Sony releases two new APS-C E-mount lenses: 16-55mm F2.8 and 70-350mm F4.5-6.3

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4421586#forum-post-63040876

I've had the Minolta 28-70/2.8 G A-Mount long ago, and it wasn't living up to the "G" Hype back then, but way expensive before.

3 months agopermalink

entoman

The 70-350mm looks very appealing, but it's a pity it doesn't use internal focusing and internal zooming, instead of extending in length as you zoom in and/or focus closer.

At 70mm and focused on infinity it measures 142mm, but what does it measure when zoomed to 350mm and on closest focus distance?

And why only a 7 blade aperture, when most lenses these days have 9 blades to provide more attractive bokeh/defocused highlights?

4 months ago*permalink

EOS GUY

Sigma 17-50mm f2.8 ex DC OS HSM and adapter.

Great glass. Great OS. Great price. Same size.

Easy choice vs the high cost of the new Sony unless you need weather sealing

4 months agopermalink

thscan

Not exactly the same size. Sigma 565g + 110g the adapter = 675gr. 675 - 494 = 180g.

3 months agopermalink

thscan

Also this one covers the portrait's standard focal length, 85mm (much closer than the sigma).

3 months agopermalink

cSalmon

Without some reduced sized lenses (f4). I just don't see any point to this format anymore. I love my 6300 but I am not grabbing it to carry around an f2.8 lens, or using it on a gimbal with that big piece of glass.

I am curious if telecentric lens design will reduce the size and weight of Canon lenses.

4 months agopermalink

Andy Galeati

That is the very first thought that crossed my mind before I viewed the comment section.

4 months agopermalink

(unknown member)

Telecentric lens design will increase size and weight. Olympus 4/3 dSLR lenses where telecentric design and where optical great but big.

4 months agopermalink

dpthoughts

These lenses are obviously not made nor intended for the current a6000 to a6600 lineup (not their target segment), but preparing the grounds for an a7000 or a9000 (their target segment).

4 months ago*permalink

(unknown member)

You mean the mythical A7000? It only exists on Sony Alpha Rumors.
For years now I'm hearing story's about that camera.

4 months agopermalink

dpthoughts

Yes, Sony was a bit slow and deaf on that ear, but this year seems the one, where they start delivering. The a6600 is only a gentle start.

The two zoom lenses (made for a7000-a9000) will fail in the market initially, beause they are not what the existing a6x00 users need or want (or want to pay for, actually). But Sony probably knows that, and factored that into their current APS-C strategy.

4 months ago*permalink

captura

@Thorgrem,
Yes, I used to ridicule the idea of the A7000 too. And SAR themselves disavowed themselves of it last year. But now I see it as a possible October surprise, incorporating the 26.1 mp sensor. How else can Sony compete against Fuji?

3 months agopermalink

gphome

Camerasize has the two new APS-C Zooms added - Comparisons here:

4 months agopermalink

razorfish

Sony finally getting serious about APS-C. Kudos.

4 months agopermalink

Crixus

What does "Focus method: Extending front" mean?

4 months agopermalink

Probably the front portion of the lens extends out of the body. This would be similar to lenses like the 16-55 from Fujifilm, the the 24-90 from Leica, and more. It extends rather than containing the entire zoom mechanism internally.

But that is just my guess.

4 months agopermalink

Pixel Pooper

I think it's a typo. I assume the front extends when zooming, but not when focusing.

4 months agopermalink

TN Args

Until now there had only ever been one G lens in APS-C, and it was a 2013 power zoom!

So these are most welcome.

4 months agopermalink

Alan53

Well done Sony, looks like 2 really good APS-C lenses. Now for that rumoured mini A9, or some other chunky gripped central EVF camera to use them with!

4 months agopermalink

SupremeWideAngle

More Sony GM Prime Lenses !!!

4 months ago*permalink

shademaster

For the price of the 16-55 you could almost get an A7ii plus Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. Which doesn't get down to 24mm equiv but does get effective 2.8 rather than effective 4.2. it's way more expensive than the FF equivalent Zeiss 24-70 f/4.

Really hard to justify going APSC unless you already have a setup.

4 months agopermalink

Rodrigo Pasiani

Photography gear in general is becoming ridiculously expensive.

4 months agopermalink

razorfish

The foolish premise for your comment is that "FF" is always inherently "better". A common mistake among non-pro wannabes.

4 months agopermalink

shademaster

@razorfish

It's bad form to call people foolish online.

I'm not advocating FF for its own sake. I'm just looking at current prices and noting that a nearly equivalent FF setup (A7 plus Zeiss 24-70 f/4) would actually be cheaper.

Please have a look at Richard Butler's piece explaining equivalence.

Have a nice day!

4 months agopermalink

NicoPPC

Yeah, but then you have to stay on FF which give you as much advantage as drawbacks.

So depending of your needs APS C or FF is better.

FF: Bigger/Heavier but high mpx/best iso performance
APS-C: smaller/compacter, good mpx/noise control - but no high mpx/sligthly worse noise

4 months agopermalink

6BQ5

Hmmm! You'd have to compare the resulting image quality between an A7 II + Tamron vs an A6x00 + the 16-55 lens. I'm pretty confident the center of the image in both cases will look crisp and sharp. How would corner and edge performance compare? That's what would drive my decision between the two systems if I had to choose one.

4 months agopermalink

NicoPPC

If you are looking for corner to corner sharpness for a decent price on a zoom, the Zuiko 12-48 f2.8 Pro is super good

4 months agopermalink

Jake90210

Fuji X-H1 + battery grip + 16-55mm + 8-16mm = $3000. Sony A6600 + 16-55mm = $2800.
Sony Fanboys = Biggest chumps ever.

4 months agopermalink

Mike99999

Sony A7 + Tamron 17-28/2.8 + Tamron 28-75/2.8 = $2,500.

Crop sensor apologists = biggest chumps ever.

4 months agopermalink

D7000ShooterUK

@Mike99999 The A7 is an old camera which is off the pace these days. I'd much rather have a X-H1

4 months ago*permalink

...says the D7000 Shooter from 2010... well, these absolute statements do help nobody, and aren't true, anyway.

The A7 does have the same Sensor, as into the A7 II, and even Richard Butler confirmed my statement a while here on DPR comment section ago, that the A7 (II) DR is better, than the "new" EOS RP - so what? As you can see, these bold statements (camera or sensor xy is being too old) do help nobody....

BTW, i still like my D7000 & Tammi 17-50/2.8 AF Setup, AF is fast, responsible, and the IQ is still fine, 2019 from this combo. A16N (without BIM) is better than the A16N II version, a tad sharper, and AF via Body-Screwdrive @D7000 faster, less audible (subtle) than the A16N II Version. All other Systems (Sony, Canon, Pentax, etc.) do have a way louder 17-50/2.8 Tamron, especially the Canon Version is really noisy, don't know, why. The Nikon F-Mount is the best hereby with this Lens.

Good Light.

4 months ago*permalink

D7000ShooterUK

@marc petzold I have not used a D7000 for years - is is just a DPR handle LOL

4 months agopermalink

UllerellU

Sony A7RII (much better than XH1 in IQ and AF) + Tamrom 17-28mm f2.8 + tamrom 28-70mm f2.8. € 3,200....

But I have to agree that the prices of the new Sony APSC lenses are a mockery, I expected the same price as the Fuji lens but with OSS, as in ALL zooms of the E APSC mount.

4 months agopermalink

Cal22

APS-C might be the best option for the demanding photographer on-the-go. The lenses offered by Sony though, aren't to my taste because of their so-so IQ. The two lenses now announced seem to be a step in the right direction. They are dust and weather sealed and let hope for high IQ. But I'm still disappointed because of their size and weight.

Here's my wish list:
A zoom about 18 - 48mm, F2.8 (There's no need for a wide zoom range when traveling with more than just one camera body)
Primes: 14/15mm, 24mm (similar to the new FE35mm, but with less CA, please) and 60mm. All of them high IQ performer, dust/weather sealed

and in size and weight appropriate to the compact camera body!

Then Sony might rigorously reduce their existing line of APS-C lenses.

4 months agopermalink

Nikita66

I always wish for an UWA prime, AF, like 10mm 2.8.
Everyone praises primes except in this category where zooms and MF are good enough.

4 months agopermalink

sarit

@Nikita66 Do you really need AF at that focal length ? Try the Samyang/Rokinon 12mmf2, it is manual but I can almost use it as a point and shoot as long as focusing is considered.

@Cal22 Yes, I've been waiting for a 23/24mm version of their SEL35F1.8OSS since forever. I know there's the Zeiss 24 but a bit too expensive for me, not small and doesn't have OSS.

3 months ago*permalink

beavertown

70 - 350 is a bit of stirring but also a game changer.

4 months agopermalink

Not really. I would prefer to get the Sony 70-300mm lens instead. Its only 50mm less long, will work on FF and is 5.6 at the long end instead of f6.3

However if the 70-350mm is very sharp then it may be a better choice given the pricing of both lenses is very similar

4 months agopermalink

razorfish

Very very close to the reach you get with the much larger Fuji 100-400mm, but incredibly more portable. If it's sharp then this should be a winner for Sony.

4 months agopermalink

Tomasz_Wk

So ... the 16-55mm f2.8 is priced 200$ higher than Fuji’s same lens. Wow. I thought that Fuji was overpriced!

4 months agopermalink

techjedi

The Fuji cannot be used on Sony bodies though.

4 months agopermalink

ekaton

That's the recommended price for the Sony. Ynd it will slowly decrease over time. So wait and buy cheaper in a few short months.

4 months agopermalink

DeathArrow

Does the Fuji lens have stabilization like Sony?

4 months agopermalink

celestialemissary

Sony 16-55 does not have stabilisation

4 months agopermalink

The Fuji is also a lot older, and let's be honest, isn't nice to manual focus. Sony's lenses, with all their bad, have much nicer MF rings and general ergonomics than Fujifilm's do.

4 months agopermalink

It is also a LOT heavier. Sony are employing engineering wizardry in this lens.

4 months agopermalink

Tomasz_Wk

Fuji's 16-55 is not that old. I has been lunched in 2015. It's heavy, yes, but it has a reputation of being sharp edge-to-edge even wide open at f/2.8.

We will see if Sony will be at the same level.

4 months agopermalink

Photoman

There...that should shut up the APS-C users...should...

4 months agopermalink

I am not an apsc shooter but I would be pretty disappointed with the 16-55mm price. Its just too expensive IMO.

4 months agopermalink

Photoman

You always have Tamron and Sigma...

4 months agopermalink

farcanal

Well this makes it easy for me to choose my next 2.8 zoom for my a6400, "the Tamron 17-28, thx Sony

4 months agopermalink

DeadOctopi

I laughed pretty hard at this. I'm really enjoying the 28-75, and the IQ for the price point it, looks like whatever Tamron's silhouetted zoom is eventually going to be announced as, I'll probably bag that one too. The price tag on this seems a little 'too much $$, too late in the game' unless someone is -really- making sure they are attaching native glass, which is understandable to a degree.

Sony had to know this lens would sit up against that Tamron, surely. Eh, who knows, maybe it'll edge it out, in the end more lenses to choose from are never a bad thing?

4 months agopermalink

Mike99999

Indeed, that Tamron is the obvious choice for APS-C. Remember that Sony owns part of Tamron though, so this might all be part of the strategy.

4 months agopermalink

EXkurogane

Most 70-300mm variable aperture kit lenses sell for $200-300 brand new.

But, hey, you get extra 50mm. That's an additional $700. LOLOLOL

4 months ago*permalink

thx1138

Yeah, this is the same price I paid for Canon's superb FF 70-300 f/4.5-5.6L IS. I like the range, but it needed to be 70-350 f/4-5.6 OSS for that money. At least it's a G lens, should be a step up from those budget 70-300 zooms, but not a $700 step up.

4 months agopermalink

Sigh it never ceases to surprise me when people compare decades old lenses with new lenses and think nothing has changed in lens technology and if the focal length matches then automatically so will the IQ.

If you are happy with those old lenses on 24 MP sensors then fine. Good for you! But if you think those lenses will perform as good as these modern lenses then you are in for a surprise especially if you consider the long end of the lens.

4 months agopermalink

thx1138

Only one lens was named the Canon L, it's not that old, less than 7 years and is superb. The best budget 70-300 is the Tamron VC it's not decades old either. Sigh.

4 months agopermalink

https://www.amazon.com/Nikon-NIKKOR-17-55mm-IF-ED-Cameras/dp/B000144I2Q/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=nikon+17-55mm+f2.8&qid=1567026708&s=electronics&sr=1-1

I was referring to the OP who was talking about the 200-300 dollar 70-300mm lenses that have been around for ages.

4 months agopermalink

They Caged Non

Very expensive that 16-55 lens, the Fujifilm equivalent can be had for £899 at the moment. It’s good to see companies paying APS-C a bit of attention though.

4 months agopermalink

UllerellU

The 16-50 is not stabilized and that it has a price, like saying it .... well let's say that the SAL version does not reach € 700 and that the Fuji 16-55 does not reach € 1,000. And the 70-350 !? f6.3 and € 1,000? You're kidding I prefer 70-300 FE, this is a long APSC zoom for God's sake: http://www.ricoh-imaging.co.jp/english/products/lens/k/telephoto/hdpentax-da-55-300/ 300€.

Very disappointed today with Sony announcements, I think I will end up migrating from the system to another brand.

4 months agopermalink

Nikon's 17-55/2.8 DX isn't stabilized either. And it's $1,496.95.

Fuji's 16-50/2.8 is $1,199.00:

https://www.amazon.com/Fujinon-XF16-55mmF2-8-R-LM-WR/dp/B00RSQTDMA

Sony's 16-50/2.8 falls in between.

4 months agopermalink

https://www.amazon.es/Fujifilm-Fujinon-XF-16-distancia/dp/B00SDC5LU6/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?keywords=fujifilm+16+55&qid=1567028409&s=gateway&sprefix=fujifilm+16+55&sr=8-3

The 1400 usd lens actually costs 1090 usd if you buy it in Canada. There's a 25% increase in price due to the new Trump tax.

4 months agopermalink

UllerellU

In my country they are € 1,000, and Sony prices always translate to $ 1 = € 1, which will cost Sony 16-50 € 1,400. And the 70-350 !? € 1,000 !? Seriously!? I'm a little shocked, I've been waiting for these glasses for years and they come out with this.

I felt embarrassing that ALL Sony E APSC zooms have OSS and this f2.8 does not, leaving out all Nex users, A6000 / 6300/6400/6100. Bravo Sony.

4 months agopermalink

"In my country they are € 1,000, and Sony prices always translate to $ 1 = € 1, which will cost Sony 16-50 € 1,400". No. The official price of that Sony lens is 1299 eur. Try again.

4 months agopermalink

Marcelobtp

Photos are looking great, now waiting for reviews, this can be a game changer for Sony, really.
Now 6600 has to go down in price, 1400 is just nuts for what it offers.

4 months agopermalink

DeadOctopi

Oh gross, didn't see the price. Body only? Eh, I guess it's not going to make any a6400 users switch, but maybe some of the ageing a6000 bodies? maybe?

4 months agopermalink

badi

Sony is pretty far ahead in tech, so they can afford to ask really high when they pull a new model.
In 2 years, it will still sell new, it will be same as the competition new cameras is specs, and will be much cheaper. They stick to this marketing model for a while, so it must be working fine for them.

4 months agopermalink

jl123

I find it hard to believe that while cannon and nikon can make lightweight (well under 2lbs) 70-200mm f/4 lenses, no one in the mirrorless field can. This has so far and continues to limit the aspc market. Sony? Fuji? Cannon M? lets get some high quality and lightweight F/4 zoom lenses out soon. j

4 months agopermalink

jl123

Fascinating that most apsc users here don’t care a whit about actually having zooms that can be used in lower light. I suppose most of you simply don’t go out as the sun goes down or when the clouds get too dark- that is at least as zooms are concerned. You guys don’t know what your missing.

4 months agopermalink

Boissez

Panasonic-Leica makes a ultralight and compact 50-200/2.8-4. It weighs around 1.4 pounds IIRC.

4 months agopermalink

Klaus Schroiff

And what exactly is the Sony 70-200mm f/4 G OSS for you?

4 months agopermalink

jl123

Just implying that that lens is really built for full frame. Sony could easily build a purpose built aspc 70-200 f/4 that weighs 1.5 lbs, (lose half a pound) isn't so wide, and have a truly portable camera. Would be great.

4 months agopermalink

Klaus Schroiff

Fuji comes quite close with the 55-200mm f/3.5-4.8 and Boissez mentioned the Leica 50-200mm f/2.8-4 (which is quite awesome).

4 months agopermalink

NaBalam

Those XD linear motors look so happy..

4 months agopermalink

thoth22

I'd just get the 70-300 for ff so it can be used on both a7 and a6xxx series cams (better resale potential) and you can find used or demo copies for similar price of $1000.

4 months agopermalink

photo_rb

I haven't read all the comments but has anyone noticed the Canadian pricing is the same as US?

4 months agopermalink

I noticed that directly, and the reason is called Trump/China tariffs. The Sony G lenses are produced in China, and so is the 35mm 1.8 for example, and all those lenses are more expensive in the US than in Canada because of the Trump tax.

4 months agopermalink

photo_rb

Aha! Thanks for that!

4 months agopermalink

PPierre

Well, I could see myself with this for the years to come, but on the other hand, an A7III with a FE 24-105 is not much more, especially used, than that A6600 with a 16-55f2.8, and I'm sure the A7III's high ISO make it for the transmission difference.

On the other hand, the A6600, those two lenses, and a 85f1.8 would make an all-round kit that would be quite handy, while I'd need to have a 24-105, 100-400 with 1x4 adapter and a 135f2.8 on a FF to get roughly the equivalent kit.

4 months agopermalink

Peak freak

While I think it's about time Sony released a premium normal zoom for its A6000 series, I agree that the 24-105 on an A7X is also a good option, and on an A7R model is an excellent combination regarding size/weight and IQ.

4 months agopermalink

Mister Mann

No IS on the 16-50 lens???????
Way to stick it to the A6200, A6300, and A6400 buyers.

4 months agopermalink

Someone spending top dollar on the $1400 16-50/2.8G lens will likely be using a Sony IBIS body or will upgrade to a Sony IBIS body. They probably also wanted to keep the size and weight down as well. The 16-50/2.8G is just under 500g and is relatively compact.

4 months ago*permalink

cosmicnode

70 -350 for apsc , now thats a nice lens. who said apsc was dead?

4 months agopermalink

I'd get FE 70-300 instead. Costs and weights a little more but way more versatile.

4 months agopermalink

cosmicnode

That depends on your perspective, On a Dx 300 mm has a FOV of 450 mm, 350 mm is 525 mm, now that's more versatile, It will still give a DX image on a FF, maybe more. and it's lighter. If they were both 70-350 I would agree with you.

4 months agopermalink

FE 70-300 is a FF lens and can also be used on FF, end of story. E 70-350 is a very redundant lens and I would rather have a 55-200 for less cost and weight.

4 months agopermalink

cosmicnode

Really 55-200 LOL.

4 months agopermalink

Caetocerous

"70-350 is a very redundant lens"

Hardly. If it offers typical Sony quality at 525mm equivalent, taking advantage of Sony's newest AF, it'll make for some great captures for those that want those features without the size, weight and expense of A9 + FF telephoto lenses.

4 months agopermalink

Most consumers going for aps-c don't throw $1000 on a telephoto lens to get A9 performance. Those who do will definitely consider FF alternatives. RX10IV for $1500 has a better package (only 2/3 slower) than A6600 + just E 70-350 for $2400. Plus other than AF tracking A6600 is so underwhelming in fps, electronic shutter, sensor readout speed, memory buffer, ergonomics that to shoot telephoto this will most likely be a backup body for current A9 users who already own FF glass like FE 70-300 or FE 100-400.

4 months agopermalink

Long-time Fujifilm owner here:

There are a million things about Sony's APS-C and FF I dislike and a million other things that bother me about Fujifilm. One thing against Sony has been lenses for basic ranges, but this 16-55 is plugging a hole.

I'd love to replace or add Sony to my system. Very interested in the direction in which Sony are headed.

4 months agopermalink

Positive: Finally matched Fuji XF16-55 and s lighter
Minus: Worth $1400? (For $350 more you can get both FE 28-75 and 17-28 f/2.8 on FF!)
Silver lining: Tamron might soon release E 17-55 f/2.8 for $600!!

4 months agopermalink

JEROME NOLAS

You'll never get a decent standart lens for decent $$$! Stay away from Sony!!!

4 months agopermalink

Check the price in Canada, it's 1450 CAD which is 1090 USD.
Let's see if you can figure out why.

4 months agopermalink

manos234

What's the point of those official Sony sample galleries with the 2.8MP files???

4 months agopermalink

Serjojeee

A6600 with this 16-55 will be more pricey than Nikon Z6 kit with 24-70 F4 S. That's insane!

4 months agopermalink

s1oth1ovechunk

That sounds like an equivalent system, but the sony will have better autofocus. Do you want the one with worse autofocus to be more expensive?

4 months agopermalink

sunnycal

While the new generation of Sony AF is on top, Nikon Z6 is no slouch. The only real benefit of Sony which nikon can't match is video eye AF.

4 months agopermalink

Serjojeee

I don't think that AF is the only thing you should keep in mind. That's first Nikon mirrorless (the 1 series is a totally different product) and as far as I know the Nikon AF after some tweaking is not that bad actually. I don't think that eye AF is really needed in most of your shots either way (but of course it's a must nowadays).

4 months agopermalink

Mister Mann

Not equivalent.
Difference between APSC and FF is 1 1/3rd stops. The Nikon would have an advantage, and the reviews say the Nikon lens is stellar. If your into video at all, then Nikon is even better.

4 months agopermalink

JochenIs

If you like a good viewfinder Nikon is better.

4 months agopermalink

Z6 advantages:
- full frame
- better EVF
- better video specs in the future
- better ergonomics / menus

A6600 advantages:
- more reach being APS-C
- much better battery life, twice as good
- much better AF for stills and video
- better selection of lenses

so, 4 vs 4, I call it a draw.

4 months agopermalink

DrewRick

FF is not a value in itself (it's heavier to lug around, so quite the opposite), and 24-85 is already pretty short for portraits, 24-70 is shorter. Never liked that zoom range, I'd actually buy a 23-70 for APS-C, to get a 35-105 equivalent range. Sadly that doesn't exist.

4 months agopermalink

kobakokh

the first pro zoom for aps-c Sony? really good news! 1400 USD? For rich users!

4 months agopermalink

1400 EUR for a consumer zoom lens
LOOOOOOOOOOL
No thank you Sony....
Very sad I own a A6300....

4 months agopermalink

Magnar W

There are other lenses for you if you don't want to pay for high quality glass. Like the lens collections for most brands.

4 months agopermalink

panther fan

It's just 1299€

4 months agopermalink

Don't underestimate the EUR-bump in prices. We poor europeans have to pay always a premium....
And yes there are some good Sigma lenses out there. I'm happy with my Sony 35mm f1.8. My Sigma 16m f1.4 is on the way. I might get the Sigma 56mm f1.4 as well.
I bet they will beat the new zoom in terms of sharpness.

4 months agopermalink

panther fan

Oh no the official price is

899€ for the tele and 1299€ for the zoom. (So if you deduct VAT it is 800$ and 1150$)

So we actually get a better deal, probably due to tariffs on china imports from the US

4 months ago*permalink

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/3452105989/canonefs1755f28g

OK ... strange price politics this time LOL
It the tele is good, it could be my goto tele lens when I'm tired of carrying the Sigma 150-600 :)
But if it's like that bad like the 55-210 then I'll skip

4 months ago*permalink

@dpfan32-

People have short memories. Canon introduced the 17-55/2.8 EF-S in 2006 for $1150.

Adjusted for inflation, that would be $1,463.57.

Nikon's 17-55/2.8 DX is $1499.95 right now.

Sony's 16-50/2.8G at $1400 is not really out of line. And the US is in the middle of a massive tariff war with China, which is also likely driving up the price.

4 months ago*permalink

@dpfan32 : it's not strange price politics, it's just the Trump / China tariffs in action. Those lenses are being produced in China and get a +25% tax. You can buy the 1400 USD lens in Canada for 1450 CAD which is 1090 USD.

4 months agopermalink

OK then... Agree that all the f2.8 zooms from all manufacture were/are overpriced.

4 months agopermalink

steelhead3

Everyone seems to be claiming that the 16-55 is a G-master lens...I don't see the red GM on it, just the G (a step down)

4 months agopermalink

otto k

G-apprentice?

4 months agopermalink

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=iTVIeF266SU

Even the Sony Video speaks of "G-Master" - watch this:

"G-Master technology applied to APS-C Lens", but no matter how good it'll being for a 16-55/2.8, the Nikon DX 16-80/2.8-4 E VR Lens seems for now not being that expensive anymore... ;-)

Well, after all - it's still just a "G" Lens, which we've had back, into the old, glorious Minolta Lens days, and G Lenses have been a notch over the ordinary ones...being extraordinary.

Good Evening.

4 months ago*permalink

G Master (GM) is only for Sony FF lenses. It's like Canon L lenses: L is only for Canon's FF lenses. Even though Canon has some excellent APS-C lenses, Canon only puts the L designation on their FF lenses.

4 months agopermalink

Ergo607

Prices of lenses have gone berzerk as of lately... 1000,- for a 75-350, really?

4 months agopermalink

https://www.dpreview.com/articles/4589399656/nikon-reveals-70-300mm-telezoom-and-10-30mm-powerzoom-for-1-system

Thank Goodness my Canon 55-250 IS STM work quite good adapted. It's super sharp, sharper than the 70-200f4L, light and compact.

4 months agopermalink

KristinnK

The market is shrinking, so manufacturers seem to be responding by hiking prices. Only time will tell how this pans out for them.

4 months agopermalink

s1oth1ovechunk

Sounds like what inflation looks like.

4 months agopermalink

sunnycal

Nikon 70-300 Af-p DX lenses are one fourth and one fifth in price while having superb AF and optics.

4 months agopermalink

Dennis

Sigma 100-400 goes for $799 when not on sale. This is 50mm shorter, but OEM (and mirrorless lenses seem to be more expensive than DSLR lenses for some reason). Look at it another way: it's $200 less than the 70-300.

If the performance is in line with those 3rd party lenses, this isn't unreasonable.

4 months agopermalink

Nikon introduced the 1 Nikkor VR 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 in 2014 at $999.95:

This was a lens designed for Nikon's CX (1") sensor format.

4 months agopermalink

NaBalam

I bet has something to do with Trump and his trade war with China. Most things manufactured in China has gone up in price lately.

4 months agopermalink

So give me Made in Japan and forget about trade war with China :) !
Btw. Japans finance minister admitted that he has to do anything Uncle Sam says because they threatened Japan with an earthquake weapon. No joke you can research it.

4 months agopermalink

It's only 1000 CAD which is 750 USD, and it's 899 euro in Europe (tax included).
Let's see if you can find out why it costs 1000 usd in the USA.

4 months ago*permalink

I do also like my 55-250 STM since years. It's good, for what it does. Sure, it looks a bit like a "bazooka", being long, huge onto a xxD Body, but it does the Job. ;) For the asking price - it's a not to miss STM Zoom for APS-C Canon Bodies.

Good Light.

4 months agopermalink

onlyfreeman

Hmm, the FE 70-300mm G OSS is about the same price, but a little heavier, possibly better quality? Why buy 70-350mm then?

4 months agopermalink

dbronson

i guess reviews and tests will follow to see which is better for apsc.

4 months agopermalink

Becksvart

Yeah. If the recommended sales price as per a popular Swedish photo site is correct (resellers may of course decide on a higher price) it will be noticably cheaper than the FE 70-300.

We'll also see about AF and optical comparisons.

Sad to see that it's mostly moan and complain when Sony actually seems somewhat serious about APS-C for the first time in I don't know when last.

4 months agopermalink

BrentSchumer

3/4ths the weight of it's FF sibling and optimized for APS-C mount. It's also 3 years newer and possibly incorporating improved techniques and manufacturing over it's older sibling.

4 months agopermalink

1) In other countries than the USA, the 70-350 is much cheaper. You're paying more because those lenses are being made in China, and because of Trump.
2) the 70-350 has XD motors, previously only available on the top GM lenses: 135 f1.8, 400 f2.8 and 600 f4. That means: incredible focus speed and accuracy.
3) not sure about the IQ, we need to wait for comparisons.

4 months agopermalink

QuietOC

The FE 70-300 G OSS doesn't support 20 FPS on the A9.

4 months agopermalink

Horshack

It's hard to make a $2200 24-70mm f/2.8 full-frame lens seem like a good value but Sony pulled it off.

4 months ago*permalink

The 16-55mm was a long overdue lens but wow its expensive ! I still remember the A mount 16-55mm f2.8 was launched for $800 which undercut the 17-55mm f2.8 IS from Canon and the Nikon 17-55mm f2.8 by a few hundred $$$.

Now its the opposite. Its a few hundred $$$ more expensive than any other APS-C zoom out there.

The 75-350mm seems like a nice lens though in terms of focal length but f6.3 at the long end will be limiting. But that too is pretty pricey. Performance seems not bad though from the sample photos.

4 months agopermalink

Yes ... A price of 800 EUR would had been nice...
But now I have to play with some Sigma primes instead....
In the end the Sigmas will probably deliver much better image quality though :)

4 months ago*permalink

Getting the 16mm 1.4 and the 56mm 1.4?

4 months agopermalink

Photato

Fantastic move, finally !

4 months agopermalink

stadlereric

$1400!

4 months agopermalink

$1400!!

4 months agopermalink

kobakokh

1400!!!! Why not 1500? Which different? number 4 is bad number in China, Sony please set 1500 USD for Chinese market!

4 months agopermalink

otto k

Oooh, but 8 is good, right? Sooo 1800?

4 months agopermalink

geekyrocketguy

!!!!??!!!!

4 months agopermalink

4 is not really a bad number in China, it just means "death".

4 months agopermalink

Jeff Keller

Technically it's $1399.99 :)

4 months agopermalink

cesaregal

16-55mm F2.8 seems a good lens to be coupled to the new a6600 for general use in a dim environment given the great camera capability at hight ISO and for fast action photography given the fast camera autofocus. I see it well for theater/dance/concert photos.

4 months agopermalink

Alexsfo

this is huge. Sony takes APS-C E-mount seriously, There is no reason to even consider Fuji at this point.

4 months agopermalink

Stop smoking this stuff, what are you talking about? Fujifilm XF 18-55/2.8-4 is an excellent "Kit" Lens, optically very good, even more, for it's little price. It can being bought new for ~400 EUR, this GM 16-55/2.8 is only a bit faster from aperture, costs a hell lot more, and it's from size a behemoth.

I'd never pay >800 bucks for an APS-C/DX Zoom, no matter how good. Above this line - only Fullframe for my needs, not APS-C/DX Stuff anymore.

PS: The weight Advantage seems being gone also, because it's a massive, behemoth GM Zoom Lens, albeit APS-C hereby - and very expensive.

Nope, a 24-70/2.8 Fullframe anytime over this 16-55/2.8 APS-C, i can get a Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC for ~450 EUR being used, mint-like condition.

When this Sony would cost someday ~800 bucks, it's a different story....but again, FF is even more cheaper, this 16-55/2.8 GM costs even more (!) than the excellent Tamron 24-70/2.8 VC G2 Zoom Lens, that means something for myself..current Lens Prices are being nuts!

4 months agopermalink

What rubbish. Fuji has a brilliant line up. If I didn't use my camera for work I would have gone down the Fuji APS-C line up instead.

That said Sony has some advantages like cheaper 3rd party lenses which Fuji lacks.

4 months agopermalink

bloodycape

How one bonds with a camera is a big reason for some to go with Fuji. I shot with a Sony A57 for a year and a half. On paper, and in the real world a lot of the specs of it was better than the Fuji X-E1 that I replaced it with. However, I bonded better with the Fuji, which in turn means I have more fun with the Fuji system.

4 months agopermalink

@marc

I think most people would compare the 16-55 Fuji with the new Sony. The Fuji is heavier, appears to be less well designed for use with both AF and MF, and who knows about how they perform in the field. I own the Fuji and dislike everything but its image quality, but that is personal. They go for very similar prices.

4 months agopermalink

mandophoto

Well, not to throw water on the squawking going on here, but the two architectural samples from the 16-55 look quite nice. Yep, we need to see unprocessed ARW versions, but so far it looks promising.

PS. Switching to full frame from APS-C, even within the same brand, is much more expensive than the premium levy of one lens. Also of course there is the weight and size considerations. Comparisons should be of systems, not single items.

4 months agopermalink

Agree but now we have only one (probably) good zoom lens for A6xxx. What else? Almost nothing. Yeas the Sigma primes are great. Thank you Sigma!
For a 70-200 f4/2.8 you still have to take the full frame lenses.

4 months agopermalink

thoth22

dpfan32, 18-135 is no slouch.

4 months agopermalink

Finally, a good F2.8 native APS-C E-Mount Lens! Just what we've been waiting since the NEX-3/5 for, back into 2010! If only....it's way expensive, i'd have wished for a 799 USD price hereby, would being much better....but it's a G-Master Class Lens!

And it's hopefully really much better, than the infamous, "pseudo" Sony "Zeiss" 16-70/F4 Zoom Lens! The edge IQ from that Zoom is really messy.

It's faster (constant F2.8) but i do really want to see a 1:1 comparsion with my really much liked Fujifilm XF 18-55/F2.8-4 Lens! For twice the price, this 16-55/2.8 GM just has to be better - and being really better, according to the price-class! And the XF 18-55 Fujifilm is no slouch! ;)

Sad, but true...1400 USD is like 1300 to 1400 EUR in germany, into old Europe, for that price, i'd never buy a APS-C/DX class of Zoom Lens, but FullFrame, only.

FYI, my Tamron 17-50/2.8 AF onto my D7000 was ~400 EUR, shiny new. And it does still deliver, 9 years later, seldom being used. A16N.

Good Light.

4 months ago*permalink

1300-1400 EUR? Where are you living? ;)
It will be at least 1500 EUR

4 months agopermalink

kobakokh

marc petzold, probably in Germany prices are also high, I live in China and new Tamron 17-55/2.8 here cost about 280 USD, and used in mint condition - about 180 USD. If we will add used but also mint condition Nikon D7100 for 300 USD, we will get good set for photography. for about 500 USD with 32GB card and additional battery.

4 months agopermalink

panther fan

It is actually 1299€

4 months agopermalink

Nomoreheroes

In Sweden it's actually 1350 Euros

3 months agopermalink

Yes, but the D7100 is a no way for myself, banding issues with the 24 MP Toshiba Sensor. Either the D7000 (which is still great into 2019 - being good enough) or the D7200 (D7000 Mark III, as i would call it ;) Not the D7100. It sits into the Middle into the D7x00 Series and is being neither fish or meat.

For real, a X-T3 with 16-55/2.8 is being better, but the 16-55 2.8 XF Lens must being stopped down at least 2 steps, for decent image quality.
I'd rather get the 16-80 E VR someday, cheap into mint condition.
Still being happy with my Tammi 17-50/2.8 on the D7000.

3 months ago*permalink

thomas2279f

Good releases from Sony - supporting their excellent E mount system, an ideal APS and FF system -> upgrade path with advantage of having one mount.

If I was starting again and I brought say a Sony Rx100, then if I was in position to add an APS system + FF system then Sony would win hands down.

4 months agopermalink

liopleurodon

I was waiting for this 16-55/2.8 to exist and moved to FF after getting impatient. Comparing the new crop kit to my FF kit is interesting.

My a7 III + Tamron 28-75 was $2800; The body weighs 650g, the lens is 117mm and weighs 550g

A new a6600 + 16-55/2.8 would be $2800; The body weighs 503g, the lens is 100mm and weighs 500g

In APS-C terms the Tamron lens is an 18-50 f/1.8 weighing 50g (1.7oz) more than the 16-55 and being 1/2 an inch longer. It has a 1 1/3 stops advantage; but gives up a few mm on the wide and tele ends. Judging by the size of the Sigma 18-35/1.8 APS-C lens Tamron's engineers should be commended for what they accomplished. The entire kit weighs 200g (7oz) more. The FF kit will likely have better balance. APS-C kit will be more compact and have somewhat better battery life (same battery smaller sensor). I don't regret my decision to go FF, but this 70-350 looks more fun than the 70-300 I'm likely to end up with.

4 months agopermalink

Donzac

It is not fair to compare a third party lens to an OEM lens. It would not surprise me if Sony ends up crippling some features in its cameras when using third party lenses. It will do that when everyone has bought into its system. You will have no choice but to accept it.

4 months agopermalink

liopleurodon

@donzac,

Sony's relationship with third parties is different. Sony's e-mount isn't closed and third parties license it to make truly native lenses with Sony's blessing. Tamron in particular is partially owned by Sony as well.

4 months agopermalink

I think you made a very good decision with the a7iii, however the lens is not exactly equivalent, the 16-55 f2.8 is equivalent to a 24-82.5 f4. So it depends on your needs, if you want more range or more light.

4 months agopermalink

milkod2001

'In APS-C terms the Tamron lens is an 18-50 f/1.8 'I see people are doing this mistake all over again and again. When you compare crop vs FF, focal length changes by 1.3/1.5 or 1.6x factor but max.aperture stays the same. 2.8 FF lens be always 2.8 crop lens. Tamron 28-75 would act like 2.8 lens not 1.8 :)

4 months agopermalink

Ze De Boni

@liopleurodon I agree with you. And I understand your post not as a defense of FF, but just reasoning. This last Sony APSC launch was such as an anti-climax and for me it was like APSC last breath. Sony made its bets on the FE mount, ergo, mirrorless. People complained for a while why would Sony abandon A-mount, which proved they were quite near-sighted. With the A7 series, Sony proved that FF can have all the convenience of smaller sensor cameras, but with much more IQ. There was a time gap in Sony APSC lens development, which again some people complained. I believe that their bet is technical. The later news are not exciting and make us wonder why invest as much for barely the same price and convenience, missing the superior features provided by a larger sensor.

4 months agopermalink

Ze De Boni

From size and weight perspective, FF prime lenses can be almost as compact as their APSC counterparts, Samyang proves that in its FE 2.8 wide angle line. I know, they are third party, but they show that size and price are no longer the decisive properties to make a choice.
And yes, you need at least one full stop wider to achieve the same results (DOF, defocus, noise compromise) in APSC as in FF.
All that is a market battle, where the manufacturers have the weapons but cannot be in full control of the customers. Were it just for size, cost or technical reasons, I am sure that Sony would be now just making FF camera and lenses. But it interesting to note that Sony usually uses the smaller sensor lines as test models for technical developments. BSI and stacked sensors, HFR and much more appeared in smaller formats first.
Now, this new launch is really frustating, as nothing is really new, nor show an advantage to invest in APSC gear.

4 months ago*permalink