-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
New Lens From Sony
- Thread starter ck22 #387375
- Start date
WaltKnapp
Forum Pro
Only if it goes above 1:1, then it would be interesting. Otherwise it's working distance is going to be awfully tight.
And, of course they have to preserve the optical quality of the 50 & 100. Looking at the price of this it's probably not going to do that.
Walt
Steve FStop
Senior Member
The rumor is confirmed & Sony is to launch very soon!
Still no confirmation of focal length - but lets just say that it's a BIGGY!
LOL.....well you must admit they do look similar - Just love that lens hood and even the colour is close?
Regards
Steve
--
Shoot True - You only get one chance!
Still no confirmation of focal length - but lets just say that it's a BIGGY!
LOL.....well you must admit they do look similar - Just love that lens hood and even the colour is close?
Regards
Steve
--
Shoot True - You only get one chance!
womprat4
Forum Enthusiast
Hard to tell just what this may be from the photo. 400/4.5 is a good guess (too small front diameter to be an f:2.8, though perhaps it's an f:4), though it also might be a 500/4, though from the photo it looks a bit short for such a lens, at least in comparison to the other lenses. But, that also could be a function of the perspective at which the photo was taken, and it does, apparently, still remain a mock-up, though far more advanced than the first one we saw. I am so totally with you in asking why they are not just saying what it is. It makes not sense whatsoever (unless they really don't know and it's just a more re-fined mock-up subject to further changes).
The one thing I would urge Sony to do, but it likely won't, is to make the tripod collar foot dovetailed to fit the standard Arca-Swiss QR system. This would eliminate the need for people to buy a separate mounting plate to use the lens in the typical tripod heads with which such lenses are used (e.g., the Wimberly head or other gimbal style heads, and the better ball heads). No other maker of super telephotos does this. Sony could get some notoriety for doing this, and since the makers of such plates are not exactly running to provide custom plates for Sony lenses (due to limited sales), it would show an interest in serving the needs of their customers. But then why would Sony want to do that?
As for the color, it appears that Sony has decided to standardize it's bigger G telephoto lenses in this color (like the 70-400 G). Having just bought the 70-400 I have to say I don't object to the color, and can actually see it growing on me a bit (though I think I would have preferred a black lens hood rather than with the matching silver/gray color). It may simply be Sony's attempt to improve its branding and get some notice instead of blending in with the other ubiquitous white and black lenses (and there is a reason not to make the lenses black - to avoid heat buildup and possible adverse effects on interior glass elements from heat expansion).
Personally, I don't get all the adverse reactions to the color. These are tools meant to be used for photography, and if they perform well (or better) that's the most important thing. If somebody is going to avoid getting such a lens that they need or want because of its color, it would seem to suggest that they may not be quite as serious about photography as they are about the equipment. That's OK (I've certainly met at least a few photographers who seemed more into the equipment than photography), but just recognize that a photographer is going to be more interested in performance and results than the lens' color.
[discussion of other lenses snipped]
As for all the other lenses, I don't really have much to say about them other than it seems Sony still does not recognize some of the big gaps in its lens line-up, and I would question why it is doing what I expect will be more marginal lenses or rebadges of recent lenses, rather than filling the holes (e.g., fast, high quality "normal" zoom for APS-C and a high quality ultra-wide zoom faster than f:4-5.6 to name two). Why make a 30/2.8 macro or updated (rebadged? more?) 55-200 ahead of filling these notable gaps? A 30/2.8 macro may be a bit smaller and lighter than the current 50/2.8 macro, but that lens is not exactly big and heavy to begin with. They already have a 55-200.
I agree there is a need for an improved kit lens (but also think Sony should have done something that would stand out more from the "crowd"), and can also see how a 50/1.8 might do OK in the market (though generally speaking, zooms sell better than fixed focal lengths). I also can see a reason for a FF 28-75/2.8, which presumably will be far more moderately priced than the CZ 24-70/2.8, though it would not have been my next choice for a full frame lens. I agree with those suggesting a 24-105/4 would have been a better lens for Sony to add, though I suspect it would be far more expensive than the 28-75/2.8 will be, whether or not it's another rebadge of the Tamron lens (perhaps with SSM?).
--
Mark Van Bergh
PhotoTraveler
Forum Pro
SAL 57600mm PE (Perkin-Elmer)
24-105mm F/4 would've been nice. I guess those pictures of the upcoming G lenses were fakes?
As for 28-75mm, I doubt they would put SSM in it, although AF will probably be improved somehow. That would make it too close to the 24-70mm and they seem to use SSM sparingly.
I believe SSM is expensive (correct me if I'm wrong). They need a lower cost silent, faster way of AF. Canon has USM, Nikon AF-S, and Sigma USM..... Sony should have like SM for sonic motor and reserve SSM for the high end (super-sonic).
--
http://www.flickr.com/dr4gon
Phixel
Senior Member
VERY disappointing line-up! None of those new lenses have been asked for nor are they needed (an f5.6 18-55? - Give me a break!) . It is obvious from their lens offerings that Sony is not interested in selling lenses to the buyers of their APS-C Alpha cameras. Sony needs to get some managers that actually take pictures with a DSLR, so they might get a clue. Thank goodness for Sigma, at least they are doing it right!
--Phil
Phixel
Senior Member
I know. Almost like a bad joke. It's pitiful!
--Phil
Chad Marek
Senior Member
Well, I guess it has been 12 months since they released one. At least there isn't a hyper-zoom in there.
I have liked most of what Sony has done to this point, but this is disappointing. The "super telephoto" gets a few decals and that is it after 2 years of development?
A 28-75mm f2.8? Really? So, after somebody drops $3K on an A900, they are going to be eager to spend $500 on this rebadged lens?
A 50mm f1.8 DT ??
A 30mm f2.8 Macro DT, well, OK, but it really seams like a wasted opportunity to make something that would have broader appeal.
This is just an odd, puzzling, and disappointing collection.
--
My dry sense of humor is completely mis-interpreted when put in writing as proven by the post immediately following this one.
I have liked most of what Sony has done to this point, but this is disappointing. The "super telephoto" gets a few decals and that is it after 2 years of development?
A 28-75mm f2.8? Really? So, after somebody drops $3K on an A900, they are going to be eager to spend $500 on this rebadged lens?
A 50mm f1.8 DT ??
A 30mm f2.8 Macro DT, well, OK, but it really seams like a wasted opportunity to make something that would have broader appeal.
This is just an odd, puzzling, and disappointing collection.
--
My dry sense of humor is completely mis-interpreted when put in writing as proven by the post immediately following this one.
Chad Marek
Senior Member
People buying an A350 and the bass kit lens are more than likely NOT in the position to tell the difference between a lens that can resolve the pixel count and a lens that can not resolve the pixel count.
And, if they can and if they care, they can upgrade to the 16-80CZ.
A kit lens at that level needs to be avout low cost, and NOT the value add of the wider end. This is the lens you are either stuck with in the kit, or that you get because you are at the end of your budget. You DO NOT want to give people a reason NOT to pay more for a wider end lens.
--
My dry sense of humor is completely mis-interpreted when put in writing as proven by the post immediately following this one.
And, if they can and if they care, they can upgrade to the 16-80CZ.
A kit lens at that level needs to be avout low cost, and NOT the value add of the wider end. This is the lens you are either stuck with in the kit, or that you get because you are at the end of your budget. You DO NOT want to give people a reason NOT to pay more for a wider end lens.
--
My dry sense of humor is completely mis-interpreted when put in writing as proven by the post immediately following this one.
PhotoTraveler
Forum Pro
Right, people don't know such things, but the reviews they read tell them what they will then "know".
Reviewers have been bashing the 18-70. It's the only lens/camera DPR has ever not even give a end score because it tanked. And it was because of the A350 being to much for it.
Sony needs the kit lens to pass reviews so people will buy the cameras.
I've know multiple people who handled Sony's in stores and on the basis of the 18-70 feeling cheap in hand passed on the Sony. Pick up a pentax, now there is a kit lens.
Yes, a lens needs to be cheap, still Sony managed with the extra 15mm for a few years. Considering folks will use it with a 55-200. I think most would be best served by giving some tele up for some more wide. Like a 16-60. They could still do that cheap.
Pentax makes the nicest kit lens and sells it very cheap.
Reviewers have been bashing the 18-70. It's the only lens/camera DPR has ever not even give a end score because it tanked. And it was because of the A350 being to much for it.
Sony needs the kit lens to pass reviews so people will buy the cameras.
I've know multiple people who handled Sony's in stores and on the basis of the 18-70 feeling cheap in hand passed on the Sony. Pick up a pentax, now there is a kit lens.
Yes, a lens needs to be cheap, still Sony managed with the extra 15mm for a few years. Considering folks will use it with a 55-200. I think most would be best served by giving some tele up for some more wide. Like a 16-60. They could still do that cheap.
Pentax makes the nicest kit lens and sells it very cheap.
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
ck22 wrote:
Yes Sony has some new lens.
Super Telephoto Lens
No doubt it will please some folks, the pic shows that rather unpopular silver colour though
DT 50mm F1.8
I am against DT primes myself, but least Nikon gave folks a 35mm one (aka so it's almost 50mm FOV on a crop sensor), this makes no sense really. Knowing sony it will be about £200+, so everyone will just go out and get the 1.7 minolta anyway!
DT 30mm F2.8 Macro
A real macro or a half life sized? Not sure I see much demand for this one, too short tele wise.
DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6
The kit lens does need a replacement. However, this is the same as everyone else, bit boring really. Still, if it is "good" then that is something. Most folks would rather have a decent this, than a ropey what we have. But marks off for copy cat stuff!
28-75mm F2.8
tamron re-badge?, good lens..but why bother with it, just buy the tamron one!
DT 55-200mm F4-5.6
Don't we already have one of these??
I agree lenses is not just about CZ, G and top end..but a rather uninspired announcement really, nothing of great interest at all.
They could have at least thrown in their own "real" UWA lens. No doubt we will end up with the 10-24mm tamron re-badged..one to avoid by the looks of it.
Had we had an affordabel f1.7/8 35mm prime (full frame), then I might have got slightly worked up.
As it is..well, who fell of their chair? I didn't!
Yes Sony has some new lens.
Super Telephoto Lens
No doubt it will please some folks, the pic shows that rather unpopular silver colour though
DT 50mm F1.8
I am against DT primes myself, but least Nikon gave folks a 35mm one (aka so it's almost 50mm FOV on a crop sensor), this makes no sense really. Knowing sony it will be about £200+, so everyone will just go out and get the 1.7 minolta anyway!
DT 30mm F2.8 Macro
A real macro or a half life sized? Not sure I see much demand for this one, too short tele wise.
DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6
The kit lens does need a replacement. However, this is the same as everyone else, bit boring really. Still, if it is "good" then that is something. Most folks would rather have a decent this, than a ropey what we have. But marks off for copy cat stuff!
28-75mm F2.8
tamron re-badge?, good lens..but why bother with it, just buy the tamron one!
DT 55-200mm F4-5.6
Don't we already have one of these??
I agree lenses is not just about CZ, G and top end..but a rather uninspired announcement really, nothing of great interest at all.
They could have at least thrown in their own "real" UWA lens. No doubt we will end up with the 10-24mm tamron re-badged..one to avoid by the looks of it.
Had we had an affordabel f1.7/8 35mm prime (full frame), then I might have got slightly worked up.
As it is..well, who fell of their chair? I didn't!
B
Barry Fitzgerald
Guest
I agree with your comments, in that sony stuffed up the 18-70mm, it does need a replacement.
But did we get something different? Not really, just the same bog standard 18-55mm everyone else does, let's hope it's good on an optical level.
I am sure most folks would be happy to give up the tele for more WA, but we didn't get any! Say even a 17mm-60mm would have been half interesting. I doubted a 16mm start off..might put folks off getting the better lenses.
But what bugs me is a 50mm DT, I guess it might help lower the price on the 1.7's..probably not..most folks will just get that one I would think..
A somewhat strange list.. And not super great news for an A900 FF user. 
The telephoto is a good addition to the system - but the the others are a bit boring and odd. The 50mm & 30mm are DT's... and if the 30 macro is slow then it's not that interesting compared to the sigma 30mm.. maybe they thought the macro function would have users buy the sony instead? For shooting closeups of dead insects..
The alpha system could have used a FF all-around lens like the much rumoured 24-105/f4.
A better aps-c kit lens than the competition - like 3.5-4 or something - 5.6 @ 55mm is quite poor.
Then a few affordable FF primes to get the newcomers to start buying primes and thinking of expanding their system; 85mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 35/f2.8, etc
Maybe a freaky FF UW fish eye for those more extreme - like the sigma 8mm etc.
I think the gap between the super primes & CZ's and the basic kit and basic teles is too large.
Georg Varsanpää
The telephoto is a good addition to the system - but the the others are a bit boring and odd. The 50mm & 30mm are DT's... and if the 30 macro is slow then it's not that interesting compared to the sigma 30mm.. maybe they thought the macro function would have users buy the sony instead? For shooting closeups of dead insects..
The alpha system could have used a FF all-around lens like the much rumoured 24-105/f4.
A better aps-c kit lens than the competition - like 3.5-4 or something - 5.6 @ 55mm is quite poor.
Then a few affordable FF primes to get the newcomers to start buying primes and thinking of expanding their system; 85mm f2.8, 50mm f1.8, 35/f2.8, etc
Maybe a freaky FF UW fish eye for those more extreme - like the sigma 8mm etc.
I think the gap between the super primes & CZ's and the basic kit and basic teles is too large.
--
Georg Varsanpää
hazard
Well-known member
Shrinking the image circle does help a lot in acheiving higher resolution, which might be a design goal if you plan to relese even higher MP APS-C bodies.
Andreas
fjbyrne
Veteran Member
Chad Marek wrote:
So I guess Sony does think it needs an update to its kit lenses
fjbyrne
So I guess Sony does think it needs an update to its kit lenses
I agree. IMO the "super telephoto" is one of the biggest holes Sony has at the moment - FF or DT. I was really hoping that this lens would be ready for release. I would like to know what it is going to be in the very least.
True. I think a 28-75/2.8 makes perfect sense if Sony comes out with a less expensive full frame camera in the future. Hopefully that is what this lens is for.
Makes no sense to me. I can see a FF 50/1.8 but not a DT. A FF makes sense to me especially if they are coming out with a more affordable FF camera. I think a 35/1.8 DT would make more sense because then it would be closer to a normal lens (like Nikon did).
This is the oddest of the bunch IMO. A 180 or 200mm macro would have made more sense to me.
Completely agree.
--
fjbyrne
ronrubble
Well-known member
I hope that this 50mm DT f/1.8 comes in at a nice price point as the minolta 50mm f/1.7 price has been skyrocketing recently, and I imagine that the majority of people buying it (like me!) have been using APS-C Sensors. Could be a good move I think. For the FF users, if they can afford an A900 then it isn't unreasonable to be able to afford the current 50mm f/1.4.
I also like the FOV the 50mm gives on an APS-C sensor, makes it a great wee portrait lens!
--
Happy shooting!
Byron
I also like the FOV the 50mm gives on an APS-C sensor, makes it a great wee portrait lens!
--
Happy shooting!
Byron
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum