Can a Sigma 17-70mm f2.8-f4.5 compete with the SONY R1 lens?

[Cubase]

Hi,

I own a Sony DSC-R1, with a 14-71mm equivalent f/2.8-f/4.3 lens, wich I'm very happy with, but its time to go for a better camera. Since I can't afford for a better one, my decision was the Sony Alpha 300 (I won't change my mind, folks, its a final decision, so please don't go off topic discussing other cameras).

As you may know, the Sony DSC-R1 fixed lens is one of the most expensive lens produced by Sony (Carl Zeiss T*). When the Sony DSC-R1 was launched the cost of the lens alone was $999 (the price of the camera). This was even stated by dpreview.com

My question is: Can a Sigma 17-70mm f/2.8-f/4.5 lens on a Sony Alpha 300 compete with the lens of the Sony DSC-R1?

I know this CCD (BIONZ) is better than the DSC-R1's one (wich is also an APS-Class sensor), but the question is if with that Sigma lens the A300 will produce better image quality than the DSC-R1.

Thanks a tone. I really need to know this.

 

[D-50]

Im not familiar with the lens you speak of but you say its fixed. Why are you comparing a 17-70 zoom with a fixed? You are really comparing apples to oranges here. Do you want one focal length or a range? Prime lenses tend to be sharper but the tradeoff is going to be you only have that one focal length. Or did I completely misunderstand your post?

 

[Cubase]

D-50, mine is a 14-71 equiv. zoom lens. It's just fixed (I mean not interchangeable) since this was the only non-slr camera produced with an APS-C sensor (the same size as the CCDs used on D-SLRs) and one of the best lens I have ever seen. Image quality is crystal clear, like a D-SLR with a high-end f/2.8-f/4.3 lens. Thats why I'm asking if the SIGMA 17-70 f/2.8-f/4.5 can compete with this lens.

Yes, you misunderstood. It's necessary to know the Sony DSC-R1 to understand what I'm talking about. It was a non-slr camera made to compete with SLRs and was better than entry level SLRs. You can check that on dpreview.com. The price was $999 and all the reviews say the lens alone cost this. If you had to buy lenses of this caliber for a SLR you would need to spend thousands. Also due to the APS-C CCD, images look like if they came from a SLR. This is 3 times or so bigger than a 2/3" sensor (8.8 X 6.6mm vs 21.5 X 14.4mm). It is said to be essentially the same chip as found in the Nikon D2x.The Sony chip used in the Nikon D2x is 23.7 X 15.7mm, while that in the R1 is 21.5 X 14.4mm. Both have the same pixel size, 5.49 microns. Many sites made comparison tests with the Canon 5D. This is just to give you an idea of what this camera is.

What I do need to know is if I will notice a considerable improvement on image quality with the Sony Alpha 300 and a Sigma 17-70 f2.8-f4.5 vs the DSC-R1 (camera and superb lens). I "think" I will because of the better sensor on the Alpha 300, but not sure about the Sigma lens I'm talking about. The fact that I can change lenses and buy a 70-200 lens too (I need one) is another story, but let's not talk about that, lets imagine that I will only use the 17-70 lens.

I have mixed feelings about the DSC-R1 since sometimes I get ultra sharp photos with an incredible depth of field (landscape) that impress professionals and made me win some landscape competitions and other times I have limitations with exposure even using ND filters. If the ground is much darker than the sky (like 6 stops), the sky gets too overexposed and this is not lack of photography knowledge. Its important to remember that this camera uses ISO 160 as the minimum ISO. Anyways, I think that the limitations I face sometimes have to do with the sensor. It works great on "normal" conditions, its not that great on critical situations where I have seen SLR's like the Nikon D80 (not the D40) producing better results. Reviews are saying that the sensor on the Alpha 300 is as good as the Nikon D80 one and since the A300 is much cheaper, I can buy the Sigma/whatever lens with the difference. I can't afford to buy the Nikon D80 with a great lens right now, thats why the A300 is the final decision after many considerations.

 

[deanimator]

I suspect the only thing you can do is a side by side comparison.
I´m sure a reasonable dealer will agree to that

Plus, I think Sony have at least 2 lenses in that range: the 18 - 70, and the said to be excellent DT 16-80 mm F3,5-4.5 ZA Carl Zeiss® Vario-Sonnar T* Zoom. (adds big bucks to the price of course)

 

[Cubase]

Yes, I think its the only way. A side by side comparison. Nobody knows the DSC-R1. I've asked in several forums. Even more difficult is to know the difference for the Sony Alpha 300 since 75% of the market (at least) goes for Nikon/Canon.

Concerning the Sony lenses and since they are so expensive thats why I'm looking for Sigma lenses (that fits Sony Alpha - and I found one new at $320 from a reputated ebay's seller).

Whats your opinion about the Sigma 17-70mm F2.8-4.5? From some photos I've seen (with a old 350D and the Sigma Lens), I got impressed.

 

[shorty6049]

I'm guessing that the Sigma lens will be better, and plus, you'll have a DSLR then as well. The Sigma isnt an EX lens, so its not their 'pro' line, but i guess the only true way to know, is probably to try them side-by-side, like everyone else is saying. Enjoy your new camera, and welcome to the Sony club.