lawlz_xd
Newbie
Hey guys, what would be the most price efficient lense for the following...
1. Sharpness vs Price Ratio
2. Image Quality vs. Price Ratio
My question is...is the huge gap in price between the Carl Zess 24mm f/1.8 and the Sony 50mm f/1.8 justified in the IQ/Sharpness between the two?
Also, between the Sony 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f/2.8, which would you prefer?
Thanks!
1. Sharpness vs Price Ratio
2. Image Quality vs. Price Ratio
My question is...is the huge gap in price between the Carl Zess 24mm f/1.8 and the Sony 50mm f/1.8 justified in the IQ/Sharpness between the two?
Also, between the Sony 50mm f/1.8 and the Sigma 30mm f/2.8, which would you prefer?
Thanks!
david.elliott
Well-known
You may want to spend some time thinking about what focal length you would prefer. That is probably the defining consideration.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
Yep - 50 vs. 30 vs. 24 is like chalk, cheese and rutabagas.
lawlz_xd
Newbie
Thank you for your reply. The focal length is not all that important to me in focal range. I will mainly use the camera as a walk-around so the focal length of any of these three lenses would be suitable.
I am mostly concerned about IQ and Sharpness, and of course, price.
keytarjunkie
no longer addicted
Well then, let me make it easy for you: buy the cheapest one.
If you can't be bothered with choosing a particular focal length, then you shouldn't be worrying about which one is sharpest either. Any of these lenses will allow you to make perfectly nice images. Disclaimer: I have not used any of them. I would imagine the 24/1.8 is pretty great, the Sigma is pretty good, and the 50/1.8 is okay. If you're not a professional, the quality between the 50 and 24 won't be worth the price difference. If you are a professional, you would be at least a little concerned with what focal length to pick. But since you seem to want something small and light for walking around, just get the cheapest one.
If it were me, I would get the Sigma lens. It's close to a standard field of view, and I like Sigma lenses for the most part. And it's not unreasonably priced. I mean let's face it, the 24/1.8 is a good lens, but it isn't really a Zeiss lens, is it? Even if it's nearly as good as the M-mount Zeiss lenses, it will never be on par with the G-mount Contax Zeiss lenses - and they're a lot cheaper!
lawlz_xd
Newbie
Thanks! I am mainly worried that I will have a void in my heart going to a Nex-7 from a history of DSLRs. I've owned Canon bodies and L glass in the past so I do not want to settle for anything less. I have never shot a NEX so I do not know what to expect and to be honest, am a bit skeptical that something so small can perform on the level of something like the Canon 5D II.
I just want a body (Nex-7)/lense combo (___mm f/.___) that will rival my older setups and won't leave me wishing I had never sold all my gear in the first place!
Kent
Finally at home...
The best and most versatile one is probably the Zeiss 1.8/24, but it's very expensive!
The least versatile one is the Sony 1.8/50, as a short tele lens, but it's really good.
The best value is offered by the Sigma 2.8/30, but it's "only" an f/2.8 lens.
Well, I bought the Sigma, because as longer and faster lenses I use manual lenses on my NEX.
The least versatile one is the Sony 1.8/50, as a short tele lens, but it's really good.
The best value is offered by the Sigma 2.8/30, but it's "only" an f/2.8 lens.
Well, I bought the Sigma, because as longer and faster lenses I use manual lenses on my NEX.
Ken Ford
Refuses to suffer fools
I can say that my early impression of the Sigma 30/2.8 on my new NEX-7 is very favorable. The lens has a great "feel".