This sounds promising?

Started 6 months ago | Discussions
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: More absurdity

Why would Sony make a 30mm f/2.8 when they have the 30mm f/3.5 macro and the 35mm f/1.8? Both lenses are very good.

Hmm... 30mm macro sounds interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
JohnNEX Senior Member • Posts: 1,748
Re: More absurdity
2

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

No, I have not. Can you provide links to the articles, which would be at least a dozen to be 'numerous'?

Why do people on the Fuji forums who have moved from Sony to Fuji point to the quality and quantity of Fuji aps-c lenses being a major reason in why they moved?

Which lenses are missing, other than the f/2.8 standard zoom and a tele zoom? I think Sony has the edge on primes over Fuji. The line-ups are at least broadly equal. When people whine about the lack of lenses for Sony E, they really just mean the lack of a 16-50 f/2.8, one lens. I think that lens will come this year.

Why do you think that Fuji has so many dedicated users? Do you think sony would not like to have those Fuji users buy sony cameras instead?

Sony a6000 outsells Fuji cameras year after year. Sony knows that whiners on internet forums constitute a tiny fraction of their aps-c market. The market is Western grandpas wanting to take stills and 4k video of their grandkids playing soccer and Asia tourists, both wanting something small and light. They won't look on internet forums and they won't buy large f/2.8 lenses. Every single contributor to this forum could move to Fuji and neither Sony or Fuji would notice the tiny change in their sales.

In the article on dc.watch that was cited by the original poster, Masaaki Oshima from Sony states that the demand is for higher-end aps-c cameras (and less demand for lower-end aps-c cameras). Do you think that people who want those higher-end aps-c cameras will want to use the 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses?

'High end' here means a6000 rather than a3000. It does not mean a6500 rather than a6300.

Why is it that adapter companies like Sigma and Metabones have successful business models making adapters for Sony cameras?

They are cheap to make?

Why does Sony still sell - and people still buy - the LA-EA A Mount to E Mount adapters?

Because A mount is a great system with excellent lenses which are falling in price and Sony wants to keep those people using Sony cameras. Doesn't seem that mysterious.

Why does Sony still spend money to create firmware that improves the AF performance of such adapters?

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell MORE cameras and lenses if they had better aps-c lenses?

Maybe a few more, but not a huge amount. This is just something that enthusiasts on forums want to believe. Enthusiasts on forums are almost entirely irrelevant. We are not the market.

Or do you think it is a good business strategy for Sony if people buy adapters and use either third-party lenses or buy used use A Mount glass that they bought off ebay?

Yes. The a6000 still sells like hotcakes. They just watch the money roll in while they work on their professional FE cameras and lenses, which is where the real market share wars are. Their aim, as they have repeatedly said, is to be a major part of the professional camera market, with Canon and Nikon, hence going hard on FF and largely ignoring APS-C.  Now they have established a clear lead in the pro mirrorless market, Sony may come back to APS-C, but Sony doesn't 'need' to compete with Fuji and they don't need to 'respond' to the XT3.

-- hide signature --

Sharpness scores and other stats for many FE lenses here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4348556
Fairly amateur photography here:
https://www.facebook.com/John-Clark-Photography-1035965476487072/

 JohnNEX's gear list:JohnNEX's gear list
Panasonic Lumix DMC-ZS20 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 Canon EF 70-300mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +7 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: More absurdity
1

JohnNEX wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

No, I have not. Can you provide links to the articles, which would be at least a dozen to be 'numerous'?

Why do people on the Fuji forums who have moved from Sony to Fuji point to the quality and quantity of Fuji aps-c lenses being a major reason in why they moved?

Which lenses are missing, other than the f/2.8 standard zoom and a tele zoom? I think Sony has the edge on primes over Fuji. The line-ups are at least broadly equal. When people whine about the lack of lenses for Sony E, they really just mean the lack of a 16-50 f/2.8, one lens. I think that lens will come this year.

Why do you think that Fuji has so many dedicated users? Do you think sony would not like to have those Fuji users buy sony cameras instead?

Sony a6000 outsells Fuji cameras year after year. Sony knows that whiners on internet forums constitute a tiny fraction of their aps-c market. The market is Western grandpas wanting to take stills and 4k video of their grandkids playing soccer and Asia tourists, both wanting something small and light. They won't look on internet forums and they won't buy large f/2.8 lenses. Every single contributor to this forum could move to Fuji and neither Sony or Fuji would notice the tiny change in their sales.

