This sounds promising?

Started 5 months ago | Discussions thread
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,008
Re: More absurdity

PhotoFactor wrote:

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

...When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

This.

I checked out DxOMark, set the filter for A6000 ( to get an APS-C usage of the lenses), and the top Sony lenses compare well, although the top ones are expensive and FE.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Sony_A6000-942/launched-between-1987-and-2019/mount_type-Sony_E-Sony_FE/focal-from-1-to-1500/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-45/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Just buy the Sigma lenses and be done with it!   I do have a gripe about the AF on my 30/2.8, but it’s not too bad in that regard.  But between FE and Sigma, if you need the sharpest lens,  it seems like you’re not too terribly limited.

I'd say there are a decent number of APS-C E mount lenses - especially if you include third parties. What is lacking from Sony is some decent optical quality, unless you pay a fortune.

I have noticed that Sony tries to not position itself as a bargain brand.  Yet, occasionally they come out with affordable items.

The Zeiss 24 is about $1000. The 16-70 is nearly that price, too and would be considered decent but not outstanding in optical quality versus other systems, even at around half the price.

That’s why I, and many others, got the 18-105 instead.  Similar quality in general, but less price.

Back in the film days, when you bought primes from the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) you knew you were getting good glass.

Minolta 28/2.8 isn’t as great as the 50/1.7, I don’t think.  As much as I like Minolta lenses, they varied.

But with Sony APS-C, optically the best glass is Sigma and Rokinon with a few other exceptions. Sigma 56 and 60 beat Sony 50. Sigma 30 (both of them) beat Sony 35.

The Sigma 30/2.8 DN A doesn’t rank so high in DxOMark, while the 30/2.8 EX DN ranks better.  Hard to know how to compare (is this sample variation?), but that’s a case where the 35/1.8 falls between them, only one point below the EX DN.  I dunno, but I can’t get too worked up over 1 point difference.

Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16.

Well, sure, but the Sony 16/2.8 wasn’t designed to be a top lens — it’s still the least expensive Sony e-mount lens, as far as I know.  It’s also a pancake.  It also has cool, inexpensive attachments.  Why doesn’t Sigma make us a line of pancake lenses?   With add ons?  

Sigma 19 beats Sony 20.

Again, by 1 point.  Here, Sony has a big advantage in having faster AF, and the smallest profile lens.  This is something I really wanted — a compact camera with high quality.  Everything else is less compact.

Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling.

Well, yes.  At least it’s the kit lens, and people can get something else.  The original 18-55 is pretty decent though (as long as you stay away from 55mm).  The collapsible pancake style has costs in image quality.  It is the worst lens in my collection, at least in sharpness.  It’s still useful.

Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

For $100 over the body-only price, it’s not like you’re being gouged.  It works well, in general.  Good color, fast AF, and makes your camera nice and compact.  Sometimes it’s simply good enough.  I like that they have the option of 18-135 kits, although I wish those kits were cheaper.

Sure, you have a lot of Sony APS-C lenses. They are just pretty expensive with not good optical quality for their prices.

-- 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