Interesting read by Thom Hogan

Started Feb 14, 2014 | Discussions thread
EinsteinsGhost Forum Pro • Posts: 11,977
A Perspective

stoppingdown wrote:


To me, as a new user in this segment, this is hardly a problem. There aren't a lot of lenses in the E-mount, as some said, once you remove the mediocre ones, but there are those I'm interested into. I'd really like to see a 70-135mm/f4 zoom much lighter than the 70-200mm f/4, but I reckon this is a sort of exotic request.

Just a quick note of support - although my vote would be for 50-150f4. Seems to me that would be a natural companion to the 16-70 as well as working with the existing kit lenses. Whatever they do, it seems to me an E mount companion to the 16-70 is pretty important for keeping serious users in the system.


A way to solve this uncertainty, real or perceived, would be by means of Sony to release a more detailed roadmap for the 2/3 next years, but this is probably a problem for a corporate, as this would be too deep a constraint for them - but this, in the end, confirms the idea that they are not 100% sure of what they're doing.

A roadmap would be nice, but as you say, does not seem likely. I think Sony has been rethinking their strategy and they may not yet be settled into long term plans. After trying FF for several months last year I'm now committed to smaller sensors -- I just did not get the quality boost to justify the extra size, weight and cost. While there is a lot I like about Sony E mount I worry about where it will go in the next 2 or 3 years.


Let us assume Sony does an E 50-150/4 OSS for $1k. The following will be the arguments made against it:
- too slow
- not small
- not cheap (expect paying no less than $900)

Assuming Sony listens to the inanity and develops an f/2.8...
- too big and heavy. What is the point of E-mount cameras again?
- to expensive

IMO, Sony ought to gradually build its lineup, FE primes and a couple E zooms that are faster but the latter can wait until the common sense lineup is in place.

The only zooms that tempt me are 10-18/4 and 16-70/4 primarily because they are small, light and very good. Samsung 16-50/2-2.8 is an example of going overboard (Fuji 16-55/2.8 appears to be as well), exceeding the size, weight and doubling the cost of my A-mount 16-50/2.8. If someone thought a lens with 72mm filter was too thick, Fuji's 77mm filter lens wouldn't be helping that cause. If one thought 577g was too much, add another 50g rivaling Minolta Beercan and one gets the Samsung zoom lens.

Do we want this route as a top priority on E-mount?

 EinsteinsGhost's gear list:EinsteinsGhost's gear list
Sony Cyber-shot DSC-F828 Sony SLT-A55 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sigma 18-250mm F3.5-6.3 DC OS HSM Sony 135mm F2.8 (T4.5) STF +12 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow