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.
The "equivalence" crowd has spoken, as if "exposure equivalence" wasn't enough. You can't do anything about it. :)
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.
Well, if this article is about personal preference, then it makes sense (and should be presented as such). But, if you're working on equivalence to make a point, you need to be consistent about it, and apply that idea to both, not just one.
Not to mention, if your idea is that 50-150/2.8 would be the ideal portrait lens on APS-c, sure... over a very small range. But, now you're also throwing it as a substitute for an 85/1.4. Really?
A 70-200/2.8 appeals to those with FF camera who shoot sports, and as portrait zoom. And given DPR's own article on "why equivalence matters", you're basically proposing that a 70-200/4 equiv lens is a good choice on APS-c for portraiture.
A 70-200/2.8 also appeals to those with APS-c who want greater reach with a larger aperture: sports photography. A 70-200 "equiv" might be okay, if you're also looking for something to go farther with speed.
IMO, pick up a 90mm f/2.8, and use it for portraiture: cheaper, smaller and lighter.
Arnold50: Fully agree. As a user of Sony/Minolta A-mount, I bought a NEX6 to get some leight weight equipment. A leight-weight APS-C equivalent of a F2,8/70-200 APS-C E-mount would have my full attention.Technologically a F2,5/50-140 OSS Power Zoom APS_C with only some 750 gram weight and about 12 cm length would be doable for about $ 1500, but a F 2,8/55-150 also would be fine. I posted a similar plea at Dyxxum.com about a week ago. Feedback is mostly from FF adepts who won't see my point: leveraging the size benefit of APS-C is key. Depth of field requires large aperture.
Are you saying that it is impossible to make a smaller 16-50 but possible to make a 50-140 which is only marginally larger than that?
Tapper123: Are any of these lenses weather resistant?
Also, are the A7 camera bodies weather resistant? I have read they are, but some say they are not. Not sure what to believe.
I think Sony needs another acronym to identify lenses as WR. :D
Harry S: As far as boundary pushing goes Sony is pretty much ahead of everyone else at the moment, they have to be given credit for that. RX1, a7 etc, the 'big two' are nowhere near that innovative.
The big problem...communication and loyalty. If they could just take 20% of what Fuji do for their users in terms of firmware updates, ongoing improvements, support for old models, clear roadmaps full of stuff people want etc etc etc, they would grow their user base much quicker in my opinion.
JAP, it is not that Sony has never added features via firmware updates, even a7-series. Right?
Marcelobtp: Sony should pusuit with A7 cameras the low megapixel low light performance and video performance in a box.And sports Af if possible.High megapixel count needs to be put in a very good tripod, and very good lenses to get the best of it. A7s is not a niche if priced right. I would switched to sony if A7s had better and faster Af, and the 4k video internal.Next iteration please bring this, and make more faster primes.The core of the system should be faster and small primes with aperture control.
quezra, counting on such pros will have you believe in existence of an "FE-mount" too. Not to mention, an article comparing 70-200mm "equiv" lens on APS-c to 70-200mm lenses that can be used on APS-c.
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...
FE mount was mentioned by an ill-informed interviewer. Mr Shigeki replied as "E-mount". Don't blame Sony for that.
Plastek: Sony confused itself with it's naming conventions.
Now it's "one system" even though everyone and their mothers know that these are clearly 2 separate systems: A and E mount.
But, unlike popular belief, within one ILC family: Alpha. Sort of like the EOS family from Canon (two mounts, or can we consider it three?)
halc: Why so slow lenses?
Where is the old Minolta optical-mechanical prowess?
I've owned some of Minolta's well regarded lenses... 24-50/4, 35-70/4, 35-105/3.5-4.5, 70-210/4... pretty good coverage from 24mm to 210mm at constant f/4.
On E-mount (FF), we see that from 16-200mm via a trio of stabilized zooms. Add a7r, and the zoom trio, you've a system weighing 2250g. That is about what a FF DSLR with a 70-200/2.8 weighs.
Likewise, an E-mount (APS-c) system with a6000 and 15-300mm equiv FOV coverage at 1715g.
Although, you also have a choice to add f/1.4, f/1.8 and f/2 lenses.
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.
I see zoom lenses merely for convenience. Primes are where I look at, for size, weight and speed benefits. Primes that are f/2.8 are considered slower for a reason. Why should a zoom be considered fast? It too is just as slow. At least with f/2.8 primes, you can expect reduced size and weight. OTOH, zoom lenses get porky at f/2.8.
I have NEX-6, and the ideal zoom IMO is 16-70/4, complimented with E 35 (or E 50 for some who prefer that FL). I also have an a55, and that one with 16-50/2.8. I complimented that too with DT 35 for low-light, low weight/size solution (replaced it with E 35).
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.
The 1" cameras won't be able to match the IQ, not even RX10 with its constant aperture lens. In terms of equivalence alone, you'd need the 1" cameras to cover the range at f/1.3-f/2.3. :D
The DPR article comes across as a sales/marketing speak. The best argument I've seen is that it can be useful as a portrait zoom lens. But then, on APS-C, under 70mm (at f/2.8) and over 100mm is not really portrait friendly. One would be better with a single prime between 70-100mm... a lot lighter, smaller and cheaper.
So, here we have lenses that are neither here, sort of mid-tele range that might be useful on some occasions where you can get close enough, and useless when you find 150mm to be insufficient. Even 200mm can be limiting, but at least it is better!
But hey, it isn't my $$$ that would go towards such "great developments".
Which of these two lenses is 750g and 12cm, much less f/2.5? Samsung's 16-50 approaches that specs, and you're expecting a 50-140 to?
If you're going to set expectations, keep them realistic.
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.
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.