opinions on Sony and non Sony 2nd and 3rd lenses do they get better, are they worth changing for?

[spudhead]

As title debate regarding if Sony and non Sony lenses do they get better with each generation and are they worth changing for in terms of cost and gain over previous versions, hard for me to comment I have not really bought into much glass in the last couple of years, so have a say all welcome as usual

 

[Ralph]

As everyone has said on Youtube that the Sony 200/600mm lens is the best thing to get.
Now that extra $1000 Australian made me look away from Sony and I got the Sigma.
I got the 150/600mm Sports and I can't compare it but I think from watching Youtube this comes in close by some so I think it is a good one.

 

[Brownie]

New versions of lens releases are like old movie remakes. Totally unnecessary and designed to take your money. Discuss.

Sony announces new 50/1.4. Sigma announces new 50/1.4 Why? What's wrong with the old versions? Is it even necessary to have a 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8? If Sony had never released a new 70-200, would anyone have even known the difference? Isn't the old one a great lens already? This same thing...

www.alphashooters.com

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I think the one advantage for Sony especially are the more compact designs whilst slightly improving the IQ. Is it really worth selling a V1 to buy a V2? Probably not, but it obviously depends on what type of budget someone has and how much slightly less weight means to them.

If you combine the weight of the 16-35mm, 24-70mm and 70-200mm GM's, in comparison to the GMII's combined weight you are looking at quite a difference.

One thing I've learnt lately are the benefits of the f4 lenses in regards to weight if you can do without the f2.8. Personally I do like and believe that everyone should have a 24-70mm f2.8 but I can definitely do with just the f4 on the other two focal lengths.

I think Sony are doing it better in the size and weight department. But the other well known brands are amazing and are still mostly well sized by all means.

 

[liggy]

Personally I think my biggest deciding factor is use case. 3rd party lenses can't deliver the fps that native lenses are capable of.

On a lens like a 50mm prime - doesn't matter. One a lens like the 70-200 2.8 GM II - mission critical.

I went with the Samyang/Rokinon for the 135 1.8. Don't need blazing speed for that lens. On the other hand the 70-200 had to be the GMII for the speed.

 

[Landshark99]

I think it all depends on the lens and how important the best optics are too you, all of the GM F2.8 zooms have gotten better with the version 2, optically improved, lighter in weight and smaller in size. Any time one upgrades to the next gen it will cost you, for me the 24-70 was well worth it. On the 16-35 and the 70-200 I never owned the first versions so I am happy for the upgrading of both. With primes unless the lens has gotten much better optically or dramatically smaller, i am most of the time happy with what I have.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Sometimes. The best example of this is Tamron, because once they started making the G2 series of lenses, with the flourine coatings and the really nice styled lens body, the quality of their lenses improved immeasurably. The original 150 600 was terrible, slow focussing and not sharp, but the G2 is the best 150 600 out there IMO. I don't know of any better examples.

 

[iain clyne]

I think it depends on the individual. I would consider changing the 200-600 if a new one came out but it would have to be as good or better and with a good weight saving.

 

[spudhead]

I think it depends on the individual. I would consider changing the 200-600 if a new one came out but it would have to be as good or better and with a good weight saving.

I am not sure Sony will do anything with the 200-600 it has been the reason they have stayed on top with many users that were asking for reach that was affordable Iain but you know that anyway

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I am not sure Sony will do anything with the 200-600 it has been the reason they have stayed on top with many users that were asking for reach that was affordable Iain but you know that anyway

The only reason they will, is if that Nikon equivalent is no better, which is possible but unlikely.

 

[spudhead]

The only reason they will, is if that Nikon equivalent is no better, which is possible but unlikely.

I guess if version 2 comes along it will not be priced as low as version one was

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

I suspect it would have to be unless they do something like having a fixed aperture like the old Nikon 200 500, which would be a good reason to swap. Make it 5.6 ant 600, that would really be a thing.

 

[spudhead]

I suspect it would have to be unless they do something like having a fixed aperture like the old Nikon 200 500, which would be a good reason to swap. Make it 5.6 ant 600, that would really be a thing.

Yep a mate had the Nikon 200-500 and he seemed to like it

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Yep a mate had the Nikon 200-500 and he seemed to like it

Sue (Mrs Kev) had one, it was extremely good, very sharp, but heavy as hell. She also found 200 too restrictive on an APSC sensor

 

[iain clyne]

The only reason they will, is if that Nikon equivalent is no better, which is possible but unlikely.

There seems to be mixed reports about the 180-600 Niko.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

There seems to be mixed reports about the 180-600 Niko.

There always are with lenses like it, they are a compromise. I am going to a WEX open day on Thursday, I will be having a play with everything I can get my mitts on