In the article on dc.watch that was cited by the original poster, Masaaki Oshima from Sony states that the demand is for higher-end aps-c cameras (and less demand for lower-end aps-c cameras). Do you think that people who want those higher-end aps-c cameras will want to use the 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses?

'High end' here means a6000 rather than a3000. It does not mean a6500 rather than a6300.

Why is it that adapter companies like Sigma and Metabones have successful business models making adapters for Sony cameras?

They are cheap to make?

Why does Sony still sell - and people still buy - the LA-EA A Mount to E Mount adapters?

Because A mount is a great system with excellent lenses which are falling in price and Sony wants to keep those people using Sony cameras. Doesn't seem that mysterious.

Why does Sony still spend money to create firmware that improves the AF performance of such adapters?

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell MORE cameras and lenses if they had better aps-c lenses?

Maybe a few more, but not a huge amount. This is just something that enthusiasts on forums want to believe. Enthusiasts on forums are almost entirely irrelevant. We are not the market.

Or do you think it is a good business strategy for Sony if people buy adapters and use either third-party lenses or buy used use A Mount glass that they bought off ebay?

Yes. The a6000 still sells like hotcakes. They just watch the money roll in while they work on their professional FE cameras and lenses, which is where the real market share wars are. Their aim, as they have repeatedly said, is to be a major part of the professional camera market, with Canon and Nikon, hence going hard on FF and largely ignoring APS-C. Now they have established a clear lead in the pro mirrorless market, Sony may come back to APS-C, but Sony doesn't 'need' to compete with Fuji and they don't need to 'respond' to the XT3.

It appears that you have completely missed the point of this thread.

When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,076
Re: More absurdity

REDunnLev wrote:

Why would Sony make a 30mm f/2.8 when they have the 30mm f/3.5 macro and the 35mm f/1.8? Both lenses are very good.

Yes, indeed.  And why would they when Sigma already does?  And who would be interested in buying?  I doubt Off The Mark would, And he’s the one who brought it up.

over the years, I’ve seen many people complain about this or that lens missing from the lineup, but i always doubted that most people actually bought all of the different designs - they just like the option to be there.  While some do have a particular need, the first lenses that need to be produced are ones most people would find beneficial.

Curiously, the 30/3.5 was available pretty early, but if it’s not f1.4, it’s not exciting enough.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: More absurdity

GaryW wrote:

REDunnLev wrote:

Why would Sony make a 30mm f/2.8 when they have the 30mm f/3.5 macro and the 35mm f/1.8? Both lenses are very good.

Yes, indeed. And why would they when Sigma already does? And who would be interested in buying? I doubt Off The Mark would, And he’s the one who brought it up.

over the years, I’ve seen many people complain about this or that lens missing from the lineup, but i always doubted that most people actually bought all of the different designs - they just like the option to be there. While some do have a particular need, the first lenses that need to be produced are ones most people would find beneficial.

Curiously, the 30/3.5 was available pretty early, but if it’s not f1.4, it’s not exciting enough.

Actually, I was just going to create a new thread asking people about their opinions on the 30 3.5. I am VERY MUCH interested in it now. (Would be super interested in it if it had OSS, but I guess you can't have everything.)

I own the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DC lens, and it is pretty good. Very good, actually. And inexpensive.

But I would be interested in the Sony 30mm 3.5 for the macro capability and if it has the full AF functionality that one would have with, say, the SEL 50mm f/1.8 OSS (another lens I very much like).

The Sigma 19, 30, and 60mm lenses - while very sharp and with excellent contrast - seem to be lacking some of the AF capabilities that some Sony lenses have. I think they are similar in their AF capabilities to the Sony 16mm and 20mm pancake lenses.

And if it were an f/1.4 I am sure I would avoid it like the plague.

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
Shiny Object Regular Member • Posts: 471
Sony 30mm macro

Actually, I was just going to create a new thread asking people about their opinions on the 30 3.5. I am VERY MUCH interested in it now. (Would be super interested in it if it had OSS, but I guess you can't have everything.)

...

But I would be interested in the Sony 30mm 3.5 for the macro capability and if it has the full AF functionality that one would have with, say, the SEL 50mm f/1.8 OSS (another lens I very much like).

I have the 30mm macro and like it a lot. Its main limitation, in my view is its focal length requires you to really get very close to your subject. It's tuned to be a macro lens - it seems less sharp for distant subjects/landscapes. I wrote a more detailed review with some samples here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4322909

I'd also encourage you to check out this review: http://fiberstrobe.blogspot.com/2013/10/review-of-sony-sel30m35-30mm-f35-macro.html

 Shiny Object's gear list:Shiny Object's gear list
Ricoh GR Sony RX10 III Sony a6000 Sony E 16mm F2.8 Pancake Sony E 30mm F3.5 Macro +6 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: Sony 30mm macro

Shiny Object wrote:

Actually, I was just going to create a new thread asking people about their opinions on the 30 3.5. I am VERY MUCH interested in it now. (Would be super interested in it if it had OSS, but I guess you can't have everything.)

