Poor lens selection for Sony dslr's

[Adrian Harris]

I am a bit fed up at the moment....

I have a wonderful Sony A77

and it is mostly married to Sigmas fantastic 17-70 F2.8-f4 HSM for 90% of my shots.

I am also fortunate enough to own a pre-owned Sony 70-400G which is great for birds and wildlife, etc.
And for very wide angle I have a Sigma 10-20.

So far so good, nothing wrong with any of these. But here is the rub...
...one stops at 70mm (17-70), the next starts at 70mm (70-400).

But I really need a very high quality 'overlap' lens, say 28-135mm, or a 35-150mm and preferably a F2.8.

...and THAT is where the Sony system fails so badly!

What is so annoying is that very high quality lenses in this range used to be available for Sony dslr's, but no one bothers to make them anymore.

WHY NOT?

...am I the only person that would want something in this range? - please let us all know but replying to this thread.

PS. I know there are lenses that cover this focal range, but they are very slow lenses, most dropping to F6.3 very quickly. Its not a case of increasing camera ISO and to keep the shutter speed up. The important point is, 'slow' lenses do not provide a small depth of field to isolate the subject. At a focal range that covers portrait work this is an essential feature.

What are your thoughts on this anyone?

--
Adrian

http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography/gallery1/
http://www.t1000.co.uk/photography.htm

 

[robert614]

Sigma makes a 50-150mm F2.8.I don't know much about or if it can be used on A77,but you may want to look into it.

 

[Kzoozoomer]

Which of Sony's competitors offer a high-quality 28-135mm F2.8 lens?

 

[travelshots_dpr]

I never felt any desire for a lens like this. I mainly use the CZ 16-80. It's range covers all my subjects except animals. For animals I use the 70-400G. A 28-135 would be to long for landscape on APS-C and very often too short for animals, especially birds. By the way, you can still buy the Minolta 28-135 which is a good lens if you get a good sample.
Lens comparison:

http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/235-a900-zeiss-2824-70mm-sony-2828-75mm-424-105mm-minolta-4-4528-135mm-35-4528-85mm

Sample variation:

http://www.artaphot.ch/lens-comparisons/310-minolta-af-4-4528-135mm-sample-variation

The second reason, why I don't need such a lens is that I carry two cameras if I expect the need for quickly changing lenses. Usually A580 with CZ 16-80 and A77 with 70-400G. The additional body does not cost more than an additional good lens.

 

[Amateur Sony Shooter]

Canon has 24-105/4 IS USM, and Nikon has 24-120/4 VRII. What's left in A-mount is the old Minolta 28-135/4-4.5. All three lenses are "semi-fast" zoom, heavy and doesn't produce enough shallow DOF for subject isolation, nor as fast as f2.8 for low light.

For affordable low light medium tele zoom, the only choice is Sigma 50-150/2.8 APO EX HSM. You have to look hard as Sigma discontinued that lens (for all mount, not just Sony only).

Or, you could get Zeiss 24-70/2.8 SSM and 70-200/2.8 fast zoom, and be done with it. That's the classic combo for almost anything except wildlife/birding, which is what 70-400G for.

 

[6132expd]

I don't know why you are complaining about Sony, the lenses you want doesn't exist for any mount out there

 

[Samsolar]

I own the Sigma 50-150 2.8 and it is a great lense the only one in that range. B&H has a used one.

 

[Archer66]

I would buy an 24-120 (-135) f4 for my A850 if price was below 900 Eur.

 

[Kappels]

No text
--
http://stefaniekappel.tumblr.com/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/15931938@N05/

 

[Yemble]

Which of Sony's competitors offer a high-quality 28-135mm F2.8 lens?

All the more reason for producing one. In fact, I would have bought that lens, had it existed, but instead I had to compromise with the 28-75mm f2.8. But I agree with the OP, 5mm of overlap is not really enough.

 

[JohnSingkit]

Canon has 24-105/4 IS USM, and Nikon has 24-120/4 VRII. What's left in A-mount is the old Minolta 28-135/4-4.5. All three lenses are "semi-fast" zoom, heavy and doesn't produce enough shallow DOF for subject isolation, nor as fast as f2.8 for low light.

For affordable low light medium tele zoom, the only choice is Sigma 50-150/2.8 APO EX HSM. You have to look hard as Sigma discontinued that lens (for all mount, not just Sony only).

Or, you could get Zeiss 24-70/2.8 SSM and 70-200/2.8 fast zoom, and be done with it. That's the classic combo for almost anything except wildlife/birding, which is what 70-400G for.

If the Canon 24-105 spec is considered a player for what the OP is thinking of, then Sony 16-105 should be as well. It is, actually a good lens and might even be better than the Sony Zeiss 16-80 (which I use)

 

[tbcass]

If the Canon 24-105 spec is considered a player for what the OP is thinking of, then Sony 16-105 should be as well. It is, actually a good lens and might even be better than the Sony Zeiss 16-80 (which I use)

The Canon is f4 across the board while the Sony is f3.5-5.6. He wants f2.8 or better across the board. His problem is the type of lens he wants has a limited market, especially for APS-C.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[tbcass]

So far so good, nothing wrong with any of these. But here is the rub...
...one stops at 70mm (17-70), the next starts at 70mm (70-400).

But I really need a very high quality 'overlap' lens, say 28-135mm, or a 35-150mm and preferably a F2.8.

...am I the only person that would want something in this range? - please let us all know but replying to this thread.

What are your thoughts on this anyone?

I just did a Google search and couldn't come up with an f2.8 lens with a similar zoom range from any manufacturer for any mount available today. My search wasn't exhaustive but apparently the demand for such a lens is rather small. I think the reason is because of the predominance of APS-C cameras vs Full Frame. For APS-C a lens with that range isn't wide enough.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[tbcass]

He says he needs it for the shallow DOF. I'm not sure such a lens exists new from any manufacturer. It would also be very expensive and fixed f2.8 is generally reserved for lenses of a more limited zoom range.
--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[Yemble]

He says he needs it for the shallow DOF. I'm not sure such a lens exists new from any manufacturer. It would also be very expensive and fixed f2.8 is generally reserved for lenses of a more limited zoom range.
--

But 70-200mm f2.8 lenses exist which have a significantly wider range than a theroretical 28-135mm f2.8 would have. It would also be cheaper to produce than a 70-200mm.

 

[Kilrah]

But 70-200mm f2.8 lenses exist which have a significantly wider range than a theroretical 28-135mm f2.8 would have.

No, a 28-135 is 4.8x zoom, a 70-200 is only 2.8x. That's what counts, not the "difference in mm". I don't think any constant aperture lens exists with such a zoom factor, seems they are all about 3x (16-50, 24-70, 28-75, 50-150, 70-200...)

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/kilrah/
http://www.youtube.com/user/kilrahvp

 

[tbcass]

He says he needs it for the shallow DOF. I'm not sure such a lens exists new from any manufacturer. It would also be very expensive and fixed f2.8 is generally reserved for lenses of a more limited zoom range.
--

But 70-200mm f2.8 lenses exist which have a significantly wider range than a theroretical 28-135mm f2.8 would have. It would also be cheaper to produce than a 70-200mm.

No 70-200 is less than 3:1 while 28-135 is just under 5:1. I think the problem is when going from wide angle to telephoto. I imagine such a lens would be large and heavy in addition to being extremely expensive. I believe it would be more expensive to make a 28-135 f2.8 than an f2.8 70-200 because it covers wide to telephoto.

--
Tom

Look at the picture, not the pixels

http://www.flickr.com/photos/63683676@N07/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25301400@N00/

 

[Yemble]

But 70-200mm f2.8 lenses exist which have a significantly wider range than a theroretical 28-135mm f2.8 would have.

No, a 28-135 is 4.8x zoom, a 70-200 is only 2.8x. That's what counts, not the "difference in mm". I don't think any constant aperture lens exists with such a zoom factor, seems they are all about 3x (16-50, 24-70, 28-75, 50-150, 70-200...)

OK, there's obviously some physics in play here, so I'd happily settle for a 40-120mm f2.8. Would that be OK?

 

[Ralf B]

I really need a very high quality 'overlap' lens, say 28-135mm, or a 35-150mm and preferably a F2.8.

That is a challenging requirement for lens designers. The result will very likely be huge, heavy, expensive, and combining these facts this looks like a hard sell.

What are your thoughts on this anyone?

I think there are tons of good reasons for NOT building a zoom in that range at 2.8. Look at the reviews and user feedback on the Tamron 2.8/28-105:
http://www.dyxum.com/reviews/lenses/reviews.asp?IDLens=121
--
Ralf
http://RalfRalph.smugmug.com/

 

[Yemble]

I think there are tons of good reasons for NOT building a zoom in that range at 2.8. Look at the reviews and user feedback on the Tamron 2.8/28-105:
--

Ralf, I'm not sure that you can base your argument on some arbitrary reviews of an old lens. I am sure that if Tamron (or whoever) decided to make a modern variant of a 28-105mm f2.8, it would be a top notch performer. The weight of that lens is about 1.5x that of the Sony 16-50mm f2.8, so I don't really see this as being a major usability factor.