Impressive Article from DPReview on New Lenses


No longer a newbie, moving up!
Dec 8, 2015
Reaction score
Can others edit my Photos
Photos OK to edit
CP+ 2016: A look inside the G Master lenses at the Sony booth

It says that the new 24-70 2.8 might be the sharpest and maybe even the fastest focusing lens of its kind that they've ever tested. (Though of course, that's just their studio tests yet.)

My question is, if there will always be a lag in an electronic viewfinder, how would they ever be able to tell? It seems like they're closing the gap with the a6300, and hopefully that technology will trickle up to the next full frame, but it can't ever be perfect, right? Or will the camera focus and track better than the photographer will be able to? You select the subject, start a burst, and trust the camera to focus faster than it can show you what it's focusing on? That gives a whole new definition to the term "spray and pray..."

Don't get me wrong, I'm super excited about these lenses, it just seems odd to have a lens more capable than the camera can utilize. Maybe it's future proofing?
I don't really care too much, or actually at all, about the small/tiny/minuscule lag in evf because in practice, my reaction time is my real concern. With the current 24-70 F4 zeiss, since I never shoot really fast moving stuff, I have been getting what I saw in the vf on the sensor.

For me, that is the only criterion, that I can get what I need. Having the absolute best at every criteria isn't important to me. Since the 2.8 is so much bigger than the f4, I probably wouldn't even consider it just because of its bulk, weight and visibility.
Yeah, the size is the biggest problem for me. If I were some kind of event shooter that really needed the flexibility, maybe. But as it is, it's not a necessity.

That 85 1.4, on the other hand, makes me drool....
I might have to re-write this post a few times to make some sense. I will try to get it reasonably coherent from the start.

I have worn glasses almost all my life, and it has affected my use of cameras. Back when I first started using an SLR I kept only the view-finder eye open. But I did develop the ability to keep both eyes open. I did not use this ability much. I did not feel it was an advantage.

You might have noticed that above I started by mentioning that I wore glasses. What did that have to do with having both eyes open when taking pictures? When I started writing that, I thought I had a specific memory of how that happened, but as I was writing it, it occurred to me that I was not so sure it happened that way. I intended to re-write that paragraph later when I was sure. Well, I have given up. I just cannot remember exactly how it happened. I thought it happened because, when wearing glasses, the view finder is farther away from the eye. But "so what?" I do not recall that being a great problem for me. Oh well.... My apologies for the vagueness.

Fast forward many years when I started some movie, and eventually video recording: When you record a video you have to point the camera in a specific direction. But it is best to keep your mind ahead of what you are recording. My earliest movies and video cameras used eye-level view-finders. I started using two eyes open a bit more often. The camera was pointed where it had to be and I kept a watch of what was going on outside the camera view with my other eye. I was not great at this because back then I did not really convert to movies/video. I was still mainly a still photographer.

Fast forward to current times: I do not have any camera or camcorder with an eye-level view-finder right now. I only use the screen. My eyes are a bit worse than when I was younger, but what is even worse still is that I now use bi-focal glasses. To record, I generally take off my glasses and stick my face right at the view screen. My eye(s) are around 3" away from the screen. I cannot see anything directly, making my old practice of watching what is going on around me with my "other" eye impossible. My recordings suffer a bit because of that. I have to "anticipate" what is going to happen. I have some music in my background so I think of it as being like a jazz musician. Sometimes, when my head is right, I can "lead" the action and have to camera pointed in the right direction before something happens. Usually I "follow" the action fairly closely. And sometimes I mess up.

I do not find electronic viewfinders are so slow that it makes a difference to me. The trick is to understand what you are recording. Ie, for sports in particular, it helps if you have played the sport. It is not necessary, but yes it helps. If you are recording a dance performance, it would help to learn to dance, and so on.

Here is a video that is an example of what I wrote above. I had never seen this group before. I had never heard this song before. I do not understand the language, so I cannot even understand what they were singing about. I just "felt" the music and the choreography, and did my best. At a couple of points I was even ahead of the choreography. The one point I remember was near the end. I zoomed out for their "big finale". I felt it coming because as a musician, that is where I would have expected it to be.

For the record: I do not LIKE working this way. I would rather have a couple of tries. But working on my own, this is often what I am facing.

"20160826 AKA Crescendo - Bells of My Town - Toronto CNE 2016"
Last edited:

Most reactions