Arcimboldo

I totally agree with respect to this lens. However, there are zooms in the Sony lineup that lend themselves to serious landscapes, for example the 12-24 GM and the 70-200 GM II. Up to which size ...

Actually, I don't want such lenses for wildlife, I want them for landscape - which might be as much of a niche as you claim wildlife to be. And for landscapes printed large, both the 200-600 and ...

For birds, Nikon has the 800/6.3, which admittedly doesn't seem to be readily available. Also, the 400 seems to work quite well with the TC 1.4x. Could you point me to an image where you feel the ...

Sony, you made us some really stellar UWA to moderate telephoto lenses, and I am exceedingly happy with them. But after almost 10 years of FF mirrorless, where are the innovative super telephotos? ...

For me, this doesn't make a difference for most typical shots (upper half of the frame at infinity). I don't do much astro but this should be particularly true there.

I didn't own the 12-24 G anymore when I tried out the 14 GM. But judging from the pictures I had already made with the 12-24 G, it's not good in the corners from 12-14 (if you don't heavily ...

I agree with both of you. From a photographical perspective, the shots are real lookers, but with 5 MP I can neither assess pixel shifting nor the lens. Personally, I feel that the 12-24 GM is ...

Actually, I have and still do, both as a development engineer and as a quality expert. So, what you want to tell me is that, without anybody ever actually trying, Sony put the VG-C4EM onto a ...

Sorry, but this is nonsense. It's a shame for Sony to not have discovered this problem themselves before having brought the camera to market - there should be no need for bringing the problem to ...

You're talking of natural vignetting, which is a function of the difference in distance that light rays have to travel to the borders of the frame, as compared to the center. Natural vignetting is ...

Yes, the MTF looks pretty good, but with 60 MP the lens seems to be overwhelmed, cf. the (German) review at digitalkamera.de. Note that the MTF only goes down to 30 lp/mm.

It's as easy as this: If the lens isn't worth the price for you, don't buy it. And vice versa: If you buy the lens, it's worth its price for you. After a year or so, the latter kind of customers...

Well, you got a discount, so all is good :) Do you just do photography? In that case, you don't need the M2's performance anyway, do you?

It's almost exactly the size of the 35/1.4 GM, so costing the same price makes total sense to me... NOT ;)

Well, I'd assume that, for example the 20/1.8 G + 24-70/2.8 GM give you better image quality than this new lens. I admit, however, that not having to change lenses is tempting.

On my a7R III, the 200-600 is far from being sharp towards the borders and 600 mm. Let me not speak about using it with the 1.4x TC. It may work for animal portraits with the subject dead-center –...

Yes, right now, it‘s Sony for short lenses, and more like Nikon for long ones. But I cannot believe that Sony isn‘t seeing that itself, it simply has to come out with a high-end long zoom,...

Well, for me the difference is at least substantial, I agree with Tim. I have even used a polariser on the 12-24 GM at 12 mm. Only sky is a problem, in particular with foliage polarisers are ...

Of course, it's great that you would be able to use the old one. But mine, for the a7R III, wouldn't fit anyway, and I would want a dedicated one.

They should make a dedicated grip, it‘s also too small.