Will Sony consider creating light long telephotos like 500mm?

I'll be interested to see what happens with the future of PF lenses. I think they make sense for longer lenses (e.g. Nikon's 800), but since Sony and Canon released their latest 400 and 600 lenses that were so much lighter I don't know if the same benefit continues to exist. I wonder if this is part of the reason Nikon's 400f4.5 isn't PF.

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

Why let go the full frame sensor when you can use the same physical focal length and crop to the same image quality as with the MFT format? For everything else but the few instances you need to crop, the 50 Mp full frame sensor will be the clear winner!

Some are fooled by the angle of view, though, thinking that smaller sensors makes more reach. When using the same physical focal length for the same subject distance, the subjet is captured at exactly thje same image scale, no matter crop or not.

Magnar W said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

Why let go the full frame sensor when you can use the same physical focal length and crop to the same image quality as with the MFT format? For everything else but the few instances you need to crop, the 50 Mp full frame sensor will be the clear winner!

Some are fooled by the angle of view, though, thinking that smaller sensors makes more reach. When using the same physical focal length for the same subject distance, the subjet is captured at exactly thje same image scale, no matter crop or not.

Click to expand...

m43 still has a some allure,but it is not for being better iq or for reach really, although it is more affordable in some regards to get that reach fov. the om-1 with the 150-400mm does offer a good package, it will still set you back as much as a A1 and 200-600mm and anything shy/short of cropping to the same fov swings the advantage to full frame ie 600mm on a1 cropped to 1000mm like the om-1 500mm 5.6 with t/c used on the 150-400mm ,m43 biggest advantage is for travel and a lot of that is swings and roundabouts.

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

The OM-1 appears as available as a 100mp Sony Full Frame.

Tristimulus said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

At least 4x less exiting. The image sensor is tiny.

Click to expand...

M43 is not tiny. It is not a 1/2.5 or 1 inch sensor. The EM1 series was rather good. And if you are concerned with the center of the image, and can't hand hold a 200-600, or even a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 in sony land, it's worth considering.

Phaser said:

I don't know but it would be great if they were. I was considering their FF telephoto lenses but I figured they were too big and heavy for long hikes. I ended up getting the Sony E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS lens. The tradeoff is that it's a APS-C lens. But that's fine for me. It's light, inexpensive, and the 105-525mm equivalent focal length is nice.

Click to expand...

The 70-350 is a very good lens.

abe4652 said:

Tristimulus said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

At least 4x less exiting. The image sensor is tiny.

Click to expand...

M43 is not tiny. It is not a 1/2.5 or 1 inch sensor. The EM1 series was rather good. And if you are concerned with the center of the image, and can't hand hold a 200-600, or even a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 in sony land, it's worth considering.

Click to expand...

not only this you have to look at output for printing a3 or even a2 i doubt many would see a great difference ,and only photographers would see it ,99% would not.

Tim S said:

What does 4x less exiting mean? I'm not yet interested in an OM-1 or the like, but for those looking for light weight solutions it is worth looking at.

Click to expand...

Actually, for those looking for light weight solutions (and not overly concerned about IQ), a phone camera would be even better.

As thing progress, the value proposition of a dedicated camera with a tiny sensor is evaporating. M43 used to be the point where that transition began to make sense --- but I see there's a recent news release that announces a Xiaomi smartphone with 1"-type sensor. Many phones incorporate multiple sensors and FLs, and aftermarket lenses for phones (tele and macro) are also available.

The "convenience" (including weight, bulk or cost) arguments in favor of *any* small format camera system are diminishing daily.

paul cool said:

Magnar W said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

Why let go the full frame sensor when you can use the same physical focal length and crop to the same image quality as with the MFT format? For everything else but the few instances you need to crop, the 50 Mp full frame sensor will be the clear winner!

Some are fooled by the angle of view, though, thinking that smaller sensors makes more reach. When using the same physical focal length for the same subject distance, the subjet is captured at exactly thje same image scale, no matter crop or not.

Click to expand...

m43 still has a some allure,but it is not for being better iq or for reach really, although it is more affordable in some regards to get that reach fov. the om-1 with the 150-400mm does offer a good package, it will still set you back as much as a A1 and 200-600mm and anything shy/short of cropping to the same fov swings the advantage to full frame ie 600mm on a1 cropped to 1000mm like the om-1 500mm 5.6 with t/c used on the 150-400mm ,m43 biggest advantage is for travel and a lot of that is swings and roundabouts.

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote about physical focal length and image scale on the sensor!

My point is that you can use the same physical focal length on larger sensors, crop, and end up with the same image quality as MFT. Bulk & weight of the gear will be pretty much in the same ballpark! That's why I judge MFT of no interest at all for users of larger format sensor cameras.

what is it that the 200-600 is not doing for you? I see most of Nikons lenses as superior for sports, but not that compelling for wildlife.

Dr Al 2010 said:

It's just a personal opinion but I think Sony feels that with the high MP sensors cropping is now viable so 300mm and 500mm lenses aren't a high priority. They have a 100mm to 400mm and a 400mm prime. How much more room is there for another 400mm option. A f/4 would probably cost somewhere around $6000.

A 500mm f/5.6 would be a hard sell if it costs around $6k over the 200-600 unless is was a much better lens. But at $4k more it would have to be a very excellent lens and it'll most likely be just as large, maybe a bit lighter though so the number that would sell would be limited.

It's like choosing between the 24-70 GM II for $2300 vs getting the 50mm f/1.2. For $2k it's a little bit of a debate but if it costs $5k far fewer people would buy it. For 500mm I would think that trying to get Sigma to take their 500mm f/4 lens and make it FE mount would be more likely.

Click to expand...

The new Nikon Z 400mm f/4.5 VR S only cost $3300 so for a third of a stop the trimmed $2700 over your estimate and it 1160 grams. The current F-mount 500mm f/5.6E PF is the same price on sale and again much less than you estimate.

SafariBob said:

what is it that the 200-600 is not doing for you? I see most of Nikons lenses as superior for sports, but not that compelling for wildlife.

Click to expand...

While I am very happy with my 200-600 it is heavier an larger so lighter and smaller at 500mm would be better for some use cases.

paul cool said:

abe4652 said:

Tristimulus said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

At least 4x less exiting. The image sensor is tiny.

Click to expand...

M43 is not tiny. It is not a 1/2.5 or 1 inch sensor. The EM1 series was rather good. And if you are concerned with the center of the image, and can't hand hold a 200-600, or even a 100-400 or 70-200 f2.8 in sony land, it's worth considering.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

The plate scale is identical when using any lens on any image sensor format. What differ is only the field of view. Larger image sensors captures more of the projected image.

Use any 400mm lens and the diameter of the projected image of the moon will be 3.5 mm in diameter. So the plate scale of the lens does NOT change by putting different image sensors behind the lens. Simply crop the FF image 9and we are into MFT territory.

That said - yes, a Sony 4.5/400mm lens would be very tempting. To me much more than any 500mm or longer fixed focal lenght lens.

paul cool said:

not only this you have to look at output for printing a3 or even a2 i doubt many would see a great difference ,and only photographers would see it ,99% would not.

Click to expand...

Most seasoned photographers see a difference in tonality and color between FF and MFT.

To me the differences are very visible even at smaller print sizes. The differences in tonality and color are missed when pixel peeping at 100 % but not when looking at the final image.

Obviously the differences do not make much sense if never noticed. Most are actually with what a mobile phone camera offers. I for one am not.

The larger formats offer advantages, and can be cropped (for free) to any smaller format.

Smaller image formats are fine for not frame filling small subjects at a distance.

Ever tried to uncrop a MFT image sensor to become a FF image sensor?

Steve W said:

Thank you. I do already own the FE 135/1.8 GM. As an avid 135 user for a long time I got mine when it first came out. The recently announced Nikkor 400/4.5 is what sparked my question. Adding a built in 1.4x TC to that would make for a very interesting 400/560.

Click to expand...

I guess it can be taken for granted that SONY wants to excel in all possible areas. Manly optics and weight and of course size as we can see in numerous iterations they did within the past 3 .. 4. years,

Canon and Nikon had 1.4x f/4.0 400 mm zooms and they had been quite heavy and cumbersome to carry.

building an 1.4x or even better 1.5x extender in a fixed focal lens could meet both size and weight targets while opting for the utmost optical quality.

I have no idea if such an idea is feasible or financially interesting for Sony - I am very sure such a lens would win many photographer's hearts. Even at € 5 .. 6 k I'd be very interested.

Since Sony already has the surprising well balanced 200 .. 600 it would make sense to bring a poo weight and optical quality oriented mid price GM 400 1.5x

That would be a stunning lens and still maybe below 1.5 kg - combined with the GM 135 that would be a gorgeous tele setup for all thinkable situations in the field - and roughly the same as the G 200 .. 600 to start with but spread over two top notch performers.

I like the idea - might be wishful thinking though.

Magnar W said:

paul cool said:

Magnar W said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

Why let go the full frame sensor when you can use the same physical focal length and crop to the same image quality as with the MFT format? For everything else but the few instances you need to crop, the 50 Mp full frame sensor will be the clear winner!

Some are fooled by the angle of view, though, thinking that smaller sensors makes more reach. When using the same physical focal length for the same subject distance, the subjet is captured at exactly thje same image scale, no matter crop or not.

Click to expand...

m43 still has a some allure,but it is not for being better iq or for reach really, although it is more affordable in some regards to get that reach fov. the om-1 with the 150-400mm does offer a good package, it will still set you back as much as a A1 and 200-600mm and anything shy/short of cropping to the same fov swings the advantage to full frame ie 600mm on a1 cropped to 1000mm like the om-1 500mm 5.6 with t/c used on the 150-400mm ,m43 biggest advantage is for travel and a lot of that is swings and roundabouts.

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote about physical focal length and image scale on the sensor!

My point is that you can use the same physical focal length on larger sensors, crop, and end up with the same image quality as MFT. Bulk & weight of the gear will be pretty much in the same ballpark! That's why I judge MFT of no interest at all for users of larger format sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

Yes, the body size is much the same. There is more to it than just the maths. The big deal with m4/3 is the better IBIS you get with the smaller sensor. It is several stops better than a FF and this has real advantages for lens design and use with longer lenses. Further, we can assume that the long lens is needed for sports or wildlife. The Oly adds pro capture and that is a feature that is of considerable interest.

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

Until you do the math on equivalence or look into AF results.

Mike Fewster said:

Magnar W said:

paul cool said:

Magnar W said:

Tim S said:

Perhaps it is time for you to look at the Olympus system, there OM-1 appears to be as exciting as an A1.

Click to expand...

Why let go the full frame sensor when you can use the same physical focal length and crop to the same image quality as with the MFT format? For everything else but the few instances you need to crop, the 50 Mp full frame sensor will be the clear winner!

Some are fooled by the angle of view, though, thinking that smaller sensors makes more reach. When using the same physical focal length for the same subject distance, the subjet is captured at exactly thje same image scale, no matter crop or not.

Click to expand...

m43 still has a some allure,but it is not for being better iq or for reach really, although it is more affordable in some regards to get that reach fov. the om-1 with the 150-400mm does offer a good package, it will still set you back as much as a A1 and 200-600mm and anything shy/short of cropping to the same fov swings the advantage to full frame ie 600mm on a1 cropped to 1000mm like the om-1 500mm 5.6 with t/c used on the 150-400mm ,m43 biggest advantage is for travel and a lot of that is swings and roundabouts.

Click to expand...

Read what I wrote about physical focal length and image scale on the sensor!

My point is that you can use the same physical focal length on larger sensors, crop, and end up with the same image quality as MFT. Bulk & weight of the gear will be pretty much in the same ballpark! That's why I judge MFT of no interest at all for users of larger format sensor cameras.

Click to expand...

Yes, the body size is much the same. There is more to it than just the maths. The big deal with m4/3 is the better IBIS you get with the smaller sensor. It is several stops better than a FF and this has real advantages for lens design and use with longer lenses. Further, we can assume that the long lens is needed for sports or wildlife. The Oly adds pro capture and that is a feature that is of considerable interest.

Click to expand...

No, it's all about the maths: you can do the same thing (or better) as M43 by cropping in on FF shots, except with FF you can also use the full sensor for better image quality.

IBIS isn't going to anything for you for ultra-telephoto wildlife shot in motion at say 1/2000s+, and you can crop in on FF bodies for equivalent or better reach.

Low-end M43 is a great way to try wildlife photography without breaking the bank, like an RX10IV. High-end M43 is a scam for people who refuse to do math.

Steve W said:

I’m a Sony Alpha 1 ( and many other bodies ) shooter where my longest lenses are the 200-600 and 100-400. I don’t own an FE 600mm f/4 GM. I have my longer lenses for wildlife an BIF.

I’ve been playing around with the Nikon Z system some and surprised by the prime PF and other lenses they have created that are smaller and lighter and than anything Sony or Canon appear to have. Theses include their 300

I know Sony’s 400/2.8, 600/4, and 200-600 are all great lenses but the are not very light and a challenge to hand hold. Especially as I get older. Does anyone know if Sony have any Developments in this area? While I know these light primes are usually a stop slower the reduced weight seems like a reasonable trade off for better hand holding.

Share your thoughts Take care.

Click to expand...

Both Canon (with their F11 primes) and Nikon are pushing "small wildlife lenses;" I would expect Sony to eventually follow.

Is PF technology similar to green lenses from Canon?

Mark K said:

Is PF technology similar to green lenses from Canon?

Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that question.