This sounds promising?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,010
Re: More absurdity

Off The Mark wrote:

What difference does it make? If people feel that Fuji has a superior system, why wait for Sony to change? Just buy a Fuji today! Right now! What are you still doing here?

Until the release of the X-T3, I didn't feel that Fuji had a BODY that was comparable to Sony.

The X-T3 (and the X-T30, to a certain extent) are quite competitive with Sony bodies.

Still about 50-50 in terms of switching over to the X-T3.

I would be turned-off by articles complaining about lack of lenses. Been hearing it since the original Nex camera.

Yes, you have been hearing the complaint about the lack of lenses since the Original NEX cameras because... there is a lack of lenses.

But that complaint actually made sense in 2010, when there were just 2 lenses.  Every year, there were a few more added until there are actually a lot of lenses now.  Even a few years ago, I didn’t understand what was missing.  85mm prime for portraits?  I think that’s covered now with multiple choices.  About the only thing lacking is the f2.8 wide-to-normal zoom, which I would modify to be something like Sigma has already done, and make it f2.8-f4 (assuming that helps with the cost and size).  At any rate, it sounds like “lack of a lens” not “lack of lenses”.  
I wonder if Tamron’s upcoming FE-mount release (17-28/f2.8) could be used for this purpose?  That’s not a long range, but covers most of what I’d want.

You are free to buy body-only versions and get whatever lens you want. Or, Sony has started making kits with the 18-135, it seems. The latter sounds like a great lens to start with.

I have resorted to doing that. The sigma 30mm f/2.8 is a godsend compared to the Sony 16-50 kit lens, despite the lack of OSS and not being a zoom. Why can't Sony make one that would take advantage of all the AF features that Sony aps-c cameras can deliver? (The Sigma 30 f/2.8 doesn't have all the AF features that most native Sony lenses have.)

I’m sure Sony could make something like the 30/f2.8.  They have made various lenses, but they are more expensive.  The Sigma is cheap!  I have one myself.  Rarely use it because it’s not my favorite focal length, and I have noticed the AF isn’t great, but it works OK.  But it’s really sharp, and really cheap, so those are two positives for me.

The 18-135 lens is well liked not because it is a great lens, but because the 16-50 is so appalling.

You don’t think it’s good on its own?  Or are all the lenses so bad that it looks good in comparison?  Everything looks better than the 16-50, because everything is sharper than the 16-50.  The 16-50 is the cheap pack-in.   No one expects it to be the greatest lens, and it happens to be Sony’s worst.  Surprising?

Is this more due to Canon owners moving to Sony?

Maybe, or more due to a lack lf lenses for Sony shooters?

I don’t think it makes sense for people to buy Sony, then decide that they’d rather have various Canon lenses, purchase those and the adapter, which adds cost, and then fiddle with it.  More likely, it makes sense to buy an adapter if you already have a lot of money invested in Canon lenses.

Although I’ve seen some positive comments about the Canon 55-250, I would think it is such a good deal with the added cost of an adapter, but there’s a  huge gap between the Sony 55-210 and 70-300.  For tele lenses, maybe it does make sense to use adapters rather than the high cost of Sony lenses, but I think Sony does  make e-mount tele lenses.  So, the problem isn’t so much lack of lenses here as lack of value lenses.

Because they don't want to throw out their old lenses?
Or do you think anyone is using, say, the Tamron 17-50/2.8? I have that for a-mount, and I don't like to use it on these newer cameras, for various reasons.

People are using the SAM 16-50 f/2.8 along with other A Mount lenses, some of them Tamron and Sigma.

Not sure of the size and weight of that one, but as mentioned, I’m not using my old Tamron.  Might as well just use a DSLR if you are going to carry all large lenses, etc.

Which firmware improvements? I just checked, and I don't see a firmware update for the EA4.

Believe it was for the EA3. Maybe Entropy512 will chime in since he is pretty up-to-date on the various adapters and the firmware.

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell FEWER FF cameras if they made APS-C more attractive?

Can you say they wouldn't make more money by selling more aps-c cameras and better aps-c lenses at the cost of selling less full frame cameras?

Well, Sony doesn’t think they’ll make more money, I suppose.  I think they’d sell more APS-C cameras by appealing to budget buyers, which doesn’t mean “better” and more expensive lenses.

If there were a market for f2.8 wide-normal zooms, why wouldn't Tamron or Sigma just do it?

They are probably sitting there thinking, "Certainly Sony is going to release a 16-50 f/2.8 lens any moment now... certainly they aren't going to neglect one of the most popular aps-c lenses ever created." (Popularity claims based on Thom Hogan's survey of aps-c shooters.)

Tamron came out with an 18-200 after Sony had already made a superior one.  It’s not like they wouldn’t necessarily want to compete; they can always compete on price.

But if it's just about selling lenses, why allow so many from Tamron and Sigma? They really needed the assistance more 5 years ago.

My guess is they realized that they need more lenses to keep selling more and more cameras.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more
Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow