07-11-2019, 01:22 PM
And the Sigma version has 665 gr.
I don't say, heavy weight is a given with FF (although my joke implied so), but either you go lightweight and after purchasing a very good very light lens like that Sony, your money-purse also became lightweight.
Or you go for less expensive, yet heavier glass. In the Sigma vs Sony case, the Sigma costs 45% of the Sony, which weighs 67% of the Sigma. 1/3 weight saved, more than doubled the price. Once again: no free lunch... we can repeat this play with other combos and I'm afraid, the result will be rather the same.
In the old times the 3rd party lenses were about the same weight or lighter than the genuine ones - but optically no match. Weight or IQ? Low weight or low price?
And I think, the Sony is also better than the (compared to the rest of the Art-gang) mediocre Sigma. But the next better Sigma would be 28/1.4, double the weight of the Sony GM.
I don't say, heavy weight is a given with FF (although my joke implied so), but either you go lightweight and after purchasing a very good very light lens like that Sony, your money-purse also became lightweight.
Or you go for less expensive, yet heavier glass. In the Sigma vs Sony case, the Sigma costs 45% of the Sony, which weighs 67% of the Sigma. 1/3 weight saved, more than doubled the price. Once again: no free lunch... we can repeat this play with other combos and I'm afraid, the result will be rather the same.
In the old times the 3rd party lenses were about the same weight or lighter than the genuine ones - but optically no match. Weight or IQ? Low weight or low price?
And I think, the Sony is also better than the (compared to the rest of the Art-gang) mediocre Sigma. But the next better Sigma would be 28/1.4, double the weight of the Sony GM.