...

But I would be interested in the Sony 30mm 3.5 for the macro capability and if it has the full AF functionality that one would have with, say, the SEL 50mm f/1.8 OSS (another lens I very much like).

I have the 30mm macro and like it a lot. Its main limitation, in my view is its focal length requires you to really get very close to your subject. It's tuned to be a macro lens - it seems less sharp for distant subjects/landscapes. I wrote a more detailed review with some samples here: https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4322909

I'd also encourage you to check out this review: http://fiberstrobe.blogspot.com/2013/10/review-of-sony-sel30m35-30mm-f35-macro.html

Thanks for the info and the links.

Darn... I would be using it primarily as a landscape lens.

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
Euell Veteran Member • Posts: 3,646
Re: More absurdity
1

Off The Mark wrote:

JohnNEX wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

No, I have not. Can you provide links to the articles, which would be at least a dozen to be 'numerous'?

Why do people on the Fuji forums who have moved from Sony to Fuji point to the quality and quantity of Fuji aps-c lenses being a major reason in why they moved?

Which lenses are missing, other than the f/2.8 standard zoom and a tele zoom? I think Sony has the edge on primes over Fuji. The line-ups are at least broadly equal. When people whine about the lack of lenses for Sony E, they really just mean the lack of a 16-50 f/2.8, one lens. I think that lens will come this year.

Why do you think that Fuji has so many dedicated users? Do you think sony would not like to have those Fuji users buy sony cameras instead?

Sony a6000 outsells Fuji cameras year after year. Sony knows that whiners on internet forums constitute a tiny fraction of their aps-c market. The market is Western grandpas wanting to take stills and 4k video of their grandkids playing soccer and Asia tourists, both wanting something small and light. They won't look on internet forums and they won't buy large f/2.8 lenses. Every single contributor to this forum could move to Fuji and neither Sony or Fuji would notice the tiny change in their sales.

In the article on dc.watch that was cited by the original poster, Masaaki Oshima from Sony states that the demand is for higher-end aps-c cameras (and less demand for lower-end aps-c cameras). Do you think that people who want those higher-end aps-c cameras will want to use the 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses?

'High end' here means a6000 rather than a3000. It does not mean a6500 rather than a6300.

Why is it that adapter companies like Sigma and Metabones have successful business models making adapters for Sony cameras?

They are cheap to make?

Why does Sony still sell - and people still buy - the LA-EA A Mount to E Mount adapters?

Because A mount is a great system with excellent lenses which are falling in price and Sony wants to keep those people using Sony cameras. Doesn't seem that mysterious.

Why does Sony still spend money to create firmware that improves the AF performance of such adapters?

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell MORE cameras and lenses if they had better aps-c lenses?

Maybe a few more, but not a huge amount. This is just something that enthusiasts on forums want to believe. Enthusiasts on forums are almost entirely irrelevant. We are not the market.

Or do you think it is a good business strategy for Sony if people buy adapters and use either third-party lenses or buy used use A Mount glass that they bought off ebay?

Yes. The a6000 still sells like hotcakes. They just watch the money roll in while they work on their professional FE cameras and lenses, which is where the real market share wars are. Their aim, as they have repeatedly said, is to be a major part of the professional camera market, with Canon and Nikon, hence going hard on FF and largely ignoring APS-C. Now they have established a clear lead in the pro mirrorless market, Sony may come back to APS-C, but Sony doesn't 'need' to compete with Fuji and they don't need to 'respond' to the XT3.

It appears that you have completely missed the point of this thread.

When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on.  Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion.  What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected.  Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive.  Surely, Sony can do better.

 Euell's gear list:Euell's gear list
Sony RX100 Canon EOS 7D Sony a6000 Sony a6500 Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM +12 more
jimkohn Regular Member • Posts: 335
Re: More absurdity

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

JohnNEX wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

No, I have not. Can you provide links to the articles, which would be at least a dozen to be 'numerous'?

Why do people on the Fuji forums who have moved from Sony to Fuji point to the quality and quantity of Fuji aps-c lenses being a major reason in why they moved?

Which lenses are missing, other than the f/2.8 standard zoom and a tele zoom? I think Sony has the edge on primes over Fuji. The line-ups are at least broadly equal. When people whine about the lack of lenses for Sony E, they really just mean the lack of a 16-50 f/2.8, one lens. I think that lens will come this year.

Why do you think that Fuji has so many dedicated users? Do you think sony would not like to have those Fuji users buy sony cameras instead?

Sony a6000 outsells Fuji cameras year after year. Sony knows that whiners on internet forums constitute a tiny fraction of their aps-c market. The market is Western grandpas wanting to take stills and 4k video of their grandkids playing soccer and Asia tourists, both wanting something small and light. They won't look on internet forums and they won't buy large f/2.8 lenses. Every single contributor to this forum could move to Fuji and neither Sony or Fuji would notice the tiny change in their sales.

In the article on dc.watch that was cited by the original poster, Masaaki Oshima from Sony states that the demand is for higher-end aps-c cameras (and less demand for lower-end aps-c cameras). Do you think that people who want those higher-end aps-c cameras will want to use the 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses?

'High end' here means a6000 rather than a3000. It does not mean a6500 rather than a6300.

Why is it that adapter companies like Sigma and Metabones have successful business models making adapters for Sony cameras?

They are cheap to make?

Why does Sony still sell - and people still buy - the LA-EA A Mount to E Mount adapters?

Because A mount is a great system with excellent lenses which are falling in price and Sony wants to keep those people using Sony cameras. Doesn't seem that mysterious.

Why does Sony still spend money to create firmware that improves the AF performance of such adapters?

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell MORE cameras and lenses if they had better aps-c lenses?

Maybe a few more, but not a huge amount. This is just something that enthusiasts on forums want to believe. Enthusiasts on forums are almost entirely irrelevant. We are not the market.

Or do you think it is a good business strategy for Sony if people buy adapters and use either third-party lenses or buy used use A Mount glass that they bought off ebay?

Yes. The a6000 still sells like hotcakes. They just watch the money roll in while they work on their professional FE cameras and lenses, which is where the real market share wars are. Their aim, as they have repeatedly said, is to be a major part of the professional camera market, with Canon and Nikon, hence going hard on FF and largely ignoring APS-C. Now they have established a clear lead in the pro mirrorless market, Sony may come back to APS-C, but Sony doesn't 'need' to compete with Fuji and they don't need to 'respond' to the XT3.

It appears that you have completely missed the point of this thread.

When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

Sigma 60mm 2.8 has been a wonderful lens for me. Small, light, and amazingly sharp. And now there is the Sigma 56mm 1.4. Slightly bigger and heavier, but still a great form factor with full autofocus capability and even faster at f1.4 v f2.8. These are great, reasonably priced options.

 jimkohn's gear list:jimkohn's gear list
Sony RX100 Sony a6500 Sony a7 III Sony E 35mm F1.8 OSS Sigma 60mm F2.8 DN Art +5 more
cali92rs Regular Member • Posts: 311
Re: More absurdity
1

All i want is a reasonably high quality telephoto zoom in the $500-800 range. Imho, the 70-300mm would be perfect with a price reduction.

Besides that, I really like Sony's lineup.

wb2trf Veteran Member • Posts: 3,220
Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.
3

Oh, just stop this kvetch

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

Review sites. Who cares.

Here's my personal line up.  This is just mine. There are plenty of other lenses. I shoot landscape and portrait.  (For the latter I need AF. For the former, it's optional.)  My main lenses: Rok 12 f2, Sig 16 f1.4, Rok 21 f1.4, ZS 24 1.8, Sig 30 1.4 and 2.8, SEL 50 1.8 and FE 85 1.8. These lenses are all excellent.  I shoot mostly primes by preference.  I also have the 16-50 and the 55-210, which I use occasionally when I don't have room for anything else.  The 16-50 is a compact marvel, when one needs compactness.  I'm attaching a shot with the 16-50, just for illustration of the terrible things that can happen when that's all I can carry.

I think Sony is doing fine without your lens strategy inputs.

Here's a shot with the 16-50 which I try not to use, but when I need to works ok.

GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,076
Re: More absurdity

Off The Mark wrote:

Actually, I was just going to create a new thread asking people about their opinions on the 30 3.5. I am VERY MUCH interested in it now. (Would be super interested in it if it had OSS, but I guess you can't have everything.)

Fair enough.  You might also consider the 28/f2?  Perhaps you have more options than you first thought.

I own the Sigma 30mm f/2.8 DC lens, and it is pretty good. Very good, actually. And inexpensive.

Yes, I have the Sigma 30/2.8 Art-something-or-other.  Extremely sharp, possibly my sharpest lens.

