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 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.
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?