SONY, please give us a GOOD 24-70 equivalent soon!

Bart Hickman said:

The 10-18, 16-50, 55-210. Yes, they aren't F/2.8, but in a system like the E-system (which excels in compactness), you have to start at the bottom and work your way up.

Meanwhile, I reckon you can get the lens adaptor for the high end stuff (where compactness must be less important anyway.)

Click to expand...

You are correct, Bart. But the Holy Trio has to be f2.8 on the 24-70/70-200 (18-50/55-150) range. The 10-18 can be f3.5-4.5 so that is exempted. Since the 10-18 is f4, that's a good start and it passes. But they still need to come out with a 18-50 f2.8 OSS. That is a doable and desirable lens. Tamron makes a killing with their well regarded 17-50 f2.8 di series. So with Canon's ef-s 17-55 f2.8 IS.

Then there is still the 55-140mm range at f2.8. AFAIK, only Tokina has such a lens in the electronic lens world. There was a 50-150 Nikon series E lens of old and it was f3.5-4.5 if I recall. I'd even settle for a 55-140mm f4 OSS. I suppose, nobody wants to make an f2.8 one because cost-wise, even size-wise, it's very close to a 70-200mm and the 35FF version would be better served than a truly dedicated 55-140mm f2.8.

I think, if Sony can make a 55-135mm f2.8 OSS, that is relatively small/light I think there would be a place for that. I just don't know if Sony sees it the same way.

--
--------------------

• Caterpillar

'Always in the process of changing, growing, and transforming.'

I thought Sony already makes an alpha mount 16-50/2.8, so with the adaptor you're covered on that one. Now you just need a 50-135/2.8 or, if you don't mind the extra bulk and a small gap in f/l coverage, just settle for the 70-200/2.8 (and adaptor again.)

I'm not saying native E-mount wouldn't be nice, but Sony might regard it as non-urgent given the work-around that's available with adaptors, particularly since longer lenses tend to not benefit much from the shorter flange depth of the mirrorless mount.

Bart
--
http://bhimages.zenfolio.com

spacemn said:

That must be possible somehow (esp length wise) as Sony came up with the power zoom and made that as compact as the Panasonic m43 counterpart (amazingly).

Click to expand...

The power zoom is compact when collapsed, but when extended I suspect it's noticeably longer than the panasonic power zoom.

So unless they make the 16-50/2.8 a power zoom or use some funky folding optics, it'll be bigger.

On the plus side, such a lens is actually more like 12-38 F/2 in m43 which is both brighter and a bit more range--a lens like that would cost a frickin' fortune in m43 (and a lot bigger than the F/2.8 version.)

Bart
--
http://bhimages.zenfolio.com

24-70 equivalent with constant f/2.8 is most waited lens for nex system I think.

But it seems that sony just wants to sell much more of their 24cz/35/50 primes than they can with 24-70 released.

"Capitalizom"(c)Red Heat

--
sorry for bad english, its just too cold here, hehe

Ok, factor is 1,5339 or even larger regarding blocked out pixels at the borders on the sensor, but let´s stop that here. 2mm delta in wideangle can be day and night...

You were the first I know who has a 18-55 that performs well at !!!55mm!!! .

I have two 18-55 (one from NEX5 kit and one from NEX7 kit), my father has another 18-55 from a NEX5 kit. All three have very soft corners especially at 55mm! I don´t want to use a 24MP camera that resolves about an equivalent of lets say 3MP in the corners. Your photo would look horrible when printed at A2 e.g.. Even my CZ24 1.8 doesn´t challenge that sensor to death, but I feel ok with that.

I never said I expect wonders from a kit lens, don´t understand me wrong, for such a cheap glass it´s acceptable, especially at 24mm. But I wouldn´t hide my purse if there was a much sharper zoom lens for let´s say 1000€!

Ok, that´s it!
Have fun,
Roland.

EinsteinsGhost said:

Roland Schulz said:

I don´t care much about that, again, I wrote "around" the 24-70 range!!
I would prefer the 24 lower end, but I really want better quality.

BTW: 28-85 is wrong, [18-55] 1.5 is 27-82.5, but the viewing angle is also much dependend on the distance you focus on.

Click to expand...

Things are neither that precise nor would you be able to tell the difference. For all practical purposes, 18-55 APS-C is 28-85 FF equivalence (if you want to still do the math, 55mm * 1.52 = 83.6mm).

Now, the new 16-50 IS around 24-70 that you're asking for. More precisely...
24mm-76mm.

EinsteinsGhost said:

Corner performance of the 18-55 is only acceptable at 36[24]mm (have two samples, both about the same) when doing landscapes.

Click to expand...

You're going to get an inexpensive zoom to do only so much. But, you won't find me complaining... I thought it looked good on day 1 (a test shot, at 55mm):

Click to expand...

Have you been shooting a f4.0 lens at an event with low light?! You would pray for a 2.8, pray for one stop, at least for the AF, even on a Nikon D3!! Even a f4.0 70-200 is large an heavy, even the canon. No lens for everything, no camera for everything...

NowHearThis said:

Not necessarily. F2.8 zooms are 3lbs minimum. For the NEX that's a bit much. I'd much prefer a 70-200/4 that can match the Canon 70-200/4L IS USM. It's sharper than every F2.8 that covers the same range - I've shot everything except the Sigma 70-200 OS, but I think I can still make that claim. Not to mention that 70-200/4 would be 1/2 the weight, 1/3rd the size (volume) and about 1/2 the price - and you only loose 1 stop.

Click to expand...

Roland Schulz said:

I never said I expect wonders from a kit lens, don´t understand me wrong, for such a cheap glass it´s acceptable, especially at 24mm. But I wouldn´t hide my purse if there was a much sharper zoom lens for let´s say 1000€!

Click to expand...

This guy has images with comment to match.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/caughtintheair/6801395166/in/set-72157625959142032/

Roland Schulz said:

Have you been shooting a f4.0 lens at an event with low light?!

Click to expand...

Nope, I shoot 'events' in decent light. For low light, F2.8 lenses just don't cut it for me. When I need to shoot in low light, in the past I usually borrow f1.8 primes - up to 85mm (they're 1 1/3rd stops faster than F2.8 lenses). In the last few years I've had cameras with 18MP+ so I can crop if need be - I haven't needed a 70-200mm f/2.8. I have, however, shot things in good to late day or light overcast light where an F4 works fine. I've shot with the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and the F4. I much prefer the F4. It's sharper, much lighter, I can hand hold it, and stay mobile, all day and not get hand fatigue - I can't do that with a gigantic F2.8.

Roland Schulz said:

You would pray for a 2.8, pray for one stop, at least for the AF, even on a Nikon D3!! Even a f4.0 70-200 is large an heavy, even the canon. No lens for everything, no camera for everything...

Click to expand...

I mentioned that having Sony make a F4 first makes sense because it is smaller, like mirrorless ILCs, it'll likely cost about a $1000 less than an F2.8. People already complain that the 24mm Zeiss, 18-200, and now the 10-18 cost too much; how much more whining would we hear if Sony announced a 3.5lb, 8.5" long, $2300 F/2.8 lens. I really don't care if they do end up making one (e.g. convert the existing A-mount version to E-Mount) but I'd like to see a medium range F4 zoom, currently only Canon and Pentax make one - Minolta used to, I wish Sony would bring it back for E-mount.

Roland Schulz said:

Roland Schulz said:

Not necessarily. F2.8 zooms are 3lbs minimum. For the NEX that's a bit much. I'd much prefer a 70-200/4 that can match the Canon 70-200/4L IS USM. It's sharper than every F2.8 that covers the same range - I've shot everything except the Sigma 70-200 OS, but I think I can still make that claim. Not to mention that 70-200/4 would be 1/2 the weight, 1/3rd the size (volume) and about 1/2 the price - and you only loose 1 stop.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
NHT
while ( ! ( succeed = try() ) );