TN Args: If they don't mention the approx size and weight, nobody knows if they are something new and different that allows smaller, lighter old-frame ownership. OR.....NOT!
Well Canon-shooter, kudos for discovering Physics. Now you may also be able to think about this: Sony a7r w/FE 70-200/4 is smaller and lighter than Canon 5DIII w/EF 70-200/4.
Marcelobtp: The A7 was a marketing strategy to say we have the smallest FF, no one will do it smaller then ours. But the small and light will not balance well with fast af lenses for a FF sensor. Oh god, theres a gap between a7 and a77 size. if sony don't do it quickly someone will. Please small lenses sony this system is faded to fail in its purpose.
IMO, when Sony chooses to develop larger zoom lenses (f/2.8 zooms), larger bodies will also follow. As of now, a7-series is the largest and (at 465g or so) heaviest of E-mount bodies, and making normal f/2.8 zoom lenses that will weigh 700g or so make less sense.
An a9 could potentially be that camera.
Ron A 19: I wonder how this 35 1.4 zeiss will compare to the newly announced ZM 35 1.4 from zeiss. My bet is that the added AF and IS will make this a better bet, plus it'll likely be much cheaper.
To begin with, ZM 35 is buit to Rangefinder specs, so it will be small. To me, the choice to go with Distagon formula for the FE is an interesting one (the other Sony Zeiss Distagon is on A-mount, 24mm f/2).
Spectro: As a7 owner (nex3 at one time), sony e mount lenses lineup is the weakest link. Doesn't matter if sony come out with a lot of innovation in bodies, their eco-system support is weak. Mean consumer won't stay. I looked at the FE roadmap to see any lenses I want. All I see is f4 zoom and overpriced zesis prime lenses. Tried the la3 adapter and the AF is a joke, lap4 I get light lost, but better af. I would like some affordable AF lenses for action and some video. Focus peaking with my nikkor lenses is a hit or miss at larger aperture (not the m4/3 where the DoF is large). This happens a few time when I shot models in low light (fousing on the eyes) the focus peaking can't see it or it showed it is focus and I go home with a untack sharp image.
But thanks for pushing photography,and making sensors for nikon (I guess pentax, hasselbald, fuji too). Funny seeing fuji getting a new hybrid af sensor and camera model a few months after the sony one came out. Same with the d7000.
Always buy into a system you understand, appreciate and can afford. For E-mount, f/4 zooms are logical choice. I like that Sony has now completed a zoom trio for FF: 16-35/4 OSS ZA, 24-70/4 OSS ZA and 70-200/4 OSS G, completing a meaningful range of 16mm thru 200mm. A travel zoom lens (24-240) on the map.
For primes, Sonnar 35 is excellent option as the smallest and lightest possible combination on a7 series body. Sonnar 55 is an excellent lens. And I expect Loxia 50/2 to be as well. Now, there are additional lens options, with those wanting more speed caring less about size (Distagon 35/1.4) and those wanting small size without as much speed (Loxia 35/2).
FE 28/2 looks like a consumer oriented lens (not a Zeiss), and may also be a versatile solution with matched tele/fish eye conversion lenses. FE 90/2.8 OSS G (also not a Zeiss) address macro needs, and also covers a portrait option (also until an 85mm is announced).
bernardly: I hope they will not be as big as depicted. Because the whole point of mirrorless is the size and weight advantage of the shorter flange distance to the sensor. I hope it is not the AF and OIS systems that will be bulking up the lenses.
Your quality of arguments make me question if you even have a camera.
People looking for a 35mm f/1.4 lens aren't looking for a pocketable solution. That lens is for that market.
There are two other choices: Loxia 35mm f/2, which is fairly small and makes for a good sized system with any a7 body. Then there is Sonnar 35, which makes for a system that is as small and light as it gets. With the Sonnar on a7r, you're looking at a camera that weighs only 585g. To put that in perspective, Canon 5DIII weighs 950g (body-only).
Rob Sims: Can anyone explain what happens to the equivalent aperture when you stick on an Ultra Wide converter? Does the 28/2.0 just become a 21/2.0?
It is like using a tele-conversion lens. The f-stop stays (minimal losses in t-stop), as opposed to tele-converters where you lose f-stop. For example, when using Sony DH1758 (and old 1.7x TC lens) on Minolta 70-210/4, the exposure values remains unaffected so it behaves like a 360mm (540mm equiv) f/4 lens.
It also has more features than Canon. Probably better build inside out too. A lens can be made lighter with cheaper plastics too. That won't make for a good argument, would it?
If you're THAT sensitive to weight, perhaps time to reconsider a move from DSLR.
It is still the smallest.
Better than simply presenting an updated road map. Mock-ups are to provide an idea, and a good idea.
Rob Sims: Zeiss Distagon T* FE 35/1.4 looks very interesting, although what's the bet that it will be even more $$ than their FE 55/1.8?
On the other end of the scale, I image the 24-240mm could prove to be popular purely based on it's versatility. The big question is obvious around what image quality sacrifice has had to be made to achieve that.
35/1.4 won't be cheap. Such lenses aren't (generally priced around $1500).
It will still be an f/2 lens, so 21mm f/2 in that case.
Dimit: Clear is:Digital photography is a joint venture of electronics as well as optics.Sony is no.1 in electronics,no doubt.Zeiss is no.1 in optics.no doubt.Jointly they'll become no.1 in the near future,that's what logic says.More lens(no doubt),more a mount cameras(no doubt) is a subdivision of this procedure..all the rest is e-whining,trolls,etc,etc...
Sony has quietly become a sales leader in some key markets, just not in North America, yet (NA appears to be a slower ship to turn). If Sony were more aggressive with A-mount as well, it would be easier in NA as well, but the growth has mainly been thru E-mount and in markets that are adopted that approach.
mick232: So how exactlly do you mount an E-mount lens to an A-mount body using an adapter? Clearly, this must be possible, since the SVP calls the two systems "fully compatible".
Or is that only possible in Sony fantasy land, where we declare two systems compatible regardless of the reality?
I think "fully compatible" is a poor choice of words. "Complimentary" would be more appropriate.
Dave Oddie: Aren't these lenses a throwback to a former era? Just because in the days of film 70-200 F2.8's were kind of state of the art in terms of fast tele zooms why on smaller sensors do we want to replicate that particular focal length range on a 50-150 or whatever?
I don't consider F2.8 fast for focal length on 150 even in a zoom and you can get 50-200 lenses that are a stop slower at 150 (i.e. F4) so given the superior high ISO capabilities of modern sensors that in my opinion reduced the need even further. The 50-200's are cheap to buy and a lot lighter and weight seems to be a factor in the article.
Depth of field, F2.8 v F4? There is virtually nothing in it at 50mm or 150mm.
Don't see the point myself.
Exactly. A 70-200/2.8 makes sense as a lens that manages to reach as far as possible, at f/2.8, while keeping the size, weight and cost reasonable. If a 70-300/2.8 could be done similarly, they would be as much, if not more, popular but we run into issues there in terms of size/weight/cost.
OTOH, creating 70-200 "equiv" lenses for sake of creating it, makes little sense. The author has also presented it as a portrait option. Sure, but on APS-C, the only value with an f/2.8 lens for that application is 70-100mm range. One would be better deveoping a significantly smaller/lighter/cheaper 70mm f/2.8 lens for that. In fact, 60/2 would be even better and significantly more useful for that purpose.
But, I guess, there is an audience and sellers with interest for a range that is limiting.
Seeky: It's a pity that you say FE-mount even after being corrected by Shigeki. It's simply A and E, and the term FE is used for FF E-mount lenses, not the mount. Simply like Nikon, which has DX and FX lenses but only one F-mount.
Yep. Those who call self "professionals" (photographers and reviewers alike) should be ashamed of doing that.
Habs Fan27: I'm guessing by having only 13 'E' lenses he meant for Full frame.
"We certainly have a lot of work to do to gain a good reputation with professionals - like long zooms for sports and so on. But we also need to make more affordable, light and small lenses."
I hope that he means some small affordable APS-C lenses are on the horizon.
An APSc lens can compare in size, cost and weight to a FF lens. When a common FL is involved, it is better to build FF lens instead. The cost can be brought down by using cheaper build quality. Among FF camera, the recently announced FE 28mm f/2 may be just that. This would benefit all E-mount buyers, not just one format or the other.
ManuelVilardeMacedo: I liked this interview. Mr. Ishizuka is thoroughly honest, realistic and straightforward. He acknowledges that photographers tend to build systems around their lens collection, so he reckons Sony need to offer more lenses if they expect to counter Canikon duopoly. That's a breath of fresh air; given the way consumers are specs-led, it would be easy for Sony to concentrate on offering cameras with over-the-top specs, but they don't. Sony seem serious about the photography business. Some decades ago it was different, with pseudo-innovations that were obsolete in a few weeks' time and loads of useless gadgetry. Now Sony are more down-to-earth. That's very welcome.
Some of it is pure common sense. For example, the popular rhetoric that Sony dropped NEX in favor of Alpha, is based on lack of understanding. NEX stills cameras were Alpha. For example:Sony Alpha NEX-6, not Sony NEX-6.
What Sony did was that it dropped use of acronym "NEX" (which was also used on non-Alpha line, as in video cameras). In a way, this also simplifies the naming standard: Sony Alpha NEX-6 was replaced with Sony Alpha 6000.
As for lens options, I'm glad Sony has followed a common sense approach rather than glamor. The latter is a nice approach to appeal via infatuation but offering common sense options is what people look at. If someone wants a 650g walk around lens with a 300g body, they can look elsewhere. To me, a 300g lens makes more sense (That is also more versatile).
John McMillin: The best reason to buy a mirror less is to get a smaller and lighter camera. So doesn't it make sense to provide smaller and lighter lenses for it? That hardly seems worth arguing about. And bring on the f4 lenses, too. If they were useful in the days of !SO 200 films, they certainly have a use now. Recently I used a Minolta 70-210/4 Beercan with my a850 FF for a portrait shoot, and the results delighted me, and my customer. How fuzzy a background do you want, anyhow?
That should be:70-200 equiv options on APS-c being compared to 105-300mm equiv options on APS-c.
Including equivalence on only one but not the other, or vice versa, makes no sense especially since you're using the same format. Assuming FL range on one, and equivalence on the other is another cause for confusion.
@Richard: You wrote this article.
" I'd argue they make more sense for many photographers than actual 70-200mm lenses do."
What is that supposed to mean? Are you comparing 70-200/2.8 lenses on APS-c vs 70-200 "equiv" lenses on APS-c?
You created a whole article on comparing size and weight of 105-300mm equiv lenses to 70-200 equiv lenses, only to draw a conclusion that they are smaller?
You do realize that a 70-200/2.8 lens has a different purpose than a 50-140/2.8 lens would on the same format. Right?
May be you could edit the article to suggest this is not intended to be a comparison between a 70-200/2.8 on a FF body vs a 70-200/4 equiv lens on an APS-c.