biglouis
Well-known member
... If I were Sony I'd buy Nikon. Sony glass was in my experience way too variable in quality to be relied upon - and expensive. There is so far no m43rds lens I have bought which I have found to be so lacking as the G 70-200 I bought. Ugh! There has also been a lot of similar issues to do with decentering and the like with both the Sony Zeiss range, as well.
I liked the body and I hoped it promissed the same type of small lenses as both m43rds and Leica. But instead they produced behemoths which imho are ridiculous.
Here is a comparison between the A7R+Sony90/2.8 Macro and the GX8+45/2.8Elmarit. Guess which one I can hold with one hand get sharp results?
To be fair the Sony G 90 is a stellar lens (bucking the trend) but its size completely overpowers the A7 series body making it uncomfortable to work with. I think re-buying an Elamrit 45/2.8 a short while after I purchased the GX8 was the turning point in my brief love affair with Sony.
This is one I knocked off with the GX8 and the absolutely stellar 12-35/2.8 at Rye Meads on Friday.
Anyway, Sony should buy Nikon and make use of their superior lens development know-how.
Just my two cents.
LouisB
I liked the body and I hoped it promissed the same type of small lenses as both m43rds and Leica. But instead they produced behemoths which imho are ridiculous.
Here is a comparison between the A7R+Sony90/2.8 Macro and the GX8+45/2.8Elmarit. Guess which one I can hold with one hand get sharp results?
To be fair the Sony G 90 is a stellar lens (bucking the trend) but its size completely overpowers the A7 series body making it uncomfortable to work with. I think re-buying an Elamrit 45/2.8 a short while after I purchased the GX8 was the turning point in my brief love affair with Sony.
This is one I knocked off with the GX8 and the absolutely stellar 12-35/2.8 at Rye Meads on Friday.
Anyway, Sony should buy Nikon and make use of their superior lens development know-how.
Just my two cents.
LouisB