What lens would you like to see introduced next by Sony?
17-70G, a perfect walk around and compliment to the 70-300. It must be sharp at all apertures and focal lengths, and have none of the problems associated with the CZ. I would pay about $1200 for such a lens.
Sony A300 - Sigma 10-20 - Sigma 17-70 - Sony 70-300G - Tamron 90 Macro
like this one:
This lens might be my reason to switch to canon
A300 jpeg shooter
You're welcome to: http://www.pbase.com/lucaspix/root
Always having fun with photography ...
The Makro-Planar f/2 is a great lens but it sucks in that it is only 1:2. I need 1:1 for my work and I'm not going to use bellows or extension tubes. Besides 1:2 is not real macro.
Neil V wrote:-- hide signature --
A900 16-35/2.8 24-70/2.8 85/1.4 135/1.8 70-300/4.5-5.6 100/2.8 50/1.4
would be great to see some updated version of minolta's classics:
28/2 - it was the best 28mm on the market. sharp, fast and very small.
35/2 - also sharp, fast and small...and add cheap to that.
100/2 - optically brilliant, thought not as needed given the overall sony portrait lens excellence
200/2.8 - it was the best 200mm prime on the market at the time and it would be a killer as a sony.
Sorry, my Sigma 100-300 F4 is far better in build quality and the IQ is much the same as the Sony G. And its constant f4.
I'm very happy with my Sigma 105 ex macro 2.8.
I've never used a Zeiss 24-70 zoom but I'm pretty happy with my Tamron 17-50 for a third the price. Perhaps if I was a working pro and shot with that lens everyday in all weathers and situations I might find it lasts longer but its not worth it for me.
I'm happy using the Tamron for short range and I have an old Minolta 100-200 4.5 that is in mint condition for when I don't want the bulk of the sigma or need the f4. A lot of the old Minolta glass is crap because its just loose and worn out but a well preserved copy, lightly used, is still an excellent lens, and usually under $100 for many of them.
I used to be annoyed that Sony had so many gaps in their line for APS-c cameras but there are enough lenses out there that fill the bill, at least for my needs.
Frankly, I haven't seen Sony come out with a lens that I can't find an equivalent for a heck of a lot less money.
Well theres no way in heck ill be able to reply to all of these responses yet, its good to see all the different thoughts on this subject.
I'm sure Sony will see it too.
Let me be a bit more precise
Carl Zeiss 21/2.8
Carl Zeiss 28/2
Carl Zeiss 35/1.4
Carl Zeiss 60 or 100/2 or 2.8 macro
Carl Zeiss 200/2 or constant maximum aperture zoom in the range 80-250
On top of this I would like to see a new Carl Zeiss 85/1.4 with SSM, IF and some ED glass.
Finally a MUTAR (1.4 or 2) that would work with all tele CZ lenses would be a nice addition too.
24-105 f4 G (ff) is one lens that is missing from the lineup and can be a very useful companion for any A900.
Sony Alpha 900 user...
Zeiss 2.8/24-70 SSM, Minolta 2.8/100 macro, Sony 1.4/50, Sony 2.8/70-200 SSM, Sony 1.4x TC, Minolta 4.5/400 HS, Metz 54 MZ-4, Vivitar 285HV
see some of my images at
I have a concept lens that would solve some problems in resolution and most IQ difficulties .
This would be a short range zoom with zero distortion wide end to long end . Of course it needs very high resolution , high contrast to the edges , at all zoom settings also .
The lens would be in the range of 28 to 90mm with good light gathering ( f2 would be optimal for sharp and exact focusing .
The lens would naturally be ready for use as a shift lens without any special shift mechanism built into the it so it could be used as a normal light weight carry around lens also . It would also be affordable .
This use would demand a steady tripod .
The concept of this lens is that you get the sharp central sweet spot near the long end of the format ( like a shift lens does by lens movement ) You lock all tripod adjustments first , then you just shoot off two or three quick shots with the central area of the first shot on the critical focus portion of the subject in the first shot , than you zoom wider for a quick second shot , then you zoom all the way wide for the last shot .
In Photoshop you add canvas to the mid zoom and the long end zoom shots to make them all the same size for layers , and then you expand the pixel count in the mid and full wide shots until all three show the exact same subject size in layers while you switch the view from the central ( or long shot ) to the next two ( each wider shots ) . When this switch is without any change of subject size or position you only need match the exposures and feather the edges of the inside shots borders and merge all three together for the single shot you want .
After this , you can crop off the unwanted end or sides of the final merged shot .
If the lens has no distortion the shot will look like a single shot made from a shift lens except it will probably be much sharper and cleaner especially at the sweet spot at the center of the first long end shot .
This three shot series of shots could be made very quickly because nothing moves , you only zoom and shoot . Even a lively model could hold still for this brief time .
All of the shots would be in focus because the critical focus is done at the long end first shot only and not changed again for all three shots .
You could make a zoom lens far outperform at least most prime lenses , and probably any zoom lens available by using this three shot method . I think it could out perform any shift lens out there too .
You might even be able to make a 24.6 MP shot as good as any , or better with a 12 MP camera .
What do you think ? Has anybody done this ?
Stitching does not qualify as this method , because I think moving the camera angle will always cause shifted image objects and misaligned image seams .
So this explains why I want a very special zoom lens .
I second that. That would be my list as well...a 2.5/200mm at 1400 Euro would be great. And a 1.4x Zeiss Converter without losses. And a 2.8/300mm which makes the Canon look bad.