Edward wrote: I have a Sony 24-70Z, a Minolta 24-85 and 28-85 and I can't see a serious difference in picture quality with any of them that makes the Sony worth 10 times the cost.
not at all. And I do agree with you the 24-85 is a great underrated lens. But...Edward wrote:I don't think there was anything unfair about my Minolta 24-85 comments.
Well, no. IMHO the 24-70 f2.8 is not overrated. I didn't find anything special on this lens, until I use it on the A7R, where actually the 24-85 start showing it's limitations.Edward wrote:The sony 24-70 is a great lens, but also over-rated.
Yep. As I told you on my previous post, I don't think the Sony-Zeiss is 10 times better than the Minolta.Edward wrote:I do happen to have a "pristine new-old-stock copy" of the Minolta and In low light the sony is better, but in most situations it is not a better lens then the Minolta. I also have a Sigma 12-24 and when I set the Sony and Sigma at 24mm for outside shots in daylight -- I can't tell from a picture which lens was used.
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests