[shoplink 23961 ebay]
[/shoplink]
This is the [shoplink 23961 ebay]Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0[/shoplink]. Sony will launch a similar (in terms of aperture) lens soon?
–
One path Sony has to convince us about their A-mount commitment is to launch great A-mount lenses. And well, according to one new source Sony will soon announce the new A-mount SAL 70-200mm f/2.0 (!) lens! This is going to be the fastest Full Frame tele zoom ever made!!! The only “similar” lens to date is the [shoplink 23961 ebay]Olympus 35-100mm f/2.0 (here one Bay)[/shoplink]. But this one is designed for the smaller Four Thirds sensor.
The lens will be announced soon and be priced at around 3.000 Euro!
Well, this is what one source says, I still have to get a confirmation via other sources. For now take it with a grain of salt. But I certainly think this is the kind of lenses that can bring us back the confidence and love for the A-mount system. What a beast of a lens!!!
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
0 Responses
lol this has been a april fools joke before, but if it is true, then Sony have my money.
It’s most likely designed for a APS-C sized sensor to keep the size, weight, and price down. Ideally it should be employed with a camera that has a high frame rate like the A79 with its 12fps, and 4GB buffer.
A ff lens 70200 f/2.0 is going to cost more than 3,000 Euro. It would be very heavy, and awkward to use.
It’d actually be worth closer to 5,000 Euro if its a full frame.
There is no way it could be full frame lens for that price point
Oh… it’s a bargain at any price. 🙂
Seriously, Sony. We’re in a near stagnant recession recovery here in the U.S.. Last time I checked Europe and Asia were hurting as well. Your answer? High-priced glass? What’s next? Another $12,999.99 tele prime, say a 400mm, to match the ridiculously over-priced 500mm? You marketing to Bill Gates and Donald Trump?
Yeah, I know. It’s for pros. But even pros have a budget.
I just don’t get Sony. They have a perfectly good, high-priced $1,999.99 G Series 70-200mm f/2.8 G most people can’t justify a purchase of to start with. Everyone’s griping they need more lens system support. So what do they do? Add a $2,999.99 70-200mm F2.8 G SSM II. Really? Now a rumored $3,000 SAL 70-200mm f/2.0 lens? Is that the only focal length the rich and famous demand? And you’re still scratching your heads at corporate because your DSLR market share sucks? Do you really need some help?
The recession is everywhere, and the reason is oil scarcity. The mathematics of the ELM (Export Land Model) are undeniable – and it shows us through simple undeniable logic and arithmetic we all learned in elementary school that 155 of 157 or so oil importing nations are soon to be priced out of the market! We can draw a historical line on a chart that depicts the ever decreasing amount of oil available to the market that is sloping downward (remember, oil production doesn’t mean oil deliveries) – at an accelerating rate – and contrast it with another line that slopes upward – this upward line representing the imports by China and India (Chindia) alone (2 of 157) which if left unabated crosses the first line in about 13 to 15 years. In other, very simple and easily understood words, means that Chindia would presumably consume ALL THE OIL IN THE WORLD AVAILABLE ON THE MARKET. In just 13 to 15 years! You may whine and deny and stamp your feet, call on God, etc., but the undeniable facts of this reality will soon be felt!
Some of those 155 countries include South Korea, Japan, Singapore, Thailand, etc. Think about poor Japan – they have no fossil fuels at all – not even a lowly chunk of coal – their best bet is Methane Hydrates which they are now experimenting with harvesting from the seafloor!
Wake up. As Dimitri Orlov put it (paraphrased) – the scarcity will be felt at first in fits in various parts of the world until it finally envelopes all of us and we’re back to … film daguerreotypes and horses!
And it’s going to suck. One model I read of shows the Earth returning to balance by 2150 – a sustainable population of 1 to 1.5 billion (and probably less as we screw up the entire world and its ability to sustain who’s left) which would entail a rising and falling number of “excess deaths”, peaking at about 200 million per year during the last half of the 21st century. WWII by comparison had about 10 million excess deaths per year.
Know it. And respect it. The Export Land Model by Jeffrey Brown.
Grain of salt? Salt mountain, methinks, as it would be HUGE!!
For that reason alone it would put it into the 500mm f4 range in terms of price.
This doesn’t even deserve an SR1 let alone 3.
Forget this nonsense.
Oops… just realized I should have converted from euros to dollars. It’s a little over $4,000. Only makes my puzzlement worse! 🙁
Going for that early morning java. It’s 5:33 a.m. here EST. 🙂
Agree. I think it’s ok you post low confidence rumours but I don’t get why you would give this SR3?
Wrong comparison. The 35-100/2 only has the absolute aperture of a 70-200/4. While a 35-100/2 needs, in theory, a front lens diameter of only 5 cm, a 70-200/2 cannot do without a front lens of at least 10 cm diameter. A 70-200/2 will be a completely different beast, if Sony is really going to make one.
And, what’s wrong with the comparison again?
Why should the comparison be wrong? You are talking about depth of field and 35mm equivalents of viewing angle. But the LIGHT is always F2.0 regardless of sensor size.
The light per unit area will be the same (hence f-stop same), but the total amount of light in the case of a FF equivalent lens, will be 4 times higher. Again because you’re illuminating a surface 4 times larger.
Light is less and less relevant these days, you easily get a stop of high ISO for very little cost every few years, yet to get that stop of light from larger glass you usually have to pay more than one stop (x2) of money. What’s never replacable by sensor advances though is DoF, so that’s what really separates cheap and expensive optics(you may argue sharpness and all that but really everybody does very well at this focal length), and that’s what small sensors never get. Funny though that even when shallow DoF on M4/3 gets completely grinded over by FF, they still have shallow DoF as one of their main advertising points of their fast optics, and their optics are damn expensive considering how little light(not density, but amount) they gather and how small an image they render. It makes me think very lowly of them.
I’d say light is pretty relevant, given how many people are crying about the lack of stabilization on a FF camera. 🙂 Also, shallow DoF is not a priority for everyone or for every type of shooting, yet light is.
IS easily gets you 2-4 stops if you count it that way, you never get 2-4 extra stops from glass, M4/3 only gets you 0(FF 50/1.4 – M4/3 “Leica” 25/1.4)-1 stop(the 35-100 which is essentially a 70-200/4 with a x0.5 built in reducer but priced beyond even most FF 70-200/2.8s)
Besides, IBIS is really doing video people with no extra budget for steadicam a big favor. Even mounted on a tripod IBIS makes a big difference since vibrations during operation are inevitable.
Yeah, of course I know some (many) don’t care about shallow DoF, but surely those (overplayed) advertisements are aimed toward those that do.
What I’m saying is that a 70-200/2 will be a completely different thing than a 35-100/2, one of the reasons being that a 200/2 design requires a 10 cm front lens, whereas a 100/2 only need 5 cm.
And I’m saying that absolute apertures need to be compared, not relative apertures (the F-number is the relative aperture), because that’s what makes lenses equivalent between sensor sizes when focal length is chosen accordingly. I didn’t talk about depth of field at all, but it is of course one aspect of equivalence. Another is the light gathering capability of a lens on a specific sensor, which is what Zohee35 already explained.
I still don’t understand what is wrong with comparing in terms of exposure.
You don’t understand because you are too thick. Relax now.
I hope for EA6 adapter with 5D mk3 like AF sensor, lots of points spread across the frame.
Thanks for a nice SR3 rumor! I like rumors that is just a rumor:)
If its true, this is gone be a monster. Atleast 90+ mm filter and a weight of 2.5-3 kg.
But that being said it can be done, i am game for it.
No. It will be at least 100 mm.
100mm is the physical lower limit of the front. I’d bet that it’ll be even bigger, should the lens ever see the light of day…
The front element of 70-200/2.8 G lens is 77mm. The front element of this lens has to have exactly twice the area, which brings it up to 108-110mm.
I meant to say front filter mount of the 70-200/2.8
No, because it’s for a crop sensor.
@BRAT
It’s wholly irrelevant to the physical size of the aperture (and hence, the front lens element) whether the lens is for a cropped sensor or not. The definition of f numbers is simply the focal length divided by the diameter of the aperture, meaning that the aperture of a 200mm f2 lens is 100mm which means the front element and the mounting ring will be a bit larger again.
The only slight reduction in overall size will be that a cropped sensor lens would not require such a large image circle, so some elements could be reduced in size and the FoV will be a bit narrower, so you could get away with a (slightly) smaller filter ring (clearly the filter ring is a little distance from the aperture so has to have sufficient extra clearance to avoid vignetting – the narrow FoV would make a bit of difference). However, the effect on the size of the actual front element will be very minor.
What??? Neither SAL70200G nor this rumor is for a crop sensor? Stop smoking whatever you are smoking.
Exactly. To keep the size, weight, price down it would require a reduction in its diameter, not length. Only a APS-C can provide this.
It’s not a slight reduction in diameter it’s actually quite large.
My Bad,
My math was completely wrong. I was basing everything off my Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM (prime) which has a 67mm filter size, and not a Sony lens.
BRWAT, something is still wrong.
A 200 mm lens with Ø67 front filter diameter cannot be f/2.8. It can be f/2.99 at most. (200/67 = 2.99)
But are you certain that it is Ø67 mm? If you follow this link and use the 3D view, it says on the side of the lens that it is Ø72.
Forgot the link:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/129190-USA/Canon_2529A004AA_Telephoto_EF_200mm_f_2_8L.html
According to the Canon UK site, the Canon EF 200mm f/2.8L II USM has a 72mm filter size, which is in accordance with what you’d expect as 200mm/2.8 = 71.4mm, so is fractionally above the minimum required.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Cameras/EF_Lenses/Telephoto/EF_200mm_f2.8L_II_USM/index.aspx
Note that zooms often have larger filter sizes than the minimum would indicate as they have more complex constructions and have to cope with the danger of vignetting from the wider FoV at shorter focal lengths. For instance, the Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM has a 77mm filter size.
All this means that any purported 70-200mm f2 lens, would have a front filter size of at least 100mm, and very probably considerably larger. Of course, in practice, any such “mega” lens would be more likely to have a drop-in filter at the rear of the lens (like the Sigma 200-500mm f/2.8 EX DG APO IF).
However if they’d sell a 50-135mm f/2.0 for APS-C that would be cool. Stan go away you add nothing useful to this discussion.
Actually its you who doesn’t add anything useful except for adding rumors that have to backbone to them. All I did is recalculate the front element for the f/2 arpeture, while you started spreading rumors that this lens will be APSc. Does it say anywhere in the main post that this is APSc lens? NO! So shut up and stop trolling. I would’ve been quiet if you didn’t reply to my post with fud rumor.
You came back for more??? You must be an American
Any who even entertains the idea (or calculates the filter size) of a 3K F/2.0 70200 lens for full frame cameras it the one smoking crack.
It should be a SR-3 rumour.
Its an unrealistic rumour with no shred of proof. A f/2.0 70200mm lens is impossible to produce for a full frame camera for 3000 Euro. This is Sony we’re talking about not Tamron. They’d bled you for it (try 6K).
There is only one this would be possible for that price using the same tech meta bones uses.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster
Weren’t you supposed to be going somewheres Stanley???
APS-C, I think not.
nonsense… they won’t release a 70200f2,8 für 2500 and 1 year later a f2 for only 500 Euro more. It would make sense if the 70200f2,8 is a little downgrade (also in price) and the 70200f2 is a “CZ” for 4000+
This. The 70200 f/2.8 is already over priced. I think Sony could do it and it would set them apart but I really doubt it would be that affordable–unless they are planning on some much needed price reductions in the near future.
Sorry, but I think this will be another highly/prohibitively priced lens, this is for most people impossibly dear.
It’s for a crop sensor. That’s how they’ll reduce the price and weight.
LOL. Let’s aim for something realistic, like f2.5
btw Nikon’s 200mm f2 is a $6k lens
It’s a prime. Zooms are usually cheaper.
“It’s a prime. Zooms are usually cheaper.”
Not of the same speed,zoom lenses of the same aperture as Primes are almost universally more expensive.
It will be the size of Tamron 150-600 (slightly larger)… heavy… But f2 would be great… it will give prime like light gathering/shallow DOF with the ability to zoom (even though I think this is not intended for wedding photographers but for sports (with a 2xTC) it would be a 140-400 f4.
rumors.. they just release 70200G2.. they wont now announce to going release a 70200F2..
When will Sony break the 200mm barrier. All Sony thinks 200mm as Holy Grail. No innovation to make the lens sizes smaller and zommier.
What do you mean? Sony got plenty of lenses longer than 200mm on A-mount.
70-300G?
70-400G?
70200G2 no change in optical design and now 70-200mm f2?
Obviously 70200G2 was a side-project. All they did is re-painter barrel and added new coatings. Something similar Sony made in 2006 – only back then it was for 18 lenses, not just one, and prices didn’t go up.
So they didnt work on AF performance?
200mm f2 is a more logical lens.
a 70-200 f2.0 is not realistic. that would be even bigger, heavier and pricier than the current 200mm f2.0 primes.
but…thinking of it, something like a 70-135 f2.0 might be doable in a package of similar or even a bit smaller size as current 70-200 2.8…that would be indeed a very nice portrait lens!
“70-200 f2.0 is not realistic.”
– Sure it is. Why wouldn’t it be?!
“that would be even bigger, heavier and pricier than the current 200mm f2.0 primes” – I wouldn’t bet on price, as said: zooms are usually cheaper than primes. And as for size: well, 2/200 are quite small for tele-primes, so I can’t see how that’s a problem. It should balance very nicely with the body that Sony presented on NAB show.
Zooms are cheaper than primes!? Huh? A 50mm F1.4 or F1.8 is unbeatable in Price, so is a 85 F2.8, a 35 F1.4/F1.8, … Zooms are MUCH more expensive.
Thanks for posting a lower SR rating rumour. This is what a RUMOUR site should be all about – gossip & tittle-tattle about new stuff which may or may not actually be real.
This one should be rated SR1/0 though 😉 a 70-200 2.0 for the same price as the just refreshed 70-200 2.8? I don’t think so!
I think somebody just got ind of the 2.8, thought it was news so contacted you & had a typo…
I would love to be wrong & hope that it is real though, but think we are dreaming here 🙁
I totally don’t believe it. But, if they did it, I would be the first one to buy it. But it’s not gonna happen, they just released 70-200 G2.
Not making sense. When a 70-200mm f2.8G is updated recently, so does the 70-400mm f4-5.6. What the hell to make a larger aperture version to break our arms? If I were Sony I should produce something like 300-600mm range starting from f5-5.6. Or may be more simplier,a 200mm f/2 first. The simplest way of fulfilling tele-lens: ask Tamron to make A mount version 150-600mm ASAP.
This must be a typo for SR1, right?
Even a quite realistic 400 f/4 turned out to be fake
I’d prefer a 70-200mm f4 that was sharp wide open.
Maybe it’s 70-200 f4 ?
I hope so, and that is a much bigger hole in the Sony A-mount line up than an f/2 version that most people won’t be able to afford (or lift!).
+1, especially the lift part.
That´s nice but 95% of Sony photographers won´t buy it. Sony needs to make lenses that are of high quality and practical at the same time.
My thought exactly. Sony is trying to revive the a-mount, it seems, by turning it into an expensive, exclusive line for the rich, some pros, and corporate accounts.
Yup. If your goal is winning you might want to take the high ground first. Maybe Sony grew at set in the last 18 months.
However this is likely for a crop sensor cause it’d be too large for full frame.
Then build a 50-135mm F/2.0 or F/2.8 G-Series DT lens (SAL50135G SSM II), because the majority of A-Mount users do not use full frame yet.
Give DT users a G-Series lens for their platform. They’d make a bundle, and get allot of press, as long as they don’t overcharge for it.
Are you kidding me? This monster will be weight 4kg, at least!
I’d prefer a lens that doesn’t exist in te productrange… F.I. a 200 F\4 Macro!
Sony SAL 50-135mm f2 DT lens for A77 successor
I’d buy one immediately.
A Sony SAL50135G SSM II would sell like hotcakes.
IF real, think >6k.
Even from a perspective of existing lenses, where would a (just updated…) 3k 70-200 f/2.8 zoom stand when its newer brother that is a stop faster will cost the same?
Hm. I am not a lens designer, but I guess a 70200/2 must be a significant bigger lens than a 2.8 one.
I have a friend who is pro photographer using Nikon gear and he owns the 200/2. This lens is a beast in size and weight (3kg).
Now assuming a zoom lens having this constant aperture must be bigger and using more glass than a prime – I just say “pfffff”.
Maybe possible, but I would bet the price being a lot higher than 3k…
This rumour deserves less than SR3. If Sony IS going to release an f/2 70-200mm, it will not be 3000 Euro, unless Sony have had a sudden change of heart with their pricing policies.
http://fotojanvredenburg.nl/prestashop/index.php?id_product=792&controller=product&id_lang=2
Typo?
This would be an amazing achievement if it’s not tooooo big or expensive. 3K is ok. Take my money. This would go a long way towards winning many Canikon users I think.
If it comes out for A-mount, we’ll know Sony hasn’t killed it. If it is E-mount, I guess that will be the end of A-mount.
A 70-200/f2.0 lens would be about 5 kg and about 10,000 EURO – no way!
No need to go to such extreme lensmaking to convince us that A-mount is alive.
Simple 70-200/f:4 SSM would do the trick (as 50-200/f:4 or 50-150/f:2.8)
Only 3000,- Euro for a f2.0/70-200? Not reliable!
Lets estimate size and weight using Canon data. Canon 200mm f/2.8L, 765 grams, 8.38 cm Dia., 72mm thread. 200mm f/2L, 2540 grams, 12.7 cm Dia. 70-200mm f/2.8 , 1490 grams, 8.89cm Dia. 77mm thread.
So going from prime to zoom same aperture and maximum focal length. Mass 1490/765 =1.94X, Diameter 8.89/8.38 = 1.06X.
Use these factors on Canon 200 f/2, gives a approximate mass of 2540*1.94= 4927 grams, diameter 12.7*1.06 = 13.5 cm. Probably things do not scale exactly like this but still likely to be a very heavy lens certainly 3 kg plus.
Based on this, I would think this is highly doubtful. Price might be an interesting as well. 2.8 zoom $2499, 2.8 prime $819 ratio 3.05. 200mm f/2 is $5999 leading to a 70-200mm f/2 zoom price of $18,296.
What I might find possible is a APS-C 70-200mm equivalent at f/2 or a roughly 45mm to 135mm f/2 in the rough price range given in the rumor.
Use you math for APS-C and you’ll have your answer. It’s designed to be used for indoor sports or concerts where speed is at a premium. Ideally teamed up with a camera that had a fast and prolonged burst rate (A79).
Disregard my last post. My math was completely wrong.
I think we may be missing the larger story here. Back when Sony invested in/saved Olympus the news was that Sony got Olympus expertise on lens design. Could we be seeing a surge of new lenses as a result, FE, E, AND A mount?
we who bought the A7/R will get maximum of f/4.0 zooms 🙁
Admin, please remove this Captcha thing, it’s so annoying when it’s expired all the time.
Some lenses are made to impress and excite people about a brand – like the Canon 50mm f/1.0 or the wild Nikor 6mm f/2.8.
Others are made to excite because owning one is within reach “I can have that if I go to brand X” For these, the price is accessible.
Assuming this lens DOES come to market – I would see it more wise to position it as the latter. If you really want a 70-200mm, wouldn’t it be great for Sony if the consumer was like “Well, the 70-200 f/2.8L is great, but if I go with the Sony, I’ll get f/2.0”
Putting it within reasonable reach makes it real. Making it a $6,000.00 lens makes it generally irrelevant.
Not sure who it would be aimed at. The weight would be way to high for wedding and portrait photographers, I expect the price as well. So really that only leaves indoor sports photographers. sport guys do spend big money on lenses, so it is not impossible. At least on longer lenses you also have the birders buying a few.
I’d love this as a wedding lens despite the weight; the speed and convenience would be wonderful and far fewer shots missed when switching lenses/bodies
Arguably Sony have only two “special” lenses in the range that set them apart as being unique: the 135mm STF and 135mm f1.8. (and I heard examples of a900s being bought just to use the f1.8)
Iff Sony do pull off a 70-200mm f2, it would be another unique and exciting offering to the point that people may buy a camera to go with it. (it might also explain why the f2.8 only received a facelift if this was already planned)
Only a rumour, but a fun rumour and even more ambitious that it’s planned as fullframe instead of APS-C
a900andanex5,
Agree.
This if priced right, could be a BRAND Changing lens.
The OLY f2 was already big and heavy. Making it RES for 36mp Plus , and SSM – AF Fast for Full Frame – even bigger.
BUT, IF Sony wants to WOW … this is it !
and a 24-70mm f2 SSM OLY had both for 4/3 … but both was big and heavy.
The 500 F8.0 reflex lens is also very special. 500mm in that small size and with working autofocus is fantastic for bird and animal photography where you do not sit in a jeep or want to bring a tripod with you.
No, 100 f/2 on mft r not the same 200 f/2 on ff
It would be huge with 120mm diameter and 4 kg weight, but it was nice when sony manage to release that beast, but sorry it’s not my type
I think this probably should be downgraded to SR1!
Sure it would be cool but I just don’t think it’s a credible rumor. The lens would be huge. Same diameter as a 200-400 f/4 but a little shorter and weighing about 6lb (2.7 kg). Price would probably be a lot closer to 4500 Euro. Market would be very small compared to a 70-200 f/2.8.
lol
http://dc.yesky.com/imagelist/2009/175/1prk4wlwaiqm.jpg
hahaha…
That’s about right. Maybe 70-200 2.0 for a 1″ sensor size. But if you are talking full-frame we are getting into the realm of massive cine zooms.
If they make a 70-200 f2, then I doubt that it will be full frame with that price tag. If you see what for they sell the 70200G II, then do you still believe they would sell the f2 for the same amount? No way.
It sounds nice, but if the lame 70-200 update is $3000 than if this sees the light of day it will probably be $5000.
This is BS. Its absurd. There’s no way it will ever be produced. Someone is taking you for a ride, Andrea…
This is just completely unbelievable.
It’d be fine if you had a guy to carry it for you like this…
http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2012/10/a-big-addition
This would be for indoor sports
it wouldn’t be for a full frame. This lens could be optimized for a APS-C sensor in order to achieve f/2.0 without excessive bulk. Ideally teamed up with the A79. With it fast burst rate would make for an excellent combo for indoor events where a fast lens and camera with a fast burst rate are required for optimal performance.
The filter would be 82mm.
A crop sensor/APS-C 70200 f2 would only be slightly heavier than the 70400G2. Probably 3k.
I’d buy it for sure.
You keep writing this. It is wrong.
The f-stop is defined as the focal length divided by the diameter of the effective light opening (or virtual aperture, to use a more correct and less understandable term).
So to get an f-stop of 2.0 on a lens with 200 mm focal length, you need an effective light opening with 100 mm diameter, meaning that the front lens diameter will be at least 100 mm.
This is true for any sensor size.
If you don’t believe me, go out and find an APS-C lens (or even an m43 or Nikon 1 lens) where the filter diameter is significantly smaller than the focal length divided by the f-stop.
The lens price certainly doesn’t match its description. Its impossible to produce a lens with those capabilities for that price. So its either a BS rumour or some kind of marketing gimmick.
I’m thinking its going to use the same tech as the metabones – speed – booster. So an APS-C could take advantage of the entire frame, and gain an extra f/stop.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster
Metabones adapters do not use magic. You would need magic to get a 200 mm f/2.0 with less than 100 front filter thread.
If you use a built-in, theoretically perfect 1,5x adapter of the Metabones type in an APS-C lens to get a resulting 200 mm f/2.0 lens, you would need to start out with a 300 mm f/3.0 lens. What would be the minimum front filter diameter of such a lens?
Right, it would be 300/3 = 100 mm.
A similar focal length and aperture can be achieved by using a Sigma 120-300mm 2.8 with the speed booster on NEX (85-213mm f/2). That lens, if I’m not mistaken, has a 105mm filter diameter, which is actually very slightly less than the theoretical minimum.
I therefore think it should be possible to make an APS-C 70-200 f/2 that is slightly shorter than the Sigma 120-300mm, but not significantly lighter (similar to how a fixed 200mm f/2 is typically shorter than a 300mm f/2.8, but otherwise similarly sized)
And of course, any 200mm lens with an entrance pupil smaller than 10cm is not an f/2 🙂
Ekkeltype, it is really simple:
If it is 105 mm filter diameter, then it is not an 300 mm f/2.8. If it is marked as such, the marking is too optimistic.
It is probably some rounding of focal length or f-stop going on. 300/105 = 2.86, so a marketing department might want to sell it as an f/2.8 lens.
With Sigma bringing the 24-70 f2, why not. Evn though that thing would not be usable for events and weddings, it could definitely bring Sony into the arena of sports photography. With cameras that can do great hi iso…
Not usable as in too heavy for weddings and so..
No it’s not. It’s an APS-C lens. It’s probably only slightly larger than the 70200. At sports events you’d use it with your camera that has the highest frame rate which is the A77/A79r for sony. So it’s really an 105-300mm equivalent f/2.0 for the A79 (with its 12fps and 4gb buffer).
It has 82mm filter size.
APS-c versus FF does not have much effect on telephoto lenses, maybe a slight reduction but it still has to have a 100 mm aperture. This lens if a true 70-200mm f/2 would be massive probably near 5 kg. I have a 5.5kg lens, you would never want to shoot a wedding with one. The Canon 800mm f/5.6 is not even 5 kg.
My bad, I checked my and I’m completely wrong.
I was thinking the lens could be just the 70200 G2 with a .7x teleconverter giving it the extra stop of light. like the meta-bones adapter.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/2667195592/first-impressions-metabones-speed-booster
I’m thinking the rumour is completely wrong. No matter how I try to wrap my head around the problem my gut is saying this is not possible. Maybe for 6,500 Euros or more.
The only other G-Series lens I’ve heard about lately is the 400mm F/4, and isn’t its price unknown.
Bunch of hi-res samples from the SEL2470Z with A7R posted here
http://www.mobile01.com/topicdetail.php?f=254&t=3732365&p=1
Re: Zooms are cheaper than primes …
70-200/2.8s are cheaper than 200/2.8 ?
There aren’t very many apples to apples comparisons, but there’s no reason to think that a 70-200/2 would be cheaper than a dedicated 200/2.
Sony gets $2200 for a 70-400/5.6 while Nikon’s 80-400 is $2700. I have to believe a new, state of the art, fixed 400/5.6 with IS would be $2K or less. Nikon’s 200-400/4 is $6700. Does anyone believe that a fixed 400/4 would cost more than that ? (The 500/4 is $8K).
A new lens of this spec would be $10K.
This rumor has to be some adolescent’s “dream lens” and should be an SR1 at most.
I think Hoos got it right above. Just a typo on the existing 70-200 f2.8.
two – three thoughts
could be like a normal 70-200 with a speedbooster inbuilt?
cine lens thats been adapted
olympics soon, so could be a go big or go home show case
What would be really cool is if a 1.4x or 2.0x teleconverter (or both) could be built in so with a flick of a wrist you could substantially increase your focal length.
It’s time to resurrect the 200mm 2.8 minolta. THE LEGEND, THE MYTH….BACK FROM THE DEAD.
Hi everyone
Zeiss: why do you not produce the lens mounted on the rx10 separately to be mounted on a-xx? Zhat would be revolutionary – vive la suisse – vivent les filles – vive moi!
What do jou plpe dingh of thiz kind of teqniquik?
Mac-baar waiting for the newborn axx
Because the lens on the rx10 covers a 1″ type sensor. Do you think those 2.8 zooms that everyone is using are that big because they like lugging them around?
Hi again
300… 400….7000… What abot digiscoping in this case?
A good lens and a good paparazzi-tube (kinon, swallowsky etc) would be a solution for men wanting it aleays bigger;-)
Mac-baar smoking outside freezing and watching girls – ehm – walz the cat walk….;-)
Why not? 😉
Think about this – Leica 1600mm F5.6:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1143953
Or this – Zeiss 1700mm F4:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/2006/10/1/zeiss1700f4
Or this – Canon 5200mm F14:
http://www.geek.com/news/canons-5200mm-prime-lens-is-super-rare-and-quite-massive-1534367/
The only way they are going to get the size down to a manageable level is if they use some kind of diffractive optics (DO) like the ones in some Canon lenses.
Why another premium priced lens? Where is the 70-200 F4 G SSM? Where is the 24-70 F4 SSM? Where is the 300 F4 G SSM? Where is the 16-35 F4 SSM? We need good performers at a competitive price point without going too high… Where is the a99 alternative? (since it seems they don’t want to offer a 6D/D600 competition)
Yes, they’re aiming high with the latest offerings but what about people on the budget?
This must be a joke. Look at Canon’s 200mm f/1.8 prime:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/800905262-USE/canon_2522a002_200mm_f_1_8l_usm_autofocus.html
It is huge and massively expensive.
200mm f/2 for FF is massively cool and can easily and creamingly full body isolate a giant humanbeing 🙂
Both canon and nikon make a 200mm f2 lens which weighs around 2.5-3kg and costs over £4K (UK prices). If you compare the difference between a 200mm f2.8 prime with a 70-200 f2.8 zoom, logic would dictate that a 70-200 f2 full frame zoom would weigh about 5kg and cost £6K.
Based on my experience A-mount lenses come slowly. Even so, if this is going to be as Zeiss then I would definitely be willing to pay up to $4k.
70-200 f/2.0… Sounds like Z-shift-sensor… Another “hot news” which will not be realised soon.
Unless there is new optical design magic, this would be a ~4kg lens.