[POLL] Your thoughts. Will Sony make a 70-200/2.8 FE?

[NumberOne]

What are YOUR thoughts. Will Sony take FF E-mount seriously to make a 70-200/2.8 FE? I'm asking because Fuji has the XF 50-140/2.8 which is equivalent to 70-200/2.8 zooms with the crop factor on the Fuji APSC.

I suppose so, but for the time being and even knowing that 7 new lenses are expected to be released till the beginning of 2016, I still think they are already very occupied on completing the FE lens line; "teles" and "ultra-wides" just come to mind...


All the best,
Pedro

 

[No account anymore]

Justifying the 70-200mm f4 is easy once you consider how the f/2.8 variants are almost double the weight of the f/4, and close to double the price.

For some f:2.8 might be worth the weight and the money spent.

I can shoot with the 70-200mm f/4 on all day handheld without a problem. Doubt that'd be the case with a f/2.8. That extra stop of light isn't enough to justify that difference personally.

I had the A mount Sony G 70-200 mm f:2.8 lens. No problem when carrying/using this lens all day - I am definitly not a body builder.

After months with the FE 70-200 mm f:4 lens, I can say that I highly prefer this lens over the f:2.8 version. The FE lens is sharp wide open, lightweight, and offer fast autofocus also useable for tracking fast moving subjects.




Snapshot with the FE 70-200 mm.

 

[DFPanno]

Why is the Olympus E-M5 bigger & heavier than the E-M10?

Why is the flagship E-M1 bigger than the E-M5 again?

They are all using the same m4/3 sensor.

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

 

[No account anymore]

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

No problem using the Minolta apo 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 handheld, also with a 1.4x teleconverter. I also used long lenses with SLR cameras for film that was about the size and weight of the A7.

A heavier/larger camera doesn't help - added weight just makes things worse.

 

[DFPanno]

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

No problem using the Minolta apo 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 handheld, also with a 1.4x teleconverter. I also used long lenses with SLR cameras for film that was about the size and weight of the A7.

A heavier/larger camera doesn't help - added weight just makes things worse.

If I mount a Canon 70-200 II on my A7R and a second on a 5D3 I can guarentee you that the vast majority will prefer the handling on the 5D3 even when utilizing textbook management of the gear.

That preference is due to differences in term of size, shape, and weight of the bodies (obviously).

I am sure your feelings are valid for you but, as stated, most people don't feel that way.

 

[DFPanno]

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

No problem using the Minolta apo 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 handheld, also with a 1.4x teleconverter. I also used long lenses with SLR cameras for film that was about the size and weight of the A7.

A heavier/larger camera doesn't help - added weight just makes things worse.

If I mount a Canon 70-200 II on my A7R and a second on a 5D3 I can guarentee you that the vast majority will prefer the handling on the 5D3 even when utilizing textbook management of the gear.

That preference is due to differences in term of size, shape, and weight of the bodies (obviously).

I am sure your feelings are valid for you but, as stated, most people don't feel that way.

 

[NumberOne]

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

No problem using the Minolta apo 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 handheld, also with a 1.4x teleconverter. I also used long lenses with SLR cameras for film that was about the size and weight of the A7.

A heavier/larger camera doesn't help - added weight just makes things worse.

...I always say to those that like/prefer heavier camera bodies - buy some (fishing or diving) lead, fix it to the bottom of your camera - but leave the rest of us, lightweight camera lovers, alone!

All the best,
Pedro

 

[The Straw Man]

Voted no.

I think some sort of A/E mount hybrid will be the answer to dropping the SLT cameras and extending the life of current A-mount glass. I don't see Sony investing the resources making E-mount 2.8 zooms that will sell in small numbers given their $2k+ price tags.

 

[blue_skies]

What are YOUR thoughts. Will Sony take FF E-mount seriously to make a 70-200/2.8 FE? I'm asking because Fuji has the XF 50-140/2.8 which is equivalent to 70-200/2.8 zooms with the crop factor on the Fuji APSC.

Why is your "No" answer conditional to A mount only?

How many here have actually seen the A mount versions size and price? (Hint: almost 3lbs and almost $3k). But it can take a 1.4x TC.

Even the Fuji lens costs already $1.6k - more than any Sony APS-C lens costs...

As to your equivalent statement, you do realize that APS-C to FF is more than a full stop difference, right?

In terms of exposure (up ISO one stop in FF), the Fuji APS-C zoom lens is equivalent to the current FE70200G, albeit that you get lower resolution and lower DR with the Fuji. I think that you will prefer the FF results.

I can see many more FE lenses at the horizon, but a FE70200/2.8 would not be high on my list.

Consider primes, such as the Zeiss' 85/1.8 and an (Zeiss' upcoming?) 135/2.0.

If you want to have fun, consider the Canon EF 200mm/2.0 L lens, for $5.6k and 6lbs.

 

[peterharvey]

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

No problem using the Minolta apo 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 handheld, also with a 1.4x teleconverter. I also used long lenses with SLR cameras for film that was about the size and weight of the A7.

A heavier/larger camera doesn't help - added weight just makes things worse.

...I always say to those that like/prefer heavier camera bodies - buy some (fishing or diving) lead, fix it to the bottom of your camera - but leave the rest of us, lightweight camera lovers, alone!

All the best,
Pedro

-

Grip and balance is a personal preference.

As DFPanno posts, most people prefer grip and balance, but Magnar is right - not everyone wants right hand grip and balance, because some are fine with using the neck strap, or they prefer to use their left hand to hold the camera by the lens barrel. Others complain that holding the lens barrel by the left hand is more "tiring" because the lens barrel is much larger than the right hand grip. If you have to hold a 40 mm diameter pipe, versus an 80 mm diameter pipe, the larger 80 mm diameter pipe feels much more tiring due to its larger diameter.

ttan98 and a number of other posters above have already suggested there is presently no FE 70-200 f2.8 due to its large size/weight being not well matched to the compact A7 Series mirrorless FF body.

Best we follow my constructive suggestion, and encourage Sony to make EVF mirrorless FF in two, or even three different sizes, just as Olympus makes their m4/3 in three different sizes [E-M10, E-M5 & E-M1], while Canon makes their APS-C dSLR's in five different sizes: 100D/Rebel SL1, 1200D, 750/760D, 70D & 7D II.

Rumours abound of a Sony "A9" in the pipeline, possibly late 2015, and this new Sony EVF mirrorless FF flagship will undoubtedly be bigger/heavier than the current A7 Series.

Meanwhile, for those who are unhappy about Sony's direction, and that the smaller A7I's grip and body has grown into the A7II's larger grip and body, as another poster suggested somewhere, why not Sony make a smaller entry level EVF mirrorless FF Sony "A5" - that will ensure that everyone's tastes are happy.

Magnar, let's not get too nerdy over this personal preference grip/balance issue.



-

Personally, I'm fine when my old dSLR APS-C Canon 70D uses the small lightweight EF-S 18-55 STM stock lens, but when I use the big/heavy EF-S 17-55 f2.8, or the EF 100 f2.8 Macro with ring flash, I must don my BG-E14 battery grip - for a decent grab.

I think EVF mirrorless is the way to the future. I'm just waiting for technology to improve, and iron out the bugs in the autofocus AF, and some fast f2.8 zooms aka 16-35 f2.8 UWA, 24-70 f2.8 standard zoom, and 70-200 f2.8 teles would be really nice, and a bigger/heavier EVF mirrorless FF flagship body to match...

 

[Section10]

Why does 'It's going to be huge' play such a factor? If they have design one, it will be as small as they can make it, and yes they'll be some flange distance advantage... but if Tamron makes a 2.8 similar to theirs already why would that be too big? And why wouldn't Sony build their own around that size? If you put a big lens to an A7, do you necessarily lose all size advantage? No.

Because many users think that E mount is for small; also they suspect that Sony is not going to make larger lenses that the 70-200 until and unless they make a larger E mount body to 'balance' them (i don't care about such balance, but focus groups might!)

Then why did they just build a 70-200 f4 thats the same size as a stabilized canon version? It's not smaller like a mirrorless? Then why not build a f2.8 version? My A7ii isn't much lighter than my 6d....so bring it on!

Sony has a way of changing what people believe and think about cameras. I think we can handle a full line of lenses even if some break the 'small camera' assumption for e-mount. If there's a market for something they're going to build it. Lenses are good profits.

 

[rrccad]

Why is the Olympus E-M5 bigger & heavier than the E-M10?

Why is the flagship E-M1 bigger than the E-M5 again?

They are all using the same m4/3 sensor.

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

I have to agree with that. having used the 24-70/2.8L and 70-200/2.8 L IS in studio environments. using them all day long, even with a relatively small cameras (xxD series) at the time, without a grip to balance the lens was tiring. much easier when you added more bulk and weight to the back end with the grip, also gave you room for all 4 fingers to help hold the camera at rest. later versions of the 5D line are so much more comfortable.

the problem I see is that the mount to grip distance on a A7 series body is pretty tight for a 2.8 zoom, while on a DSLR, you have more relaxed distance in between the grip and the mount.

 

[The Straw Man]

the problem I see is that the mount to grip distance on a A7 series body is pretty tight for a 2.8 zoom, while on a DSLR, you have more relaxed distance in between the grip and the mount.

This is something that doesn't get mentioned often enough, fat lenses will really cramp your fingers when the grip is so tight.

Of course given Sony's recent history, they will just update the bodies to be more ergonomic friendly with a fatter lens.

 

[No account anymore]

Grip and balance is a personal preference.

True!

Magnar, let's not get too nerdy over this personal preference grip/balance issue.

Agree!

I was responding to a "most people prefer" claim, then just pushing my point of view a bit!

 

[NumberOne]

A conservative marked in some regions, like US? Bigger looks more "professional"?

The size of the camera body for sure has nothing to do with balancing the lens, no matter the size, shape and weight of the lens.

The nature of the body has a huge impact of one's overall sense of any body+lens arrangement.

Suggesting otherwise is easily dismissed by anyone with experience in such matters.

If you do not find that to be true then you are in a distinct minority.

No problem using the Minolta apo 400 mm f:4.5 with the A7 handheld, also with a 1.4x teleconverter. I also used long lenses with SLR cameras for film that was about the size and weight of the A7.

A heavier/larger camera doesn't help - added weight just makes things worse.

...I always say to those that like/prefer heavier camera bodies - buy some (fishing or diving) lead, fix it to the bottom of your camera - but leave the rest of us, lightweight camera lovers, alone!

All the best,
Pedro

-

Grip and balance is a personal preference.

Not totally, IMO, as they are two different things:

Grip is an ergonomic design thing, balance a center gravity consequence and both together make a camera and lens feel good/right when holding the combo...

As DFPanno posts, most people prefer grip and balance, but Magnar is right - not everyone wants right hand grip and balance, because some are fine with using the neck strap, or they prefer to use their left hand to hold the camera by the lens barrel. Others complain that holding the lens barrel by the left hand is more "tiring" because the lens barrel is much larger than the right hand grip. If you have to hold a 40 mm diameter pipe, versus an 80 mm diameter pipe, the larger 80 mm diameter pipe feels much more tiring due to its larger diameter.

IMO, there's only one correct way to hold a camera & lens: left hand on the lens barrel close to the combo center of gravity, right hand helping the weight distribution and compressing it to the photographers face or helping keeping it steady if used in a different shooting position and finally correct breathing just before squeezing the shutter!

ttan98 and a number of other posters above have already suggested there is presently no FE 70-200 f2.8 due to its large size/weight being not well matched to the compact A7 Series mirrorless FF body.

Best we follow my constructive suggestion, and encourage Sony to make EVF mirrorless FF in two, or even three different sizes, just as Olympus makes their m4/3 in three different sizes [E-M10, E-M5 & E-M1], while Canon makes their APS-C dSLR's in five different sizes: 100D/Rebel SL1, 1200D, 750/760D, 70D & 7D II.

I believe this is only part of the equation, for now...

Rumours abound of a Sony "A9" in the pipeline, possibly late 2015, and this new Sony EVF mirrorless FF flagship will undoubtedly be bigger/heavier than the current A7 Series.

Meanwhile, for those who are unhappy about Sony's direction, and that the smaller A7I's grip and body has grown into the A7II's larger grip and body, as another poster suggested somewhere, why not Sony make a smaller entry level EVF mirrorless FF Sony "A5" - that will ensure that everyone's tastes are happy.

Once more - and to a certain extent - the size of a body is not the main cause of good or bad ergonomics; for instance, I prefer the A7R/A7/A7S smaller&lighter body to the new A7II, which has now a too small grip (in height) that places your middle finger to close and in the way to the Front Dial...

On the other hand, (my opinion, once again) the weight and size increase is certainly not welcome, specially in a body that besides one or two welcome details, doesn't offer any ergonomics/holding advantages...

Magnar, let's not get too nerdy over this personal preference grip/balance issue.



-

Personally, I'm fine when my old dSLR APS-C Canon 70D uses the small lightweight EF-S 18-55 STM stock lens, but when I use the big/heavy EF-S 17-55 f2.8, or the EF 100 f2.8 Macro with ring flash, I must don my BG-E14 battery grip - for a decent grab.

I think EVF mirrorless is the way to the future. I'm just waiting for technology to improve, and iron out the bugs in the autofocus AF, and some fast f2.8 zooms aka 16-35 f2.8 UWA, 24-70 f2.8 standard zoom, and 70-200 f2.8 teles would be really nice, and a bigger/heavier EVF mirrorless FF flagship body to match...

As I said, make it better but not bigger or heavier - This has been so far an "Advanced Amateur (FF) Camera" - I don't think it was ever meant for "pro" work and I also don't believe this is the market share Sony wants and needs for this model!

As usual, my opinion - YMMV!

All the best,
Pedro

 

[FF Pro]

Why does everyone think size and weight are the top reasons for mirrorless? Personally, I think my a7ii takes a better photo than my Canon 5Diii.

If size and weight are the top reasons, then having a large 300 2.8 prime with a small camera still gives an advantage to the camera.

The long, faster lenses will come when a 1DX competitor rises from Sony. It is that simple.

 

[Robert111]

Short answer - not any time soon. I'm a 24-70 guy so would love a spear sharp f2.8 24-70.

 

[jalywol]

Let's look at this from Sony's point of view. Where can they get the most bang for their buck in terms of numbers of lenses sold vs cost of development?

Right now Sony is building out the higher end of their lens selection. They've also come out with only a couple of moderately priced lenses, and they have no native lenses longer than 200mm.

If they were to offer a 70-200mm f2.8, what would be the market for it? It will be large, and cost most likely in the $3k range. Compare this to, say, a good quality (G lens) 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 that sells at about $1000. I would venture to guess that they would sell hundreds to thousands of that 70-300mm, vs dozens to hundreds (maybe) of the 70-200mm f2.8. at least at this point in the development of the line.

So, if they sold ten of the $1000 ones per every one of the $3000 ones (and I suspect it would be an even larger ratio than that, actually), then for every 1000 of the more expensive lenses sold, there would be 10,000 of the less expensive ones sold. This would give you about $10 million earnings from the less expensive lenses vs $3 million for the more expensive per each 1000 of the more expensive sold. THAT is why you won't see the 70-200mm f2.8 zoom before the rest of the line fills out.

-J

 

[peterharvey]

Another point to keep in mind is that these are only early days for EVF mirrorless FF eg Sony A7 Series.

Presently, A7 Series owners are only "early adopters".

Thus we must be patient with features, performance, lens choices and accessories etc.

It's not if the FE Mount 70-200 f2.8 will come, but when the FE Mount 70-200 mm f2.8 will come.


Remember how they used backpack two-way radios during World War II?


Then the brick sized Motorola Dynatac in 1983 for US$10k?


Then the TV remote control sized mobile phones of the 1990's.


Followed by the credit card sized phones of the 2000's.

Now, the 5" smart phones today.

-

Thus, the current model Sony A7 Series is only a fraction of the future.

So be patient for the FE 70-200 f2.8.

Likewise, presently the A7's EVF's are only XGA resolution @ 1024 x 768 pixels, multiplied by 3 colored dots per pixel for a total of 2.359 million dots in total.

In time, the EVF will reach a true hi def @ 1920 x 1080 pixels, multiplied by 3 dots [red/green/blue per pixel] for a total of 8.221 million dots - for a truly seamless view that looks just like an optical viewfinder...

 

[Anders Wotzke]

Why does everyone think size and weight are the top reasons for mirrorless? Personally, I think my a7ii takes a better photo than my Canon 5Diii.

If size and weight are the top reasons, then having a large 300 2.8 prime with a small camera still gives an advantage to the camera.

The long, faster lenses will come when a 1DX competitor rises from Sony. It is that simple.

Uh, because size and weight are a top reason for mirrorless! Yes, Sony are one of the few companies seriously challenging this fact with their FE line -- another being Samsung -- but most mirrorless systems are significantly lighter and smaller than DSLRs. Even Sony's FF bodies are much smaller and lighter than comparable bodies in other camps. True, only their sub 55mm lenses seem to be smaller/lighter when compared to the competition, but as a kit, you can save yourself from lugging kilograms more shooting on Sony FE than you can Nikon/Canon DSLRs. That's just a fact!

Will that mean no 2.8 zooms will be made? Of course not. I voted yes as soon as the page loaded. Once Sony release a pro A9-type camera with a more meatier DSLR-like build, I suspect we will see at least three 2.8 zooms released within the following year. But the fact will still remain for the vast majority of mirrorless shooters: the system is often lighter and smaller, and that's a key selling point.