Sony lenses of Canon "L" quality?

[Anthony14707]

Seems as if the Sony glass is about as pricey as some of the Canon "L" glass.

Is there a quality about Sony glass that justifies its price?

As a Canon user myself, we justify "L" glasss because of certain characteristics.

Where does the SOny lineup fit in?

I think Sony hit a homerun with the Alpha, and will only get better.

Just curious about its glass.

 

[Oxigun]

Minolta has always had excellent glass with quality that justifies the high price. Unfortunatly it's often more expensive than Canon glass.

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Excluding the Tamron-based zooms, all the 'basic' Sony prime lenses are up there with 'L' quality - the 16mm f2.8, 20mm f2.8, the macros, etc. What Minolta did - strange logic - was to reduce the quality of zooms, especially, in the 1990s and discontinue designs which would have been 'L' had they kept them. They dropped the excellent 28-135, 70-210, and 75-300mm models. The 70-210mm f4 in particular is one of the few lenses around which seriously compared with the Canon 70-200mm f4 L, yet it was axed by 1990 and sells for anything from $50 to $250 depending on used condition.

The prime designs which Sony has revived actually date way back to that same period - they are in essence 1985 lenses being made in 2006. As such they are compromise-free. In the early 1980s, Minolta tried to make things like a 20mm f2.8 (MD) lens with a 55mm filter thread... big mistake, compact design, serious vignetting, bad geometry. In 1985 they had learned their lesson, and made a ruddy great monster with a 72mm thread looking almost as big as their 1975 21mm f2.8 (a superb optic). And that's the same lens which now appears as a Sony 'standard' series lens. When Sony get that full frame sensor in a few months, it will be clear why they have bothered to revise and issue these classic high-grade traditional lenses.

David

 

[David Kilpatrick]

David Kilpatrick wrote:
The 70-210mm f4 in

particular is one of the few lenses around which seriously compared
with the Canon 70-200mm f4 L, yet it was axed by 1990

That was 1980, sorry... 2 many beers!

David

 

[José B]

Anthony,

Try shooting with the 85G with A100/7D/5D and compare it with your 5D and 85/1.2L II and I'm pretty sure you will be impressed with the 85G too.

Cheers,

José

Seems as if the Sony glass is about as pricey as some of the Canon
"L" glass.

Is there a quality about Sony glass that justifies its price?

As a Canon user myself, we justify "L" glasss because of certain
characteristics.

Where does the SOny lineup fit in?

I think Sony hit a homerun with the Alpha, and will only get better.

Just curious about its glass.

--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

 

[aarif]

All G lenses are excellent plus the Minolta macros,
Here’s an example with 70-200 2.8ssm G

Konica-Minolta Maxxum 7 Digital
1/160s f/4.0 at 200.0mm iso200
;



--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites

 

[David Kilpatrick]

Anthony,

Try shooting with the 85G with A100/7D/5D and compare it with your
5D and 85/1.2L II and I'm pretty sure you will be impressed with
the 85G too.

But Canon has an 85mm f1.8 USM, a far more practical and probably much better lens, at a budget price. Minolta in the MD range had a wonderful 85mm f2, which replaced a bulky but good 85mm f1.7. When they went AF, I was surprised that the 85mm became a heavy, big 1.4 which would not accept my regular studio filter system (needed at that time, in the days of film, for a stack of vignette, warm-up, diffuser etc slot-in filters). I waited for an 85mm f2 to follow - a neat, compact, 55mm or even 49mm thread lens... and it never did. Ever.

Despite the 85mm f1.4's performance, I have never bought one or wanted one. My use of 85mm is for fashion and portrait, and also as a street photography lens, taking the place of the 90mm Elmar/Minolta on CLE/Leica. The 85mm f1.4 was and is just too big, too fast, too heavy, too expensive.

While Canon and Nikon both sensibly produced affordable, neat 85mm f1.8s.

David

 

[aarif]

I had it for 2 weeks but it wasn’t mine so I had to give it back reluctantly, I don’t find it heavy at all well maybe because I use the 70-200 quite often so all the others feel much lighter, but I’ve been searching for one ever since its simply fantastic even wide open and with the Sony ‘N’ issue its an added advantage to shoot one stop lower ISO

Regards

--
You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites

 

[Henry Richardson]

particular is one of the few lenses around which seriously compared
with the Canon 70-200mm f4 L, yet it was axed by 1990

That was 1980, sorry... 2 many beers!

I think you probably got it right the first time. 1980 was 5 years before Minolta AF even existed so you must have meant 1990 like you said the first time. My Minolta AF 70-210mm f4 was made after 1985.

--
Henry Richardson
http://www.hrich.com
http://www.printroom.com/pro/intrepid

 

[José B]

if there is just one shootout I would love to see and it's not the 35G vs. 35L or the 70-200SSM vs. the 70-200L IS but the 28-70G vs. 24-70L. Mainly because I haven't seen any images coming out from this G standard zoom-----ever!

Cheers,

José

Seems as if the Sony glass is about as pricey as some of the Canon
"L" glass.

Is there a quality about Sony glass that justifies its price?

As a Canon user myself, we justify "L" glasss because of certain
characteristics.

Where does the SOny lineup fit in?

I think Sony hit a homerun with the Alpha, and will only get better.

Just curious about its glass.

--
Shooting with the famous Replacements (1DMarkIIN and 30D)
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_1dmk2n
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/canon_30and20d
http://www.pbase.com/jmb_56/maxxum_7d

 

[DanSantoso]

IMHO,

any good minolta prime/zoom will beat canon L glass...or any other SLR lens

I had Canon 135L which is the second sharpest lens after, 85 1.2L, so i heard. My canon 135L was sharper than canon 70-200 f2.8 for sure, i was happy when I bought it....

After ii changed my system my minolta 70-210 f4 that I bought from ebay for $160 is way sharper than Canon 135L (at 70mm and 100, at 210mm has the similar sharpness as canon 135L i think)

In the other hand my minolta 100mm is sharpest lens I have ever have. Tommorow, I will have Minolta 100mm f2 to compare and hopefully in a month, I will have minolta 70-200 f2.8 SSM, and in another month 135 STF : ): ) and 85G and CZ lens...I am starting to think that I need to eat instant noodle for the rest of my life now

the reason I sold my canon 20D system and bought 7D because Minolta has the best glass and much better dynamic range specially in shadow details.

here are some test from Minolta 70-210 f4 and Minolta 100mm f2.8

http://dansantoso.zenfolio.com/p452422679

straight from RAW to JPEG with capture one, ZERO sharpening!!!

right click to download original file

i hope you find this information...revealing

-Dan
Dansantoso.zenfolio.com

 

[sixty9]

Is this speculation and base on the rumors going around, or do you know something we don't?

When Sony get that full
frame sensor in a few months, it will be clear why they have
bothered to revise and issue these classic high-grade traditional
lenses.

David

 

[gkalemanis]

The "G" glass is certainly the same quality the same as “L”. When Carl Zeiss primes are released for the Sony, that will certainly exceed “L” or “G” imaging standards based on my experience with Contax and Hassy equipment.

 

[Eric H195664]

This whole post makes perfect sense except for the "probably much better" part. Better is subjective. You're trading one stop for lighter, smaller, cheaper, and faster focus. The difference in sharpness is negligible to the point that it's probably immeasurable to the naked eye. The 1.8 lenses are definitely more practical, but I'd hardly say they're much better. I say this having used the Canon 1.8 and the Minolta 1.4, as I'm sure you have as well... the Minolta G is no slouch... just a bit slow and bulky.

But Canon has an 85mm f1.8 USM, a far more practical and probably
much better lens, at a budget price. Minolta in the MD range had a
wonderful 85mm f2, which replaced a bulky but good 85mm f1.7. When
they went AF, I was surprised that the 85mm became a heavy, big 1.4
which would not accept my regular studio filter system (needed at
that time, in the days of film, for a stack of vignette, warm-up,
diffuser etc slot-in filters). I waited for an 85mm f2 to follow -
a neat, compact, 55mm or even 49mm thread lens... and it never did.
Ever.

Despite the 85mm f1.4's performance, I have never bought one or
wanted one. My use of 85mm is for fashion and portrait, and also as
a street photography lens, taking the place of the 90mm
Elmar/Minolta on CLE/Leica. The 85mm f1.4 was and is just too big,
too fast, too heavy, too expensive.

While Canon and Nikon both sensibly produced affordable, neat 85mm
f1.8s.

David

 

[tlt688]

And Carl Zeiss almost exited the glass game, thanks to Sony they are now hanging on .... But if the A100 is a hit, I bet Sony will soon kill off both Minolta & Carl Zeiss...

 

[gkalemanis]

Contax is alive and well... they only make professional gear.

 

[sixty9]

Don't know about that... The minolta G primes are rated as high as the zeiss on some ratings... and i've heard a lot about zeiss not having great bokeh.... so i'm as anxious as anyone to see how they end up.

The "G" glass is certainly the same quality the same as “L”. When
Carl Zeiss primes are released for the Sony, that will certainly
exceed “L” or “G” imaging standards based on my experience with
Contax and Hassy equipment.

 

[doyle shafer]

This may be off topic but Dan, try the Pentax 31mm LMT and 77mmLMT before you make a claim like that : )

http://luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-02-05-02.shtml

Not to mention the uber expensive Leica 50/2 and Contax G lenses.

 

[Gil Knutson]

All G lenses are excellent plus the Minolta macros,

Especially in the hands of someone with "an eye".

You're welcome to visit my favorite Gallery
http://www.pbase.com/aarif/favorites

I just cruised through your favourites again. Every time I do,
I am blown away with what you do! You have a good sense
of what to do... probably due to the amount of time you use
the things! ))

I noticed that most are taken with a 7D, but some are
taken with a 5D. You obviously have both. How do you
like the 5D as compared to the 7D?

I am hemming and hawing over what to get... I can stay
with my Minolta stuff... but I don't have enough to really
stay with Minolta except a recent purchase of a 3600
flash. I could go Sony A100 or Pentax K100D.... or get
a 5D if I can find one. I will get a lump sum of money in
September which will make the purchase of any of those
a realistic option. But, I do like what the Minoltas can do,
and kind of shudder at the noise on the A100... although
it responds well to noise reduction. Still, the noise of the
6 megapixel sensor is well controlled, and I don't think I
would print any larger than 8 by 10... being realistic about
it.

It also would be kind of neat to have a copy of the last
camera that Minolta produced....

I like the quality of the high end Minoltas, just as I really
like the better Pentaxes... Oh, decisions, decisions....

...I think I have said that before on the forum... oh, well.

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada

 

[Gil Knutson]

This may be off topic but Dan, try the Pentax 31mm LMT and 77mmLMT
before you make a claim like that : )

I have to agree! I have seen some scary sharp images taken
with those Limited lenses!!! The colour and texture and
contrast of Pentax lenses is amazing... I know, I used them
for over 20 years! I still kind of am partial to Pentax taken
pics. They glow.

Not to mention the uber expensive Leica 50/2 and Contax G lenses.

Can't speak at all for those, personally, but I have heard.....

--
Gil
Sardis, BC
Canada