mjoshi: It says E-Mount so will this work with Sony A6000 or this is only meant for Sony A7 series ?
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.
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).