test results SONY 70-400 with A700

[kingfisher]

here some test

http://translate.google.com/translate?p ... ate0=ja|en|" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

greetings
gustav

[Dr. Harout]

Thanks for the link Gustav.

[KevinBarrett]

That lens is a beast. The translations are amusing, too: "Taste the beautiful defocusing...the taste is very beautiful to see blur."

[Dusty]

Thanks so much for the link. I couldn't get the price and availability page to translate, but I'm sure it's out of my price range!

Dusty

[Javelin]

Adorama has it listed as in stock for $1499.00

[alphaomega]

Kevinbarrett wrote:

That lens is a beast.

Well, at 1.5 Kg it is around 250 gr less than the new Sigma 120-400 with same F stop range but lesser range at the short end. I guess Sigma users pay the price for having to take the Sigma anti shake mechanism for CAN/NIK/Sigma without getting the benefit and paying the full price as well.

[KevinBarrett]

The price is actually alarmingly reasonable for a Sony lens. In cost, at least, it is about on par with the 100-400 from Canon and the 80-400 from Nikon, but offering a wider range and faster aperture on the wide end. Altogether, it seems to be a thoroughly more modern lens than either of the others...I'd be interested in a comparison in IQ, especially in the 300-400 range (that's why we'd pay 2x the price of the 70-300, right?).

[alphaomega]

Just discovered a typo error in my contribution above.
I stated:

Well, at 1.5 Kg it is around 250 gr less than the new Sigma 120-400 with same F stop range but lesser range at the short end. I guess Sigma users pay the price for having to take the Sigma anti shake mechanism for CAN/NIK/Sigma without getting the benefit and paying the full price as well.

I meant that Sony DSLR users pay the price etc. I might have added Pentax/Samsung users as well. Apologies.

It would appear that at least for the time being we Sony users will have to accept greater weight and cost than necessary because both Sigma and Tamron now make Zooms with inbuilt Lens stabilisation for CAN/NIK and Sigma (in the case of Sigma lenses) DSLRs and load Sony/Minolta/Pentax/Samsung users with the the weighth and cost of these contraptions. I am not amused.

[Dusty]

One of the reasons I went with Sony when I bought a DSLR was that I didn't want to keep paying for stabilized lenses. Since I don't need that with SSS, I see no need to pay for it on the lenses we purchase. Unless Sony/Pentax/Samsung gobble up a lot more market share, there will be no incentive for the lens companies to come out with dual lens lines.

That means that whenever they come up with a compelling lens that they feel the need to put stabilization into, we have to pay for it. Since I don't know how they do that in-lens stabilization, I can't comment on whether or not it would be easy to design the lens so that the stabilization portion could be left out.

Dusty

[David Kilpatrick]

All in-lens stabilisation is the most serious optical compromise possible. This is hidden from view by Canon and Nikon. In the past, a fraction of a millimetre decentering of a group or element would lead to unacceptable performance. Now they design lenses where a group can be decentered by one or two mm on purpose - even more with teles, less with 17-85mm etc. I've tried many IS/VR lenses and only one has ever come close to matching a non-VR design in the shorter focal length range, that is the Nikon 16-85mm VR. The errors are easier to live with in tele zooms, so they all tend to be acceptable.

But all other things being equal, a non-IS lens will always beat an IS lens if equally well specified and assembled.

David

[Greg Beetham]

I still think it's odd that neither Canon or Nikon have done the deed yet and brought out a camera with AS/SSS, especially Nikon being usually so progressive a camera company, they could easily make it user choice if an IS lens was in use as to which system too use...one would think.
Greg

[Dusty]

All in-lens stabilisation is the most serious optical compromise possible. This is hidden from view by Canon and Nikon. In the past, a fraction of a millimetre decentering of a group or element would lead to unacceptable performance. Now they design lenses where a group can be decentered by one or two mm on purpose - even more with teles, less with 17-85mm etc. I've tried many IS/VR lenses and only one has ever come close to matching a non-VR design in the shorter focal length range, that is the Nikon 16-85mm VR. The errors are easier to live with in tele zooms, so they all tend to be acceptable.

But all other things being equal, a non-IS lens will always beat an IS lens if equally well specified and assembled.

David

Adding to that the added cost of such lenses, it seems odd that more companies don't as Greg stated, adopt in camera stabilization. I'm sure that the economics of dual line production forbid companies from producing the IS lenses as no IS for Sony and the others. Perhaps if Sony's market share soars, it may eventually happen. I wouldn't bet on the others market share moving significantly, unless one of them makes some kind of breakthrough in design or cost.

Dusty

[PhotoTraveler]

The nikon 105 VR is the best example of this.

You won't find many nikon users who won't say the non VR one was better for sharpness.

There is a curve involved here. On one side you have image quality improvement caused by VR reducing blur. On the other hand you have image quality degrading caused by the optical impacts of VR. For a lot of uses, the benefit of the stabilization is much better than the hit on the optical side of things, so VR wins. But when you start getting to something like a super sharp macro. This ends, now the VR is hurting more than helping. And even when turned off, the impacts of VR on the optics is still there, as things won't be as aligned as good as they could have been. I'm not sure if there is issues with APO or Aspherical elements in the rear of the lens with VR lenses, is the combo incompatible, I don't know, but could be another issue.

Of course, this is where in-body wins, since it doesn't have those issues.

[PhotoTraveler]

Give Nikon a few years, and they will do in-body.

The issues are largely marketing/dug a hole.

Canon mainly, and to some level Nikon have hyped in-lens as being better for years. To suddenly bring out a in-body solution would send a mixed message for sure. Just picture the Canon forums, you would have some very happy people, and others freaking all out.

Right now, Canon and Nikon are doing ok with their path. They both still have lenses to be upgrade with VR/IS that could work with such a system. So they still have a path for developing new lenses people will buy. Where things change is once they have put VR/IS in every lens it can work in, then what. They will still have a pile of primes, fast FF zooms, specialty lenses like some macro's, tilt shifts, fisheyes. That can't have IS/VR applied. Advantage Sony.

So when they get to that point, they bring out in-body solutions. Now they can go back through and start making new versions of all the IS/VR lenses without IS/VR but even better optics. Nikon will probably go through and make all of their lenses electronic aperture during this phase as a step towards going to EVIL.

You never want to do too many things at once. You just kill sales doing that. Look at the nikon 24-70. The did things one step at a time, and went 28-70 to 24-70. And that was about it. No VR. Now it's very debatable if such a lens can ever be made in VR. I give it a 50/50 shot. Still, even if it can be done, nikon didn't do it this time, since it gives them another lens to bring out in 4-5 years if they stay that path. Or they never do it and just go in-body.

[Greg Beetham]

Exactamundo PT, look at computers for a classic example, Pentium, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium IV, and all the speed range improvements in each model, just think if Intel went directly from the 486 straight too the Pentium IV how many incremental sales would have been lost, and yeah the mind doeth boggle at the reaction if Canon were too suddenly bring out a DSLR with in body stabilization, I think they will wait till the expiry of the seven year limitation on patient infringment, so they can copy it for free rather than pay royalties too KM/Sony, in the meantime they will probably taper off gradually on the virtues of IS. Regarding EVIL, that's yet another waste of battery power, like LV, Movies on a DSLR etc. why do EVIL when an OVF works just fine?
Greg