josseee: dpreview shows its "profesionality"..only one week delayed news.
anyway, still no 85mm lens..not even a mention about it being planned (only some rumors). Instead we get a 3th 35mm lens :D
"the same "apsc-people" logic applies to the 35, dont you think?"
Indeed. 35mm is "normal" FL on APS-C (wide angle on FF), which can be served with a 35mm FF lens. Same for 24mm (super wide on FF, wide angle on APS-c). IMO, E 24 and E 35 should both be FE lenses. As should E 50 (normal FL on FF, kinda almost portrait lens on APS-c).
As for 85mm, if your argument is that 135mm (FF) FOV has been popular, you don't need to stretch for a 127mm equiv lens. The FE 90mm would give you 135mm FF equiv on APS-c.
plamens: Except 28/2 all of the lenses are HUGE!!The main concept of the mirrorless is the small size, but with these HUGE lenses..Absolutely meaningless!!!They are even bigger and heavier than the same DSLR lenses!Sony, please consider to make small lenses, like olympus, panasonic, fujifilm and samsung stuffs! That because I would not buy any of them! Maybe except 28/2:)
Samsung 50-150 is also shorter on FL, so it ought to be smaller (and is to be used on a flange, that is longer) so overall length is slightly shorter. It is negligibly thicker, and heavier than Sony 70-200, not to mention... more expensive.
mjoshi: It says E-Mount so will this work with Sony A6000 or this is only meant for Sony A7 series ?
Well, if 28mm focal length works for you, FE 28/2 should. I personally use E 8, E 20 and E 35, along with adapted 50mm lenses (could have picked E 50). For ultra-wide, you can also have 12/2.8 (Touit) and 12/2 (Rokinon) options. APS-C line is well covered.
Average User: It is nice to see Sony will finally have some fast lenses to go with the A7 cameras. But it's a shame they have elected to produce only f4 zooms; whole reason to buy a full frame is better low light...but then Sony handicaps the cameras with F-4 zooms instead of industry standard F 2.8 and your better off in low light with a Nikon D7100 (or even a d3300) and a Sigma f 1.8 18-35, or a Tamron 24-70 f2.8.
f/4 zooms are popular even on SLR mounts, for being more convenient (a point of carrying a zoom lens to begin with). After all, what is the point of Canon 70-200/4 with 70-200/2.8 as well, right? Why not just sell f/2.8, and not the other?
A system built around portability needs solutions that logically tie to that aspect, first. You can see this with 35mm options. The first choice was slower, but very small and light 35/2.8. Need speed? Now there is 35/1.4.
The Name is Bond: They need to get their pro zooms sorted out. The rough bokeh on them is one of the reasons I dismissed Sony as a a wedding system.
To be fair, a 24-70mm f/2.8 lens has limited value as a bokeh monster.
josseee, polls get funnier when it is the APS-c folks who think of 85mm as the portrait FL on APS-c cameras (they tend to overlook that 85mm portraiture, while useable on APS-c, it primarily a FF FL).
I think 90/2.8 is a good double duty option, instead of buying two lenses (and 85mm and a macro lens, one can buy just one). I currently use 70/2.8 (on APS-c). An f/1.8 or faster makes more sense only if you shoot in low light). f/2.8 on FF at 90mm offers pretty good DOF control on FF.
And Naveed, the APS-c lens(es) you speak of aren't 70-200 either.
Cal22: Not any word about the Loxia line? I'd expect a 25mm or a 21mm to be announced.
You don't need AF in wide angle photography (with primes)!
Loxia is a Zeiss line. This article is about Sony (which has its own Zeiss line).
bluevellet, I thought you claimed FF lenses like Sigma 35/1.4 would suck on APS-c bodies (which Nikon D7100 is). Make up your mind. Pentax makes FF lenses, without a FF body. I wonder who they would sell those lenses to. Film SLR users?
If it is an E-mount lens, it can be used on any E-mount camera. All lenses, FF (marked "FE" on the lens) and APS-c (Marked "E" on the lens), will work on any APS-C camera, just like all FF lenses on DSLRs work APS-c DSLRs (Canon, Sony, Nikon and Pentax). In fact, Pentax makes many FF lenses even though it has no FF body.
With Sony (and Nikon DSLRs), you can also use APS-c lenses on FF bodies but in this case, you're advised to use the FF camera as an APS-C camera since the lens will not light up all of the FF sensor properly.
Chillbert: As a NEX user, am I just paranoid or is Sony basically giving up on developing any more small lightweight E-mount lenses for APS-C size cameras? They seem to be so far behind Fujifilm in terms of lens range and performance, and their roadmap is all bigger FE lenses.
What smaller and lighter lens are you looking for? And what would be the specs? For that matter, what lens did Fuji just announce that fit the profile of small and light?
Peiasdf: Don't make that 35 f/1.4 a Zeiss. I don't want to pay $1500 for normal prime. The $800 XF 23mm F1.4 R is about as much as I can afford to pay for a prime.
35/1.4 lenses typically carry that price tag. Zeiss, or otherwise.
raztec: I'm still perplexed why people choose a FF camera and then slap a wide zoom like the 24-240 on it. It will be optically impossible for this lens to be sharp. I doubt the final image will be any sharper than an RX10, so why not just buy that instead for the price of the lens alone?
And not to mention how unbalanced it will be on a A7body.
You'd have to figure out why people buy zoom lenses, travel zooms or otherwise.
Being a prime lens guy, especially when it comes to portability solutions, zooms take a back seat. But, it is good to have one that covers it all on specific occasions, while the camera is primarily used with primes.
JimBob0: Shigeki, could you tell us why, with all the letters in the alphabet, did you name a mount FE? Which isn't that dissimilar to another brand...
Where in the world did you learn about some "FE-mount"? May be DPR? It is "E-mount". Mr Shigeki isn't the one asking the question.
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!
I think you should worry more about logic avoiding to touch you.
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.
@marcelobtp: "A heavier weight body and with better ergonomics can balance well with longer and heavier lenses"
I disagree. My only opposition to bigger and heavier lenses is loss of portability which is the key marketing point of mirror-less cameras at this time. But, with primes, you can keep size and weight in check. The Distagon 35, for example, may be big for a prime, but it will work fine with a7-series. I see no point to adding more weight to the body, with equally heavy lenses.
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.
I meant Distagon for E-mount. Note that Sony A-mount 24/2 is a Distagon, but for E-mount (APS-c in this case), the 24/1.8 is a Sonnar.
jimrpdx: It continues to stun me that FF 36×24 and E-mount are in the same sentence, while the A-mount is shunned like a sick dog. That's impressive, as I thought Sony could no longer stun me with anything...
FF and E-mount have been in same sentence since the mount was launched in 2010.
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.
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.