Well, a full frame lens is a full frame lens, no matter what body you put behind... This said, it seems like a lot fo people are mislead by the relation body to lens size, which make these lenses in the photos look bigger than they really are.
Some of the commenters here below seem to forget how small the A7 bodies are, which is why they think that the lenses are huge in relation to them.
GodSpeaks: "extremely useful for Macro Photography and Portrait Shooting "
Portrait shooting? Strange, but I have never had the desire to do 2x marco shots of the people of whom I take portraits.
Yep, God needs activate brain before opening mouth.
quatpat: Why don't we see any photos of the extended lens? Too ugly to show?
Yes that's true, but there is still a tube extending in the front. It proabably looks similar to the 70-300L when extend:http://media.the-digital-picture.com/Images/Standard/Lenses/Comparison/No-Hood/Extended-MFD/Canon-EF-70-300mm-f-4-5.6-IS-L-USM-Lens.jpg
Why don't we see any photos of the extended lens? Too ugly to show?
Jon_Doh: Canon continues to fall farther behind the competition. There will come a point in time when they can no longer rely upon "it's the entire system that matters" and their lens line up. True, the 7D II is a great upgrade, but the 5D III is long in the tooth and over priced and the rest of their line up simply stinks.
Canon is not bringing out anything really new and fails to replace their stone-old 100-400mm, Nikon does not seem to want to take the D300 to a D400 and concentrates on full-frame only, Sony brings out only FE mount lenses and completely forgets about A-mount... where is this all going? Are we doomed? Will there be no tomorrow? Maybe Nostradamus got it all wrong, and it is all going to happen right now, at Photokina 2014...!!!
Frank_BR: If you think this lens is too heavy, you should not forget that you still need a tripod weighing as much as the lens itself. I.e., using this lens incurs an additional weight of about 6kg in your photographic bag.
I wonder at the wisdom of Sigma in designing a lens like this. Perhaps it would be more interesting if Sigma had designed a 50-300mm F3.5 lens for M43. I believe it is technically possible to build a professional lens with those specs, but that does not weigh much more than 1kg. Such a lens could be used handheld by most photographers. It would be a winner.
I guess you haven't done much of hand-held bird photography? For example, when shooting form a car 2-3kg is not too heavy, and this weight can even be used hand-held for quite a while if you are used to it. On the other hand, a 50-300mm for birding would be simply too short, unless you live on the Galapagos Islands, or maybe in Costa Rica.
DrLogic: No stabilization for Sony? The extra reach is useless without stabilization... And this is a very large range kit lens - the single IQ compromise range somebody takes on a holiday to replace a whole a whole bunch of lenses, so they aren't likely to be using a tripod. Doesn't make sense.
Tamron and Sigma have been doing this for a long time... since they sell less items for Sony and Pentax mounts, it must be cheaper for them to make a second version without OIS.
jamesbm: Hi - is the Contemporary version available in Sony FE or A-mount - the article seems to contradict itself? Thanks
Looks like FE mount only for the near future... but you're right, it could be both too, since they are announcing the lack of OIS for Sony.
Does make sense for Sony A-mount cameras, since they have sensor stabilization. Maybe for Sony E-mout they will leave the OS in...
Suhas Sudhakar Kulkarni: Another @3 KG lens..too heavy. 1 KG heavier than Tamron.
That's why they also offer a second, lighter version...
Hahaha... good laugh!
SaltLakeGuy: I worked with the MkII and 16-50 f2.8 and 70-300G for a few weeks doing some vendor analysis for them. My conclusions are:* It is supremely well built and ergonomically laid out* Indeed the autofocus in half way decent light is leagues better than most anything available out there at any price, HOWEVER get it in very low light (which I'm sure is rare) and it won't lock focus at all. We are of course talking about light where only a -3EV or -4EV rated camera would lock focus* Their LCD is to die for, color accurate and rich and vibrant even outdoors* On bright reflective subjects the SLT mirror will STILL rear it's ugly head with a hazy reflection in the picture* Love love love that first curtain shutter. The shutter is a pure delight* The 16-50 f2.8 is an ideal kit type lens providing near NO compromise performance. The 70-300G's on the other hand are very "copy dependent"* If you have the $$ get a 70-400G those lenses are unreal
"On bright reflective subjects the SLT mirror will STILL rear it's ugly head with a hazy reflection in the picture."
You sure that this doesn't come from the lens? I have yet to see that "hazy reflection" in my A77 photos... ;)
oldfogey: Either I'm blind or DPR has missed the most significant advance that this camera represents. The high ISO RAW files from the FZ-1000 are almost as good as the best m4/3 cameras, are significantly better than those of the Sony RX-10 and are dramatically better than those of the Nikon V3. If this really is the same 1" sensor that Sony put into the RX-10, Panasonic know something about signal processing that Sony/Nikon did not. DPR's also claims that the Sony lens is sharper than the Panasonic's. If so the test images shot with the Sony must be a bit out of focus.
To oldfogey: The difference between the Nikon V3 and the Pansonic/Sony is due to the absence of an AA-filter in this camera. The noise of th V3 is finer but coarser, while there is slightly more detail retained compared to the other two. You can see this most clearly at around iso 3200, where the Nikon image seems sharper while having more noise. If you use a bit of noise reduction software it will probably look exactely like the others...
I don't know on what you base your observation, but the RX10 looks the same or a tad better at higher iso's, if anything, while the Nikon V3 is about half a stop worse. Not really a big deal IMO. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=panasonic_dmcfz1000&attr13_1=sony_dscrx10&attr13_2=nikon_v3&attr13_3=sony_a6000&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=6400&attr16_1=6400&attr16_2=6400&attr16_3=6400&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.47928792374218804&y=0.11563820794590025
quatpat: Wow, 3.6kg... My Minolta 400/4.5 + 1.4x converter + A77 body weight around 3kg all together. But then of course I shoot at f6.3 instead of f5.6 at 560mm... just didn't know that 1/3 f-stop weights more than half a kilo! Oh, sorry I forgot that I counted mine with the camera... so the 1/3 f-stop weights more something like 1.2 kg. Too much for me.
Talk about fanboyism, roby...
Hahaha nice one micahmedia... go check out on DxO the good Canon sensors and compare to their equivalent bad Sony sensors. :-)Btw, my combo has cost around 4000$ all in all, not 13000 Euros. Have fun shooting...
Wow, 3.6kg... My Minolta 400/4.5 + 1.4x converter + A77 body weight around 3kg all together. But then of course I shoot at f6.3 instead of f5.6 at 560mm... just didn't know that 1/3 f-stop weights more than half a kilo! Oh, sorry I forgot that I counted mine with the camera... so the 1/3 f-stop weights more something like 1.2 kg. Too much for me.
ChrisKramer1: Ou est les review? Mon dieu.
Ou SONT les REVUES... Mon Dieu!
Very nice shot this one! (Actually much better than some of the better placed raptors with a leather band around their feet.) And a good angle of the bird, too.qp