Reading mode: Light Dark

From PMA floor

Go to last post
All the new lenses(save the unknown pro-oriented fix long range lens)
have af/mf switch, which might indicate build-in motors.

So, it looks to me sony is preparing A1000, which has no in-body AF motor.
 
Thanks for the reports Ken.

One thing that might help Sony with more sales, and keep users happy at the same time is to actually have more places that carry a variety of lenses to try and buy. I called my local Sony Style store today (central Ohio -Columbus) and asked if they had the 70-400G in stock so that I can check it out. I was told that they don't carry any premium lenses (G or Zeiss) in stock. Not even a demo. The sales person said that only flagship stores on the east and west coast do carry the premium lenses. They do have and A900 body in the demo case, though.

I am puzzled and upset. There is no place in Ohio that I know of that carries Sony premium lenses, or A700, A900 for that matter. Columbus is primarily a Canikon town and there are plenty of casual shooters walking around with premium Canikon lenses, so there is a market and money for that kind of stuff. I am sure that there are other places with the same problem.

Oh, and I am sure this has come up already, V5 firmware would be greatly appreciated (do I sound like I’m begging? I am begging.)

--
FEM2008
 
Hi Ken,

Any news on accessories? We need a small flash controller for the A900.

Cheers,
--
You can see larger versions of my pictures at http://www.dennismullen.com .

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.
 
liquid stereo said:
There aren't ten people in the U.S. that will purchase T&S lenses.
Maybe if one includes U.K. Europe.
Click to expand...
Really, thats why Nikon are struggling to keep up demand for their new T/S lenses. I also have 2 friends who have bought the Canon 24mm T/S lens. If Sony is serious about competing on all levels with C & N, they need T/S lenses. Pros expect them.
 
auksnapper said:
liquid stereo said:
There aren't ten people in the U.S. that will purchase T&S lenses.
Maybe if one includes U.K. Europe.
Click to expand...
Really, thats why Nikon are struggling to keep up demand for their
new T/S lenses. I also have 2 friends who have bought the Canon 24mm
T/S lens. If Sony is serious about competing on all levels with C &
N, they need T/S lenses. Pros expect them.
Click to expand...
Sure, and we will only get those pros once we have an otherwise complete system.

It really is amazing to see people who want Sony to waste time developing a specialty lens few will buy, when there are so many more important "Pro" gaps waiting to be filled.

If you are wanting to talk about things "Pros" expect, lets look at things like:
  • Super telephoto lenses - Gee, we have one of them (300mm 2.8), and it is $2000 more expensive than the competitors.
  • A "Pro" body. Sony themselves say that the A900, while good, is not "Pro". Compared to the other top pro lines (1D MkIII, D3), it is obvious there is alot more work to do.
  • Pricing most premium glass above competition, with no lower priced alternatives.
etc..
--
My ever-growing flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsbphotography
 
The biggest gap in the lens line, in regards to the A900, is telephoto and t/s. Telephoto looks like it will be adressed first. We would see even more Nikon users adding the A900 to their arsenal if T/S was available.
 
auksnapper said:
liquid stereo said:
There aren't ten people in the U.S. that will purchase T&S lenses.
Maybe if one includes U.K. Europe.
Click to expand...
Really, thats why Nikon are struggling to keep up demand for their
new T/S lenses. I also have 2 friends who have bought the Canon 24mm
T/S lens. If Sony is serious about competing on all levels with C &
N, they need T/S lenses. Pros expect them.
Click to expand...
Some pros expect (need) them. Many/most do not (which is why they sell in such limited numbers). They really are mostly for architectural photographers, though also are used in nature shooting to increase depth of focus. This latter use/need is in some ways greater for digital photography due to the earlier onset of image softening from diffraction which limits the use of smaller apertures such as f:11 or 16 (or smaller) to increase depth of focus that was/is common for film photography.

It ultimately comes down to economics, and they are not that good for such lenses. If they were, Nikon would have released its new line much sooner than it did. With all the other lens holes in the Alpha system line-up, many of which will sell in far greater numbers that would TS lenses, I think it will be quite a while before there are any Alpha TS lenses, if ever. I know that's not what some here want to hear, but I do think it is the practical reality.

Perhaps there's a way to come up with a Canon or Nikon to Alpha lens adapter that would allow the use of either a Canon or Nikon TS lens on an Alpha body (just as there are various adapters that folks are using to mount non-Canon lenses on Canon bodies to gain access to better wide angle lenses than Canon offers). That might be a far more practical solution than waiting for Sony to develop such lenses.

--
Mark Van Bergh
 
headofdestiny said:
The biggest gap in the lens line, in regards to the A900, is
telephoto and t/s. Telephoto looks like it will be adressed first.
We would see even more Nikon users adding the A900 to their arsenal
if T/S was available.
Click to expand...
Ah yes.. all 3 of them...

I am just curious - for those who who keep saying how critical these silly T/S lenses are (expect PT, I know he actually would), how many of you actually WOULD buy these $2000 lenses? I mean, lets get freaking real folks. The LAST thing Sony needs to waste their time on is silly T/S lenses. We A-Mount users need better affordable lenses (the 20mm and 24mm are in bad need of a refresh, aside from the other holes in our system).

And yes, I am adamant... I want some good lenses that I will actually use (and be able to afford). It is so frustrating to see everyone asking for these useless lenses they wont even buy!

--
My ever-growing flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsbphotography
 
Madcat207 said:
headofdestiny said:
The biggest gap in the lens line, in regards to the A900, is
telephoto and t/s. Telephoto looks like it will be adressed first.
We would see even more Nikon users adding the A900 to their arsenal
if T/S was available.
Click to expand...
Ah yes.. all 3 of them...

I am just curious - for those who who keep saying how critical these
silly T/S lenses are (expect PT, I know he actually would), how many
of you actually WOULD buy these $2000 lenses? I mean, lets get
freaking real folks. The LAST thing Sony needs to waste their time
on is silly T/S lenses. We A-Mount users need better affordable
lenses (the 20mm and 24mm are in bad need of a refresh, aside from
the other holes in our system).

And yes, I am adamant... I want some good lenses that I will actually
use (and be able to afford). It is so frustrating to see everyone
asking for these useless lenses they wont even buy!

--
My ever-growing flickr gallery:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dsbphotography
Click to expand...
If I recall correctly, you don't own an A900, so I'm a little confused as to how you think you are the expert in what A900 users need. For those willing to spend $3K on a camera body, $2k on a lens is well within the realm of possible purchase. T/S is wonderful for landscape, architecture/interiors, product, fine art shooting etc, and if we have users willing to spend $1800 on zoom lenses, then I'm sure we have users willing to spend similar money on T/S. I'm not saying every Sony resource needs to be poured into a full line of T/S products, but one or two would definitely help the FF crowd, as well as the overall view of the system.

Sony just previewed 5 new affordable lenses, and one expensive lens, so it seems like you'd be happier about where they're going.
 
headofdestiny said:
Madcat207 said:
I am just curious - for those who who keep saying how critical these
silly T/S lenses are (expect PT, I know he actually would), how many
of you actually WOULD buy these $2000 lenses?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
headofdestiny said:
For those willing to spend $3K on a camera body, $2k on a lens
is well within the realm of possible purchase. T/S is wonderful for
landscape, architecture/interiors, product, fine art shooting etc,
and if we have users willing to spend $1800 on zoom lenses, then I'm
sure we have users willing to spend similar money on T/S.
Click to expand...
First, an $1800 zoom is a lot more veratile than a t/s prime. It's a bread & butter lens for a lot of photography.

Second, a whole market for the A900 is near-medium-format quality on a budget. You can consider getting great results from a $4000 kit comprised of $1000 in lenses and an A900. People will scrimp & save and stretch their budget to get this. Not everyone who spends $3000 on the camera will consider spending $2000 on a niche lens. (Then again, some landscape & architecture photographers might photograph almost exclusively with such a lens - I've read the arguments in favor of using t/s to avoid stopping down & losing detail to diffraction).

One or two t/s lenses would "help". I don't see the lack of t/s as a significant or high priority hole in the lineup. It pales compared to lack of WA primes or affordable portrait prime, lack of fast teles or a compact 70-200/4.
  • Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com
 
Dennis said:
headofdestiny wrote:
First, an $1800 zoom is a lot more veratile than a t/s prime. It's a
bread & butter lens for a lot of photography.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I was just using that as a price point, although I think t/s is more versatile than some realize.
Dennis said:
Second, a whole market for the A900 is near-medium-format quality on
a budget. You can consider getting great results from a $4000 kit
comprised of $1000 in lenses and an A900. People will scrimp & save
and stretch their budget to get this. Not everyone who spends $3000
on the camera will consider spending $2000 on a niche lens. (Then
again, some landscape & architecture photographers might photograph
almost exclusively with such a lens - I've read the arguments in
favor of using t/s to avoid stopping down & losing detail to
diffraction).

One or two t/s lenses would "help". I don't see the lack of t/s as a
significant or high priority hole in the lineup. It pales compared
to lack of WA primes or affordable portrait prime, lack of fast teles
or a compact 70-200/4.
Click to expand...
Well, we just got a nice tele previewed (i agree they're necessary,) and Nikon is doing fine without a 70-200/4 or great wide angle primes, but I do see your point. I guess, since I'm one who invests in glass first, body second, this is all a little counter intuitive to me. Sure, a lot of users will stretch to buy the A900 (and it's often time more camera than they need,) but I think that when a lot of high end users look at the Sony system when deciding on whether to invest in it, most of the high end bases are covered outside of expensive teles, t/s, and fast wide primes. It seems that if you get the high end and low end covered, the middle of the road stuff will follow.
 
"For those willing to spend $3K on a camera body, $2k on a lens is well within the realm of possible purchase. "

Faulty assumption! I bought an A900 because it is the best deal out there, from a quality/cost standpoint. I have no intention of buying those overpriced godzilla lenses.

I have to agree with those posters who would have Sony wait on the T/S lenses. They should plug some BASIC holes in their lineup before they release any more of this exotic glass.

Affordable quality primes. That's what I'm in the market for. A 24/2.8, a 28/2, a 35/2. Nikon and Canon make these lenses and sell them cheaply, as did Minolta before Sony bought them out.

Oh well.
 
Sigma didn't tell you that they had a sony fit ringflash ? Did you see the metz one which also workes with SOny?
--
F717 (Legendary)
A700 (what a fantastic machine)
A200 (Almost as fantastic)
 
I agree. Oh, that hotshoe--I could strangle Sony for keeping that infuriating mount. I've just gotten interested in using off-camera flash and man, that hotshoe makes it such a pain.

And the nerve of Sony for charging over a hundred dollars for that little adapter. Outrageous.
 
cjhacker23 said:
A
24/2.8, a 28/2, a 35/2. Nikon and Canon make these lenses and sell
them cheaply, as did Minolta before Sony bought them out.
Click to expand...
Those lenses were gone well before Sony bought KM out.

--

My dry sense of humor is completely mis-interpreted when put in writing as proven by the post immediately following this one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
When will Nikon add free CP2A authenticaion to Z8 et all
Replies
16
Views
94
sirhawkeye64
S
M
Further investments into the A-mount in 2024.
Replies
10
Views
177
Mbruinsma
M
P
New RX100 VIII coming from Sony
2
Replies
37
Views
17K
rodeknyt
R
S
Anyone switch from Leica to Fujifilm
Replies
12
Views
331
syrcular
S
joger
can's buy anything at SONY now - cash is piling up ( would spend immediately )
3 4 5
Replies
87
Views
2K
joger
joger

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