What lens would you like to see introduced next by Sony?

Started Aug 15, 2009 | Discussions thread
Mark VB Senior Member • Posts: 2,912
Re: How about a 200-400/3.5-4.8 for 1/3 of the cost?

I would rather see a high quality 300-500/4.5 priced similarly to Canon's 500/4 IS lens. Could still AF with the 1.4x converter and would provide good flexibility for the types of subjects these focal lengths are designed for. The f:4.5 maximum aperture is only 1/3 of a stop slower than f:4, so not particularly meaningful for practical photography applications while allowing for a somewhat smaller and lighter lens than would a "standard" f:4 design (think of Minolta's 400/4.5 lens). It also would provide a bit more reach than the Nikon 200-400, which would be useful on FF and APS-C bodies alike.

I could couple it with my 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 for a great three lens kit for wildlife photography (on my last trip to Africa I took my 600/4, 300/2.8, 70-200/2.8, and 16-80; for polar bears last November I took basically the same lens kit but substituting the 24-70/2.8 for the 16-80 as I had by then acquired an A900). I would gladly give up the extra 100mm of my 600/4 for the versatility of a 300-500 lens. If Sony wanted to make the 300-500 an f:4 lens I would not argue, but it would be bigger, heavier and more expensive, thus likely having a negative effect on sales.

I do think such a lens coupled with some of Sony's higher end bodies could attract some Canon (and maybe Nikon) wildlife shooters. A standard fixed 500/4 is unlikely to offer as much attraction as it provides no advantages over what the others already have (though I will take a 500/4 SSM lens if Sony is not going to make my "dream" 300-500, which in reality I doubt it will).

-- hide signature --

Mark Van Bergh

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow