why not f/1.2 by Sony?

Started May 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
viking79 Forum Pro • Posts: 14,147
Re: why not f/1.2 by Sony?

stan_pustylnik wrote:

viking79 wrote:

S3ZAi wrote:

stan_pustylnik wrote:

Why doesn't Sony use smaller sensor surface advantage from NEX system to build f/1.2 35mm lens,  and 85mm f/1.4?

I've been wondering about this for ages. Been getting a whole lot of defensive answers here, as if the people who visit this forum and own a sony camera also work for sony and try to discourage people from asking this kind of questions.

If it helps you out, the oss on the sel35 and the sel50 make them in some situations even better than a faster lens. But sometimes all you want is a faster lens. And it ain't there.

Another option is a faster manual lens.

Yes it would cost a lot and yes it would  perhaps be a lot bigger, but still, it would be nice to at least have the option.

Nikon today announced a 35mm 1.2 lens for their 1 series. Yes the nikon 1 has a smaller sensor, and yes that lens is going to be 900$, but still, people who want it, will be able to get it. People wondering which camera to get will hear about the 1.2 lens and go for the nikon 1. Sony just doesn't seem to care.

Go buy a Fuji X, they have a 56mm f/1.2 coming soon.

Sure, I would like to see a few modern large aperture lenses for small sensor systems, but currently I think f/1.8 is a pretty good balance for APS-C.  It keeps the lenses modestly sized and affordable, and usually don't shoot at f/1.8 anyway.

Edit:  My point is since it is a small 1" sensor, the Nikon 1 has to have f/1.2.  APS doesn't really need f/1.2, sure I would take a few nice f/1.2 primes, but then you lose size and cost so I would just buy the 1.8 primes instead.



I honestly don't buy this, f/stop is relationship between lens external element diameter and distance to the film/sensor. By looking at tiny external lens elements of f/3.5 lenses I always wondered why makers prefer doing these small and dim lenses.

Olympus is capable even having f/2.0 zoom lenses, and Sony is not...

Sony makes 24-70 f/2.8 and 70-200mm f/2.8 for 135 format full frame, these are like 12-35 and 35-100 f/1.4 lenses on m4/3, a full stop larger effective aperture than the 14-35mm and 35-100mm f/2 lenses and they are cheaper.  I applaud Olympus for going the extra reach and making f/2 lenses, but really this is required because they have a smaller sensor.

The size of the lens is largely based on field of view and aperture.  Take for example the 32mm f/1.2, it only needs a front element size of 32/1.2 = 27 mm minimum (depends on lens design if it is that or not).  That isn't very big.  Take for example a 85mm f/3.2, this lens would also need 85/3.2 = 27 mm front element.  Now being a larger sensor it might require larger internal elements.  Both these lenses have the same field of view if the 85mm is used on 135 format full frame vs 32mm f/1.2 on Nikon 1.

So where I am going with this is I would rather see Sony stick to a larger sensor and more modest apertures as it means cheaper lenses.  When you go to smaller sensor systems, you do get smaller lenses, but only if you give up effective aperture/depth of field control.  Although the 32mm f/1.2 sounds impressive, an 85mm f/2.8 from Sony for a 135 format full frame camera is only $300 and is pretty much the same in terms of function.


 viking79's gear list:viking79's gear list
Sony Alpha a7R Samsung NX1 Samsung NX 30mm F2 Pancake Samsung NX 85mm F1.4 ED SSA Samsung NX 60mm F2.8 Macro ED OIS SSA +5 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow