Somewhere in Sony's R&D department is a 24-70 f2 prototype they built, but deemed "too big" to be acceptable by the buying public..........I want that lens.
For those who don't understand the reference why he standing next to Gundam statue at 7:30, that Gundam name is Unicorn Gundam, Chris mention this lens is "Unicorn of lenses" right next to Unicorn Gundam.
8:03 - That distortion change when focusing is wild. I think it's not a well-known effect. Did you also know that focus distance changes can also affect the light transmission of a lens? For example, at 0.5m, you can lose 0.3 EV compared to infinity focus. It depends on the lens design-some lenses don't experience this effect at all, while others show a noticeable brightness difference."
Thankfully great budget options remain available on E mount. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is an amazing lens and the E mount version is currently on sale for $699!
Loved, Loved the shooting, editing & photos of this video - especially the walk-around shooting segment. That quick scene at 1:31 for instance. Great job all and Jordan your hard work putting it together is noticed. Videos like this one is why you are S-tier.
@@Léon-x3c Fuji glass isn't exactly cheap and neither are their customers. They have a pro 8-16mm, most people buy sth else (Sigma, Tamron or the 10-24 f4) but it's important to have these premium lenses in a system. GFX really isn't relevant for many, just too big and expensive. If Sony can do a 900g FF f2 zoom, Fuji should be able to do a smaller APSC f2 zoom and pairing that with a smaller body than a GFX brick would be attractive.
@drchtct they made their 16-55mm smaller and better instead of f2. I like it that way and preordered one. If anything, I wish it was longer on the far side. I’d rather have a 16-80mm f2.8 over a 16-50 f2. Different strokes for different folks, in the end.
@@Léon-x3c well, the new 16-55 f2.8 is a different lens and definitely an essential one to the system. But having a bigger f2 lens for those who want one stop more without buying into another system is worthwhile as well. It's no coincidence so many people voted for it on the fujirumors poll.
I noticed this too. Maybe they forgot to film this part and used a green screen. Or maybe they had to cut out the background for whatever reason and used a mask. Or maybe it was just a rendering glitch.
I'm someone who'd never consider an f/2.8, since an f/4 is good enough for me, and the f/4 options gain a lot in terms of lightness and cheapness. The gap between f/4 and f/2.8 isn't worth the bulk and expense, IMHO. But this actually does something meaningful with that size and price increase. Maybe it'd still be too pricey and too big, but we all have our own ways of evaluating the tradeoffs--all optics are tradeoffs--and I can see this lining up better than an f/2.8.
Agreed. 2.8 is great in low light but I still wouldn’t feel confident leaving home without my primes. Good 2.0 zooms are a game changer and would make me consider getting rid of most of my primes.
Depends on what you’re shooting, is it video? Stills? Using flash? Because if its really dark and you’re not using flash, f2 vs f2.8 isn’t gonna be that different.
@@RayValdezPhotography yeah, surprised noone's saying this that much. Where I live, the sigma 28mm 1.4 is about half the price of the 28-45 1.8, and with the modern high-resolution bodies we have that's effectively a 28mm f/1.4 + a 43mm f/2.1 in crop mode. I'm not sure that leaves much space for the 28-45, although to be fair it is impressively light considering what it is (about 100g heavier than the 28mm 1.4)
@@JojoJoget It's arguably less than half the performance though. What's the point of a 28-45 zoom? You can get a 28mm f/1.4 prime for much less money in a much smaller form factor and switch it between full frame and APS-C mode to get the same range. Or you go with a 35mm prime and move around a bit. I get that it's not the same, but the ability to (barely) zoom isn't worth carrying around such a huge piece of glass, I think. With the Sony you get a lens that can really do everything you want at weddings and events, with reliable af, in a form factor that won't destroy your wrist by the end of the day/night. It is very expensive, but it's also very, very useful.
Yea.. Interested to see and find out the weight of 100-400 GM ii and 400/600 GM ii.. anything lighter and smaller while maintaining the high quality is always welcome. I dont even mind if it's alittle more expensive to be honest. Having it lighter and smaller means easier to use for long period of time, easier to pack and travel around with, smaller bag require. No brainer.
With how small the bodies are it makes sense why they would. Nikons aim seems to be optical excellence first and whatever size it is it is.. they’ve also not got around to version 2 lenses yet.. I’m sure it will change then
@@drchtct I wouldn't say that. Would I like less onion ringing? Yes. Is that a deal breaker for portraits and weddings? Absolutely not. Cast your mind back to less than 10 years ago - in the DSLR world even the best primes had some texture to their bokeh. No client will ever see that, we're the only ones zooming in 100%. Even if you print pretty large, onion rings of this kind will never show up.
Great video - would love just a few more example shots in the Daytime segment / looking at subject rendering & Loca under sunlight etc - otherwise excellent! what lav mic were you guys using? sounded great btw!
It's ridiculous that you didn't even mention the onion rings in the bokeh on a 3k lens when you mention it most of the time on considerably cheaper lenses.
yes because clients will ask for refunds over onion bokeh. " you're fired, we don't approve of tiny onion shaped lights in the out of focus parts of this beautiful image."
@@RayValdezPhotography If you wanna go this route: Clients generally don’t care if it’s f2 or f2.8 or if the rendering and sharpness is a bit better. Photographers get so hung up about lenses, it’s insane. I was just commenting on the fact that petapixel didn’t mention the onions rings and they normally do.
I have the Canon version and it is the god lens for events, my low light theatre photos come out so clean it's like I shot them in daylight. This Sony version at 2/3 the weight is impressive.
@@POVwithRC Exactly, I rather take a small step back and pay a lot more money for that F2 aperture compared to the 2470GM2...that few difference between 2.8 and 2.0 is totally worth the huge sticker price.
same, i am happy with my 24-70 f2.8 gm2. 4mm makes a lot of difference when shooting and composing landscapes. That few grams of additional weight also makes a difference when you are out the whole day. But im sure this lens will appeal to someone other than me - the F2 is gonna be a unique point of this for sure.
@@POVwithRC i get you. I have a 24-70 f2.8. I walked back about 500m and i was shooting at 12mm f2.8. Could have taken a few steps back even but the sun was setting real fast.
@@GOLDDYNACO Of course you can do it, it's just more difficult and typically means compromises somewhere. I suspect when they get this lens on the bench beside the Canon equivalent, the Canon will be superior optically, overall. Then there's the fact that Sony chose to keep the size down by electing not to use an internal zoom setup, which, of course, means the Canon is more rugged and offers far superior weather sealing.
@@RobertFalconer1967 Sony’s lens is sharper in the center and corners compared to the Canon version, as mentioned in the video. While Canon may have theoretical advantages, Sony has demonstrated their ability to surpass Canon’s performance with this lens and their 50mm f/1.2 lens.
That’s cool. But for most people does it offer more diverse use cases than a 50 1.4 gm that costs about a third as much? Or any decent used midrange 50 for that matter?
Now we are waiting for someone to make the Best Photos EVER with this lens - that go straight into the Met or National Gallery for their artistic value. As this lens is the best, that should be so easy.
That on the A9 iii would make for a great setup for low-light photo journalism assuming you don't need the reach of the sigma 28-105 f2.8. Side note, at 8:39 the lighting makes on Chris's hand makes him look like he's been key'd in badly... I know he's on site but it hits that uncanny territory...
Just wrapped up my trip to Japan running around with the z8 + 50mm 1.2 Wish Nikon had some similar and also hope yall tried the Grape ice-cream at Ueno Park
I feel like Sony probably could have made a 24-70mm f2.0 at the same size and weight as the Canon version. One of my most favorite lenses is probably the Canon RF 28-70 f2, so I’m still really happy Sony finally released one
It would be extraordinary, if this would be exactly the same size, 918gr...and a 20-70/F2... F2 is just a stop faster than F2.8....but 28mm are so 80s, 90s at least...we've had 28-70's at least since 1993 - Canon 28-70/F2.8L...and i remember these days quite well... (Edit) I do own a old Zoom lens from the 80s, 28-70/3.5-5.6....it had already this focal range, as successor to all of these 35-70/2.8 and F3.5 Zoom before....
My comfortable weight for body and lens together is no more than 1100gr. I tried traveling with 1400gr total and it was not fun. It took the joy out of the journey. I walk around 10K steps per day.
that flare test was really not great guys, how could you not find a better point source light in Tokyo of all the places, too much Sake?? 😜 by the way 82mm filters do work without any issues with an 82mm step-down ring: th-cam.com/video/SZCbvZFRrdI/w-d-xo.html
Could you please, please, please register the Noct as an official unit with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures?!? It's absolutely necessary!
Hope you are enjoying the Wotancraft Pilot camera bag, Chris.Looks like a top tier lens with very good performance from Sony. Hi to Jordan. Hope you are all enjoying your time in Japan.
Expensive and big but that's expected for a F2 zoom. Definitely would be overkill for this weekend Dad shooter with my A6400. Adding in the APS-C 1.5x would make this a no go as a starting range for a zoom.
I still prefer f1.4 or f1.8 primes Especially EF mount glasses, so that i can use drop-in-filter adapters Single adapter with different drop-in-filters is way more cost-effective than my fear of using adapters😅
4:11 "Very clean" yeah. All I see are onion rings. No deal. But this is indeed an impressive weight loss compared to the Canon RF f2L (yet at the same time the Canon is over 6 years old)
I’m not very impressed with bokeh at 70mm F2.0. I know it depends on foreground and background distance separation but for an F2.0, something feels wrong.
At this size I expect there to be a lot of distortion. Which is probably why didn't touch on it too much. The canon is optically corrected vs the sony being digitally corrected. Also said the bokeh was clean while showing some of the worst onion ringing....
Best ever made? It depends on your definition of "made." If you get to add the software corrections into the "made" equation, it may well be the best ever. On the other hand, if the lens has to stand on its own . . . not at all. (But images automatically heavily modified by software are becoming the norm. It all depends on how accepting you are of lens "quality" that depends on the latest firmware.)
I don't understand the fascination with the 28-70 f2.8. A lens that goes from nowhere to nowhere in focal length, weighs a ton, and is stupidly expensive. I have a Canon 24-70 f2.8. Very very sharp, and 2/3 the weight of the Canon 28-70 f2. On a 1DX body it still managed to give me tennis elbow after shooting a day of community cross country runs. I can only imagine what the f2 lens would do. I had an original Canon 24-105 f4L, and while not being nearly as sharp as the 24-70, the focal length had much more utility. There is also no focal length on the 28-70 where f2 is particularly fast. A 28 f2? You couldn't give away a non macro 50 f2, and a 70 f2 is both slow and too short. With the noiseless modern cameras at even high ISO's, and the software that mitigates noise even more (DXO Prime Raw 4, for example) f2 has very little advantage, as far as picking up a free shutter speed to stop action. Are you going to use this lens at f2 all the time? It may well be a technical marvel, but there are many many lenses that would be more useful.
Somewhere in Sony's R&D department is a 24-70 f2 prototype they built, but deemed "too big" to be acceptable by the buying public..........I want that lens.
Too big or too good. They still need to sell things 10 years from now.
@@littleidolsBINGO! Gotta drip feed the goodness over years in the name of profit 😊
You mean 24-105/2 :)
@@xmeda I don't think my pants can contain that level of excitement
Some say it has internal zoom as well.
For those who don't understand the reference why he standing next to Gundam statue at 7:30, that Gundam name is Unicorn Gundam, Chris mention this lens is "Unicorn of lenses" right next to Unicorn Gundam.
Good appreciation 👏🏻
Like he said about the Canon version. So now we have 2 unicorns? lol
8:03 - That distortion change when focusing is wild. I think it's not a well-known effect. Did you also know that focus distance changes can also affect the light transmission of a lens? For example, at 0.5m, you can lose 0.3 EV compared to infinity focus. It depends on the lens design-some lenses don't experience this effect at all, while others show a noticeable brightness difference."
Yeah that was definitely not normal
It is wild how expensive lenses cost.. people scoff at the prices of some bodies.. but lenses are crazy
A wise Man once said: “ You date a camera body but you MARRY a lens!” 😅
Someone once said along the lines of getting the best lens you can as it will recoup its value over cheaper options on the long run...
A sweet boy once said, “sir, unless you have a $3000 lens and $5800 camera, you can’t get a good photo. It’s never been done.”
Thankfully great budget options remain available on E mount. The Tamron 28-75/2.8 G2 is an amazing lens and the E mount version is currently on sale for $699!
@@AshBashSneakers The Canon EF 28-70mm f2.8 from 1992 was like $3500 adjusted for inflation. Nothing new.
Great review! I love the "unicorn of lenses" bit haha
Loved, Loved the shooting, editing & photos of this video - especially the walk-around shooting segment. That quick scene at 1:31 for instance. Great job all and Jordan your hard work putting it together is noticed. Videos like this one is why you are S-tier.
If Sony can do a 28-70 f2 under 1kg for fullframe, I don't want to hear any excuses from Fuji for not making a 16-50 f2
They don’t have the same staff.. that’s the excuse
I’m sure they could make one but I’d argue there aren’t that many fuji shooters looking to buy $2000 glass. And those who do can go GFX.
@@Léon-x3c Fuji glass isn't exactly cheap and neither are their customers. They have a pro 8-16mm, most people buy sth else (Sigma, Tamron or the 10-24 f4) but it's important to have these premium lenses in a system. GFX really isn't relevant for many, just too big and expensive. If Sony can do a 900g FF f2 zoom, Fuji should be able to do a smaller APSC f2 zoom and pairing that with a smaller body than a GFX brick would be attractive.
@drchtct they made their 16-55mm smaller and better instead of f2. I like it that way and preordered one. If anything, I wish it was longer on the far side. I’d rather have a 16-80mm f2.8 over a 16-50 f2. Different strokes for different folks, in the end.
@@Léon-x3c well, the new 16-55 f2.8 is a different lens and definitely an essential one to the system. But having a bigger f2 lens for those who want one stop more without buying into another system is worthwhile as well. It's no coincidence so many people voted for it on the fujirumors poll.
This is much more significant than the A1 release.
Really? A lens that’s more expensive, heavier, bigger and arguably worse performing than the 24-70 GM2? This lens is only for a niche user.
@ I’d buy the 24-70 GM2 for myself but the 28-70 is bringing lens development technology forwards.
Impressive job Sony, especially since Chris favourite lens on the RF mount is the 28-70 so to hear him say he likes it even more sounds promising.
I have Canon 28-70/f2. I travel with it. I didn’t feel it’s a pain. Actually, the weight contributes the stability.
I feel like it messes with the balance of lot. it makes all the cameras super front heavy. I actually put weights on my r3 when I use it for video.
@@RayValdezPhotographyusing a battery grip helps a ton!
Unless you’re using it for video, then the weight is very obvious
@@JojoJoget still almost never leaves my main body even for how hefty it is.
I have it on the R3 it feels like it was made for it
What happened with the shot at 8:13? Is this a test of the new Final Cut masking tools or something?
Am I tripping or does 8:38 look like it's a "green screen" or composited in? The motion blur on Chris' hand looks odd...
I noticed this too. Maybe they forgot to film this part and used a green screen. Or maybe they had to cut out the background for whatever reason and used a mask. Or maybe it was just a rendering glitch.
100% it’s composited, to make reference to the gold statue. Giveaway is the white background inside his right elbow when it’s at 90’.
Thank you very much for this review. It will probably help me choose lenses for a new film project.
I'm someone who'd never consider an f/2.8, since an f/4 is good enough for me, and the f/4 options gain a lot in terms of lightness and cheapness. The gap between f/4 and f/2.8 isn't worth the bulk and expense, IMHO. But this actually does something meaningful with that size and price increase. Maybe it'd still be too pricey and too big, but we all have our own ways of evaluating the tradeoffs--all optics are tradeoffs--and I can see this lining up better than an f/2.8.
Agreed. 2.8 is great in low light but I still wouldn’t feel confident leaving home without my primes. Good 2.0 zooms are a game changer and would make me consider getting rid of most of my primes.
are you casual or pro?
Depends on what you’re shooting, is it video? Stills? Using flash? Because if its really dark and you’re not using flash, f2 vs f2.8 isn’t gonna be that different.
@@JojoJoget ??? f2 - 2.8 is literally a full stop of light. if its THAT dark you shouldn't be shooting in the first place
Chris Nichols in "The Camera Store" TH-cam channel was really handsome hunk back then.
The direct competitor of this that no one is talking for is the Sigma 28-45 f/1.8. The sigma is still heavier than this 28-70 f/2. Let that sink in.
28-45 is such a terrible range. sounds like something for someone that wants a 35 1.8 but wants to zoom a tiny bit.
@@RayValdezPhotography yeah, surprised noone's saying this that much. Where I live, the sigma 28mm 1.4 is about half the price of the 28-45 1.8, and with the modern high-resolution bodies we have that's effectively a 28mm f/1.4 + a 43mm f/2.1 in crop mode. I'm not sure that leaves much space for the 28-45, although to be fair it is impressively light considering what it is (about 100g heavier than the 28mm 1.4)
Sigma is half the price, you can get two Sigma glass for one GM lens
@@JojoJoget It's arguably less than half the performance though. What's the point of a 28-45 zoom? You can get a 28mm f/1.4 prime for much less money in a much smaller form factor and switch it between full frame and APS-C mode to get the same range. Or you go with a 35mm prime and move around a bit. I get that it's not the same, but the ability to (barely) zoom isn't worth carrying around such a huge piece of glass, I think. With the Sony you get a lens that can really do everything you want at weddings and events, with reliable af, in a form factor that won't destroy your wrist by the end of the day/night. It is very expensive, but it's also very, very useful.
Bigma
I love how Sony always seem to make nice lighter version of lenses compared to nikon and canon.
Yea.. Interested to see and find out the weight of 100-400 GM ii and 400/600 GM ii.. anything lighter and smaller while maintaining the high quality is always welcome. I dont even mind if it's alittle more expensive to be honest. Having it lighter and smaller means easier to use for long period of time, easier to pack and travel around with, smaller bag require. No brainer.
That was the main reason I switched from Nikon (Z9) to Sony.
@@ghas4151 I shoot Nikon but sometimes think about switching to Sony for same reason.
I’m happy I can adapt Sony to Nikon.
With how small the bodies are it makes sense why they would. Nikons aim seems to be optical excellence first and whatever size it is it is.. they’ve also not got around to version 2 lenses yet.. I’m sure it will change then
Best for a neck hernia?
What camera did you use to record the episode?
4:10 Onion rings in bokeh from Sony 😮
Saw it too. Wasn't horrible but was surprised to see it in a lens of this level.
on a 3k lens is insane.
the shape on the outside is pretty wild as well, definitely a reportage lens, nothing for aesthetics
Everything is a trade off. Guessing that is the result of this particular optical formula.
@@drchtct I wouldn't say that. Would I like less onion ringing? Yes. Is that a deal breaker for portraits and weddings? Absolutely not. Cast your mind back to less than 10 years ago - in the DSLR world even the best primes had some texture to their bokeh. No client will ever see that, we're the only ones zooming in 100%. Even if you print pretty large, onion rings of this kind will never show up.
Great video - would love just a few more example shots in the Daytime segment / looking at subject rendering & Loca under sunlight etc - otherwise excellent!
what lav mic were you guys using? sounded great btw!
It's ridiculous that you didn't even mention the onion rings in the bokeh on a 3k lens when you mention it most of the time on considerably cheaper lenses.
This literally doesn't matter. Rendering, 3d pop, colors, character are far more important.
@marcotropic I didn’t say if it did or didn’t matter. It still should be mentioned, because they also mention it on lenses that are 3x cheaper.
@@marcotropic3D pop? Sounds like made up bs.
yes because clients will ask for refunds over onion bokeh. " you're fired, we don't approve of tiny onion shaped lights in the out of focus parts of this beautiful image."
@@RayValdezPhotography If you wanna go this route: Clients generally don’t care if it’s f2 or f2.8 or if the rendering and sharpness is a bit better. Photographers get so hung up about lenses, it’s insane. I was just commenting on the fact that petapixel didn’t mention the onions rings and they normally do.
I have the Canon version and it is the god lens for events, my low light theatre photos come out so clean it's like I shot them in daylight. This Sony version at 2/3 the weight is impressive.
But the Canon doesn't depend on lens correction software. The Sony owes a lot of its quality to camera firmware.
I'd gladly use digital corrections if it meant the lens was 400g lighter. No one is looking at the corners of my photos anyway.
@@Skux720 yeah the corners of the photos, always ruining everything xD
@@billmartin1663that’s a good thing right
@@billmartin1663 It would be good if PP noted how much or what is being digitally corrected.
Video looks nice and super crisp. What color adjustments do u use?
Thankyou Chris, great review
This got me excited. Booked tickets to Japan last night. Wasn't paying attention to the lens, just the locations 😍
Great review, just wished I had the money, so nice to have a f/2 zoom on E-mount.
BTW: Where can I get that camera bag and that camera leather strap?
Looks like a Wotancraft Pilot bag which I have. It’s a good solid bag.
How many Megapixels had the sensor for the resolution test? Please note this shortly in your text.
Is that PDAF striping at 6:27?
I do see some slight warping in the breathing test. Warping is uncommon these days.
shouldn’t you be able to use focus breathing comp on it?
Thanks a lot for another great and thorough review. Just a quick question: what brand is you bag? I definitely like it very much..
I am not going to buy another zoom starting at 28mm. Just never seems wide enough. I would buy a Sony 24-50mm f2.
I think I'll get it. I have legs and can step back a few feet most of the time. 🚫👨🏼🦽
@@POVwithRC Exactly, I rather take a small step back and pay a lot more money for that F2 aperture compared to the 2470GM2...that few difference between 2.8 and 2.0 is totally worth the huge sticker price.
same, i am happy with my 24-70 f2.8 gm2. 4mm makes a lot of difference when shooting and composing landscapes. That few grams of additional weight also makes a difference when you are out the whole day. But im sure this lens will appeal to someone other than me - the F2 is gonna be a unique point of this for sure.
@@POVwithRC i get you. I have a 24-70 f2.8. I walked back about 500m and i was shooting at 12mm f2.8. Could have taken a few steps back even but the sun was setting real fast.
@@POVwithRC 28mm makes shooting real wides indoors essentially impossible. 24mm is bare minimum for the lens to be considered "all-purpose"
@1:35 a shot at 35mm..... Where is Chris Niccolls and what did you do to him?
It would be nice to know what iso you were shooting these photos at
What about the mushy CF that Undone pointed out?? Is it really bad like in his testing?
Does it work with teleconverter
Hey! Your camera bag is outstandingly cool. May I ask what brand is that. Thank you very much.
Looking forward to your comparison vid against Canon 28-70 F2.
Waited for this for years, but thought it was against all laws of physics... That's how wrong I can be!
Because of the flange size?
@@adamwhittingham86 because of the diameter of the mount
@@GOLDDYNACO Of course you can do it, it's just more difficult and typically means compromises somewhere. I suspect when they get this lens on the bench beside the Canon equivalent, the Canon will be superior optically, overall. Then there's the fact that Sony chose to keep the size down by electing not to use an internal zoom setup, which, of course, means the Canon is more rugged and offers far superior weather sealing.
@@RobertFalconer1967 Sony’s lens is sharper in the center and corners compared to the Canon version, as mentioned in the video. While Canon may have theoretical advantages, Sony has demonstrated their ability to surpass Canon’s performance with this lens and their 50mm f/1.2 lens.
That’s cool. But for most people does it offer more diverse use cases than a 50 1.4 gm that costs about a third as much? Or any decent used midrange 50 for that matter?
Now we are waiting for someone to make the Best Photos EVER with this lens - that go straight into the Met or National Gallery for their artistic value. As this lens is the best, that should be so easy.
Konnichiwa from Hokkaido, Japan. I enjoy your videos Chris! Keep it up.
That on the A9 iii would make for a great setup for low-light photo journalism assuming you don't need the reach of the sigma 28-105 f2.8.
Side note, at 8:39 the lighting makes on Chris's hand makes him look like he's been key'd in badly... I know he's on site but it hits that uncanny territory...
I'm pretty sure Jordan masked Chris from the background and decreased the brightness to make him stand out more.
Just wrapped up my trip to Japan running around with the z8 + 50mm 1.2
Wish Nikon had some similar and also hope yall tried the Grape ice-cream at Ueno Park
I feel like Sony probably could have made a 24-70mm f2.0 at the same size and weight as the Canon version. One of my most favorite lenses is probably the Canon RF 28-70 f2, so I’m still really happy Sony finally released one
Love that you went in front of the unicorn gundam to say unicorn twice 😏
918g for such a bright zoom lens is alien technology, good work Sony.
2:23 Thank you for addressing the elephant in the room first. 🤣
Sony fe 28-70mm f2 reminds me the Olympus 14-35mm f2
It would be extraordinary, if this would be exactly the same size, 918gr...and a 20-70/F2... F2 is just a stop faster than F2.8....but 28mm are so 80s, 90s at least...we've had 28-70's at least since 1993 - Canon 28-70/F2.8L...and i remember these days quite well...
(Edit) I do own a old Zoom lens from the 80s, 28-70/3.5-5.6....it had already this focal range, as successor to all of these 35-70/2.8 and F3.5 Zoom before....
8:39 why is there like a white mask around his hand when he's making lots of gestures?
I can't say the focus breathing is that well controlled at 28mm. Just look at how the area by the light post to the left is warping disruptively.
CLEAN YO DAMN SENSOR!!!!
I would have loved it to be 28-85mm f2 or 35-85mm f2. Maybe we’ll see a 24-105mm f2 in the future :)
Every beautiful reality is first a dream…
I’ll wait for Canon new Rf Hybrid lenses.
My comfortable weight for body and lens together is no more than 1100gr. I tried traveling with 1400gr total and it was not fun. It took the joy out of the journey. I walk around 10K steps per day.
It is well above my budget but still nice to see what money can buy to you
Amazing lens, sadly in my country when I change the price back to dollar. It cost $3’960!
I wish it was 24-70.
that flare test was really not great guys, how could you not find a better point source light in Tokyo of all the places, too much Sake?? 😜
by the way 82mm filters do work without any issues with an 82mm step-down ring:
th-cam.com/video/SZCbvZFRrdI/w-d-xo.html
I'm stoked because I've spent years feeling bad that I have three lenses with 24mm.
Personally think Nikon's 24-120 is the best. Light and great rendering, much wider coverage. I hope your there for updated firmware from Nikon.
I think I would prefer smooth and tight at the same time. Why does Sony make me choose 😭
Nice video.
Any membership fees these days seem cheap after learning about $50 membership fees to access smartphone wallpapers.
I am looking at you Nikon!
Could you please, please, please register the Noct as an official unit with the International Bureau of Weights and Measures?!?
It's absolutely necessary!
Hope you are enjoying the Wotancraft Pilot camera bag, Chris.Looks like a top tier lens with very good performance from Sony. Hi to Jordan. Hope you are all enjoying your time in Japan.
I think it’s now Nikon’s (Nick on) turn
Good to see a comparison against the sigma 28-70 1.8
which one of us is high ?because that doesn't exist
Expensive and big but that's expected for a F2 zoom.
Definitely would be overkill for this weekend Dad shooter with my A6400. Adding in the APS-C 1.5x would make this a no go as a starting range for a zoom.
Anyone who puts this lens on a crop sensor body either has unlimited money to spend on whatever or no idea what they're doing. :D
Unicorn!!!🎉
I still prefer f1.4 or f1.8 primes
Especially EF mount glasses, so that i can use drop-in-filter adapters
Single adapter with different drop-in-filters is way more cost-effective than my fear of using adapters😅
4:11 "Very clean" yeah. All I see are onion rings. No deal. But this is indeed an impressive weight loss compared to the Canon RF f2L (yet at the same time the Canon is over 6 years old)
wanted this for SO long and now thats its here I don't want it lol. Still might cop if my job doesn't get em
f2 is insane
That is over $4K in Canuck,
They should’ve made 24-60/f2 like sigma 28-45/1.8. Can always crop in
Will keep my Sigma 28-70 2.8 :)
I’m not very impressed with bokeh at 70mm F2.0. I know it depends on foreground and background distance separation but for an F2.0, something feels wrong.
Impressive lens but I think I’ll stick with my 20-70 f4. 😄
i want 24-70mm f1.4 zoom at least
Looks like significant texture in the bokeh highlights, contrary to what was said.
Who else noticed the greenscreen at the last section? :P 4:14
At this size I expect there to be a lot of distortion. Which is probably why didn't touch on it too much. The canon is optically corrected vs the sony being digitally corrected. Also said the bokeh was clean while showing some of the worst onion ringing....
Music reminds me of the anime "those white snow notes"
I don’t understand why I would get this when I could get a sigma 28-45f1.8 and a 50mmf1.2 for the same price
28mm zooms make's me sad
You're always in Tokyo.
So, Fujifilm has sorted their autofocus issues, and there's silence from the bigger TH-camrs.
The color is not the GM vivid.... I think this may be a Tamxxx ODM
3k and the filer is another $300
That onion ring at 4:07 could be a big turn off for a lot of the enthusiast who could afford this lens.
I can’t see what you think you are seeing🤷♂️
@@Jabber-ig3iw4:10
Best ever made? It depends on your definition of "made." If you get to add the software corrections into the "made" equation, it may well be the best ever. On the other hand, if the lens has to stand on its own . . . not at all. (But images automatically heavily modified by software are becoming the norm. It all depends on how accepting you are of lens "quality" that depends on the latest firmware.)
I'm loving my sigma 28-105 2.8
yeah this does make more sense. i mean sony is just flexing they can make an f2 zoom but realistically 28-105 is better
That sounds like an excellent Len’s for coverage is it ok for carrying all day?
i thought my screen had some random dust dots
Canon got this done years go. push the envelope Sony!
FE28-70 F2 GM = USD 2898
4 FE prime lenses = USD 2042
I don't understand the fascination with the 28-70 f2.8. A lens that goes from nowhere to nowhere in focal length, weighs a ton, and is stupidly expensive. I have a Canon 24-70 f2.8. Very very sharp, and 2/3 the weight of the Canon 28-70 f2. On a 1DX body it still managed to give me tennis elbow after shooting a day of community cross country runs. I can only imagine what the f2 lens would do. I had an original Canon 24-105 f4L, and while not being nearly as sharp as the 24-70, the focal length had much more utility. There is also no focal length on the 28-70 where f2 is particularly fast. A 28 f2? You couldn't give away a non macro 50 f2, and a 70 f2 is both slow and too short. With the noiseless modern cameras at even high ISO's, and the software that mitigates noise even more (DXO Prime Raw 4, for example) f2 has very little advantage, as far as picking up a free shutter speed to stop action. Are you going to use this lens at f2 all the time? It may well be a technical marvel, but there are many many lenses that would be more useful.