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?
@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.
That is the point. It somehow compares 70-200/2.8 on FF to 50-140/2.8 on APS-c. Isn't that an issue when you consider DPR's own take on how aperture equivalence matters? Why compare it to 70-200/2.8 then?
A 70-200 lens on APS-C is a narrower FOV (That is a whole different argument).
shademaster: Hey, Sony. If you make an APS-C A-Mount 50-150 f/2.8 at 770g like the sigma, I'll buy it and an SLT.
Also: it is frustrating that all the long e-mount stuff is full frame. It would be nice to make an e-mount fast long zoom for aps-c that doesn't weight/cost a ton. I guess we'll all stick with samsung and fuji.
That FF option on Sony gives you longer reach (105-300mm equiv), at a lower cost and lighter weight (size is about the same). But if you prefer a zoom lens that doesn't go as far, weighs more, and costs more, than you should consider the Samsung or Fuji.
I think the argument should be, why is there a need to compare a 50-140/2.8 or so, APS-c lens to a 70-200/2.8 lens on FF? Shouldn't the comparison be to 70-200/4 lenses (same FOV and DOF control)?
brownie314: Why doesn't Sigma pick up where they left off with the 18-35/1.8 and do a 40-70(or 80 if possible) fast zoom? Maybe f/2 or f/2.2. These two lenses together and you would not need any primes for aps-c. Nice.
No need for infinite number, unless you use infinite focal lengths and I don't. Sigma 18-35/1.8 is 811g. A 20mm (pancake) and 35mm and a 50mm prime, plus camera body is 800g.
Well, if you prefer to carry torpedo launchers and at a higher cost. :D
Landscapephoto99: Light capture on m43 at f2.8 is NOT comparable to a FF f5.6. If that reasoning were correct, all of the f2.8 APS-C lenses would really be f4.0 lenses. An f2.8 is an f2.8 on any format in terms of light gathering. DoF, and size, is the only difference.
A few months ago, DPR published this: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Now, we have an article that chooses to ignore one half of the previous article and suggests 45-140mm/2.8 is comparable to 70-200/2.8 on FF. :D
sans culotte: "Equivalence theory" pushed by some guys is absurd cause it's never used to really compare systems. Why Richard Butler uses his "equivalence" only when talking about m43? Why he doesn't use it when talking about APS-C? Why he doesn't compare FF to medium format? If you wish you could call it DOF equivalence, but not equivalent aperture. Just cause aperture is focal length divided by diameter of entrance pupil. There's much easier to understand camera+lens capabilities dealing with some real physical numbers like Aperture, Focal length, ISO, not their pseudo-"equivalent" distorted versions.Why is Pana 35-100 f/2.8 comparable to FF 70-200 f/5.6? To match the exposure I would need to push ISO 2 stops higher on FF which would result in higher noise despite all "light capture", is it somehow equivalent?
@Richard, how do you reconcile this article with another: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2666934640/what-is-equivalence-and-why-should-i-care
Equivalence is fundamental to both articles, and this latest one is using it only selectively for some reason. And if not for equivalence, we won't be comparing a 70-200 lens to a 50-140.
Juck: The Canon 70-200 F/4 non-IS deserves a mention here,,,, one of the sharpest zooms out there,,, lightweight at 705g and 'only' $700.
Well, that would make too much sense.
vscd: You will *never* get the same picture on the Crop as with a 200mm @f2.8 on fullframe. Yes it's bigger gear... but why do you all scream for size? If you nail a pin you use a hammer, not a spoon.
70-200/2.8 on FF has primarily been an action/sports choice, it is about as far reach as one gets with convenient size and cost. On APS-C, the portrait limits are in 70-100 range (gets too close in my opinion). One might be better off with a 85/1.8: smaller, lighter and cheaper (and faster), if one really wants a tighter framing.
A 24/2.8, 35/1.8, 50/1.4 and may be even a 85/1.8 would make more sense than two big lenses at over $2K.
Just another Canon shooter: "I owned a 70-200mm lens for several years and rarely used it, because I couldn't face carrying it around.
However, a 50-150mm (in this case the first-generation, 770g unstabilized Sigma) was light enough that I had it with me and was able to quickly grab a shot when I bumped into the then National Circuit Race and World Track Team Pursuit champion."
The Canon 70-200/4 IS is 10g lighter.
Richard, 70-200 on APS-c would be 105-300mm equiv, compared to 75-210 or so equiv out of these smaller lenses on APSc.
BTW, in the past, DPR and you have considered even aperture equivalence (complete with aperture equivalence charts). Not this time. Why?
Has the priority for a telephoto zoom gone down from greater reach at faster speed to shorter reach because it is "equivalent" reach to a larger sensor?
Le Frog: "Its depth-of-field and light capture costs (it's most directly comparable to a Full Frame 70-200mm F5.6)"
No, no, no, dear DPR, in a telephoto, deep DoF is never ever a cost, it is always a benefit! Who wants (and why would he want) shallow DoF@200mm? And whenever you can use the 35-100 wide open, while, with an APS or FF camera, you would have had to stop down the lens, to get sufficient DoF, there is no light capture cost either.
Please, please, please, do not encourage the trolling of the shallow DoF brigade. Pretty please with a cherry on top and plenty of whipped cream and chocolate fudge?
Not sure why anybody would buy an APS-C 135-150mm zoom lens for birding. Even 200mm (300mm equiv) can be limiting.
Foroa: Well, I am using the 18-105 G f4 lens (27-157 eq) on my Sony A6000, and I feel that, at 430 gram, it is a nice compromise.
Stray, is f/2.8 the definition of a bright lens these days?
photo nuts: To Richard Butler:Your comparisons to the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on APS-C cameras make no sense to me.
While the mirrorless offerings have an equivalent focal length of ~ 70-200 on FF, mounting the 70-200 f/2.8 lenses on APS-C cameras result in ~ 105-300 on FF.
That is not a fair comparison.
Why not compare the various ~ 50-150 f/2.8 lenses on crop cameras to 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 on FF. While the f/4 version on FF is slower by a stop, the DOF are comparable.
IMO, I'll take 70-200 f/4 on FF any day over 50-150 f/2.8 on APS-C. The only exception is the Panasonic 35-100 f/2.8 for m43. Why Olympus chooses to go down the 40-150 f/2.8 route beats me.
What razor thin DOF at 300mm equiv at f/2.8 on APS-c? Unless you buy a telephoto lens for portraiture, close ups, you would more likely than not wish for shallower DOF, especially on occasions where f/2.8 would be useful.
As an APS-c shooter, if I'm going to carry a lens that weighs 2+ lb (more so, if I bought a mirror-less body for size/weight) and spend almost as much, I would rather get greater reach.
kevindar: If this lens performs as well as the newly released canon 16-35 f4IS and the nikon 14-24, it may be time for me to seriously look at sony for my full frame needs, at the next generation of A7r where the AF of a6000 (or better) is incorporated, battery life is improved, mirror slap is gone.
As long as it works really well from 18-28, anything wider or narrower (28-35) would be simply icing, especially at 35mm where it basically gives way to a normal zoom or a prime (depending on one's preference).
Thiom: Not that much smaller or more lightweight than the equally spec'd DSLR competition by Canikon. It eventually turns out as I always suspected: lenses for FF mirrorless are not going to be that much smaller than SLR designs as they have to deliver the same amount of light to the sensor.
The A7s are nice cameras for sure, but for traveling really light and compact regarding the entire kit as possible with APS-C mirrorless or MFT shooters have to confine themselves to relatively slow primes. If one's happy with that, OK. But when fast (zoom) glass is desired brace yourself for DSLR-like bulk and weight of the kit bag.
Yawning isn't helping you rather clouding your judgement. But then, you weren't here to be reasoned with. So yes, if you don't see camera-lens as a system, rather only lens, or only camera body, then you could float your boat with it... likely needing an anchor anyway.
1565 vs 983g is not 100g, but 582g.
TORN: Nice lens but did they say when they start to build small and leight for a realistic price?
Comparable lenses have comparable prices, be it Sony, Canon or Nikon.