Reading mode: Light Dark

SONY 80-200mm f/1.4 G SSM

Go to last post
wow an F1.4 zoom... I doubt this is true. i've never heard of a zoom that long beter than F2

Is it stabilized too? it has a switch that doesn't say SSS but stabilizer ...
--
F717 (Legendary)
A700 (what a fantastic machine)
A200 (Almost as fantastic)
 
It would be lovely but nope.
It would also be huge and heavy.
Maybe pricey too :)

--
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: Some primes, some zooms, some Gs a CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
 
Not only the in-lens stabilization but also some grammar errors in the text of the booklet give it away.
 
Nice concept, would be cool if it were true, but I'm not holding my breath.. Then again, without winning the lottery, there's no way I could ever afford such a piece of glass...

Typos in the text, the mock-up the photographed is that, a mock-up and not an actual lens with working switches, etc... still, if they can pull that off, that would get a lot of professional photographers' attention...

Always nice to dream though...
 
When I run my cursor over the picture, I get a message that says- WARNING, and some text in what appears to be Mayasian. Does anyone know what the warning says?
 
I downloaded the pictures and played around with them in PSE. If the pictures are fake, it's a pretty good fake.

And reading the specs on the third picture, it says the lens has a manufacturing date of 2011, takes a 105mm filter, 19 elements in 10 groups, weights 1000 grams, will be available in white or grey, and has a minimum focusing distance of 1.2 meters.
 
After I posted the last reply, I realized that the weight is wrong. Blowing-up the picture made the picture unsharp, and it made the weight look to be 1000 grams. However, as that only equals a couple of pounds, I know it is wrong. I believe the weight is either 1600 or 1800 grams, which would make the lens about 4 lbs. (454g = 1lb.). This would put the lens somewhere between the SAL70200G and SAL300F28G in weight.
 
eh, 200 mm f 1.4, an a filter diameter of 105mm? Strange, my math says minmum 143mm for this aperture at 200mm focus length. Quite some beast that would be... But then, in 2011 math might have developed too... :-D

Quite nicly done 1 of april joke.

André
 
Andre700 said:
eh, 200 mm f 1.4, an a filter diameter of 105mm? Strange, my math
says minmum 143mm for this aperture at 200mm focus length. Quite some
beast that would be... But then, in 2011 math might have developed
too... :-D

Quite nicly done 1 of april joke.

André
Click to expand...
How did you determine that an 200mm f/1.4 would need a filter diameter of 143mm? Do you think that since f/1.4 is twice as fast as f/2.8, and that the 70-200mm f/2.8 has a maximum diameter of 77mm, that you just multiply the diameter of the front element? Look at the 50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.8 macro. Both lenses use a 55mm filter. There are other factors to consider.
 
Check the text. Its exactly the same as the 70-200/2.8 APO SSM G.

Yet it would be larger and a lot heavier but still comfortable for hand holding :)
cyainparadise said:
Andre700 said:
eh, 200 mm f 1.4, an a filter diameter of 105mm? Strange, my math
says minmum 143mm for this aperture at 200mm focus length. Quite some
beast that would be... But then, in 2011 math might have developed
too... :-D

Quite nicly done 1 of april joke.

André
Click to expand...
How did you determine that an 200mm f/1.4 would need a filter
diameter of 143mm? Do you think that since f/1.4 is twice as fast as
f/2.8, and that the 70-200mm f/2.8 has a maximum diameter of 77mm,
that you just multiply the diameter of the front element? Look at the
50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.8 macro. Both lenses use a 55mm filter.
There are other factors to consider.
Click to expand...
--
Illusion is the first of all pleasures.

Lenses: Some primes, some zooms, some Gs a CZ and a TC.
Camera: A700, 800si, and an M1
 
cyainparadise said:
Andre700 said:
eh, 200 mm f 1.4, an a filter diameter of 105mm? Strange, my math
says minmum 143mm for this aperture at 200mm focus length. Quite some
beast that would be... But then, in 2011 math might have developed
too... :-D

Quite nicly done 1 of april joke.

André
Click to expand...
How did you determine that an 200mm f/1.4 would need a filter
diameter of 143mm?
Click to expand...
That's quite simple. f/1.4 means Focal Length divided by 1.4 an that gives you the diameter of the aperture opening (That doesn't mean that the filter diameter will be exactly of this size. It means however that it has to be at least of this size.)
 
cyainparadise said:
How did you determine that an 200mm f/1.4 would need a filter
diameter of 143mm? Do you think that since f/1.4 is twice as fast as
f/2.8, and that the 70-200mm f/2.8 has a maximum diameter of 77mm,
that you just multiply the diameter of the front element? Look at the
Click to expand...
The math is simple f nr is focal length devided by opening diameter. this way you can compare light collecting ability across different focal length.
cyainparadise said:
50mm f/1.4 and the 50mm f/2.8 macro. Both lenses use a 55mm filter.
There are other factors to consider.
Click to expand...
wich factors?

The 55 mm filter diameter will allow f numbers up (down) close to f0,9. So there is no conflict between my math an theese numbers.

A lens with a smaller largest aperture might have a front element that is larger than theoretically needed, this will improve vignetting at full opening. For retrofocal wide angles this is neccesary i beleve.

there are exellent links around to explain this better than i can.

André
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
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.
Back
Top