But I would be interested in the Sony 30mm 3.5 for the macro capability and if it has the full AF functionality that one would have with, say, the SEL 50mm f/1.8 OSS (another lens I very much like).

Having just purchased an a6500, I suddenly don't worry as much about OSS.    Seriously, though, I don't think camera shake was my problem with the Sigma 30...  Even one time when I had a lot of blurry photos at a party, several years ago, it wasn't due to camera shake as much as simple people movement; it was so freakin' dark!
If you need specific qualities of a macro lens, it will simply be the right tool for the job.

If you just want to play with getting real close occasionally, there are other options.  I just watched a video on reversing old prime lenses; I have never bought a reversing adapter, but that looks like an interesting approach.  I have purchased extension tubes, which I guess have worked ok for the times I've tried them.  I can't think of too many times I get that close, though.

The Sigma 19, 30, and 60mm lenses - while very sharp and with excellent contrast - seem to be lacking some of the AF capabilities that some Sony lenses have. I think they are similar in their AF capabilities to the Sony 16mm and 20mm pancake lenses.

No, the 20mm Sony has very good AF.  Very fast.  The 16mm pancake is the one that has the slower AF (it may be Contrast Detect only?), but with such a wide angle, it just generally isn't an issue for me.  Unless you're really close, you're going to get a lot of DOF, particularly since you want to stop down the lens anyway.

There is something about the Sigma lenses which cause them to not have as fast of a focus.  Perhaps this is why they're so inexpensive.  They still work pretty well, just when there's motion, I have trouble.

And if it were an f/1.4 I am sure I would avoid it like the plague.

Everyone seems to be all about super-wide aperture lenses!  I found an old Minolta f1.4, which actually came in handy.  I don't often want to use a lens like that, but I'll keep it as a portrait lens.  Manual focus only, of course.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.

I think Sony is doing fine without your lens strategy inputs.

What other people on forums think: who cares?

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: More absurdity

No, the 20mm Sony has very good AF. Very fast. The 16mm pancake is the one that has the slower AF (it may be Contrast Detect only?),

Thank you for letting me know that. I could have sworn that the 20 pancake had the same AF issues / limitations as the 16, but I guess I was wrong about that. Thanks.

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: Oy vey -- I do not feel deprived.

wb2trf wrote:

That is a very nice photo you took though.

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
PhotoFactor Senior Member • Posts: 2,923
Re: More absurdity
2

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

JohnNEX wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

wb2trf wrote:

They do not need to dump the 16-50 and 55-210. This is merely what you want.

The general problem on this forum is that people turn their personal wishes into what they think are imperatives for camera companies. These pronouncements always seem crazy to me.

Although I don't understand why they are pursuing the camera market at all, they seem to be succeeding in their own terms while not following your advice.

Have you seriously not seen the numerous articles by various review sites out there lamenting the lack of quality aps-c lenses for Sony cameras?

No, I have not. Can you provide links to the articles, which would be at least a dozen to be 'numerous'?

Why do people on the Fuji forums who have moved from Sony to Fuji point to the quality and quantity of Fuji aps-c lenses being a major reason in why they moved?

Which lenses are missing, other than the f/2.8 standard zoom and a tele zoom? I think Sony has the edge on primes over Fuji. The line-ups are at least broadly equal. When people whine about the lack of lenses for Sony E, they really just mean the lack of a 16-50 f/2.8, one lens. I think that lens will come this year.

Why do you think that Fuji has so many dedicated users? Do you think sony would not like to have those Fuji users buy sony cameras instead?

Sony a6000 outsells Fuji cameras year after year. Sony knows that whiners on internet forums constitute a tiny fraction of their aps-c market. The market is Western grandpas wanting to take stills and 4k video of their grandkids playing soccer and Asia tourists, both wanting something small and light. They won't look on internet forums and they won't buy large f/2.8 lenses. Every single contributor to this forum could move to Fuji and neither Sony or Fuji would notice the tiny change in their sales.

In the article on dc.watch that was cited by the original poster, Masaaki Oshima from Sony states that the demand is for higher-end aps-c cameras (and less demand for lower-end aps-c cameras). Do you think that people who want those higher-end aps-c cameras will want to use the 16-50 and 55-210 kit lenses?

'High end' here means a6000 rather than a3000. It does not mean a6500 rather than a6300.

Why is it that adapter companies like Sigma and Metabones have successful business models making adapters for Sony cameras?

They are cheap to make?

Why does Sony still sell - and people still buy - the LA-EA A Mount to E Mount adapters?

