Is there a technical (or otherwise) reason why there are no Sony 1.4 lenses?

[jtyoung]

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4? Money, cost blah blah blah, but there are no 1.4 Sony lenses for e mount that I can think of, or am I missing something? It seems their fast lenses are 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 24/1.8, no?

Why not a 1.4? My CV 40/1.4 is wonderful on my 5n, but I'd like some AF!

Seems to me that for most modern lens makers, a f1.8 falls into the entry level fast prime while the f1.2 version is the premium fast prime. The f1.4s seem to be an anomaly.

 

[headofdestiny]

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4? Money, cost blah blah blah, but there are no 1.4 Sony lenses for e mount that I can think of, or am I missing something? It seems their fast lenses are 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 24/1.8, no?

Why not a 1.4? My CV 40/1.4 is wonderful on my 5n, but I'd like some AF!

Seems to me that for most modern lens makers, a f1.8 falls into the entry level fast prime while the f1.2 version is the premium fast prime. The f1.4s seem to be an anomaly.

F1.2 is MUCH less common than f1.4. F1.4 is very common in most SLR and rangefinder mounts.

 

[WT21]

Thereby negating the advantage of the larger sensor.

If you have an advantage (larger sensor) then you should take it and maximize it. Not hide from it, or be "just as good" as the other system.

Just my opinion of course. Sony didn't ask me for input

I don't get all this "glass is too heavy" -- m43 has smaller 1.4 lenses.
DuncanDovovan wrote:

F1.4 on m4/3 is equivalent to f1.8 on aps-c, so they should be about the same size, give or take. For example, the Leica 25/1.4 for m4/3 is actually a little larger and heavier than the new 35/1.8 for NEX (which also has OSS,) but they're essentially the same equivalent apertures. An f1.4 lens for aps-c would be larger than an f1.4 lens for m4/3.

In other words, an f1.4 lens for a P&S and an f1.4 lens for 35mm are vastly difference in size.

 

[WT21]

I agree in both cases, lol. f/1.4 is more common, but f/1.2 is CERTAINLY premium! (and more rare -- Canon 85/1.2, 50/1.2 in EOS. Are there any other 1.2 lenses in EOS? Most of the rest are 1/4, 2 or 2.8, depending on FL)

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4? Money, cost blah blah blah, but there are no 1.4 Sony lenses for e mount that I can think of, or am I missing something? It seems their fast lenses are 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 24/1.8, no?

Why not a 1.4? My CV 40/1.4 is wonderful on my 5n, but I'd like some AF!

Seems to me that for most modern lens makers, a f1.8 falls into the entry level fast prime while the f1.2 version is the premium fast prime. The f1.4s seem to be an anomaly.

F1.2 is MUCH less common than f1.4. F1.4 is very common in most SLR and rangefinder mounts.

 

[perpetual motion]

Your question/circumstances highlight a broader issue for me... Lens buying strategy..whether to invest in manual focus CV wides (12, 15, 21, 35 ?) that might be suitable for a future Nex 9 FF (if one ever appears) or go with some of the AF OSS Sony new offerings recently revealed (10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 not so new)??? which I gather may not be suitable for a future Nex FF.

Will sit on fence a little longer and await detailed reviews of new Sony offerings particularly their 10-18 (which is more costly). Suspect others are here too with this.

Perhaps one needs to have a foot in both camps but not sure my budget will stretch this far?

 

[WT21]

That's a good question, and one I've been considering.

Here's one thing to consider: there WILL be a FF mirrorless -- whether from Sony or someone else. There's too much momentum and potential for differentiation for there not to be. And, when it hits, the RF lenses (and any MF lens) will be very useable, and retain their value.

But, from what I read, the Sony FF camcorder can take native e-mount lenses in Crop mode, so they will also retain their value, if Sony continues with that (very wise) approach. So, I don't think you have anything to lose, and a wide angle zoom is not something you often find in MF, as one example of a useful lens.

Your question/circumstances highlight a broader issue for me... Lens buying strategy..whether to invest in manual focus CV wides (12, 15, 21, 35 ?) that might be suitable for a future Nex 9 FF (if one ever appears) or go with some of the AF OSS Sony new offerings recently revealed (10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 not so new)??? which I gather may not be suitable for a future Nex FF.

Will sit on fence a little longer and await detailed reviews of new Sony offerings particularly their 10-18 (which is more costly). Suspect others are here too with this.

Perhaps one needs to have a foot in both camps but not sure my budget will stretch this far?

 

[headofdestiny]

Your question/circumstances highlight a broader issue for me... Lens buying strategy..whether to invest in manual focus CV wides (12, 15, 21, 35 ?) that might be suitable for a future Nex 9 FF (if one ever appears) or go with some of the AF OSS Sony new offerings recently revealed (10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 not so new)??? which I gather may not be suitable for a future Nex FF.

Will sit on fence a little longer and await detailed reviews of new Sony offerings particularly their 10-18 (which is more costly). Suspect others are here too with this.

Perhaps one needs to have a foot in both camps but not sure my budget will stretch this far?

It'll be highly unlikely that a NEX 9 FF would perform well with wide rangefinder lenses. Even the 5N has color shift with many of these lenses. Either way, I don't expect such a camera until Sony is ready to move away from SLT, which seems a while away.

 

[headofdestiny]

If you have an advantage (larger sensor) then you should take it and maximize it. Not hide from it, or be "just as good" as the other system.

Just my opinion of course. Sony didn't ask me for input

I don't get all this "glass is too heavy" -- m43 has smaller 1.4 lenses.
DuncanDovovan wrote:

F1.4 on m4/3 is equivalent to f1.8 on aps-c, so they should be about the same size, give or take. For example, the Leica 25/1.4 for m4/3 is actually a little larger and heavier than the new 35/1.8 for NEX (which also has OSS,) but they're essentially the same equivalent apertures. An f1.4 lens for aps-c would be larger than an f1.4 lens for m4/3.

In other words, an f1.4 lens for a P&S and an f1.4 lens for 35mm are vastly difference in size.

If size doesn't both you, why not shoot a DSLR of some kind?

 

[WT21]

Staring at my 5D right now, but you would have to admit that a NEX w/a 24 1.4 would still be smaller than a 5D w/a 35 1.4.

If you have an advantage (larger sensor) then you should take it and maximize it. Not hide from it, or be "just as good" as the other system.

Just my opinion of course. Sony didn't ask me for input

I don't get all this "glass is too heavy" -- m43 has smaller 1.4 lenses.
DuncanDovovan wrote:

F1.4 on m4/3 is equivalent to f1.8 on aps-c, so they should be about the same size, give or take. For example, the Leica 25/1.4 for m4/3 is actually a little larger and heavier than the new 35/1.8 for NEX (which also has OSS,) but they're essentially the same equivalent apertures. An f1.4 lens for aps-c would be larger than an f1.4 lens for m4/3.

In other words, an f1.4 lens for a P&S and an f1.4 lens for 35mm are vastly difference in size.

If size doesn't both you, why not shoot a DSLR of some kind?

 

[perpetual motion]

You're probably right.... Was trying to deny myself this approach.... Time for a long hard think...damn I'll go shoot some pics instead while I ponder these facts some more!

 

[headofdestiny]

Staring at my 5D right now, but you would have to admit that a NEX w/a 24 1.4 would still be smaller than a 5D w/a 35 1.4.

Sure, although f1.4 on NEX would be closer to an f2.2 on FF. Regardless, why exactly do you want f1.4 over f1.8. SLIGHTLY shallower DOF??

 

[blue_skies]

Your question/circumstances highlight a broader issue for me... Lens buying strategy..whether to invest in manual focus CV wides (12, 15, 21, 35 ?) that might be suitable for a future Nex 9 FF (if one ever appears) or go with some of the AF OSS Sony new offerings recently revealed (10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 not so new)??? which I gather may not be suitable for a future Nex FF.

Will sit on fence a little longer and await detailed reviews of new Sony offerings particularly their 10-18 (which is more costly). Suspect others are here too with this.

Perhaps one needs to have a foot in both camps but not sure my budget will stretch this far?

It'll be highly unlikely that a NEX 9 FF would perform well with wide rangefinder lenses. Even the 5N has color shift with many of these lenses. Either way, I don't expect such a camera until Sony is ready to move away from SLT, which seems a while away.

Why not test on the VG900 when it comes out?

I am hopeful, using the reference per below, the RX1 35mm FF sensor has 24Mp on a surface area of 861mm2, the APS-C is 16Mp (5N) or 24Mp (7) on a surface area of 366mm2. Or, the FF sensor is equivalent to 42%, or 10Mp.

This would make the FF sensor's pixel sites the largest yet, 35% larger than the 5N and more than double the size of the 7.

I am also sticking to the belief that pixel size is more important than angle of inclination. We will see, I hope.

And I doubt that the M9 microlens offset technology means much here.

• http://provideocoalition.com/sony/Sony_Guide_to_Sensor_Sizes_v1.0.pdf

--
Cheers,
Henry

 

[Jim Parsons]

Hey Jim, no offense, but this answer bothers me when I see it presented, and I see it every where all over DPR.

Unless someone has real consumer data, this is just conjecture. Do we know that there is more total dollar spend in the "public" than with the enthusiasts? I'm not sure I'm buying that.

Since neither one of us has access to Sony's sales demographics we'll have to agree to disagree.

--
Jim Parsons

 

[Jim Parsons]

I used to have a P&S camera, now that I have a NEX and thousands of dollars worth of lenses (including a 50mm f1.4 manual lens). On the Sony website a-mount and e-mount are now in the same section. I don't think the people this system is aimed at is the issue.

Remember that Sony is a company with worldwide sales not limited to your (or my) section of that market.

Unless we gain access to Sony's sales demographics, all we can do is speculate.
--
Jim Parsons

 

[headofdestiny]

Your question/circumstances highlight a broader issue for me... Lens buying strategy..whether to invest in manual focus CV wides (12, 15, 21, 35 ?) that might be suitable for a future Nex 9 FF (if one ever appears) or go with some of the AF OSS Sony new offerings recently revealed (10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 not so new)??? which I gather may not be suitable for a future Nex FF.

Will sit on fence a little longer and await detailed reviews of new Sony offerings particularly their 10-18 (which is more costly). Suspect others are here too with this.

Perhaps one needs to have a foot in both camps but not sure my budget will stretch this far?

It'll be highly unlikely that a NEX 9 FF would perform well with wide rangefinder lenses. Even the 5N has color shift with many of these lenses. Either way, I don't expect such a camera until Sony is ready to move away from SLT, which seems a while away.

Why not test on the VG900 when it comes out?

I am hopeful, using the reference per below, the RX1 35mm FF sensor has 24Mp on a surface area of 861mm2, the APS-C is 16Mp (5N) or 24Mp (7) on a surface area of 366mm2. Or, the FF sensor is equivalent to 42%, or 10Mp.

This would make the FF sensor's pixel sites the largest yet, 35% larger than the 5N and more than double the size of the 7.

I am also sticking to the belief that pixel size is more important than angle of inclination. We will see, I hope.

And I doubt that the M9 microlens offset technology means much here.

• http://provideocoalition.com/sony/Sony_Guide_to_Sensor_Sizes_v1.0.pdf

--
Cheers,
Henry

Yeah, I guess we'll see. However, even the A900 doesn't perform as well as the D3x in the corners, and that is with SLR lenses. From what I understand, it is a sensor topping thing, and Sony doesn't have a great history with it.

Besides, the original NEX-5 isn't exactly great with wide rangefinder lenses, either, despite having larger pixels than the 5N. The 5N, although being the best of the Sony options, still isn't nearly as good as the GXR, and the 5N is only aps-c. If you scaled up the 5N to FF, the rangefinder wide performance wouldn't be great, either.

I'd also imagine that any blur filters needed to make acceptable video are going to get in the way of great wide M performance. The only sensors we've seen with great M lens performance don't have an AA filter, which I just don't see Sony doing.

 

[seachicken2000]

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4?

I also like this idea. Fuji makes a nice one for their APS-C mirrorless, but looking at Photozone's tests of it it's struggling away from the center of the frame at f/1.4.

Perhaps f/1.4 is a bridge too far if you want to maintain a reasonably compact lens and have respectable performance all over the frame at all apertures? Zeiss are also going for f/1.8 in their upcoming 32mm. Personally I'd quite like an f/1.4 as long a it was sharp in the center, even if it went soft in the corners wide open. I'd be most likely be using it wide-open for portraits anyway where soft corners are usually fine with me.

--
"The only thing that gets in the way of a really good photograph, is the camera"
Norman Parkinson

 

[pako]

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4? Money, cost blah blah blah, but there are no 1.4 Sony lenses for e mount that I can think of, or am I missing something? It seems their fast lenses are 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 24/1.8, no?

I don't believe there is any technical reason why there are no 1.4 lenses for the NEX system.

Then, there might be marketing reasons that limit Sony lenses to 1.8; Sigma lenses to 2.8 and Zeiss lenses to 1.8 and 2.8 for the 50mm macro ( http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2397629283/photokina-2012-carl-zeiss-stand-report )

If you want a 35 f1.4, why don't you buy the Sony 35 f1.4G and the LA-EA2 adapter?

Why not a 1.4? My CV 40/1.4 is wonderful on my 5n, but I'd like some AF!

Well, your reference is not valid, since a) it is not a 35mm; b) is a lens for a different system; c) a different system with totally different challenges.

--
Pako Dominguez
-----------------------
http://www.phototeka.net

 

[WT21]

That's my use, too -- portraits.

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4?

I also like this idea. Fuji makes a nice one for their APS-C mirrorless, but looking at Photozone's tests of it it's struggling away from the center of the frame at f/1.4.

Perhaps f/1.4 is a bridge too far if you want to maintain a reasonably compact lens and have respectable performance all over the frame at all apertures? Zeiss are also going for f/1.8 in their upcoming 32mm. Personally I'd quite like an f/1.4 as long a it was sharp in the center, even if it went soft in the corners wide open. I'd be most likely be using it wide-open for portraits anyway where soft corners are usually fine with me.

--
"The only thing that gets in the way of a really good photograph, is the camera"
Norman Parkinson

 

[blue_skies]

Your question/circumstances highlight a broader issue for me... Lens buying strategy..whether to invest in manual focus CV wides (12, 15, 21, 35 ?) that might be suitable for a future Nex 9 FF (if one ever appears) or go with some of the AF OSS Sony new offerings recently revealed (10-18, 35/1.8, 50/1.8 not so new)??? which I gather may not be suitable for a future Nex FF.

Will sit on fence a little longer and await detailed reviews of new Sony offerings particularly their 10-18 (which is more costly). Suspect others are here too with this.

Perhaps one needs to have a foot in both camps but not sure my budget will stretch this far?

It'll be highly unlikely that a NEX 9 FF would perform well with wide rangefinder lenses. Even the 5N has color shift with many of these lenses. Either way, I don't expect such a camera until Sony is ready to move away from SLT, which seems a while away.

Why not test on the VG900 when it comes out?

I am hopeful, using the reference per below, the RX1 35mm FF sensor has 24Mp on a surface area of 861mm2, the APS-C is 16Mp (5N) or 24Mp (7) on a surface area of 366mm2. Or, the FF sensor is equivalent to 42%, or 10Mp.

This would make the FF sensor's pixel sites the largest yet, 35% larger than the 5N and more than double the size of the 7.

I am also sticking to the belief that pixel size is more important than angle of inclination. We will see, I hope.

And I doubt that the M9 microlens offset technology means much here.

• http://provideocoalition.com/sony/Sony_Guide_to_Sensor_Sizes_v1.0.pdf

--
Cheers,
Henry

Yeah, I guess we'll see. However, even the A900 doesn't perform as well as the D3x in the corners, and that is with SLR lenses. From what I understand, it is a sensor topping thing, and Sony doesn't have a great history with it.

The A900 is dated, I believe, more like Nex-5 technology. It lacks the signal boost. The A99 may tell us more.

Besides, the original NEX-5 isn't exactly great with wide rangefinder lenses, either, despite having larger pixels than the 5N. The 5N, although being the best of the Sony options, still isn't nearly as good as the GXR, and the 5N is only aps-c. If you scaled up the 5N to FF, the rangefinder wide performance wouldn't be great, either.

I believe that the 5N and 7 boost the signal om the sensor, hence getting the greater dynamic range. This also improves the blue light fall-off. The 7, I think, is just not getting sufficient signal levels to overcome this light fall-off.

I'd also imagine that any blur filters needed to make acceptable video are going to get in the way of great wide M performance. The only sensors we've seen with great M lens performance don't have an AA filter, which I just don't see Sony doing.

Assuming that the A99 and RX1 share the same sensor, Sony must have addressed this somewhat.

--
Cheers,
Henry

 

[cs hauser]

I like the idea of the 35/1.8, but why not a 35/1.4? Money, cost blah blah blah, but there are no 1.4 Sony lenses for e mount that I can think of, or am I missing something? It seems their fast lenses are 50/1.8, 35/1.8 and 24/1.8, no?

Lenses last practically forever. If Sony allowed you to buy a 35 f/1.4 today... then you probably won't buy another 35mm lens from them for the next 15 years.

So instead, they'll offer an entire series of f/1.8 lenses today. If given no other options, most people who wanted f/1.4 lenses will settle for f/1.8. Five maybe six years later, Sony will finally introduce f/1.4 lenses... at twice the price. They'll try to get you to fork over even more of your cash then.

It's called "double dipping".

This is the part where you hope Sigma will foil Sony's marketing strategy by offering a series of f/1.4 lenses in native NEX mount. Nothing keeps a company honest like healthy competition.