Beta Alphas: Sony shows mockups of upcoming FE lenses for Alpha 7 system

Even A7II, the biggest of A7-series, is much smaller than entry-level FF DSLR http://thenewcamera.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Sony-A7-II-vs-Canon-5D-Mark.jpg

tsammyc wrote:
> The currently sold Sony FE 35mm lens weighs 120g. The closes Canon 35mm lens weighs 194g. To me this is a huge difference

But the Sony lens is f/2.8 and the Canon is f/2.0? That is also a huge difference to me. I have the 5D Mark II, the old EF 35mm and the A7 with 35mm f/2.8. I do wish the Sonnar was f/2.0. I'd happily trade some milligrams for another f stop.

hippo84 wrote:
> Even A7II, the biggest of A7-series, is much smaller than entry-level FF DSLR

Yeah, but the point is that the lens is often the largest part of the camera/lens combo. Check out that 35mm f/1.4 and tell me that that the camera is the big weight. I say this a A7 owner.

I don't think a7 series was made with weight advantage in mind. Lighter? yeah by little, but a7 was more of "professional grade FF mirrorless camera"

If you want light weight FF mirrorless, go with Leica.

72. We can see on picture on this topic(in full screen view)

If you look at the photo of the lens a bit harder, it says 72mm.

Thank you all!

it was just an irony... there is no announcement or leaked info for a new a7s II model... and it may be long till then.
Anyway it is very little reason to replace it, and the IBIS is not big deal for video. Of course it does matter (big time) for the casual hand-held videos... but then who would buy this kind of camera just for videos of their kids (and if one does, the 28-70 lens already has stabilization)...

here, i explained it!

^ troll post.

I would expect 12 - 18 months between release of the original A7S and the Mark II. That's just the way product development and release typically go. But we can hope.

http://www.thephoblographer.com/2013/08/20/konica-minolta-is-rumored-to-be-developing-micro-four-thirds-lenses/#.VLOvrXu4ER8

This is the patent Minolta filed.

@ecube
Yes, the camera division included production of lenses. But the question is, did Sony acquire all the intellectual property pertaining to lens making? I have no idea, myself.

As I said, Sony didn't acquire the whole of Konica Minolta, only the camera division, so the company named Konica Minolta is not a division of Sony. It's a separate company, and they are still in the optical business.

@Revenant - I am a retired engineer, not a lawyer. According to a former officemate who is a patent - Merger/Acquisition attorney, such transaction includes ALL Properties, physical and intellectual. Since both companies are Japanese, he does not know what it is in Japan.

Regardless, Contax is supplying lenses for the "Alpha Dog". My research shows that Contax design the lens but the lenses are manufactured in Japan. Note also that Sony DSLR use the Minolta bayonet-claw mounting. Go Figure.

"Sony retained the K-M name and is actually Konica-Minolta-Sony to take advantage of the K-M heritage / brand recognition" - No, it did not. Sony doesn't have any rights to K-M name nor any rights to use K-M heritage - which they never used. Only people familiar with the history of A-mount know that but Sony didn't advertise it's DSLRs as anything to be a successors of K-M DSLRs.

Sony never benefited from Konica Minolta brand recognition in camera industry. They were specifically forbidden from doing that. That's why even up till now people are surprised when I mention that my A-mount camera is a direct successor to the Minolta and I can use Minolta lenses with it.

"such transaction includes ALL Properties, physical and intellectual" - that's also incorrect. Sony gained most of the intellectual rights, but not all. They bought most of patents related to cameras and lenses, but that's about it. K-M continued to manufacture and design small-sensor lenses for JVC.

Again, I am quoting my Patent Attorney friend who practice law in the USA. He also said he does not know the law in Japan. I don't know if the law in other countries, say, in Poland is different.

As far as SONY NOT benefiting from K-M, it is a matter of opinion. As for the A-mount, Sony made changes on that too. I have a 58mm f/1.2 Minolta Rokkor lens on my Minolta SRT-102 and it does not fit into a Sony Alpha.

The 58mm f/1.2 does not have the Minolta AF A mount, but the older SR (MC/MD) manual focus mount (more or less back from 1959). Minolta changed bayonet/mount to the AF A mount in 1985. Sony continued that A mount unchanged. Minolta A mount lenses works perfect on Alpha A cameras.

Please share one of your lens designs for a Full Frame Mirrorless camera. Genius!

@HowaboutRAW: actually that is many, many years away (if at all) in interchangeable lenses. The idea will work great in fixed and non-zoom lens cameras, and hopefully we'll see it soon (in a model such as a future RX1)

badi:

The basic point about how to avoid vignetting applies, it's why things like the Otuses are so big.

It is not an absolute formula.

My understanding is that the current RX1 has a film era lens design--it leaves a bit to be desired.

My point was that for a curved sensor you have to design a fixed lens. I've read some article explaining why each lens (focal length) will end up in some different curve, and that is close to impossible to have a zoom lens that will project the image on the same curve.

I didn't quite understand the physics explained, and can't find now the link to the article, but the bottom line was that the curved sensor idea can be applied (for now at least) to fixed lens - sensor pair.
And the RX1, of course, has a flat sensor...

The photographic industry is full of products not designed for every photographer but for a specific genre – you are not the a7 genre Sony has designed for. Move on!

I totally agree. It just doesn't make ANY sense to release a ground-breakingly-affordable FF body first (a7) with ground-breakingly-expensive lenses.

For many, the main advantage of FF is not the ultimate pixel-level IQ : it's more freedom to control DOF. Sony should have released affordable f2 primes first, which will bring a LOT of people into their system.

Quezra, you are misusing the word "whom". If you want to use it, you'll have to say "spenders on whom Sony should concentrate". Scotelly, I dony have any gear at the moment, but thinking about buying sony a6000.

@HowaboutRAW, canon EF 50mm f1.4 is a really nice lens for$400. I don't see any sony FE lens that can produce such pleasant bokeh.

Boss of Sony:

See, I've not shot with that lens, and perhaps the out of focus backgrounds are good with it.

It's still not optically close to a well done SonyZeiss, and there are a few for this system. A good Zeiss always has better color than even a good Canon.

Quezra did NOT misuse the word "whom", and despite what you may think there is NO rule against ending an English sentence with a preposition. (You can chose to follow a style rule, but that's completely different.) Basically one can't end a Latin sentence with a preposition, and that's from whence the "rule" derives.

The A6000 is a fine camera, the Sony APSC lenses for that system aren't great, there is an expensive SonyZeiss and then Sigmas and Zeiss Touits. Irony.

Yes, he did misuse "whom". I apologise if you're semi-literate, but perhaps you should read more books.

I never said one can't end a sentence with a preposition. I said he misused "whom".

Boss of Sony:

Thought about it more, and here's the correct terms beyond just saying "dative":

The verb "to concentrate" takes an indirect object. And "who" can never be an indirect object--"whom" is the construction.

Differently: One never says:

"on he"

"on I"

"on they".

Fuji's X100 converters are awesome. With them attached , the "cost of IQ" isn't observed as I would have expected.

I have an X100, and am skeptical of converters, but so far, from everything I've seen and read, I haven't seen evidence of performance degradation.

Sony may have achieved the same.

@Erick L - Perhaps the old 4/3 lenses were larger so they would provide better balance (in terms of looks and weight) on the bodies that they were made for.

The old 4/3 system was also a DSLR system and the bodies were bigger (though generally small compared to their competition).

I bet they could have reduced the size back then but by doing so they may have run the risk of their cameras not looking like a "serious" DSLRs. Micro 4/3 may have lead the recent trend to make high performance cameras smaller and light but before that big equipment was sign of "high performance" (and it still is to an extent).

Also which Rokinon were you referencing? I compared the 85mm f/1.4 they have on B&H and the e-mount one was lighter (570g vs 635g) but it is also a updated model which could attribute to the weight savings.

These days, most of the things can be achieved, and quite easily ... the whole thing is a matter of decision (mostly marketing).

Yes, a truly excellent lens comes with size (see zeiss otus, sigma art lenses that rival the otus in sharpness etc) and generally a small lens, means low performance, and plastic all the way.

But if cost does not really matter you can get an excellent very small lens (see the leicas and co) ... now, redesign the to have a tiny and amazing AF system... and you'll pay some incredible amount of money.
Put that in balance: how many would buy a 15.000$ 35/1.4 that is half the size of a similar spec-ed, similar performance of a 1.500k$ ... well... also considering that the "big one" is reasonable... not a huge monster that requires a robotic lifter or anything...

@Erik L - Which Rokinon FF lenses? I just picked up a Canon fit 14mm Samyang branded one and bought an adapter for E-mount as looking at the images it was just a DSLR lens with a Rokinon/Samyang made adapter screwed onto it!

Plus aren't most of the Samyang lenses completely manual so you don't have to have AF motor or any electronics in them either so they should be a little smaller/lighter given that fact alone.

My Samyang box has a chart on the side that states:

Mount : Canon - Weight : 550g - Length : 96.1mm
Mount : Sony E - Weight : 575g - Length : 122.1mm

I can only assume this is the weight/size of the screw fixed adapter.

The Rokinon website doesn't seem to have an E-mount 14mm lens listed other than the Cine version. And it lists as 1lb for both the A mount and E mount versions. Although my Samyang version is 14 elements in 10 groups rather than the Rokinon which is 14 in 12 groups. All very confusing :)

Perhaps they've made a revised design for mirrorless finally instead of just bolting on adapters?

I found the two Rokinon for Sony at B&H. Sony A is listed at 907g vs 570g for FE. The FE is longer and I guess it's just an adapted lens.

Seems the E-Mount is the "Red ring" verison that the Samyang model I have for Canon also has which is 14 element/10 group.
The "Yellow/Gold ring" A-Mount version is 14 element/12 group. Seems there are two different designs, but doesn't seem to be lighter specifically for mirrorless, but simply two differing designs. I looked to see if there was any major difference in quality between "Red" and "Gold" ringed versions and never noticed a grouping or weight difference.

The Rokinon is just an adapted lens soit won't be lighter than the Canon. I don't know why the Sony A is different.

Olympus is a better exemple IMO.

Not sure you are partially missing missing what I'm saying:

- I have a 550g(printed on the box) Canon fit Samyang (Rokinon is a rebranded Samyang lens) 14mm F2.8 UWA. So the lighter design that you thought was a lighter "mirrorless" lens is available for Canon EOS.

-It also states on the box that the Four Thirds lens weight is 560g and Micro Four Thirds is 570g. This suggests that the red ring lens design that I own with the 14 element/10 group design (which is the lighter of the two 14mm lens designs listed at B&H) was made available to all mounts, most probably by the inclusion of a factory fitted adapter.

- The box also lists "Sony Alpha" lens weight as 560g. So there should be a version of the lighter lens available for the A-mount, further reinforcing that they do not have a "lighter mirrorless" version of the lens.

In summary the lighter lens isn't a "mirrorless" only design. That's the point I was trying to make.

Nerd 2,

The Lumix 45mm F/2.8 is tiny! It's physical dimensions are 2.48 x 2.46 inches and weighs 7.94 ounces (225 grams). The Sony on the other hand is 3.11 x 5.14 inches and weighs 1.32 pounds (602 grams) It's a huge size and weight difference. The Sony is the same old story, big and heavy, as that of other lenses built for Full Frame cameras such as the Nikon 105mm F/2.8 which is 3.3 x 4.6 inches and 1.58 lb (720 g). Just because it's mirrorless doesn't mean it's smaller and lighter. Full Frame mirrorless requires Full Frame lenses as the new Sony Macro proves. Beware of those that suggest you get a smaller and lighter system by going with mirrorless. That's not the case or Full Frame mirrorless like the Sony A7 series of cameras.

If you take the original A7 vs a D810 or 5DMK3 you are still saving over 500g. That's still a considerable saving. The A7 + 35mmF2.8 is lighter than the 5DMK3 body without lens. At shorter FL you can have smaller lenses on mirrorless, not sure about the engineering/physics behind it, but at longer FL the FF lenses will be pretty much the same as FF DSLR. To have truly smaller lenses you have to have a smaller sensor system. Simple as that.

I hope it doesn't break for you, I've had many break on Canon, Nikon, Pentax and pre-1990 Minoltas

Lens size is dictated more by field of view, depth of field and aperture than by format size. A 135mm f/4 lens can be extremely small (large format film camera) for a very large sensor size. Granted, by nature it has to be further from the sensor so the system is larger for a larger sensor, but the lenses aren't always larger.

Actually, equivalent lenses for larger sensors are generally smaller, especially standards and wide angles.

My Leica DG Nocticron 42.5mm f/1.2 for my GH4 takes 67mm filters so it's not so small a lens.
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8615/15527108913_c823a65590_o.png

So shall we call MFT a slow sensor and FF a fast sensor, since you can go to much higher ISO with the FF?

Everything is relative, and we cannot simply saying something is fast without comparison.

FF 1.8 is faster because a) You can have faster shutter speed with same amount of noise b) You can have more control of DOF compared to m43 1.2, so m43 1,2 is "by all practical purposes" slower.

Yes, but if you concede shutter is dependent on aperture, why shouldn't exposure/shutter speeds be dependent on ISO too? I shoot at ISO 6400 regularly on my FF camera, which is unacceptably noisy on either my APS-C or MFT cameras.

I dunno.. People in need of zooming perhaps? ;-)
I like primes myself (especially manual primes), but i'm a bit curious about that 24-240.. Probably not worth it, but i could have some use of it.

For medium format! Bigger seems to be better and they already make nice mf sensors. A medium format mirrorless camera is something that is missing. Lets call the mount S(ony)-mount and call the line Alpha, just like the other two lines of camera's.

Didn't think of of the MF rumors - maybe a H mount (Hasselblad) ... :-)

refinish:

And today, in early 2015, Sony is not shipping a medium format body.

good knowledge @nerd2
http://www.photozone.de/pentax/122-pentax-smc-fa-31mm-f18-al-limited-review--test-report

Big lenses, like the Otus (which doesn't have AF) are easier to engineer so the light hits the sensor perpendicularly across the entire plane of the sensor, thereby avoiding some much vignetting. Film was more able to compensate than a photo sensor.

Just compare the newish Nikon 85mm f/1.4 with the old Zeiss 85mm f/1.4. And of course the Otus 85mm f/1.4 is much bigger than both.

Leica M lenses get some compensation built into the curved array of micro-lenses at the sensor.

As a mechanical engineer I can tell you this information is false. Please look at some patent designs readily available on google. Furthermore, even if it were true, I'd be happy with the option to have some zeiss manual lenses, like canon has. They're nice and small. Er. Yeah okay