Because A mount is a great system with excellent lenses which are falling in price and Sony wants to keep those people using Sony cameras. Doesn't seem that mysterious.

Why does Sony still spend money to create firmware that improves the AF performance of such adapters?

Can you say that Sony wouldn't sell MORE cameras and lenses if they had better aps-c lenses?

Maybe a few more, but not a huge amount. This is just something that enthusiasts on forums want to believe. Enthusiasts on forums are almost entirely irrelevant. We are not the market.

Or do you think it is a good business strategy for Sony if people buy adapters and use either third-party lenses or buy used use A Mount glass that they bought off ebay?

Yes. The a6000 still sells like hotcakes. They just watch the money roll in while they work on their professional FE cameras and lenses, which is where the real market share wars are. Their aim, as they have repeatedly said, is to be a major part of the professional camera market, with Canon and Nikon, hence going hard on FF and largely ignoring APS-C. Now they have established a clear lead in the pro mirrorless market, Sony may come back to APS-C, but Sony doesn't 'need' to compete with Fuji and they don't need to 'respond' to the XT3.

It appears that you have completely missed the point of this thread.

When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

This.

I'd say there are a decent number of APS-C E mount lenses - especially if you include third parties. What is lacking from Sony is some decent optical quality, unless you pay a fortune. The Zeiss 24 is about $1000. The 16-70 is nearly that price, too and would be considered decent but not outstanding in optical quality versus other systems, even at around half the price.

Back in the film days, when you bought primes from the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) you knew you were getting good glass. But with Sony APS-C, optically the best glass is Sigma and Rokinon with a few other exceptions. Sigma 56 and 60 beat Sony 50. Sigma 30 (both of them) beat Sony 35. Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16. Sigma 19 beats Sony 20. Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling. Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

Sure, you have a lot of Sony APS-C lenses. They are just pretty expensive with not good optical quality for their prices.

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
José B
José B Forum Pro • Posts: 19,058
Re: This sounds promising?
1

dump wrote:

DC.watch interviewed Mr. Masaaki Oshima from Sony. There are some clear answers about their APS-C strategy:

– Sony once more confirms APS-C line will be continually developed further
– TheA6400 is not the A6500 replacement
– And while he cannot talk about the plans of an A6500 successor their goal is to “exceed customers” requests
– There is little demand for low-end APS-C cameras but the demand for higher end models is still strong
– In 2019 we plan to strengthen both our APS-C and Full Frame portfolio

I'm good. I was waiting for the announcement of the Sony 135/1.8 and unfortunately I'm priced out of that lens. I'll keep on shooting with what I have and maybe upgrade my APS-C camera every other generation.

 José B's gear list:José B's gear list
Sony a6500 Carl Zeiss Touit 1.8/32 Carl Zeiss Touit 2.8/12 Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +12 more
GaryW Veteran Member • Posts: 9,076
Re: More absurdity

PhotoFactor wrote:

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

...When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

This.

I checked out DxOMark, set the filter for A6000 ( to get an APS-C usage of the lenses), and the top Sony lenses compare well, although the top ones are expensive and FE.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Sony_A6000-942/launched-between-1987-and-2019/mount_type-Sony_E-Sony_FE/focal-from-1-to-1500/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-45/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Just buy the Sigma lenses and be done with it!   I do have a gripe about the AF on my 30/2.8, but it’s not too bad in that regard.  But between FE and Sigma, if you need the sharpest lens,  it seems like you’re not too terribly limited.

I'd say there are a decent number of APS-C E mount lenses - especially if you include third parties. What is lacking from Sony is some decent optical quality, unless you pay a fortune.

I have noticed that Sony tries to not position itself as a bargain brand.  Yet, occasionally they come out with affordable items.

The Zeiss 24 is about $1000. The 16-70 is nearly that price, too and would be considered decent but not outstanding in optical quality versus other systems, even at around half the price.

That’s why I, and many others, got the 18-105 instead.  Similar quality in general, but less price.

Back in the film days, when you bought primes from the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) you knew you were getting good glass.

Minolta 28/2.8 isn’t as great as the 50/1.7, I don’t think.  As much as I like Minolta lenses, they varied.

But with Sony APS-C, optically the best glass is Sigma and Rokinon with a few other exceptions. Sigma 56 and 60 beat Sony 50. Sigma 30 (both of them) beat Sony 35.

The Sigma 30/2.8 DN A doesn’t rank so high in DxOMark, while the 30/2.8 EX DN ranks better.  Hard to know how to compare (is this sample variation?), but that’s a case where the 35/1.8 falls between them, only one point below the EX DN.  I dunno, but I can’t get too worked up over 1 point difference.

Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16.

Well, sure, but the Sony 16/2.8 wasn’t designed to be a top lens — it’s still the least expensive Sony e-mount lens, as far as I know.  It’s also a pancake.  It also has cool, inexpensive attachments.  Why doesn’t Sigma make us a line of pancake lenses?   With add ons?  

Sigma 19 beats Sony 20.

Again, by 1 point.  Here, Sony has a big advantage in having faster AF, and the smallest profile lens.  This is something I really wanted — a compact camera with high quality.  Everything else is less compact.

Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling.

Well, yes.  At least it’s the kit lens, and people can get something else.  The original 18-55 is pretty decent though (as long as you stay away from 55mm).  The collapsible pancake style has costs in image quality.  It is the worst lens in my collection, at least in sharpness.  It’s still useful.

Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

For $100 over the body-only price, it’s not like you’re being gouged.  It works well, in general.  Good color, fast AF, and makes your camera nice and compact.  Sometimes it’s simply good enough.  I like that they have the option of 18-135 kits, although I wish those kits were cheaper.

Sure, you have a lot of Sony APS-C lenses. They are just pretty expensive with not good optical quality for their prices.

-- hide signature --

Gary W.

 GaryW's gear list:GaryW's gear list
Sony E 16-50mm F3.5-5.6 PZ OSS Sony Alpha DSLR-A100 Sony Alpha NEX-5 Sony Alpha NEX-6 Sony a6500 +10 more
PhotoFactor Senior Member • Posts: 2,923
Re: More absurdity

GaryW wrote:

The Sigma 30/2.8 DN A doesn’t rank so high in DxOMark, while the 30/2.8 EX DN ranks better. Hard to know how to compare (is this sample variation?), but that’s a case where the 35/1.8 falls between them, only one point below the EX DN. I dunno, but I can’t get too worked up over 1 point difference.

I don't put a ton of stock in DXOMark, their methodology is strange. They factor in other things, too.

Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16.

Well, sure, but the Sony 16/2.8 wasn’t designed to be a top lens — it’s still the least expensive Sony e-mount lens, as far as I know. It’s also a pancake. It also has cool, inexpensive attachments. Why doesn’t Sigma make us a line of pancake lenses? With add ons?

You're making my point - a major manufacturer (Sony) with a poor optical lens.

Sigma 19 beats Sony 20.

Again, by 1 point. Here, Sony has a big advantage in having faster AF, and the smallest profile lens. This is something I really wanted — a compact camera with high quality. Everything else is less compact.

Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling.

Well, yes. At least it’s the kit lens, and people can get something else. The original 18-55 is pretty decent though (as long as you stay away from 55mm). The collapsible pancake style has costs in image quality. It is the worst lens in my collection, at least in sharpness. It’s still useful.

Yet in M43 you can get cheap pancake kit zooms that are optically excellent. The Panasonic 12-32. And the Olympus 14-42 EZ. Somehow pancake doesn't kill THEIR optical quality.

Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

For $100 over the body-only price, it’s not like you’re being gouged. It works well, in general. Good color, fast AF, and makes your camera nice and compact. Sometimes it’s simply good enough. I like that they have the option of 18-135 kits, although I wish those kits were cheaper.

Oh it works well, it's just optically appalling lens from an ILC manufacturer. Name another ILC lens that's as appalling.

 PhotoFactor's gear list:PhotoFactor's gear list
Samyang 12mm F2.0 NCS CS Sony a6000 Olympus OM-D E-M10 II Sony E 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony E 50mm F1.8 OSS +5 more
Off The Mark Senior Member • Posts: 2,721
Re: More absurdity
1

GaryW wrote:

PhotoFactor wrote:

Euell wrote:

Off The Mark wrote:

...When the original poster said "This sounds promising," they were referring to developments in APS-C cameras and lenses.

It's obvious that SOME people want them.

Why is that so hard for you to understand???

Right on. Simply because Sony may have focal lengths covered doesn't end the discussion. What Sony is particularly missing are top quality APSC lenses, including faster, better zooms that are optically well corrected. Of course, the current lens lineup for the most part isn't awful, but in looking at the test data (DxOmark e.g.), we see that there is obvious room for improvement. See, for example, how much better the Sigma 60mm f2.8 performs than any Sony APSC lens, as well as most of the FE lenses. And, it is small, light and inexpensive. Surely, Sony can do better.

This.

I checked out DxOMark, set the filter for A6000 ( to get an APS-C usage of the lenses), and the top Sony lenses compare well, although the top ones are expensive and FE.

https://www.dxomark.com/lenses/mounted_on-Sony_A6000-942/launched-between-1987-and-2019/mount_type-Sony_E-Sony_FE/focal-from-1-to-1500/aperture_max-from-0.95-to-45/launch_price-from-0-to-13000-usd#hideAdvancedOptions=false&viewMode=list&yDataType=global

Just buy the Sigma lenses and be done with it! I do have a gripe about the AF on my 30/2.8, but it’s not too bad in that regard. But between FE and Sigma, if you need the sharpest lens, it seems like you’re not too terribly limited.

I'd say there are a decent number of APS-C E mount lenses - especially if you include third parties. What is lacking from Sony is some decent optical quality, unless you pay a fortune.

I have noticed that Sony tries to not position itself as a bargain brand. Yet, occasionally they come out with affordable items.

The Zeiss 24 is about $1000. The 16-70 is nearly that price, too and would be considered decent but not outstanding in optical quality versus other systems, even at around half the price.

That’s why I, and many others, got the 18-105 instead. Similar quality in general, but less price.

Back in the film days, when you bought primes from the major makers (Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Minolta) you knew you were getting good glass.

Minolta 28/2.8 isn’t as great as the 50/1.7, I don’t think. As much as I like Minolta lenses, they varied.

But with Sony APS-C, optically the best glass is Sigma and Rokinon with a few other exceptions. Sigma 56 and 60 beat Sony 50. Sigma 30 (both of them) beat Sony 35.

The Sigma 30/2.8 DN A doesn’t rank so high in DxOMark, while the 30/2.8 EX DN ranks better. Hard to know how to compare (is this sample variation?), but that’s a case where the 35/1.8 falls between them, only one point below the EX DN. I dunno, but I can’t get too worked up over 1 point difference.

Sigma 16 wipes the face off Sony 16.

Well, sure, but the Sony 16/2.8 wasn’t designed to be a top lens — it’s still the least expensive Sony e-mount lens, as far as I know. It’s also a pancake. It also has cool, inexpensive attachments. Why doesn’t Sigma make us a line of pancake lenses? With add ons?

Sigma 19 beats Sony 20.

Again, by 1 point. Here, Sony has a big advantage in having faster AF, and the smallest profile lens. This is something I really wanted — a compact camera with high quality. Everything else is less compact.

Sony's kit lens is particularly appalling.

Well, yes. At least it’s the kit lens, and people can get something else. The original 18-55 is pretty decent though (as long as you stay away from 55mm). The collapsible pancake style has costs in image quality. It is the worst lens in my collection, at least in sharpness. It’s still useful.

Given the money you spend on an ILC, you'd think that a box camera quality lens wouldn't be included with it.

For $100 over the body-only price, it’s not like you’re being gouged. It works well, in general. Good color, fast AF, and makes your camera nice and compact. Sometimes it’s simply good enough. I like that they have the option of 18-135 kits, although I wish those kits were cheaper.

Sure, you have a lot of Sony APS-C lenses. They are just pretty expensive with not good optical quality for their prices.

You make some good points, but I just think that IF sony had put as much effort into designing APS-C lenses (and maybe some more affordable but lesser quality FE lenses) then they would sell both more cameras and more lenses.

Just to use an obvious full frame example for a moment (so pardon the detour from aps-c discussion), what if Sony had come out with an equivalent of the the Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 way back when they launched the original a7 series? Something lightweight, compact(ish) and around $900?  I think Sony would have sold a lot more Full Frame cameras (and lenses) if they had something like that in their lineup.

Or when all Sony has for 85mm was the Batis 85 f/1.8 (and the 85 GM??? Can't remember when the GM came out). What if they had been able to port over the (admittedly not all that exciting) A Mount 85mm f/2.8 Easy Choice lens so that it was a native E Mount lens for around $400.  (The A Mount version currently sells for $298, and seems to have pretty good reviews on B and H, and I use my copy of the 85mm f/2.8 on my a6500 with an la-ea1 and am pretty satisfied with it).

Back to aps-c lenses again. Personally, I would have bought the 18-105 but the stories of sample variation scared me off. And for the price, it would have been nice if it was a bit sharper (my understanding is that it is a good lens, but not particularly great).

The various Zeiss E Mount lenses are kind of pricey (they might be worth it, but they are pricey nonetheless) and the names of the lenses are often mentioned in the same sentence as the words "sample variation," which is off=putting to say the least.

-- hide signature --

Crashing sucks!!!

 Off The Mark's gear list:Off The Mark's gear list
Sony a6000 Sony a5100 Sony a6300 Sony a6500 Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +7 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads