PPierre: Almost everyone on Sony FF has the 55, and they release an 50f1.8... Had they released a cheap 85f2.0 (like, sub $500), they would have made both FF owners and aps-c owner happy.
Even though I think Sony is moving in the right direction with some cheaper primes (28 and 50), I really think they're making a mistake. However, this 50 could come as a kit lens, which would be a good move :)
Since they made the GM lens an f1.4, I think f2 for a cheaper version makes sense. Kind of like Canon with the 85L and 85mm f1.8. I like 2x progressions with primes, so I think a 100mm f2 would be cool, and there aren't any of those for the system. 28/50/100 is a nice well-rounded prime kit.
mosc: This is great news. Now, call the new subsidiary "Minolta".
Minolta no longer means anything but a failed camera company.
ray-ray: The Sony brand may look good on some products to which we were introduced over the years, like radios, TV's, telephones and at one time the ubiquitous Walkman, however, no matter how good the camera, the Sony moniker just doesn't have the "camera" appeal. Re-brand with Minolta and watch interest and sales pick up.
That would have been a good idea in 2005. but with all the work they have done in 10 years, Sony means a lot more than Minolta now.
designdog: For many reasons, companies venture into integrated back stream supply. At some point the "supply" entity can become more or less strategic, more or less profitable, more or less resource dependent.
When you strip the overall contributions to and from this entity, and look at it on its own, it sometimes makes sense to split it out. If the entity is doing poorly, you let it stand on its own and fail. If it is doing well, you sell it with right of supply contracts.
You went to a very advanced business college if that was taught in your first 101 or 1000 level class!
white shadow: Too expensive and heavy for a "compact" camera.
I suspect if you compare it to any combo out there with an EVF and 24-600mm weather sealed lenses, you'd find it to still be very compact in relative terms.
Androole: Holy moly.
Wow, Sony really doesn't want to settle for 2nd in this category. Finally a worthwhile retort to the FZ1000 and then some.
Of course, that's serious pocket change. But for most people, it's all they'd ever need.
It's also 2x the price of the FZ1000
rsf3127: Ok. Where is my 249 USD 35mm 1.8f?
I think their hands are tied since they made a $800 35mm f2.8 with a Zeiss tag on it. How could they sell a cheaper f1.8 now? That's probably why they had to make the 28mm f2 instead.
Mssimo: 70-300mm 3.5-5.6 is usually a "kit" lens but this one has a high pricetag. I wonder how good it is.
For the price, I would expect it to compete with Canon's 70-300L. That's an outstanding lens.
Old Cameras: 50/1.8 = good, $249 = great!70-300/4.5-5.6 = good, $1199 = are you out of your minds?
Canon 70-300mm L is that price, even though they also sell a $450 version. It's not always just about the focal length per dollar.
bluevellet: I didn't expect them to deliver a cheap 50mm, not at f1.8. Good for them. But they need a whole lineup of cheap f1.8, at different focal lengths, just to compete with Canikon.
They don't need EVERY focal length to be competitive, just something in each key category. They have 28mm f2, 35mm f2.8 and not 50mm f1.8 that are affordable. Add an f2 portrait length prime for, say, $600 and I think you have a pretty nice lineup available. 100mm f2 maybe?
I have specifically dismissed Sony FF because I don't need a $1000 nifty fifty, even if it is "das Uber-Zeiss". This makes the system MUCH more attractive to me now.
Now if they came out with an affordable portrait prime, I'd be shopping for an A7 II.
Looks impressive, but so is the pricetag!
4everAnoob: "Too much distortion cry cry..." Yawn who cares, finally an exciting lens is released for apsc emount, and people still whine, just shut up!
sweet burn, bro.
bluestarc2k: Nice, I downloaded and checked it out, one problem I couldn't find the HDR plug in. I'm using Lightroom 6 and Elements 14. Anyone else notice this.
The fine print says the HDR one is not compatible with Elements.
joe6pack: I'm still not clear after reading their webpages. Do they have a single software that can read and process RAW files? What are the supported formats?
LR, etc, converts your RAW to TIFF or JPEG and then sends it over to the plugin. It's not for RAW.
tkbslc: Canon 85mm f1.8 = $370Nikon 85mm f1.8 G = $426 Sigma 85mm f1.4 = $870
I wish them a lot of luck, but I just don't see where it fits in.
@Havoc315: You are absolutely correct, I'm sorry. I have been using m4/3 lately and I assumed you meant the Olympus 45mm f1.8.
Forget I argued with you and you made a good point.
45mm is irrelevant as that's for a different system. Canon 85 and Tamron 85 fit on the same cameras.
@Duncan - why shouldn't I compare current prices. Someone on the market for an 85mm right now surely will. MSRP for both lenses is still about 2/3 of what the Tamron sells for, sale or no. I do appreciate your different framing of the prices, though. I can see how some may value that feature and consider it a bargain.
@bendon1000 - I'll agree with that. If it is truly special optically then it may be worth the price. Canon 85mm is over 20 years old at this point!
That said, the existing 85's are not lenses that people regularly complain about.
Younes B: Anyone compared D5500 vs D7200 ? I see color retention on a D5500 while the D7200 shidts to Brown... not the same sensor obviously. I think the D5500 has an edge..
Brown shidts are not that uncommon. Nothing to worry about.
NeilBart: The Canon 80D looks a good package for both imaging and video. Check out the banding with the Nikon D7100 on these settings! Why didn't Nikon fix that with a firmware update?
But didn't Sony buy Toshiba anyway? It's Sony now!