This is the first image of the new Zeiss 16-35mm f/4.0 FE OSS lens that will be announced on Monday (16:00 Berlin time). It should cost around 1350 Euro. Sony will likely introduce two more FE lenses although I don’t know if these will be ready for sale this year or more likely be on market in 2015 only (90mm macro and a fast Zeiss prime should come). Stay tuned on SAR!
Follow the Sony announcement live here on SAR on Monday Sept 15 at 16:00 Berlin time. That’s:
7am in San Francisco
10 am in NYC
15:00 in London
23:00 in Tokyo.
———
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
all these new lenses are expensive, arent’ they? regardless of system, just craaaazy
Tamrons and Sigmas are very reasonably priced. Not availible for E-Mount, of course.
Sigma and Tamron both make lenses for E-Mount.
APS-C only
Well you should have been more specific. Sigma’s or more like APS-H though 😉
like the 15-30mm f2.8 VC.
Can always use EF to E-mount adapter. Not problem to use manual focus.
The waiting period seems to be over. Time to sel our WATEs 😉
Drop me a line! 🙂
Finally a picture of the lens! man it was first announced back in June and now the picture is leaked…talk about lag time….hopefully it won’t disappoint for that price
minipixels.net | Automotive Photography
It wasn’t announced in June, it still isn’t announced.
Only $1700 for a F4 zoom? What a bargin.
More likely to be about $1350-1400 USD. Sony USD and EUR are normally about 1:1.
Not just Sony USD and EUR, Kindle was 79 dollars in USA and 99 Euro in Germany…
Euro prices include VAT (equivalent to the US sales tax), the rate of which is around 20%.
So €1,349 ≈ $1,399.
Exactly. I mean, the 70-200mm F4 hasn’t received great reviews. It’s also 1500 dollars! I’ll take the minolta beercan for 100. It’s just an added bonus that I can use it as a beercan.
Wow you can buy old lenses for less money than new ones? Who knew?!
ah the minolta lens crew again. you guys are so funny…
Yeah, we’re back on the attack. Minolta owners UNITE!
The beercan is the worst lens I’ve ever used. CAs, IQ, just horrible.
I know that not all Minolta glass is probably like that, but got a negative bias after this one.
Very True. Its not a fixed aperture but the Big Beercan (75-3000 is MUCH sharper with more reach even though soft at 300MM.
*75-300
Ah, but if you step back 30 feet from you monitor it all goes away. Think about that one:)
If I step 30 feet from my monitor, I’d be in the hallway, and won’t see the photo at all… oh, I got you. Yep, that would make beercan shots better.
Always nice to see those antiquated currency conversions coming along EUR prices. However, you never see these the other way around…
I keep looking at this and thinking, if I chop it off in the middle of the Zeiss logo I am looking at something very similar size wise to the Zeiss 24mm f2, add the LA-EA4 and in a similar ballpark size wise… Then I think about the price, which is also close and then that I already have 12-20mm nicely covered… The 24Z might end up being the way to go for me.
Yes, I also see the similarity with the SAL2420Z, it’s filter thread and front element are very similar. But I don’t think the 16-35 is any larger and most certainly not heavier than the 24 f2 w LAEA4.
leaked? really? we get news from this since january.
also, 1350€? is it made of gold? the new tamron 15-30 f2.8 VC is about the same price and performance is not even comparable. FU sony.
Wow, Sony, you made an expensive lens. Maybe made of diamond XD
You know if it really had artificial diamond elements(and say artificial diamonds could reach the required clarity and size, and not even the front element although it would be most useful there) I think $13000 would be a fair asking price, but they would really want the option of full mechanical operation for longevity and maintenance of value.
This lens had better be a much better performer than the 24-70/F4, for that kind of cash. The new canon 16-35/F4 is getting great reviews and is $1199 at B&H. I’m getting tired of overpaying for mediocre lenses.
It is quite unlikely that a Sony lens would surpass its Canon counterpart… But taken into consideration the advantage the Sony has on sensor tech and the play field levels out. If Canon had Sony-like sensor tech, I doubt the 16-35L would be sold at its current price…
What’s the point in having an amazing sensor and then hampering it with totally mediocre zooms? You need all the ingredients to be good, not just some. Now, I’d be fine with a mediocre zoom if they charged a mediocre price. Instead they’re charging a best in class price. It’s a total gouge.
I want the 16-35 to be great. I’d pay $1300 or whatever it will be if it’s worth it, but they won’t get me to overpay twice. As for Canon, I don’t think they’re pricing based on what Sony is doing, that doesn’t make sense. Maybe they look at Nikon, but not Sony.
In case you wondered, amazing sensor and mediocre zoom proved to be quite successful with the NEX line…
Canon prices its products according to the market competition, which includes Sony. Remember the near 1000 dolar price tag of the Canon EOS M kit when it came out? Do you think Canon dropped it to the current us$300 out of mercy or due to competition? It was Sony and m4/3 products that dropped the price of EOS M, not Canon. Same here, if Canon had killer mirrorless bodies with great lenses, the price of Sony FE lenses would drop. But as of now, the Sony FE line is pretty much in a comfort zone without much competition, so they don’t need to be cheap, nor very picky with the qualities.
The eos M price dropped because it was not a great camera, designed to protect Rebel sales. It also was barely available in the US. It had little to do with Sony’s pricing. Canon had a giant existing market for the M and they totally screwed up.
As for comparing the NEX’s and the A7’s, different markets, IMO. People who are shelling out for A7r’s expect higher quality lenses. Or at least I do, coming from the Canon FF world. It seems pretty galling for Sony to charge more for less on these zooms (I have no issues with the FE primes, which are quite nice).
I had a lot of reservations about buying into Sony. I don’t particularly like the bodies or the software. And they’ve been less than great about lens delivery, firmware updates, and seemingly worried more about creating ‘the next great thing’ than supporting existing customers. But the IQ and size are nice on the A7r. But almost a year on into my first Sony, I still pretty much the same. If the 16-35 isn’t worth the dough, I’m likely to sell off my sony stuff and go Fuji for a small situation and a 5D3 for everything else. I’m not going to be taken advantage of as a customer.
Actually I agree with you here. I´ve always hoped that Sony could provide L quality lenses, but apparently they can´t, yet. It´s funny to say, but we often pay the prices for Sony lenses because of the camera, not the lenses themselves.
I do dislike it when people talk about “L Quality.” Some L lenses are relative dogs so I assume that they need to be ignored when talking about L Quality? Lets be specific then and state what L lenses are the benchmark lenses.
‘It is quite unlikely that a Sony lens would surpass its Canon counterpart…’
maybe you mind is just too narrow to consider this could be possible
“Quite unlikely” is not impossible, or maybe you’re too narrow minded to understand full meaning of words in English. I said it’s quite unlikely based on the existing FE lenses vs Canon EF. As of now, only the FE 55 surpasses the Canon counterparts and is priced accordingly so. Other FE lenses are all slightly below the bar set by Canon L lenses, but priced slightly higher.
The only one that’s clearly subpar is the 24-70 f/4. The other Sony Zeiss lenses compare favorably to their Canon equivalents.
No. The FE 35 2.8 is slightly inferior to the Canon 35 f2 IS and the FE 70-200 is inferior to the Canon 70-200 F4 IS. The only one that stands out is the FE 55 1.8
Interesting observation. I thought Canon lenses consistently under-performed in Dxo tests? Maybe it’s all due to their current sensor tech.
what mediocre overprized lenses did you buy?
I’m going to assume no answer means none.
Whatever, turd.
Dinkleberry would be a much more appropriate term.
The FE 24-70, which is overall a decent lens, but not at the asking price. It’s a $950 lens at best.
It’s about time. If this 16-35 f4 OSS is sharper and with less distortion than Canon’s new 16-35 f4L IS, it might be time to switch over to an a7 body…
You cannot *successfully* shoot video with the 16-35 Canon zooms, too much distortion. But if Sony offer *in-camera corrections* for the FE 4/16-36 OSS like (we suspect) they did for the FE 4/24-70 OSS this could be the only corrected super-wide for video usage. We will know for sure if Sony offer a firmware upgrade *before* the lens is released.
tamron 15-30mm 2.8 VC wants a chat with you.
CANON 16-35**** – there are many, many, many uber-wide movie-making zooms…………….
ND FILTERS
Don’t hold your breath.
I can’t, I’m a fish.
I still don’t get it. How is it possible that this f4 lens is twice the price of the Sigma 18-35/1.8? And Sigma’s is an excellent lens… Is that Zeiss so overpriced? Is it possible that we’ll never get a decently priced lens again?… SIgh…
Sigma is an APS-C lens.
And by the looks of it, a lot larger
They don’t care about Sigma because Sigma currently does not make their Art line lenses for Sony E-Mount.
Very Smart of Sigma… They want to keep their ART name/reputation intact.
^^Nominated for the dumbest statement of the week.^^
That’s not completely fair. The Sigma 18-35 is a aps-c only normal zoom. This is a fullframe ultrawide… The comparable Fuji X10-24 is a f6 equivalent, more than a stop slower than this one and costs us$1000 and nobody whines… The only demand is that the optics of this lens lives up to its Zeiss tag.
Two reasons: if you don’t get it, this lens isn’t meant for you. Secondly, the FE 16-35 covers a sensor twice the size the sigma can, and thirdly, it’s much wider at 16mm vs 28mm equivalent.
Oh, these are actually only 2 reasons.
Oh, somehow I thought Sigma is FF too. Anyway, I bet that, if Zeiss made 18-35 f4, it would be at least 50% more expensive than Sigma…
That would be nice indeed, but than it would be twice the size and price.
I would look for Amaxon deals after the lens is available. The 24-70 keeps selling for >$500 less than the list price in the EU. Sony are very optimistic with their pricing, especially outside Japan.
that’s actually a very interesting point. if the street price is low enough this might be great. but imo 1350€ really? did they used diamonds instead of glass?
Price is only dictated by what ‘Consumers’ are willing to pay. Stop paying these crazy prices and prices will become more realistic. If you don’t have the sharpest lens on earth, it probably don’t matter since most people post online and that reduces it to 72 dpi and compresses it usually anyway (Facebook Sucks). Crafting your Sharpening skills in Photoshop goes a Long Way as well.
Facebook does suck. Even high end computer monitors rarely go above 110 PPI and rarely sport anything above SRGB. Most people would benefit from a monitor upgrade than sharper lenses. I eagerly await 4k 24IN OLED monitors- which we all know is like years away.
It’s very simple, and not because of Zeiss.
Sony is the only company producing Full Frame Mirrorless.
They’re will be milking this cow, until they can’t.
Maybe not the most technical analysis, but I think your right. It’s called milking the gravy train.
@SAR_Admin How far are you with the january stuff?
Is it likely to hear this month something about it?
I am still interested in that A7m and the RX2.
me too! I am reayd to sell my A7r to get the A7x 🙂
A7x?! Care to elaborate? 😀
pm with details :F nvm we have no lenses to use it.
Working on it. Got a couple of things I know but nothing super detailed yet. Hope I can start posting some stuff in October!
Hi Andrea – does that mean the macro won’t be out this year, or are they announcing the 16-35 and the macro and trailing some 2015 lenses?
yes. That’s what I think 🙁
Thanks – guess we’ll just have to see what Monday brings
the good news is that in january you’ll have more cameras than lenses. oh wait… that’s worthless….
Dear Internet,
This lens is expensive, some other lenses are not so expensive.
I don’t actually own any expensive lenses but I read in a review that the 24-70 is 1% less good @24mm than the world’s best 24mm prime. Therefore this 16-35 lens also sucks.
You’ve finally done it Sony, from now on I will exclusively pretend to own L lenses instead of
Sony Zeiss lenses on the Internet.
Oh and Santa, if you are reading, I want a 135mm f/0.70 FE lens… Not more than $200 please (else I will buy beercan).
Sincerely
SAO Troll Collective
The difference is yes this lens is expensive and some aren’t expensive. However with those other systems they have a choice between expensive and not so expensive. The only choice so far with the A7x is expensive or expensive outside of the 1 kit lens.
So buy a LA-EA4 and some cheap lenses? Oh but the size will be too big right? Well show me on those other systems where you can get a small premium FF camera to go with those inexpensive lenses that stay smaller than FE with adapter? Can’t? Right, then stop the complaining.
Defensive much? I was just responding to that point. The size isn’t really relevant here, it’s not like the FE 55 is a small lens, but other systems have cheap FF and nice quality primes as well as more expensive Zeiss options.
How long has there been an F-Mount/EOS-Mount/MD-Mount? How long have they been making lenses? Decades? Oh, right.
M lenses are smaller, full frame, and great optics! Wait… those are more expensive and don’t have AF (why would I ever want that if there is AF, stupid people). Oh, and I’ll need an adapter.
There is no M lens that is 16-35… very versatile.
nice 😀
I will buy this as soon as its out.
I will but this as soon as you post samples proving it is worth the price :-).
specially when compared let’s say to nikon 12-24mm f2.8 due to the price.
There is no such thing as a Nikon 12-24mm f2.8. There’s only a 12-24 F4 for APS-C. But perhaps you are thinking about the FF 14-24mm F2.8. In this case, I don’t see this as a competition. The Nikon is enormous and does not take filters.
The 14-24 f/2.8 of Nikon still sets the standards when it comes to FF ultrawide zoom. It delivers more like a high end prime than a zoom.
Have seen the HCam Master TS on the A7r? The coverage is enough to have shift on the A7r!
yes that. sorry. dyslexia sucks.
as for filters, you can very easly and actually cheaply add one.
as for size and weight we have to wait and see. no specs from sony yet. but it’s f2.8 not f4
And has almost no distortion and is absolutely amazing.
SUCKER
Good Goyim.
I definitely don’t know about this, the Sony/Zeiss 24-70 had horrendous QC, and I had to return a severely decentered lens(which I dont even know how it passed QC being so obvious), and got a ‘mildly decentered’ lens and had to be happy with it.
And I thought the various bloggers on the internet were just unlucky on their defective lens. Sony has to step up on QC on this one and convince a lot of bad experience buyers.
Sony 16-50 DT was better. I know a few owners who stepped it up when they went FF and were dissapointed in teh Zeiss 24-70.
Performance-wise it was fine for me, the A7 sensor makes up for the 24-70’s shortcomings, but if quality control was this bad, they shouldn’t have stamped a ZEISS on the barrel.
And the irony of including a certificate of it being inspected by Zeiss, Sony has balls.
Either that or the Zeiss “certificate” is for sale for the right price.
I thought the Zeiss badge was there to certify that the optical design is up to Zeiss standards, not the manufacturing quality.
You have a point! LOL
How do you test if a lens is decentered or not?
Well, mine was easy to detect, the Sony 24-70 itself has visible vignettes(black circle borders). And apparently my copy’s vignettes were way off the center.
Attached a photo that I included for a refund, the red frame is suppose to be the center of the frame. That’s how off my Zeiss-inspected lens was.
Are you sure about it?
When my adaptor gets a loose screw, the vignetting drifts away from the center, but of course the optics are intact. And one time I dropped a contax 50 on the ground resulting in serious softness and the focus getting stuck. I jammed a screwdriver in between the dented outer casing and the inner casing housing the elements and got the focus unstuck, but it didn’t fix the softness. I got rid of it at half of what I got it at.
I think many elements got shifted, but the vignetting stayed centered.
Lol, you, my sir, has a lot of stories, but my story is simple, bought it, shot a landscape, found out the right side of the sky was very, very dark.
Suspected something, decided to take a simple white paper test on it. And I was not happy.
…why would I want to ‘jam a screwdriver’ in my new lens?
Every time I put my thumb over the zeiss label on my monitor the price automatically goes down. What gives?
lol. if that would work for real 🙂
And that’s why the 90mm macro is a G lens. At least it has a chance of being semi reasonably priced.
…Except that the G branded lenses are more expensive than the z branded ones.
Leaked, But who cares since it is E mount.
Wow! D750 clearly ends the need for A-mount. A99 has been totally shamed off the planet. What will happen to all that Sony glass, trash?
You must be joking… d750 is a total disappointment
I’ve just browsed through D750’s specs, and they seem almost identical to D800.
It’s not a true successor to D700 either, since it doesn’t have 12Mp sensor.
When the presenter explained that they opted for A58-style tilting screen instead of sideways to preserve the buttons on the left, I actually laughed. A99’s screen doesn’t go sideways, but titls every possible way.
You mean it doesn’t have the D4 sensor (as the D700 had the D3 sensor)? It would never have been 12MP, it would have been 16MP if it stayed like a D700.
Yes, low-Mp sensor
That would have been rad. Too bad they did that with the Df and stopped.
Yes with 1/200 x-sync, 1/4000s max shutter, no focus-peeking, no fast live view, no AF on button, battery grip doesn’t add FPS like D700 did, woot Nikon has nail it! Sure will be a hot seller!
It still lacks some of the key features of the A99 which is now almost a two year old camera, so who should feel ashamed. It’s slightly better than the A600/610 but really shows no real innovation and will look like a relic upon the release of the A99II.
i like people who are not afraid to make a fool of oneself…
hope it is as good as the canon one.
Canon EF 16-35 мм F/2.8 L II USM -1000 Euro sony F4!!! -1350 Euro WTF!?
I have had the same question. Basically Canon’s lenses are the best for Sony E-mount, as for now. It’s only needed to purchase the adapter. What is the point, Sony?
Canon lens doesn’t AF on E-Mount cameras, at least the AF is unstable. Also, the Emount native lens keeps the overall package must smaller as there is no adopter and lens is smaller and lighter too.
Not small, dark, very high price…. LA-EA4 + Sigma or Sony A 2.8 together will be cheaper!
Let’s see, f2.8, lose half a stop due to to SLT, lose OSS due to being A-Mount and gain a shed load of size… but it will be f2.8! which seems to be important to many people.
Canon lens DOES AF on my A7r with Metabones adapter. It is quite good AF in fact! I will buy the Sony. It’s smaller
The 1350 Euros is the price outside of Japan. The Japanese prices (sold for a profit!) are way less than that. Sony tend to make their money everywhere but more of it outside Japan at nearly 2X the cash. This has to change.
Just get them smuggled. It’s always cheaper to get the same thing without some sort of holy seal of approval from Sony, and with a lot less tax.
So are you saying I should travel to Japan to buy my camera gear? I’m cool with that.
Not true the retail price is identical in Japan and in the US since their currency are almost the same.
Canon 16-35/2.8 II L is $1700: http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup/ef_16_35mm_f_2_8l_ii_usm
Canon 16-35/4 IS USM is $1200.
The Sony 16-35/4 OSS ZA will likely be $1250 (so, comparable to Canon 16-35/4L IS). Manufacturer suggested prices in USD.
It seems like a fake picture because minimum focusing distance are not located around the front glass on other Sony/zeiss lenses…
I was thinking the same thing and even looked on my other lenses and discovered that the FE 70-200 f/4 does have this information on the front just like this picture.
Yes but this is a G lenses and all Sony G lenses share this characteric. All zeiss/Sony lenses don’t have this information around the front lens, this would make this lens the first one to do that.
Didn’t know that, thanks!
Huh? I see it in the picture as .28m/.92ft. Maybe the picture changed?
Looks like filter size will be 72mm, so maybe lens will be slightly larger or heavier than the 24-70 .
the silver lining is if you have a filter or adapter for the 70-200 it’s the same
That is the good news. I do have the 70-200 with filters for that, and adapter rings for the smaller lens. So I won’t have to buy any filters or adapters. So the 72mm is a plus in my case.
Ridiculous price for an f/4.0 lens. It’s too slow. For that money it should be f/2.8.
It’s only a bit more than Canon’s 16-35mm f/4, and it’s a much newer optical design and smaller.
Much newer than a lens released a couple months ago?
My bad, I thought the Canon lens was out for much longer.
The Canon/Nikon versions has been out for some time. Now lets just hope the Sony/Zeiss is equal or better quality. I will buy it because I want a wide angle zoom. I’m happy with the 24-70, so I’m hoping this will be just as good if not better.
The Canon lens has been on the market for 3 moths – very old!!! 😉
Well in my case I much prefer the f4. I shoot landscapes with a tripod, and do some hiking, so the smaller lighter weight of a slower zoom benefits me. Yes a lower price would be nice, and a Sony/Zeiss F2.8 zoom would also be nice for people like you that has a need for it.
An ultrawide zoom with f/2.8 is not sold for $1250-1300 (which is where this lens will be). That is f/4 territory. The f/2.8s carry a price tag close to $2K.
How does the price compare to the FA 16-35 2.8?
It’s about to be the time for us to sell that A-mount glass there almost certainly no more amount cameras coming:( . There will be an
a9 with image stabilization built in an laea style adapter as to not let the rest of lens line go to waste. The a9 will be rugged and strong, think a900+em1=a9. Thats all I got for now
How this Zeiss 16-35mm f/4.0 FE OSS lens could be good for you ever folks when it is even not out yet and you are spitting on it already … You are funniest bunch let me tell you …
If this lens is as good optically as the nikon 14-24, then im in. If not, i’ll just get the 35mm f2.8.
You’ll be hard pressed to get that. Nobody knows how they got so little distortion out of that lens and no company even has anything like that lens.
I agree. I will buy 2 at the original EU list prices if it is anywhere near as good as the Nikon 14-24. I am very sure that my money is quite safe.
Well there are no reviews just yet so we shall see. Im guessing it wont be long. So far im loving my 55mm f1.8, hoping this will be my next lens purchase.
IMO, the engineering part simplifies when there is greater freedom with lens size and weight not being a limiting factor. The Nikon 14-24 is pretty big (even compared to 16-35/2.8 FF SLR lenses).
Swade?!!! The Swade of Saabland? So weird when my various interests intersect unexpectedly.
Am already standing in line to place my order. Looking forward to this one!
Shove this overpriced junk up your a$$ Sony! f4, f4, f4! Zeiss, Zeiss, Zeiss! Arrrrrrrrgggggghhhhhh! I hate this e mount lens lineup with all my heart. Such garbage. And you lemmings lap up whatever crap they serve you. That new cinema lens is pretty sweet though- I give them credit for that. But this overhyped Zeiss garbage, arrrrrrggggggghhhhhhh!
Do you even own a sony a7 series camera though?
True first world problems
Looks fake/photoshop job to be the actual lens (but close enough). Otherwise this will be a first for a Sony ZA lens to bear “Zeiss” on the front plate.
I recall reading somewhere that zeiss was intending to simplify their branding from Carl Zeiss to just Zeiss.
too slow, why f/4??
2.8’s are huge and even more expensive.
who cares, f/4 is useless for astro. landscape work at night, unless you are doing only star trails or want to carry a tracking mount which more than makes up for the decreased weight of this lens, or own the A7s in which case it doesn’t matter.
Absolute BS, were talking 1 stop here. Don’t get hysterical.
🙂 Aperture RAGE!!!!!!
‘who cares, f/4 is useless for astro.’
are you the spokesman of your imaginary astro nerd photography club?
yes
LOL… who needs to wait Sony to make AF zooms for astrophoto?
Isn’t AF useless for astro photography?
yes please get rid of AF, OIS and zoom… don’t need it
Samyang 14mm f2.8 for $300. Available now.
Indeed, I have the A7s and its much nicer to be out with a small bag rather then a rucksack filled with stuff weighing you down. 2/3 of my flight luggage used to be my Canon gear, now its less the 1/3 with the Sony. Most things are going to be in focus at 16mm at almost any aperture, F4 will be darker, but smaller and with new sensors thats not as important as it once was.
Equivalent to 8-17.5mm f/2.0 on MicroFourThirds. Can do a lot with it. That said, I’m still waiting for a 20mm-ish f/2.8 prime.
BUT WHEN CAN WE BUY IT?
It seems that aps-c e mount don’t have a future at Sony. And other manufacturers think that too apparently. Maybe it is just me but my opinion is that any camera maker need quality entry level lenses. Tamron or Sigma should make a quality standard zooms for competitive price. Sigma 17-70 f4 or Tamron 17-50 f4 will be a good start. And maybe Sigma 50 150 f4 for half the price of Sony 70 200 f4.
so what? Canon and Nikon also focus on FF lenses. This didn’t prevent them from dominance in crop DSLR market
Canon and Nikon never really focused on APS-C. It was clear that a full frame sensor will become cheaper, as has pretty much any semiconductor in history. We are nearing this point. All side components of a camera are more or less identical and similar cost.
APS-C have been selling at very low profit margins and making an awesome and cheap APS-C lens porfolio would be stupid, as these users would never upgrade to fullframe (and the plan is they should).
I am not a fan of the 50-150mm zoom focal range. If you’ve noticed, Sigma’s high quality lenses are also creeping up in price. I’d like to see a jumbo series of lenses (2.8 or faster at the expense of weight) for the E mount full frame, just to see if people will actually buy them (and my bet is, they will).
For all of us still using A-mount I’m tempted to do a quote: “if that’s all there is, we’re really fu@ked …” Bad boy bubby …
Bah… I wanted a 15-35mm, will definitely not buy it…
More seriously this is the perfect lens for travelling, can’t wait to buy it !
I just hope that it’s high quality not like the 24-70 Zeiss…
Amen, brother.
Wahoo! Go E mount! keep ’em commin’
What happened to the A5 (or whatever), EVF-less FE camera? Seems to have dropped off the SAR radar.
Fingers crossed it’s half decent… would be happy if it’s on par with the Nikkor 16-35mm f/4.
Woohoo! A leaked picture so we now know it looks like…a Zeiss lens!
As V’Ger once asked, “Is this all that I am, is there nothing more?”
So why can’t we get great firmware updates like Olympus EM-1 users are getting? There are still a number of things they could improve with a simple update.