Reading mode:
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
G Master - Too Expensive? Too Big?
- Thread starter Dig97
- Start date
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Great analysis. A real eye opener.
Excellent point. I have a theory:Hear hear.Are you serious? All lenses for mirrorless should be small, since the camera body itself is small?2. Too big - People are saying these lenses are not as big as FF lenses from Canon/Nikon equipment. But they are not Small either by any means. Professional or not, thats a buzz kill, who chose Mirrorless for its size and still has sensible mind to stick with that decision or argument of 'size'.
There are small, light and compact lenses. There are large, bright and heavy lenses. You can build the system that suits your photographic needs.
Adding weight to a heavy lens with a large, bulky and heavy camera does not make sense. Cameras and lenses are designed to be balanced with the left hand under the lens. The right hand is operating the camera, and is just supporting the balance. So is the third contact point to the body, the viewfinder against the eye.
More weight just make you get tired earlier, and using the right hand grip will always cause unbalance and unnecessary use of muscles when a heavy lens is attached to the camera.
To turn your argument upside down:
Try making a large DSLR compact by putting on a small lens! Mission impossible!
Agree 110%.
Plus, lenses are there for us to make a choice. I time they will have a line of lenses for those who only like small primes, fast large primes, smaller zooms, large zooms, one do it all lens... etc.
--
https://500px.com/candidchris
Myth #21: "A7 was created with the purpose of small and light".
First, who said? Was there a press release from Sony? I don't recall any official requirements, only wishful thinking and expectations from M43 zealots on this forum who are no either renamed several times over due to their unpleasantness or gone. Where are they now?
Ultimately, A7 was created with the option of smaller and lighter if you buy the right lenses, but also with the option of being able to use legacy lenses - nearly anything you want. That's a huge advantage.
My A7 + 35 2.8 is small and light and produces great images. If I could even mount that 35 2.8 on a D810, it would not be small and light.
The kit I carry into the backcountry is about 1.5 lbs lighter than the equivalent D600 kit I carried into the same. There was no way to make the D600 that light or small.
Last edited:
oklaphotog
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,093
- Reaction score
- 648
They didn't steal a lot of market share from Canon. The people who inhabit forums like these are a small fraction of the photographic market.
As far as expense and size.... They are expensive because they are low volume lenses that were expensive to design and produce... As far as size, you are assuming people buy mirrorless for small size when in reality there are some nice things about a mirrorless camera that are more important than size. First the short register distance which allows mounting of all sorts of lenses while maintaining infinity focus. Second, a lot of people like the WYSIWYG concept of an evf.
The reality is that the recently announced lenses are the type of lenses that most professionals need to have in their bag. There isn't much of a way around physics and fast glass is big, especially zooms. If anything the problem is the lack of a proper sized professional body from Sony. They really need to release an A9 that is much more the size of an A99 so that it is comfortable to shoot all day, especially with fast zooms or big tele lenses.
As far as expense and size.... They are expensive because they are low volume lenses that were expensive to design and produce... As far as size, you are assuming people buy mirrorless for small size when in reality there are some nice things about a mirrorless camera that are more important than size. First the short register distance which allows mounting of all sorts of lenses while maintaining infinity focus. Second, a lot of people like the WYSIWYG concept of an evf.
The reality is that the recently announced lenses are the type of lenses that most professionals need to have in their bag. There isn't much of a way around physics and fast glass is big, especially zooms. If anything the problem is the lack of a proper sized professional body from Sony. They really need to release an A9 that is much more the size of an A99 so that it is comfortable to shoot all day, especially with fast zooms or big tele lenses.
Tristimulus
Veteran Member
Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated (and we have the f/4 compact zoom trio already) - so why not cater to those wanting a really high quality bright zoom lens. And why not take those lenses to a new level. That is exactly what a lot of customers have desperately wanted for some years now - and this is what we finally get.
Cheapos - lots of them around.
Splendid zoom lenses - searching and searching and see the firs one on the horizon now.
Too expensive: kidding? Talking quality lenses here!
Idiots NOT willing to pay for the quality they want do NOT get that quality (or idiots willing to pay get what they want) - simple as that. I wil get the new 24-70. Call me whatever you want. :-D
Too big: no, simply physics.
Cheapos - lots of them around.
Splendid zoom lenses - searching and searching and see the firs one on the horizon now.
Too expensive: kidding? Talking quality lenses here!
Idiots NOT willing to pay for the quality they want do NOT get that quality (or idiots willing to pay get what they want) - simple as that. I wil get the new 24-70. Call me whatever you want. :-D
Too big: no, simply physics.
I generally agree here. I also think they want to impress first with top notch offerings. I hope that there will be a few more lower priced but very good lenses later.Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated (and we have the f/4 compact zoom trio already) - so why not cater to those wanting a really high quality bright zoom lens. And why not take those lenses to a new level. That is exactly what a lot of customers have desperately wanted for some years now - and this is what we finally get.
Cheapos - lots of them around.
