thanks for your advice. Photozone.de is a great site for the few lenses they have reviewed. I saw reviews on the Sony & Tamron, but didn't know how to compare the two, since I didn't know how the Sigma & Tamron compare. You know, the old if a=b, and b=c, then a=c, thing? Bob

Thankfully the sigma and tamron come in lots of different mounts, that site actually has three reviews on different cameras of the tamron, and two of the sigma. Not that that's confusing or anything

Originally Posted by Robinivich Thankfully the sigma and tamron come in lots of different mounts, that site actually has three reviews on different cameras of the tamron, and two of the sigma. Not that that's confusing or anything

Nope. It's as clear as mud.

Originally Posted by BimmerBob ... It's always the maximum aperture people are concerned about, not the minimum ...

Bob,

It depends upon your application of the lens to be sure. Some lenses have more diaphragm blades than others, which can improve the quality at small apertures, and some lenses have curved aperture blades which also tends to improve small aperture performance.

Ideally, you would want a lens with large apertures that also had numerous curved diaphragm blades and good small aperture performance.

Just having a large aperture is no guarantee of great quality at that wide open aperture. Large, constant aperture lenses tend to be much better optical formulations and that allows better performance overall. Only testing, and that includes your own testing, of the lens can prove a lens suitable for your applications.

Originally Posted by BimmerBob ... I have another question for you. It seems I have another option I didn't mention above. I've found the Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 G lens might be a good choice, as well. They seem to go for about $800-$1000 on eBay, and appear to be the predecessor to the 24-70 Sony. The Minolta isn't a Zeiss, but it might be a good option due to the color quality associated with Minolta. Whatcha think??? Thanks again, Bob

The Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 G is a splendid lens optically. I suspect you would find it slow to focus, especially compared to the Sony - Zeiss Vario-Sonnar 24-70mm, f2.8 T* SSM. I also supect that you would appreciate the extra FOV of the 24mm versus the 28mm.

While the 24-70mm Zeiss is better, the Minolta 28-70mm f/2.8 G is certainly a contender. Likewise look at the Tamron AF 28-75mm, f/2.8 SP XR ZL Di LD Aspherical (IF) which may be the best "value" lens in this category.