Reading mode: Light Dark

New Lens From Sony

Go to last post
Why put efforts towards those lenses if there are so many more desireable blanks in current lens line up.

Look at Sigma - 10-20/3.5 HSM !!, Look at Pentax - 15mm prime !!, Nikon - 35/1.8 !!

I don't get it. May be Sony should go shopping for Sigma or Pentax?

And looking at the picture of new lenses I can guess those are not even SSM (besides G of course). They all have that tiny focussing ring again close to outside edge of a lens.

--
Hertz
 
Frenske said:
A 50mm DT lens makes perfect sense. The 50mm f1.4 is obvious aimed
for the FF and the serious amateurs and its price reflects this. If
you can buy an A900 you can buy the 50mm f1.4.
Click to expand...
2 things ...

1. FF won't be $3000 forever. So this is short-sighted.

2. You can make that argument for the 50. You have to make the same argument for the 35 and 85. It adds up. Instead of $700 for f/1.8 versions of those three lenses, you have to spend $3000 on f/1.4 versions.
Frenske said:
Now off course I am not going to buy this lens since I have the KM
50mm f1.7 but the demand for this lens is exceeding the supply and
hence its commanding high prices. I see a large market for this lens
provided the quality is comparable with the KM50mm f1.7.
Click to expand...
None of that explains why it's limited to APS-C. It's market would be no smaller if it were FF. And if you want to limit it to APS-C, make it a more useful lens, like 35mm, 60mm, 70mm. People buy the 50/1.7 for APS-C because it's a cheap fast prime, not because it's 50mm.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Frenske said:
A 50mm DT lens makes perfect sense. The 50mm f1.4 is obvious aimed
for the FF and the serious amateurs and its price reflects this. If
you can buy an A900 you can buy the 50mm f1.4.
Hobbyists like me are not keen to pay the high price for the such a
lens and would be happy to settle for semi-fast quality 50mm f1.8.
Now off course I am not going to buy this lens since I have the KM
50mm f1.7 but the demand for this lens is exceeding the supply and
hence its commanding high prices. I see a large market for this lens
provided the quality is comparable with the KM50mm f1.7.

--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/
Click to expand...
I am not suggesting that an affordable 50mm isn't a good thing - it is. I have a Minolta 50/1.7 in my bag. I am suggesting that a DT instead of Full Frame is not a good thing. Why limit it to just APS-C cameras? The only 2 reasons are size and price.

Size:

A FF 50mm is not a big lens to begin with. I have used my 50/1.7 on a KM 5D, A100 and A700 and it is small. So I am assuming that size isn't the driving factor unless Sony is getting ready for a smaller EVF Alpha.

Price:

Nikon and Canon have FF 50/1.8 lenses for $130 and $90 respectively. Is the Sony DT lens going to be significantly cheaper than those? I doubt it - I would guess it will be more expensive.

So I am still confused as to why we needed a 50/1.8 DT lens. I think we needed a 50/1.8 full frame lens.

--
fjbyrne
 
--

I think you may be right, Dennis. If they are calling all of these G, then Im betting they're all SSM...although I'm also betting some will be the cheaper micro-motor type :(
 
Look at that tiny focusing ring on the edge of a barrel. It could not be SSM.



--
Hertz
 
headofdestiny said:
--
I think you may be right, Dennis. If they are calling all of these G,
then Im betting they're all SSM...although I'm also betting some will
be the cheaper micro-motor type :(
Click to expand...
I would much rather have screw drive lenses than a cheap micro motor in the lens. SSM should only be the ring type IMO.

--
fjbyrne
 
The 28-75 makes sense to me as they don't have an affordable option for FF, and it provides an affordable option for those needing f2.8 zoom. Pricing will be interesting as you can get the Tamron for around $350. I had the KM 28-75, and it was okay but not stellar; I've been much happier with the IQ from the CZ 16-80.

I was expecting an update of the 24-105, though, as that lens has an attractive range and performed well on film and early DSLRS - maybe go back to the Minolta 24-85, if necessary to achieve the optics requried for FF.

New kit is needed. The old kit had a unique range though that made it attractive, and it performed decently - at least on my KM5D. Seems like they've lost that uniqueness with this one, but maybe necessary to keep it cheap and have decent optics.

As the rest have said, I don't get the other offerings.

Was kind of halfway expecting an update to the CZ 16-80 and/or 16-105 maybe offering ssm and correcting the build issues with the CZ. Maybe a G level standard zoom is needed here.
 
hertz said:
Dennis said:
options. A 60 or 70mm prime, I could see. People bought 85, 90,
100, 105, 135mm lenses for portraits on film. I don't recall anyone
ever asking for a 75mm portrait lens.
Click to expand...
In fact there were couple (and still are available). Leica 75mm for
their M rangefinder cameras.

http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/m_system/lenses/2188.html

But I still agree. Fast inexpensive 60mm DT or 85mm FF would be much
much more desireable options.

--
Hertz
Click to expand...
You mean something like this:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-85mm-1-8-USM-Lens/dp/B00005NPOB/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1236092207&sr=1-1

Not a bad price either..plus with SSS, nice

Would be a very sought after lens I would think

And add a nice fast 35mm, a real 50mm budget FF, all FF in fact...yeah

Happy days

Sony didn't miss the boat, the tripped over the bag containing the rubber dinghy, and fell flat on their face. Very disappointing indeed
 
Dennis said:
Frenske said:
A 50mm DT lens makes perfect sense. The 50mm f1.4 is obvious aimed
for the FF and the serious amateurs and its price reflects this. If
you can buy an A900 you can buy the 50mm f1.4.
Click to expand...
2 things ...

1. FF won't be $3000 forever. So this is short-sighted.
2. You can make that argument for the 50. You have to make the same
argument for the 35 and 85. It adds up. Instead of $700 for f/1.8
versions of those three lenses, you have to spend $3000 on f/1.4
versions.
Dennis said:
Now off course I am not going to buy this lens since I have the KM
50mm f1.7 but the demand for this lens is exceeding the supply and
hence its commanding high prices. I see a large market for this lens
provided the quality is comparable with the KM50mm f1.7.
Click to expand...
None of that explains why it's limited to APS-C. It's market would
be no smaller if it were FF. And if you want to limit it to APS-C,
make it a more useful lens, like 35mm, 60mm, 70mm. People buy the
50/1.7 for APS-C because it's a cheap fast prime, not because it's
50mm.
Click to expand...
It might be short-sighted but we are still years away from affordable FF and what you call affordable might be expensive for others. Being a hobbyist £500 for a camera would be a lot of money for me.

At this moment the 50mm f1.4 costs £250. If they can sell the 50mm f1.8 for less than £130 than there will be a huge market. Restricting the lens to APS-C format allows Sony to make the lens cheaper (smaller glass) and also Sony would not loose the costumers who would need to buy the more profitable 50mm f1.4.

As far I know the 50mm is a classic focal length. Furthermore the aperture of a fast 50mm matches the size of the mount; resulting in a straightforward design. For 70mm this is no longer the case and one need to make the front element bigger and hence more expensive. I agree a 35mm f1.7 or even f2 is highly desirable but nevertheless a 50mm f1.8 is a sure market success. I have a 50mm f1.7 and 50mm f3.5 and I use them both.

--

http://frenske.zenfolio.com/
 
Frenske said:
As far I know the 50mm is a classic focal length. Furthermore the
aperture of a fast 50mm matches the size of the mount; resulting in a
straightforward design. For 70mm this is no longer the case and one
need to make the front element bigger and hence more expensive. I
agree a 35mm f1.7 or even f2 is highly desirable but nevertheless a
50mm f1.8 is a sure market success. I have a 50mm f1.7 and 50mm f3.5
and I use them both.
Click to expand...
No 50mm is a classic focal length on 35mm/FF, not on APS.

The reason people get it, and its been said before...

It's not expensive, the f1.7 is really the only fast affordable prime out there, bar the f1.4

A fast f1.8 35mm would do perfectly for APS users, and be useful to FF ones too. I bet this 50mm DT costs more than the Canikon ones, no question about it, maybe a miracle will happen

We need!

50mm f1.7/1.8 FULL FRAME
35mm f1.8 or f2 FF
85mm f1.8 would be a great and mega seller too

What we have here is some half baked meagre offering from sony, it's deeply unconvincing indeed.

The 35mm gives APS users the classic focal length (or near it) 50mm for everyone else, and a nice 85mm would please most folks too

3 affordable useful primes for all users APS or FF. Not some dodgy DT joke

Sony really don't have a clue about users needs
 
I wonder how many more "kits" Sony can affort not to sell.

Just compare:
Canon 5dII + Canon 85/1.8 = $3000
and
Sony A900 + CZ 85/1.4 = $4300

And this is very very desireable combo to start with portrait photography.

--
Hertz
 
hertz said:
I wonder how many more "kits" Sony can affort not to sell.

Just compare:
Canon 5dII + Canon 85/1.8 = $3000
and
Sony A900 + CZ 85/1.4 = $4300

And this is very very desireable combo to start with portrait
photography.

Well I will pass on the A900!
Click to expand...
But I would be..VERY VERY interested in an 85mm f1.8, both canon and nikon have them, both are near the £300 mark..not sure about the nikon..but the Canon is a very good lens.

If you go hunting for a sony 85mm, all you get is the nice but pricey £900 odd CZ f1.4..great if you have the cash burning a hole in your pocket..me I would take the 1.8 in a heartbeat

Where is it???

Sony could have given us 3 affordable primes, and greatly enhanced the appeal to all users and potential buyers..add that SSS to the 85mm, thats a sweet thing indeed.

We got one lousy DT prime..gggggrrrrrrrr
 
OK, that is a legit argument for a new kit lens, but not for extending the zoom range on the wide end.

--

My dry sense of humor is completely mis-interpreted when put in writing as proven by the post immediately following this one.
 
dr4gon said:
What a very sad and anticlimactic day.
So, no high end or even nice lenses?
Click to expand...
UM whats that silver looking thing up there? Not high-end enough for you? I bet that silver beast goes for over 2K thats pretty high end

Also I think the reason all these are DT lenses is because sony only has 1 full frame camera the rest are A-PCS size plus the new A-800 or what ever its going to be will probably also be A-PCS sensor size so thats 5 A-PCS sensors in sonys line up right now, so how many more A-PCS camera are out there compared to full frames..
--

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Email : [email protected]

'Always Looking For New People To Walk The Streets Of NYC With In Search Of The Perfect Shot'

http://photobucket.com/AustinNyc

'Equipment List'
Beer Can 70-210 f4 (Sharp but TONS of CA)
Sony 50mm f1.4 (Tack Sharp!)
Tamron 17-50mm f2.8 ( !!Sharp Sharp Sharp !! )
Tamron 20-200 F2.8 Macro XD Di :) (I LOVE this lens!!)
 
Dennis said:
Bramley said:
As to why isn't it 30mm? Because it's 50mm. Why isn't it a normal?
Because it's a portrait prime instead. 2 different lenses and I
don't agree that a normal takes precedence over a portrait prime -
they're simply differing opinions. You seen the prices of 50 1.7s on
ebay recently?
Click to expand...
That's just it - it isn't a portrait prime. It's some goofy
in-between thing that people buy today because there are no other
options. A 60 or 70mm prime, I could see. People bought 85, 90,
100, 105, 135mm lenses for portraits on film. I don't recall anyone
ever asking for a 75mm portrait lens.
Click to expand...
Yes! 70mm prime would do MUCH better for portraits than 50mm! You are obviously someone that has experience with taking portraits. Too bad Sony does not have a clue here. Unbelievable really.
Dennis said:
Dennis said:
Releasing a DT 35/2 wouldn't have made the situation any better - FF
users would still lack a wide-angle and APS-C users would wonder
where their portrait prime had gone. As it is APS-C users have their
portrait-prime but no normal, FF users still lack their F2 35 & 85.
Click to expand...
Hmmmm ... but if 50mm is a portrait lens, APS-C users have the 50/1.4
today, with its bright VF image and circular aperture. FF users have
to pay $1300+ for a portrait lens; are you saying that APS-C users
need a $125 portrait lens, that the 50/1.4 is too expensive ?
Click to expand...
I have a 35 f2.0 for my a700 and it is MUCH more useful than a 50mm. On the a900 it would be superb.
Dennis said:
50/1.8 FF makes sense. FF isn't going to be $3000 forever, and
sooner or later, FF buyers are going to be budget buyers looking for
a cheaper normal. And the existing Sony 50/1.4 isn't all that great
a lens. So if you're going to redo the 50, why not make a new, sharp
50/1.8 for everyone. Or, if you're going to do a DT lens, do a DT
lens that people want . Just because the old 50/1.7 is in demand
doesn't mean that people wouldn't rather a 60 or 70mm lens instead.
Dennis said:
It's a good move. More lenses are still to come - in fact using your
argument we could say 'why isn't it a 400mm f4.5? People still lack
that!' But the lenses are coming out bit by bit, and the 30 2.8
macro should go some way to soothing your pain at the lack of a 30 f2.
Click to expand...
How so ? We already have the FF 28/2.8.
  • Dennis
Click to expand...
Nikon has a MUCH better quality line-up of lenses for APS-C than Sony, (and even Canon). Maybe Sony could take a look at the Nikon booth sometime to see what they SHOULD be offering in lenses! If the a700 replacement follows along this line of reasoning you can be sure I won't be happy. Looking at where Sony is going with their Alpha lens offerings, my next DSLR camera may very well be a Nikon!
I am very disappointed in Sony at this point.
-Phil
 
Well there are different flavors of SSM (how Sony names it) motors. This article gives good explanation even though its about Canon flawors:

http://photo.net/equipment/canon/lens-motors

The most desireable type of SSM is "Ring type". This is the only one that:
  • silent
  • fast
  • and allows simeltaneous use of manual focusing ring together with motor.
If the focusing ring made narrow and close to the lens edge - this is a clear indication that it rotates during AF. So that fingers would not block its movement.

--
Hertz
 
Phixel wrote:
Hi Phil,
Phixel said:
Yes! 70mm prime would do MUCH better for portraits than 50mm! You are
obviously someone that has experience with taking portraits. Too bad
Sony does not have a clue here. Unbelievable really.
Click to expand...
Candids, really. I used to use the 100/2.8 macro with film (never tried the wonderful 100/2). I did try the 135/2.8 with film & found it too long to use very often (needed too much space) so I never expected the 85 to be so useful with APS-C until I found myself shooting the 28-75 at 75 and wishing it were longer.

I actually bought a 50/1.4 months before the 7D came out, knowing I'd be buying one and thinking it would be a cheap portrait lens. Turns out I loved using it on film and hated it on APS-C. It was too long or too short for everything.

I know plenty of people use it (or 50/1.7) successfully, but I can't help but think that it's a compromise for everyone and that people wouldn't be as happy or happier with a 60-70mm lens.
Phixel said:
I have a 35 f2.0 for my a700 and it is MUCH more useful than a 50mm.
On the a900 it would be superb.
Click to expand...
I had the 35/2 briefly and now have the 28/2. I go back & forth as to which I liked using better on APS-C. I have fond memories of using my HiMatic 7sII with it's 40mm lens, so I tend to think I like the 28, but then when I go to use it, I often wish it were just a tad "tighter".
Phixel said:
Nikon has a MUCH better quality line-up of lenses for APS-C than
Sony, (and even Canon). Maybe Sony could take a look at the Nikon
booth sometime to see what they SHOULD be offering in lenses! If the
a700 replacement follows along this line of reasoning you can be sure
I won't be happy. Looking at where Sony is going with their Alpha
lens offerings, my next DSLR camera may very well be a Nikon!
I am very disappointed in Sony at this point.
Click to expand...
Pure speculation, but if these lenses are SSM, Sony could be looking to get some SSM out quickly for either video camera use or an SSM-only body in the future (why else reannounce 55-200 ?)

The kit lens makes sense; Sony bodies don't do so well in consumer grade tests that use the kit lens. And maybe the 50 will be optimized for performance and will be provided with bodies for tests. A cynical view of things - that Sony's is designing products to look good in tests rather than based on user needs.

None of it matters to me as there's not much I'd be interested in ... maybe if a new 35/1.8 looked stellar I'd replace my 28/2 but there's nothing much I need. I just don't see this as making the Alpha system any more attractive, aside from a better-testing kit lens and maybe more SSM lenses (we don't know yet).

-Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top