Splendid zoom lenses - searching and searching and see the firs one on the horizon now.
Too expensive: kidding? Talking quality lenses here!
Idiots NOT willing to pay for the quality they want do NOT get that quality (or idiots willing to pay get what they want) - simple as that. I wil get the new 24-70. Call me whatever you want. :-D
Too big: no, simply physics.
Agree with you both. The Sony A7 can be a do it all camera for everyone but its so early in their lens lineup still that no everyone will be catered for yet... pretty obvious that they have to prioritise something, which they have, large pro level zoom lenses. No problem with that. If they prioritised small fast primes people would moan they dont have fast zooms or large aperture primes... Cant please everyone overnightI generally agree here. I also think they want to impress first with top notch offerings. I hope that there will be a few more lower priced but very good lenses later.Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated (and we have the f/4 compact zoom trio already) - so why not cater to those wanting a really high quality bright zoom lens. And why not take those lenses to a new level. That is exactly what a lot of customers have desperately wanted for some years now - and this is what we finally get.
Cheapos - lots of them around.
Splendid zoom lenses - searching and searching and see the firs one on the horizon now.
Too expensive: kidding? Talking quality lenses here!
Idiots NOT willing to pay for the quality they want do NOT get that quality (or idiots willing to pay get what they want) - simple as that. I wil get the new 24-70. Call me whatever you want. :-D
Too big: no, simply physics.
Bingo - You nailed it. Their marketing is bassakwards but they need to cater to both.Sony's camera business would make more money from amateurs aspiring to be like professionals aquiring 'pro level gear' rather than professionals.Okay. But still, the logic still feels (Don't blame me to say this) a bit greedy attempt to squeeze so call professionals a bit more for $$.
I don't really understand this so called professional logic. Some percentage of professionals who switched to some A7 series would be asking, if they are not professional enough when they think the pricing is little overtheboard?
True they are in it for $ but to me its more like Sony is are designing to maximize profit first rather than design for the absolute best quality.
I mean how much does it take to build a 70-200mm F2.8 anyway ?
Certainly not $1500 in mass production. Probably not even $1000 yet they are charging 3k. The previous A-mount G2 70-200 was just revamped a few months ago and price increased to 3k and that was the writing on the wall. It went from basically 2k to 3k overnight.
How about the A7R that cost $3200 and is not even sealed.That doesn't sound like $3200 to me. Would you want to take that to Alaska or the Pacific NW on an extended outdoors session in cold damp foggy weather ?
And really, a plain Jane 35mm F2.8 lens, which should be a cheap lens, with vignetting that never goes away ? Why is that acceptable at $800. That is a $400-500 lens max and I could go on and on.
QA too, but high quality QA cost $ so I don't guess that doesn't fit into their profit ratio.
To me Sony is acting like an electronics company thats number one priority is a high profit markup and are trying to stick by that rather than really understanding the market of photography and gearing their profit margin for profit from more sales rather that profit per piece.
What they need now is a decent kit lens and not that coke bottle they have now. They have a decently priced 28mm F2 lens so they also need a reasonably priced 28-70mm kit lens that is actually sharp in the corners, and reasonably priced 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm lens. Like maybe all of them in the $400-600 range.
They also need the old standby 50mm F1.4.
50mm F1.8 has always been the cheap standard small prime lens and 50mm F1.4 the upgrade, but with Sony its the other way around but the 55mm F1.8 cost 2x as much as N or C 50mm F1.4.
Dave Sanders
Senior Member
I know how to make it smaller and lighter... For me, I lose the extra weight that hands over my belt.
In all seriousness, weight has never been my concern. A pound here and there is meaningless to someone my size. Size has, though, and my A7R is still beautifully small and there are a lot of lenses available for Sony, native or adapted, that still keep it beautifully small. I think the size of the new lenses is really to be expected and the big f/2.8 lenses have been bigger and heavier than the cameras they get mounted in the DSLR realm as well. I personally like the fact that Sony is leveraging other advantages of their system, not just selling based on size and/or weight savings. Fuji, more or less, does the same. Their lenses are typically larger, heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.
Others, clearly, feel differently.
--
Dave Sanders
In all seriousness, weight has never been my concern. A pound here and there is meaningless to someone my size. Size has, though, and my A7R is still beautifully small and there are a lot of lenses available for Sony, native or adapted, that still keep it beautifully small. I think the size of the new lenses is really to be expected and the big f/2.8 lenses have been bigger and heavier than the cameras they get mounted in the DSLR realm as well. I personally like the fact that Sony is leveraging other advantages of their system, not just selling based on size and/or weight savings. Fuji, more or less, does the same. Their lenses are typically larger, heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.
Others, clearly, feel differently.
--
Dave Sanders
Yup!Agree with you both. The Sony A7 can be a do it all camera for everyone but its so early in their lens lineup still that no everyone will be catered for yet... pretty obvious that they have to prioritise something, which they have, large pro level zoom lenses. No problem with that. If they prioritised small fast primes people would moan they dont have fast zooms or large aperture primes... Cant please everyone overnightI generally agree here. I also think they want to impress first with top notch offerings. I hope that there will be a few more lower priced but very good lenses later.Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated (and we have the f/4 compact zoom trio already) - so why not cater to those wanting a really high quality bright zoom lens. And why not take those lenses to a new level. That is exactly what a lot of customers have desperately wanted for some years now - and this is what we finally get.
Cheapos - lots of them around.
Splendid zoom lenses - searching and searching and see the firs one on the horizon now.
Too expensive: kidding? Talking quality lenses here!
Idiots NOT willing to pay for the quality they want do NOT get that quality (or idiots willing to pay get what they want) - simple as that. I wil get the new 24-70. Call me whatever you want. :-D
Too big: no, simply physics.
BTW - enjoyed your 500px link.
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
Tristimulus
Veteran Member
Always reassuring to read what experts write! :-DBingo - You nailed it. Their marketing is bassakwards but they need to cater to both.Sony's camera business would make more money from amateurs aspiring to be like professionals aquiring 'pro level gear' rather than professionals.Okay. But still, the logic still feels (Don't blame me to say this) a bit greedy attempt to squeeze so call professionals a bit more for $$.
I don't really understand this so called professional logic. Some percentage of professionals who switched to some A7 series would be asking, if they are not professional enough when they think the pricing is little overtheboard?
True they are in it for $ but to me its more like Sony is are designing to maximize profit first rather than design for the absolute best quality.
I mean how much does it take to build a 70-200mm F2.8 anyway ?
Certainly not $1500 in mass production. Probably not even $1000 yet they are charging 3k. The previous A-mount G2 70-200 was just revamped a few months ago and price increased to 3k and that was the writing on the wall. It went from basically 2k to 3k overnight.
How about the A7R that cost $3200 and is not even sealed.That doesn't sound like $3200 to me. Would you want to take that to Alaska or the Pacific NW on an extended outdoors session in cold damp foggy weather ?
And really, a plain Jane 35mm F2.8 lens, which should be a cheap lens, with vignetting that never goes away ? Why is that acceptable at $800. That is a $400-500 lens max and I could go on and on.
QA too, but high quality QA cost $ so I don't guess that doesn't fit into their profit ratio.
To me Sony is acting like an electronics company thats number one priority is a high profit markup and are trying to stick by that rather than really understanding the market of photography and gearing their profit margin for profit from more sales rather that profit per piece.
What they need now is a decent kit lens and not that coke bottle they have now. They have a decently priced 28mm F2 lens so they also need a reasonably priced 28-70mm kit lens that is actually sharp in the corners, and reasonably priced 35mm, 50mm, 85mm, 135mm lens. Like maybe all of them in the $400-600 range.
They also need the old standby 50mm F1.4.
50mm F1.8 has always been the cheap standard small prime lens and 50mm F1.4 the upgrade, but with Sony its the other way around but the 55mm F1.8 cost 2x as much as N or C 50mm F1.4.
Say it ain't so...I know how to make it smaller and lighter... For me, I lose the extra weight that hands over my belt.
I'm not very bit myself and I don't need camera systems that start to rival my own weight...In all seriousness, weight has never been my concern. A pound here and there is meaningless to someone my size.
Fuji's are larger (than Nikon DX for instance)? I hadn't compared really. I think their system is superb on it's own.Size has, though, and my A7R is still beautifully small and there are a lot of lenses available for Sony, native or adapted, that still keep it beautifully small. I think the size of the new lenses is really to be expected and the big f/2.8 lenses have been bigger and heavier than the cameras they get mounted in the DSLR realm as well. I personally like the fact that Sony is leveraging other advantages of their system, not just selling based on size and/or weight savings. Fuji, more or less, does the same. Their lenses are typically larger, heavier and more expensive than their full frame equivalents.
Tristimulus
Veteran Member
Yes - actually they have!What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
Where? I'm curious to see the article. It wouldn't surprise me and I'd be interested to know if they also mention coming out with more mid-priced primes at some point.Yes - actually they have!What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Link please....Yes - actually they have!What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
Tristimulus
Veteran Member
Just look through the interviews on Dpreview for a start, and look at some video interviews. They have stated this more than once.Link please....Yes - actually they have!What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Lol, how convenient. Naw, I'm not going to do your HW for you. Not to mention, if that's what they believe how do you explain the 28/2? I have heard people claim they wanted to come out with the top end lenses first and fill in the bottom later, but I have never heard them say the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated.Just look through the interviews on Dpreview for a start, and look at some video interviews. They have stated this more than once.Link please....Yes - actually they have!What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
Share a link or it didn't happen. Them's the rules.Just look through the interviews on Dpreview for a start, and look at some video interviews. They have stated this more than once.Link please....Yes - actually they have!What are you basing this on? Did they come out and say this?Sony is thinking that the market for small and cheap lenses is saturated
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
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.
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.