SONY, please give us a GOOD 24-70 equivalent soon!

Started Sep 17, 2012 | Discussions thread
NowHearThis
Senior MemberPosts: 2,188Gear list
Like?
Re: That range is too short
In reply to Roland Schulz, Sep 20, 2012

Roland Schulz wrote:

Have you been shooting a f4.0 lens at an event with low light?!

Nope, I shoot 'events' in decent light. For low light, F2.8 lenses just don't cut it for me. When I need to shoot in low light, in the past I usually borrow f1.8 primes - up to 85mm (they're 1 1/3rd stops faster than F2.8 lenses). In the last few years I've had cameras with 18MP+ so I can crop if need be - I haven't needed a 70-200mm f/2.8. I have, however, shot things in good to late day or light overcast light where an F4 works fine. I've shot with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and the F4. I much prefer the F4. It's sharper, much lighter, I can hand hold it, and stay mobile, all day and not get hand fatigue - I can't do that with a gigantic F2.8.

You would pray for a 2.8, pray for one stop, at least for the AF, even on a Nikon D3!! Even a f4.0 70-200 is large an heavy, even the canon. No lens for everything, no camera for everything...

I mentioned that having Sony make a F4 first makes sense because it is smaller, like mirrorless ILCs, it'll likely cost about a $1000 less than an F2.8. People already complain that the 24mm Zeiss, 18-200, and now the 10-18 cost too much; how much more whining would we hear if Sony announced a 3.5lb, 8.5" long, $2300 F/2.8 lens. I really don't care if they do end up making one (e.g. convert the existing A-mount version to E-Mount) but I'd like to see a medium range F4 zoom, currently only Canon and Pentax make one - Minolta used to, I wish Sony would bring it back for E-mount.

Not necessarily. F2.8 zooms are 3lbs minimum. For the NEX that's a bit much. I'd much prefer a 70-200/4 that can match the Canon 70-200/4L IS USM. It's sharper than every F2.8 that covers the same range - I've shot everything except the Sigma 70-200 OS, but I think I can still make that claim. Not to mention that 70-200/4 would be 1/2 the weight, 1/3rd the size (volume) and about 1/2 the price - and you only loose 1 stop.

-- hide signature --

NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );

 NowHearThis's gear list:NowHearThis's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M10 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital 14-42mm 1:3.5-5.6 II R
Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
yesNew
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow