The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

28mm F2 : first sample pictures

V

Vivek

Guest
The Sony FE 28/2 is also a tad shorter than the blue labelled E 24/1.8 and a lot lighter. Comes in a very small box as well.
 

pegelli

Well-known member
Yes, they are out for Photoshop but nothing for LR yet.
Can't you just copy the lens profile (the .lcp file) over to the right directory so lightroom sees it?

@ Vivek, do you use Adobe Lightroom and if yes does it take care of the CA? I find on most but not all lenses it works pretty good.
Btw, not having a blue label doesn't really matter, does it? ;)
And no pouch keeps the price down as well.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
@ Vivek, do you use Adobe Lightroom and if yes does it take care of the CA? I find on most but not all lenses it works pretty good.
Btw, not having a blue label doesn't really matter, does it? ;)
And no pouch keeps the price down as well.
No, the pesky ones (like in the first shot I posted) can not be corrected (LR). BTW, the blue labelled E 24/1.8 also has CA.

I have no knowledge if the pouch or a label adds to to the price tag. It is all wild speculations floating around. :D
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Well the 28mm on the 16-35 is actually pretty good not tested each against other but I would say the zoom is better at it. This 28mm I can see from what has been posted it is a little on the heavy side. Now i kind of expect this given its a fairly inexpensive lens and to really fix distortion in the lens design they usually add more elements to the design to correct it but given the low cost on these like many other less expensive lenses you will see more distortion but if we have nice profiles for LR and C! than it really should not be a big issue.

The good news on this lens which we end users can't fix is across the field sharpness but distortion and CA if any is up to us in post at least the lens gets us to a good spot being sharp with good color and things like that. This lens looks very promising to have for 450 dollars. Im actually a little surprised at the low cost given what we are seeing from it.

BTW thanks to the members here for posting images for all of us. We love having trail blazers on the forum, it helps others.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Here is a quick snap with the 16-35/4 at 28mm.

No Correction:


With Correction:


--Matt
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Here is a quick snap with the 16-35/4 at 28mm.

No Correction:


With Correction:


--Matt
Yea not so bad at all but there. I tend to think the 28mm is more for sure.

The big plus here over the 16-35 is not the quality of file its the 2 stops at least for my kind of need.
 

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Yeah, the zoom is not for bokeh, and needs high ISO for low light. The f/2 prime looks great!

I have on loan a Minolta 28/2, and I'll try to get some pictures up with it, although a direct comparison with the new Sony is beyond me. But I can compare the Minolta to the FE 16-35/4 at 28mm. Two out-the-window landscapes and crop comparisons
are here. At first glance, the Minolta has less distortion than the zoom.

--Matt
 
Last edited:

MGrayson

Subscriber and Workshop Member
I added a few more comparisons of the Minolta 28/2 to the Sony 16-35/4 @ 28mm. The prime does distort less near the corners - seemingly even if corrections are applied. At f/2, there is some CA and smearing in the corners, but by f/5.6, the prime is as good or better than the zoom. I hope someone soon gets to compare the new Sony 28/2 with the Minolta!

Link to Sony Zoom - Minolta Prime comparisons.

I don't want to hijack a thread dedicated to the Sony 28/2, so I'll post some examples with the Minolta are over in the Fun With A7... thread.

--Matt
 

Annna T

Active member
I added a few more comparisons of the Minolta 28/2 to the Sony 16-35/4 @ 28mm. The prime does distort less near the corners - seemingly even if corrections are applied. At f/2, there is some CA and smearing in the corners, but by f/5.6, the prime is as good or better than the zoom. I hope someone soon gets to compare the new Sony 28/2 with the Minolta!

Link to Sony Zoom - Minolta Prime comparisons.

I don't want to hijack a thread dedicated to the Sony 28/2, so I'll post some examples with the Minolta are over in the Fun With A7... thread.

--Matt
For me, as long as we are speaking of 28mm lenses it is all on the topic. When the discussion turned about the 35mm even if it was a Sony, I found that a stretch.. But it is nice to be able to compare the different alternative existing at 28mm.

As for the example shown by Vivek, I liked the contrast between the red and blue cold light in the background. But I got the feeling that the woman's face was quite distorted (stretched toward the left upper corner). However I wasn't there, so I can't tell how much is due to distorsion (or distorsion correction) and how much corresponds to the woman's shape. Neither whether she was as fat as she looks if whether this is due to her position near the edge of the frame.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
Annna, New lens or not, it is very uncouth to analyze a subject, especially a woman.
 

Annna T

Active member
Annna, New lens or not, it is very uncouth to analyze a subject, especially a woman.
?????

It isn't a discussion of the woman. It is a question concerning the distorsion caused by the 28mm. At most a question concerning whether the photographer should have positionned her elsewhere in the frame. You don't want to answer concerning the distorsion.. OK, keep the answer for you.
 
V

Vivek

Guest
I can use many choice descriptors but I will not. :)

If you have criticism about me (photographer) that is very welcome. Please avoid using any characterizations of the subjects in my photos. It is not a demand but a very polite and civil request.
 
Top