Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Hi,
At this point I have Sony A55 and Sigma 17-70.
In overall, I am satisfied with that lens, but it has some issues with white balance and colors.
Indoors the auto WB usually goes too warm and the skin colors does not look good even after correcting the white balance in Lr.
So, I was thinking to upgrade the lens. In found two lenses to upgrade to: Sony 16-50 and Zeiss !6-80.
Can you, please, which one of these 3 lenses is good in overall sharpness, contrast and color reproduction. Or maybe you would suggest another one.
Zeiss is a bit out of budget, but if it really worth's the money it can be the choice.
Aram
At this point I have Sony A55 and Sigma 17-70.
In overall, I am satisfied with that lens, but it has some issues with white balance and colors.
Indoors the auto WB usually goes too warm and the skin colors does not look good even after correcting the white balance in Lr.
So, I was thinking to upgrade the lens. In found two lenses to upgrade to: Sony 16-50 and Zeiss !6-80.
Can you, please, which one of these 3 lenses is good in overall sharpness, contrast and color reproduction. Or maybe you would suggest another one.
Zeiss is a bit out of budget, but if it really worth's the money it can be the choice.
Aram
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
- Dr. Harout
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5662
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Yerevan, Armenia
- Contact:
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
There is no big price difference between your mentioned lenses.
The 16-50/2.8 is quite a good lens, but if you don't need the f/2.8 then you should opt for the Zeiss one.
Your lens is a pretty fine lens too, I doubt the problem is related solely to the lens. Do you have a filter in front of it?
The 16-50/2.8 is quite a good lens, but if you don't need the f/2.8 then you should opt for the Zeiss one.
Your lens is a pretty fine lens too, I doubt the problem is related solely to the lens. Do you have a filter in front of it?
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
I do not have any filter in front of my lens.
I do not think that it is a problem. More like that every brand has its own color cast.
The prices in amazon.com are:
Sony 16-50 - 700$
Zeiss 16-80 - 850$
Sigma 17-70 - 470$
I do not think that it is a problem. More like that every brand has its own color cast.
The prices in amazon.com are:
Sony 16-50 - 700$
Zeiss 16-80 - 850$
Sigma 17-70 - 470$
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
- Dr. Harout
- Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
- Posts: 5662
- Joined: Wed May 30, 2007 7:38 pm
- Location: Yerevan, Armenia
- Contact:
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Let's hear other members.
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
I agree with you Doc, let's hear others opinions two and who actually had used them.
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Modern lenses actually don't have colour casts per se. I checked it many times doing colour profiling of various cameras with different lenses.
Yet some apparent colour casts really do show in actual images. Those apparent colour casts come from the lens haze that is coloured because their glass coatings are strongly coloured in reflected light. So if you use cheaper lenses, you get lower quality coatings that then deliver you that coloured haze which you perceive as colour cast. And this colour cast cannot be completely removed by WB adjustments, as the haze is added into the image rather than multiplied.
So if you don't want any colour casts with Sigma, you better use their EX line.
Of the 16-80 and 16-50, I must say that for the large DoF images when all's in focus, the 16-80 looks better. Otherwise, the 16-50 has a much prettier blur/bokeh. But I prefer the Sigma EX 17-50 HSM for its nicely shaped blur with very low LoCA, uniform sharpness even at f/2.8 and also for its perfectly flat focus plane.
Yet some apparent colour casts really do show in actual images. Those apparent colour casts come from the lens haze that is coloured because their glass coatings are strongly coloured in reflected light. So if you use cheaper lenses, you get lower quality coatings that then deliver you that coloured haze which you perceive as colour cast. And this colour cast cannot be completely removed by WB adjustments, as the haze is added into the image rather than multiplied.
So if you don't want any colour casts with Sigma, you better use their EX line.
Of the 16-80 and 16-50, I must say that for the large DoF images when all's in focus, the 16-80 looks better. Otherwise, the 16-50 has a much prettier blur/bokeh. But I prefer the Sigma EX 17-50 HSM for its nicely shaped blur with very low LoCA, uniform sharpness even at f/2.8 and also for its perfectly flat focus plane.
-
- Heirophant
- Posts: 64
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 4:28 pm
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
I have the Sigma 17-70 and am pleased with the results. I've started using it as my main vacation lens along with my 50 f1.7. I've even used a 2X TC with it and had no problems. I have many shots with this lens that I've not had to post process (except for cropping) and I'll say it is as sharp as my beercan and even sharper in some instances.
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
That "problem" I have only indoors with incandescent lighting and creamy colored walls.
However, I am also satisfied with the lens. I wanted to know how well does it behave in against those 2 lenses.
Ps I did try beercan, I like it too. In that case I saw some emphasis in red colors. Which was pleasing for me.
However, I am also satisfied with the lens. I wanted to know how well does it behave in against those 2 lenses.
Ps I did try beercan, I like it too. In that case I saw some emphasis in red colors. Which was pleasing for me.
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Aram, what are you using for raw development? If Lr/ACR, what camera profiles?
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Agorbasta, I am using Lr3 and 4 and standard Adobe profiles.
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
The standard Adobe profiles are exceptionally bad with incandescent light. You may try the profile I posted here - http://www.photoclubalpha.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=5018
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Thank you. I will do it soon and see.
I hope it will be better.
Do you advice to change the adobe profiles for daylight also?
I hope it will be better.
Do you advice to change the adobe profiles for daylight also?
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
-
- Viceroy
- Posts: 1198
- Joined: Wed Oct 22, 2008 7:41 pm
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Aram, that one is a dual-illuminant profile very scrupulously attuned for best performance in the 2100-7500K range.
That's my custom-tailored default profile.
That's my custom-tailored default profile.
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
Thanks for the help agorbasta.
I just did try couple of samples of incandescent lighting and bounce flash samples.
My monitor is a laptop monitor, which is not a good quality one.
I have also downloaded some profiles of that DK mentioned in his post.
My personal ideas are, that the deep profile for the skin tone looks a bit magentish, the standart profile (not adobe standard) looks yellowish and the ungreen profile looks like the deep profile.
Sorry for not scientific and maybe not correct explanation of things, I am new to image processing and I am trying to learn.
I just did try couple of samples of incandescent lighting and bounce flash samples.
My monitor is a laptop monitor, which is not a good quality one.
I have also downloaded some profiles of that DK mentioned in his post.
My personal ideas are, that the deep profile for the skin tone looks a bit magentish, the standart profile (not adobe standard) looks yellowish and the ungreen profile looks like the deep profile.
Sorry for not scientific and maybe not correct explanation of things, I am new to image processing and I am trying to learn.
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
- aramkostanyan
- Heirophant
- Posts: 97
- Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 10:00 pm
- Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Re: Sigma 17-70 vs Sony 16-50 and Zeiss 16-80
As I am new to processing, I would like to know your opinion agorbasta and others also.
Sony A55 + Sigma 17-70 2.8-4 HSM, SAM 55-200
Aram
Aram
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests