Image courtesy: Photoscala.
I have been told the newly announced Zeiss 16-35mm OSS FE lens will cost about the same as the current Zeiss 24-70mm FE lens ($1199 here on Amazon). Sony still hasn’t shared any image of the lens yet. But it should ship from August.
Image courtesy: Photoscala.
–
Zeiss 24-70mm FE Price check: in USA at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. And in Europe at Sony DE, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, SE, PT (Click on country name to see the lens site).
A77 Preorders:
Sony A77 body in USA at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Sony Store (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here).
Sony A77 with 16-50mm lens at Amazon (Click here), Adorama (Click here), Sony Store (Click here) and BHphoto (Click here).
Sony A77 body in Europe at Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony France, Sony IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, PT, NO, SE, FI.
———
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
That’s good news.
Or is it? Does it mean it may be the same poor quality.
+1
Yes! … Sony – Zeiss often poor quality… +1
No not often, the 35 and 55 primes are stellar. Only the zoom is crap.
I beg to differ. Its not stellar but its still a good lens and has good color and contrast.
It isn’t bad but its price/performance -ratio is hardly good. The main problem with that lens isn’t its performance but the price one has to pay for that performance.
I don’t disagree with you, but calling it crap is something I disagree with completely.
The 28-70mm OSS lens is something that might be called crap as its soft, doesn’t have a large zoom range and is none too cheap either.
@BrendonF:disqus You’ve got a lot of hate for the 28-70mm lens there buddy. I don’t know you if you had a bad copy but on my A7 it is decent. Not great, but decidedly decent. I agree it should be 85mm at the long end and the MSRP is silly but the street price is very reasonable (~$300 NIB/NOB). It is light, smooth focusing, and the OSS works well. I really like that the zoom is practically internal. In many ways the ergonomics feel better than the Zeiss to me.
In fact I think the biggest issue with the Zeiss 24-70mm (and most reviewers seem to agree with me) is not that it is horrible but that it just isn’t much better than the 28-70 while being 3X the MSRP and 5X the street price.
I also hope the UWA is better than 24-70mm. Soft corners are bigger issue on wide angles IMHO.
I didn’t call it crap. I merely stated that the price/performance ratio is not great if one compare similar price/performance lenses.
It is crap, just like the 28-70. But I have the 28-70 because it’s cheap crap, not expensive crap.
Because you say its crap doesn’t make it so. If you think the 28-70mm and 24-70mm are about the same in IQ then I see there is no point arguing further with you.
Who’s arguing? I own the 28-70 35 and 55, and have used the 24-70. The zooms are both crap by my standards. So anyone that says they aren’t crap has low standards. Maybe don’t tell your wife this.
I am not married. Thanks for hurting my sentiments by a) insinuating I am too old and b) insinuating that I have low standards (though come to think about it maybe both are true ! 🙁 )
So 28-70 isn’t a large range but 24-70 is? The 28-70 is very cheap since it only cost an extra $200 over the body as a kit. And at that price I have no complaints that it’s crap.
What I meant was that one wouldn’t mind a not so sharp lens if it had a good zoom range say 28-135mm or 28-200mm. Honestly if I was buying a FF camera I wouldn’t wish to hobble it with a cheap glass.
But your needs are different from mine so I will agree to disagree.
People who need quality don’t use zooms anyway.
One of the more idiotic statements on SAR (which places it pretty high up for idiotic worldwide).
According to your logic, that judgement itself is moot because it’s made in SAR lol
Also, there’s this thing called physics that kids are learning these days. Some are also born with this stuff called common sense… which makes them look in to why primes are made.
I don’t come looking for smart comments in places like these so drop me off the surprised team.
PS: Which primes have you used? That’s also a question.
Thats very old fashion thinking. Many current zooms give practically indistinguishable quality compared to primes.
That’s because you haven’t used good primes. People compare the best zooms against the worst primes.
Also, there’s this elephant in the room called physics…
Really ? Well its obvious you haven’t used good zoom lenses.
I use 9 different AF lenses with a good mix of primes and zooms. I have a Tamron 90mm f2.8 macro lens which is my sharpest lens. However my Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 comes ridiculously close stopped down a bit.
I speak from actual usage, you can bury yourself in charts and theories and pixel peep to kingdom come but my actual photos taken with both lenses are practically indistinguishable more so since the color from both are similar.
You say all these based on the experience to have with two rubbish lenses?
Sorry to have to play this card but you leave me no choice by talking numbers:
http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter/
How many lenses is that? Don’t think I’ve ever counted.
Ha ha, you have a good amount of lenses to be sure but a cursory glance at your photos I will never be able to distinguish which one was taken with a prime lens and which one was taken with zoom.
In early days zoom lenses had low contrast and sharpness and once could easily distinguish images taken with them over a prime lens. Not anymore unless its a cheap zoom lens.
You have much to learn about lenses… can’t get in to it now but you’ll know what I meant later on… hopefully.
Plus I compared the FE 70-200/4 against the FE 55/1.8 @ 4 today… you could have learned a lot had you been there.
I love how you assume so many things. 🙂
I have learned enough about photography over the past 7 years. My photos have won competitions locally and even on Dpreview and I do wedding photography as my sole profession.
But I would be happy to learn stuff from you if only so you could show me around Australia. 🙂
Dude, this is about lenses… not about whether you take photos that appeal to whoever.
Anyone who says a zoom is as good as a prime has no clue… just the same way someone who says a 1000HP locomotive is comparable to a 1000HP sports car.
The 70-200m is excellent..Super sharp and very well made.
Yes, same here. I’m also astonished, each time I take the a7R/70-200 up, how light this combo is.
I really like the 70-200 too, great IQ and built quality and not heavy at all. Great lens for portrait and events.
The only thing I dont like is the white color, but thats ok :/
Yeah, right! The 24/70 f2.8 A-mount is so poor quality… :/
We are talking about fe lenses no a mount. Read the post.
I am happy with my 24-70 F4 Zeiss. Probably because I am a lesser photographer than you are.
Don’t worry, everybody is.
As long as they can make the quality like Nikon 14-24, I’ll be a happy camper
As long as it is as good as the A-Mount (but a stop slower and OSS) then that works for me. Though I hope it is slightly better.
Considering the 24-70mm f4 wasn’t an amazing lens (not a bag lens but not amazing) I don’t have very high hopes for this lens.
The FE 24-70 is only one of seven FE lenses. Unless more than 50% of them are bad, you’re not getting your confidence from facts or statistics.
Except there are two e-mount Zeiss zooms (everything else are primes) and they both failed to impress. So, statistically, it doesn’t look great.
^^ There are only 5 FE lenses currently for sale.And only 3 zoom lenses ATM. Of the 3 only the 70-200mm f4 is a good lens. The 24-70mm is a decent lens but a bit overpriced and the 28-70mm lens belongs is perhaps best never considered for anything other than the 12 MP A7s
If you’re going to talk about an unreleased lens then why not also consider other to be released lenses?
You spoke of 7 FE lenses. Please tell everyone about them since Sony seems to think they have just 5 FE lenses on their website.
And which unreleased lens have I spoken off pray do tell. All 5 lenses I mentioned are currently on sale.
You said you don’t have high hopes for the 16-35… last time I checked it’s unreleased.
And count the number of lenses in the upper half of the diagram.
I can only judge an unreleased lens based on existing lenses which have already been tested. So based on the EXISTING 5 lenses the 16-35mm f4 doesn’t seem to have a very bright future.
I am more than happy to be proved wrong by Sony (who doesn’t wish a new product to succeed) but basis the average performance of the CZ 24-70mm f4 which shouldn’t have been a terribly hard lens to design considering the moderate aperture
What you said makes no sense.
Where are you getting 7 FE lenses ? There are only 5 AFAIK.
Of the 5 only 3 are zooms. The 70-200mm f4 is the only stellar one from them. The 24-70mm f4 is a decent lens not a stellar lens. I don’t care too much about border quality but even the center quality beyond 50mm is not too good wide open. And the less said about the 28-70mm the better.
So 1 stellar zoom lens out of 3 lenses doesn’t seem to be very reassuring.
Where is the announcement? I have seen nothing official…
Don’t think there has been a press announcement as such, it was included in a slide at a presentation. Actual announcement will likely be on the 8th with the A7S pricing announcement and likely 28-135mm at the same time (which also hasn’t has an official announcement).
Excellent news. I suppose it standard to reason it should be priced about the same given the A 16-35mm and 24-70mm are similarly priced to each other.
It should be priced lower since it’s a f4.
The 24-70mm is f4. The two A mounts are f2.8 and priced close to each other, these two should be priced close together as well.
f/4? I guess they’re going for a small size.
Nope. It will probably be bigger or just as big as the current 24-70mm f4 OSS.
It really looks to me that they’re only making them slow but failing on making any of them small enough for a significant difference in size over f/2.8 lenses.
Well, the 70-200 does strike me as being too big, but the 24-70?
Exactly. The 4.0 -lenses are so big that a little bigger doesn’t matter anyway so the 4.0 = smaller argument is odd at best.
It isn’t like the 4.0-lenses fits in the pocket any more then a 2.8 would.
You put put my point to words better than I could 🙂
Maybe it’s just bad engenering from Sony. I would love to see hoe Pentax or Olympus would make lenses for a ff mirrorless system.
Well if you consider the Alpha f2.8 lenses then these f4 zooms are a bit smaller but much lighter. For e.g. the CZ 24-70mm f2.8 lens weights a mighty 900 gms or so while the f4 CZ weighs a much lower 460g. Almost half.
Well…lighter…nope personally I’m not interested in lighter since they’re probably just putting in a lot more plastic. It’s not like they’re using titanium housings, that would be something.
16-35 F/4? Not interesting
If you are hoping for a f2.8 version you will probably be out of luck. Best to move system in that case as I think Sony is sending a strong message that the NEX system will have slow (ish) zoom lenses and primes only.
Use the Alpha one then.
If it the same size of 35 2.8 then i may consider it
But if not with same iq of 24-70 f4 and same size i will ignore it
When we will see f2.8 zooms??
I think Sony is sending a very strong message than if you need f2.8 zoom lenses you are using the wrong system.
Either start using Sony Alpha lenses or move system.
You also forgot how mirrorless cameras don’t have very long lenses.
With long lenses and big zooms, there’s not a big difference in size between DSLR lenses and mirrorless lenses. I’m guessing the updated versions of big zooms for DSLRs will actually have smaller barrels, etc. to make them mirrorless-friendly.
Or buy the primes…
The 2.8 zooms have been available for some time.
It will be like in the middle between the 24-70 and the 35 2.8, so maybe around the size of the 55 1.8.
It’s a landscape lens and it will be nice over the whole frame I’m sure. The 24-70 is a good lens, just minor bad corners at 24mm so maybe not the strongest landscape lens for pixel peepers.
Doubt we’ll see native f2.8 zooms or f1.4 primes in the near future – Sony so far seems to be prioritising size and weight for FE glass. Given the investment in the a77 ii, I’m guessing they’re planning on keeping a 2 track system for the time being (you never know, it might diffuse some off the sibling rivalry we see here).
It will be bigger than the 10-18 f/4 APS-C lens. I wish it is more like 14-24 (lower FL range). It is very much needed for the FF NEX line.
Agreed. I would’ve been happy with smth like the Tokina 11-16, 16-24, small and good quality. Though I am very satisfied with the 10-18 for now.
If the IQ is on the same level as the 24-70 – then I will be even more disappointed with Sony lens strategy and implementation.
Why not blame Zeiss? 🙂
Yeah. If I understand this correctly, Zeiss is licensing its label on a lens by lens basis. They should be able to refuse licensing its label to any lens that doesn’t meet a high enough standard.
Yes, but Sony needs FE lenses, and they need them as soon as possible. They want to cover basics quickly, so that FE could spread its wings. They will rather compromise the quality than let people wait for a couple of years. Of course, soon after covering the basics, Sony will forget FE lenses and create some new standard. But that’s another story…
This particular lens is quite peculiar. It’s not asking quite as much as I would’ve expected a Zeiss branded to ask, yet the performance is also lower than the usual Zeiss. IMO they could’ve branded this a G and came up with a revised version with a Zeiss label to replace it. It could spare them the licencing fee for the time being.
Sony Zeiss lenses are Sony lenses.
I hope that this won’t turn out to be a software corrected lens as the 24-70.
Also, I’d prefer a 14-24/4.
Wow, what’s this ’14mm or less’ thing going on here? I’m not saying that you specifically can’t but I have yet to meet a photographer in person who is able to deliver consistently great photographs using 20mm or less. Most photographs I have seen done with these focal lengths would have benefitted greatly from not trying to get it all in. Nothing more boring than one of those old foreground-background compositions where some huge mountains in the background are larger than some rock in the fore. 24mm is the shortest fl that I really like to work with. I could live with a 14-28mm. But 14-24? Never.
Of course, it’s different if you have no space to move like with photographing tight interiors but that’s a special requirement.
I do quite a lot of interior architecture work and I’d really use that extra 2mm on the wide end. Also, I know how to use a UWA (Even Mr. Kockwell knows about it). However, I have another argument.
I’ve used both the 17-40L and 16-35L for Canon. Image quality is not that much different between those two lenses but 16-35 is more of a daily shooter’s lens, despite its extra size and weight. This is due to it having a f/2.8 aperture at the tele end.
It’s not about the light transmission, it’s about the narrow DOF it provides. In fact, I don’t care about the light transmission at all, At sub-20mm I’d rather have a f/4 lens which is sharp and highly corrected rather than a f/2.8 lens with lots of distortions. However, when you zoom in, you lust after that f/2.8 aperture to have a thinner DOF.
To put all these into Sony FE context, it was rather certain that we wouldn’t have a f/2.8 UWA zoom. Given that fact, I wouldn’t use it much beyond 24mm anyway (A Sigma 30/2.8 or the FE 35/2.8 would be much better in every aspect imaginable, apart from the fact that you’d have to change lenses). So, if the extended tele-end is of no use, why don’t we go wider?
Thus, I’d rather have a 14-24/4.
The Nikon 14-24 can be adapted with no quality loss. For interior, tripod work having an adapter on makes no difference in size, weight or convenience.
True, I only wish it were smaller, lighter, cheaper and with AF (Used on A7). I don’t mind losing a stop while gaining these.
I’m not sure about the Nikon adapter, but the Metabones canon adapter (smart adapter 3) has autofocus and is tiny. It adds an insignificant amount of length & weight.
It makes a difference when you need to carry it to the location, including a tripod to support it.
I replied to Obican’s usage – interior / architecture photography.
A) This work requires a tripod, whether an adapter is used it it not.
B) The Metabones adapter weighs a few ounces. If you cannot handle having a small metal ring in your bag then you cannot handle lifting a bag of equipment in the first place. It’s like complaining about carrying a lens cap to go along with a few lenses and bodies.
Ah, I see. I was thinking landscape work on tripod.
I guess if were in your shoes I’d rather go with primes than. A 24mm/1.4 is nice to have – I’ve heard that the Samyang is not bad considering its price, and although it’s bit of a fake in that respect, it’s the only native E mount lens with that fl currently, AFAIK.
Sorry, should have read ‘if I were in your shoes’ and ‘with primes thEn’, of course 😉
Have you seen that thing? It’s huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge. 🙂
Yes, I know. That’s what I meant with ‘fake’, it’s basically a DSLR lens with some extra-tube built in. On the other hand, the effectively larger flange distance used with the construction renders possibly better IQ.
Anyway, if the 16-35 takes too long I’m seriously considering the Samyang as an interim solution.
Boring for you.
No, boring for everybody… of course I’m talking about me 😉 I’m impressed by your ability to state the obvious.
And I am impressed by your inability to see the obvious answer to your own initial question 🙂 That is why I wrote it down for you.
Who is MdB, Mitglied des Bundestages? I don’t see you nowhere in this thread.
I’m not wondering about some people who would like 14mm. I’m wondering why there are so many with this rather special interest. I suspect that at least some just like the idea of having a 14mm.
Ooh the Sigma 10-20mm is my favorite lens. 🙂
I want wider but none of them have a filter thread.
No idea.
I think that UWA is a new trend. Well, at least for the several last years. Agreed though on the 14mm, while I do tend to use it often enough to warrant owning such a lens, most of my wide shots stay between 18-21.
If the 14-24 comes with proper filter thread then it’s more than welcome
Maybe i haven´t been following the class in the classroom. But both the 16-35 and the 24-70 don¨t have image stabilisation. So that is making my mind up. I wont be buying a A 7
I do not follow. The A mount 24-70mm and 16-35 lack OSS. Both the FE 24-70mm f4 and 16-35mm f4 lenses have OSS.
Like i said. I havent been following the class. My mistake
The ZA lenses (without OSS) are a stop faster.
Exactly, make them 2.8 and skip the OS. Who uses OS on a wide angle zoom anyway?
OSS and small is far more important to me than f2.8 on an UWA would be.
How OSS is far more important than 2.8, if you may explain. Remember 16-35 2.8 on the long end is 35 2.8, the first prime released with this system.
Erma yeah. Because wider FL’s simply don’t need high shutter speeds. F4 is fine and OSS is handy on occasions and for video, on a tripod you’d be using f8-11 anyway, so why pay for f2.8 plus the extra size and weight? Only time f2.8 would be better is for night sky photography and then a Samyang 14mm is a better and much cheaper option.
If you want 2.8 and do not care about OSS then you can use the ZA lenses though.
who likes to put bulky mass between the lens and the body? if I was going this way I would go for metabones with 16-35L
The one who shoots at base ISO hand-held. It’s definitely usable at 35mm.
Video Shooters mostly. I know people on here hate to hear that. But sony’s E-mount (A7->FS700) offers the best auto-focus in video atm either via the native AF or the LA EA4. (Tho I haven’t seen the GH4 yet and the C100/300 dual-pixel is also a new release).
Its a fantastic tool for small crews when using a shoulder rig or Steadicam.
A-mount has in body OSS.
E mount doesn’t.
Simple.
Either they will create a must-have lens for the system with a low price to lure people in (which makes sense as this could be THE travel/landscape camera where 16-35 is very useful)
or
this lens will be mediocre just like the 24-70, Possibly even worse given that WA zooms tend to be worse in overall optical quality compared to similarly prized standard zooms.
More molasses lenses.
I’ve been holding off on the LAEA4 and ZA lenses because of this lens. If its just average, like the 24-70 – which isn’t good enough to replace my A7 kit lens, I’ll bite the bullet and adapt the ZA. Fingers crossed its an outstanding performer.
who want 2.8 on uwa? my wide angle always at f8 for most,
small, lightwieght, wheather sealing, oss are much preffered over 1 stop f2.8
ill go fast uwa prime for that
Why on f8? Most of the lenses have peak sharpness at f5.6.
I don’t know about most, plus “peak sharpness” can depend on photo site size so m4/3 and APS-C sensors will achieve peak sharpness at a wider aperture than full-frame cameras with equivalent megapixels.
on full frame youll not get great dof on 5.6 unless your scene infinity,
for me focus on /third of your scene, or focus all the way on f11-16
f8 is my starting point, but i didnt said i never shoot below f8
People who use them with available light and no tripod. People who want to use it for photojournalism (like those who use the Nikon and Canon’s 2.8 or even the previous legendary Contax 17-35mm 2.8 with their N bodies back in the day)
F4 on ff should be fine on photojournalism,
Lets have a poll, i bet journalist prefer small size and lightweight after 1 stop advance
I didn’t say f4 was not good. I answered the question “who wants 2.8 on uwa?” Don’t you get cocky with me. I am a photojournalist.
everybody complain about f4
f2.8 will be nice, if zeiss can offer me f2.0 with the same size as f4 why not?
its not a big problemo.. ppl will complain much more about the size and weight if they go to 2.8
I’ve been waiting for this lens since I bought my A7. I hope the distortion and the CA are well controlled with edge to edge sharpness at f/8. for my use I don’t care much about size or OS.
the 24-70 distorts like mad
The price is ok, but if it’s mediocre or worse than the 24-70 f4 oss, it will be another blow for the lens lineup. I’ve considered jumping into the A7 ecosystem two months ago…but the poor evf refresh in low light and the mediocre standard Zeiss premium zoom (especially bad corners and big distortions) made me reconsider and now I use the 6d with the 24-70 f4L is usm and the 100mm f2.8L macro is usm (the lack of a macro 1:1 lens was also a minus for me).
Overall Sony is doing a pretty good thing with the new A7 but it has to improve performance with the zoom lenses (maybe at the second iteration for the 24-70 f4 oss) and has to watch for QC wich was never good (regarding lenses).
http://photobyandrei.wordpress.com/
When I heard 16-35mm, I started to worry about the size. If it’s bigger/heavy then 10-18 NEX, I will go with Voigtlander 20mm.
Its a FF lens. I am 100% sure its bigger/heavier than 10-18mm lens.
Very reasonable. I want pull the trigger for Voigtlander, but hope Sony give us a surprise.
I wouldn’t keep my hopes up. Just like Flavioross above mentioned. the A-Mount versions of 16-35 and 24-70 have the same filter sizes @ 77mm. I’d expect this one to follow suit of the E-Mount 24-70 and will be at around 67mm.
Don’t know about length, but front element size will be at least the same.
Another though for this is if Sony is consumer concious, which they are off and on, they will keep filter sizes the same on purpose, so that you don’t have to buy a bunch of filters in different sizes, all doing the same thing. Although SEL70200g is at 72mm, so who knows….
Probably about the size of the 24-70.
The A mount 16-35 2.8 and the 24-70 2.8 is about the same size.
It looks like Voigtlander 20mm is the only way to go light/small. Any other suggestions? Sorry being off the topic. But other people may be interested as well.
Don’t think so. That’s really the best solution. You can have a look at the Olympus 21mm too. If you want to go slightly bigger, yet still manageable, the Zeiss 18mm works too (even Contax version), although at f8 the Voigtlander is probably even better and is cheaper.
But I am seeing perfectly fine photos with the 10-18, so this might end up being an even better solution.
The 10-18 on FF is soft in the corners and edges. I’m using the Oly 21 3.5 for now and its sharp across the frame. If the 16-35 isn’t better, I’m just going to get the ZA and LAEA4 or the Samyang 14 2.8.
Between 12-16 and stopped down, I find the edges and even extreme corners to be decent. Could be better, of course, but at 225 grams, I won’t complain 🙂 The Olympus on FF shouldn’t be better than the Voigtlander, but I am basing this on limited evidence.
I am thinking of using the TS-e Canons on the thing, but I would like something small and light for when I don’t need the overkill.
It’s a pity that most makers seem to favor longer zooms, when they can make the shorter and better IQ.
Fred Miranda has shown that the 17mm TSe is brilliant on the A7r, but that’s a $2k lens. I’d prefer to use the $300 Samyang and crop a bit for a UWA solution.
Depending on the cam, the A7r will have small issues with the 21mm 1.8, but the Oly 21mm 3.5 still works and, as you say, the Contax wides also work well as well (If I don’t badly remember the 18mm is not too big)
Then again, you are investing in many different lenses to cover 16-35mm so the Sony does offer value albeit with the slower aperture.
I would hope, like many here, that this 16-35mm is as good as it needs to be for most people except the ones that need the extra stop, or two, of light.
I meant the 20mm SLII 3.5 in Nikon mount. Don’t want to experiment with RF wides 🙂 and, yes, I like to shoot wide, so I want to have options there. The 16-35 FE Zeiss could very well be the solution, but let’s see the size and performance. Actually, I don’t even care that much about excellent corners, as long as the lens is contrasty and distortion-free, and light.
do u mean the 21/1.8 m mount?
20mm F3.5 in Nikon mount.
Lecia WATE
One can buy both the 17mm and 24mm TS-e, the Metabones adapter for them, the Voigtlander 20mm and its adapter and still have money left.
He didn’t ask for economically un-challegend suggestions he just asked for suggestions.
Fuji, Panasonic and Olympus are kicking Sony’s ass in the lens department. How does a company roll out such a fantastic camera line (the a7 triplets) with one great lens (55FE)? I know the 35FE and 24-70FE are decent but decent won’t cut it TODAY!!! There should be a Zeiss 24FE prime on par with the 55FE as well as a Zeiss makro FE by now. A 16-35 f4?…REALLY?…WTF!?!? C’mon Sony pull your shit together and get serious with lenses…enough damn bodies already…FOCUS!!!
HOT NEWS!
索尼公司今晨申请破产，震惊！ —> Sony file for chapter 11 at this morning
http://mp.weixin.qq.com/s?__biz=MjM5ODA2NTExNg%3D%3D&mid=200076904&idx=2&sn=3b3122b54b567056cc094db6b536487b&scene=2&from=timeline&isappinstalled=0#rd
haha
Any Rumor about the LA Prime? 85mm? 1.8?
HOT NEWS!
Sony A7s priced at $1800? –> On May 7 Sony will announce the A7s pricing. According to one of our trusted sources the price could be surprisingly low: $1800! That’s about the same price of the Panasonic GH4.
Where did you see that ?
mirrorless rumor site haha
you made my day
Wow, that is a good price.
It really seems too good to be true.
thank you mr admin for this rumor.
1200$ for a 16-35mm F4 with OS. that’s expensive ofc but kinda reasonable.
the nikon 16-35mm F4 VR costs 1250$.
now let’s see those reviews. and if they are good sony take my money. bye bye all my gear.
i wonder what ppl can do with a 16-35mm when I already feel limited with 16-50mm Better buy prime lenses no?… Anyway I d like your opinions about the 16-105mm G lens as a alternative ( I’m lazy to change and take both in backpack) to 16-50mm and 55-210mm. Thx beforehand
this is for full frame. so the angle of view is much broader. so it will be 24-52mm on a crop sensor.
sounds like you need a superzoom. get a 18-200mm. it compromises performance and it’s heavier and bulky but you won’t have to change a lens.
OK. Hopefully it will perform more in line to the Z name than the 24-70.
I thought it was a travesty to release such a lens with that brand.
ok come on sony where is the picture? why so many secret this time ?
Because it’s huge or goofy in some way? (And if it’s not huge, I worry about image quality. So, give me a chunky little sucker that works great)
Because it isn’t officially announced yet? That’s why it is a rumour here (though it has ‘somewhat’ been announced, mostly by a slide with an updated road map).
not a surprise….I knew it would around the same price as the 24-70mm! But I’m just a little disappointed in the late release….shipping in August? I want it earlier! 🙁
minipixels.net | Automotive Photography + Design
To be fair most stuff from Sony lately has been promised late and delivered early, which is probably a good way to go rather than their traditional other way around.
Let’s hope so!
Large aperture prime should be 22/1.2 that will take my interest.
I know I am dreaming.
Voigtlaender has that, but in 21/1.8, and it is a huge lens. It’s not 1.2, but somewhaty better than this eternal F4 stuff.
Really a waste to make all these f4 lenses.
What’s a waste is to make a small camera and then put massive f2.8 zooms on it, especially as the only option. F4 OSS is more than fine plus it keeps the cost down.
this world is never enough with you.
if they go at f2.8, then you will complain about size and weight on small ff
$1200 for an f/4.0 lens? No way. Yes, it’s good that it’s constant aperture, but for that kind of money it should be f/2.8.
Why? The f2.8 for A-Mount is like $2k. Personally I don’t want your big bulky f2.8 on a wide angle zoom, fastish prime maybe.
Wow this site seems to be infested with Sony fanboys. What a sorry bunch!
You do realize that the website is called sonyalpharumors.com, right?
What were you expecting? I’m seriously curios, your level of ignorance is fascinating.
🙂
SRSLY! That is funniest thing I’ve read in a long time. What a freaking genius!
Perhaps 7D is a little grumpy because canon still haven’t announced the 7D replacement….the camera that is always around the corner but never arrives…Wow just looked it up. 7D released in 2009. Damn thats old!!
Look who is talking! Coming from a Canon fanboy!! Very amusing indeed!!!
you are all wrong; it’s the good old Konica Minolta 7D, the inventor of IBIS, not that old Canon 7D, inventor of…. oh,ok… nothing 😉
I am using sonynright now but to be honest most of Sony users are acting like children when it comes to their brand
only the Sony users, you’re sure?
Zeiss lenses are a ripoff. Not worth the $.
Then…. don’t buy it. Move on.
You obviously haven’t used the 55mm 1.8 or the 35mm 2.8. Both are a bargain considering their image quality and AF speed…
The new Sigma 1.4 blows the Zeiss out of the water. Hoping Sigma will start making FE lenses so we can have some good value lenses and not have to depend on the crappy (not to mention overpriced) Sony lineup.
“Blows it out of the water” eh…What are you like 12?? I have used both the Otus 55mm and the Sony/Zeiss 55mm..There is really nothing between them in terms of image quality at all…So the sigma won’t be blowing anything…
“(not to mention overpriced)” yeah so the sigma 50mm is selling for $949.00 on B&H and the “overpriced” Sony/Zeiss 55mm is selling for $998.00 on B&H. That’s a difference of $49 you numpty…Should I add that the sigma has no weather sealing….Stop embarrassing yourself…
Gav is right Jim, you are a complete numpty.
you guys that are complaining about f4 lenses on E mount, move to sony A mount if don´t care about size.
100% agree with you!! This camera is not designed to do everything much like the larger dslr aren’t designed to do everything.
A wide angle fast fixed focal lens, like a 24mm f1.4 is used for totally different applications than a wide angle zoom, like a 16 to 35mm f4. The f4 of the future Zeiss lens is more than adequate for making photos of built environs.
that is your opinion, other people see that different. So, to your opinion, Sigma making 1.8 zooms are thus donkeys, or do I miss something.
Look. I’m VERY happy to look the other way on the corners in the 24-70mm. BUT if this lens sucks in the corners, there’s heck to pay.
So more clear that nothing faster than F4. In zoom lenses For the FE mount.
I am not sure why all the moaning about the f4 zooms. Sony are also rolling out fast primes…It is not like you don’t have an option…
It’s a bit confusing. With E-Mount all the NEX owners want small lenses, even if they are slow. Except… i have an FS700, which is also E-Mount. For that camera, faster lenses of high quality no matter what the size would be great. Sure i could get adapters for other lens types, but then AF and Spot Focus and all that is useless. I’d say make some cheap, very small lenses for the people who want them. But, don’t completely ignore large aperture, high quality lenses in E-Mount.
Can’t they make just ONE fast zoom like the 16-50 A Mount, but in E Mount? Just one! Then I could sell my giant, terrible LA-EA2 adapter and A-Mount lens i can’t even use the full features of the camera with.
new lens from sony ? you got to be kidding me..
When does a full format camera appear A- mount?????
Idiot, didn’t you know A7 series only been out for about 6 months? And you think new lens will roll out every single day?
There’s this thing called equivalence. .. look it up
24-70 Tamron 2.8 costs 800$, with an adapter it is cheaper than this Zeiss, and it’s faster. Sony should change there policy on lenses, we do not need that eternal horribly expensive Zeiss stuff, and then F4 …buuuuhhhh
Want to see the spec and picture….!!!!