This is the first time you read the specs of the new Sony FE 90mm f/2.8 G OSS macro lens! It will be announced along other four FE lenses on Wednesday March 4 at 5-6 am London time. You can follow the live blogging here on SonyAlphaRumors.com!
The lens will cost 1149 Euro and those are the specs:
– Lens Mount: E-Mount
– Focal length: 90mm
– Maximum Aperture: f / 2.8
– APS-C distance: 135mm
– Minimum aperture: f / 22
– Filter size: 62mm
– Image stabilization: Yes
– Minimum focusing distance: 28 cm.
– Number of diaphragm blades: 9
– Weight: 602gram
via CameraTools.
Shenikon now unveiled the price of the new FE lenses through their eBay store:
[shoplink 33732 ebay]Zeiss FE 35mm f/1.4 for $1,729 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 33744 ebay]Sony FE 24-240mm lens for $1,099 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 33745 ebay]Sony FE 28mm f/2.0 lens for $459 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
[shoplink 33753 ebay]Sony 16mm Fisheye Converter for $319 (Click here to see it)[/shoplink].
–
To not miss any of them quickly subscribe our social network:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
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!
75 Responses
……
Yay! I really want this lens; it’ll be quite a lot smaller than the Canon L plus adapter I’m using, the AF will actually work, the MF implementation looks being far and away the best of any AF macro, and it’s not even too heavy!
or save something like 400€ and go buying the Tamron 90/f2.8 plus LA-EA4 adapter and a 30€ macro ring light. the latter compensates for having no OSS by just having faster shutter speeds. And enhances illumination at all…
From the money saved you can buy the 28/f2 e.g.
just my opinion..
sigma 105 has os, slightly more expensive
You’ll need a proper ring flash, not an LED light (as it can’t freeze motion).
Oh look, there’s my next lens purchase. Lookin’ good.
Magnification ratio?
1:1
From the 3 big lenses (24-240,35,90) this one have by far the best build quality and feels the best on the a7ii.
doesn´t say much.
well… it’s the only “G” lens…. no zeiss crap… should feel teh best out of teh 4 new lenses.
but as already mentioned; in terms of IQ, it doesn’t say anything
Focus by wire or mechanical manual focus?
I personally don’t like focus by wire but it seems to be the E mount standard. Also, I find the A mount cameras have a much better implemention of the Focus magnifier feature. (5n, a6000 vs a700, a99, a77ii) (not tried an a7 series)
Seems like both. You can see the groove between the focus ring and the distance scale. You can push and pull the focus ring to switch between focus by wire and real mechanical focusing. I think every e-mount lens should have this capability.
The push and pull is to switch between AF and MF.
I wonder how that works with DMF?
Yes you can do both. The push and pull is for switch between AF or mechanical MF.
If you leave AF on the lens and press the MF button on the camera, you can do MF by wire.
This post comes from dpreview. All the lenses are there http://www.cameratools.nl/lenzen-objectieven/alle-objectieven/
Hmm, does that mean the prices aren’t official?
I’ll stay with my Tamron F/2,5 90mm or Sigma F/2,8 105mm on A900 body. They are incredibly sharp even wide open. This one has only advantage in video mode..
Maybe I miss the point of the lens, but is there any good reason why this macro lens couldn’t be f/1.8 or f/1.4?
You answered yourself. It is a macro. Perhaps the only lens that has a wide aperture is the Tamron 60mm F2 because it is made for APS-C only. This lens is made for Fullframe, and would you like an even bigger lens than this?
EDIT: btw, nice pic. Is it from Monogatari?
I guess I just don’t understand the point of macro lenses. I mean you can just buy a fast prime lens and adjust it down to f/2.8 and then it would be just as good as any macro lens?
How do you achieve magnification with “a fast prime lens”?
Extension tubes. They eat some light and prevent infinity focus but they can let you focus closer than the designed MFD.
It’s all about minimum focus distance. My 85/1.4 is nicely compact but the mfd is rather long. My Tamron 90 macro is only f2.8 but can focus very closely for this high magnification shots.
That’s the whole point of macro lenses.
A typical 85mm lens focuses down to 85-90cm minimum. With a 1:1 macro lens you have 28cm (here), so you reach 1:1 magnification instead.
Google search for macro lenses. Its purpose is to give you large photos of miniature things, for that you need either macro lens, coupled lenses, macro tubes or reversed lens. You cant do it with a regular prime. It is not much of a science, you`ll get it quick.
You should probably buy a good book on photography techniques and read it.
Actually the 60mm can cover full frame (with a bit of vignetting).
Macro lenses are optimized for smaller apertures like f/11 f/16, some of them have even usable f/22 to give as much DOF as possible for a macro shot.
Does it extend while focusing? Does it use focus by wire or has mechanical coupling for direct input like A-mount SSM lenses?
It doesn’t extend, focus is mechanical and is engaged by pushing the focus ring up (push down to engage AF).
One of the hands on videos showed the focus mechanism – definitely push/pull (less agressive than the old Sigma 90mm) and IF.
100 grams heavier than the A mount 100/2.8 macro…
…I guess it will be better, but still…why…
OSS I assume.
what about the tamron 90/2.8 macro? OSS version weights 550 😉
To be fair, the a-mount is a bit of an antique. I’d expect a modern macro with a good optical formula and OSS etc to be heavier. It’s still lighter than the Sigma 105mm, which is a relief.
so how about the tamron 90/2.8 ? that’s a modern design,right? The canon version with OSS weights 550g
Would using this lens on APS-C bodies like A6000 yield 1.5:1 magnification ratio? Then, it will be fantastic!
1:1 macro is 1:1 no matter if yu are on FF or aps-c. 1 cm object will be 1 cm on the sensor.
True, but the sensor is smaller, so the final picture occupies more of the final scene, with higher resolution (24MP for A6000) than cropping a 36MP A7r picture would give. With a A7rii with 50mp it would be different.
What about the other specs, length, diameter, filter size, …?
Right now I adapt the Tamron 90mm lens which is optically very good (http://www.tamron.eu/de/objektive/sp-90mm-f28-di-vc-usd-macro-11/), lighter, has 9 aperture blades, too and a larger minimum focus distance. However, I would like to learn about the length of the Sony to estimate the working distance and compare to the Tamron (which is 400 Euro by the way).
Well, if the filter size is 62mm like mentioned in the specs, interpolating from the picture the whole thing is at least 14cm long and 8cm wide. I have to admit that if I compare this to the sizes of the Canon 100mm and the Nikon 105mm I’m truly disappointed about the size, although both the Canon and the Nikon have larger FLs. Apparently, they had to put all the ‘missing’ flange distance into the lens to achieve a certain optical quality.
I was truly thinking about getting this lens, as I imagined it, in addition to being a macro, to be a compact walk-around mild telephoto, as an alternative to schlepping the FE 70-200. But in terms of length, this 90mm is halfway there with the 175mm of the 70-200.
As it is, it has to be a plain briiliant lens optically for me to consider it in addition to my 16-35, 35, 55, and 70-200. One trait that would qualify in my eyes would be that the FL does not decrease so heavily when close-focussing as it seems to do with almost any modern macro lens. I had a Nikon 200mm macro a few years ago, and this thing would shorten down to like 140mm FL when going 1:1.
By, the way, the same size thing seems to be true of the FE 35/1.4, which looks to be at least as large as its Canon counterpart, although a short focal length should have size advantages with the small flange distance, as opposed to the 90mm of the macro.
its as long as the canon 100mm…
Where do you got that info from? To me, it seems at least 2cm longer, with a focal lengt of 1cm less.
If the price holds true at $1299, that would be one expensive 90mm macro. Let’s hope not.
It would be nice to have but not a “needful thing” to be useful all the time. My old Sigma 105mm would do for now. Though, I would buy if the IQ is high and just a dollar under $1000
And I would at this price continue with my Tokina At-X 2.5/90mm… and buy for the saved money in an used IBIS-body later.
I love that lens! The only downside is that the AT-X 90 is only 1:2. But the build and image quality is definitely there. If Sony released an APSC version of this lens for less $$$ then I would probably buy it.
come on, how many kidneys can one sell?
as most sar readers who are active on this message board are drug abusers (just read the comments!)… selling second quality kidneys surely wont be enough.
This is completely inconsequential but, I’m glad they got rid of the shiny ring at the front of this lens and the 28mm. It looked cheap and cheesy.
expensive lenses that suck… in short “sony”.
http://www.photozone.de/sony_nex
Pfffff, 1.149,- is about 150 more than I expected.
I will give it a try anyway.
Currently I am using a Tamron 90/2.8USD via LA-EA4. There is not much I don’t like with it.
The pale colors is something for pp, although I don’t like extensive pp. One real drawback is the focus ring which has too much play, which means that manual focussing is sometime a pain in the a…
If the Sony G will do as expected and do it better than the Tamron I am in.
Decided not to go down that route as I wasn’t willing to give up IBIS, so it looks like I’m in anyway…
Minimum focusing distance: 28 cm.
90mm…
Like other people have mentioned, I think I’d save some money and get an excellent a-mount macro lens like the 90mm Tamron or 100mm Minolta/Sony. The a-mount options are lighter too, especially the older Tamron, which matters if you want to add a ring flash/extension tubes/diopters that’ll make it even more front heavy.
For macro work you’ll almost always be using manual focus and shooting at narrow apertures, generally with a tripod, or freezing movement with flash when working handheld. Because of that, I wouldn’t see lack of stabilisation or AF as a big deal, not unless you’re also going to use it as a general purpose prime.
There are plenty of people who take amazing macro photos shot handheld using the Canon 100mm f2.8 IS L.
For those who have the skill to use it this lens is worth the money.
For people who shoot with tripod and lights then of course spending the extra money is not really worth it IMO.
It looks like as a very beautiful lens. Let’s see how good Lens this is going to be in real world.
Tripod colar for this lens would be nice edition.
I love my Min 100/2.8
AF & IS, who cares. I never use the AF. IS in-body. I got it MINT for $275 on fleabay about 6 yrs ago.
Depends what you’re shooting. You can definitely work hand held with a 90mm in natural light with OSS without having to resort to flash…
Should I get Sony 90mm f/2.8 G or the Minolta 135mm f/2.8 (t/4.5) STF with a 500D Canon close-up filter for macro?
For shooting flowers I think the STF is better for isolation. What do you guys think?
For flowers, it really depends on how you work. I work hand held a lot, so stabilisation is essential (IBIS or OSS). If you’re on a tripod, you could definitely get away with the STF, although you might find it a bit long for flowers.
I’m shooting flowers sideways for bokeh and always with a tripod ofcourse 🙂
or the 50mm F/1,8 with extension tubes by Kenko for the 3rd of the price
Why would anybody in their mind shoot macro with FF?
image quality…DOF…FOV.
Macro DoF on FF is worse than on any digital format but MF. Any FOV can be had with any size of sensor with a right lens. Image quality for macro is not better, actually worse than on small BSI-CMOS sensor if you stopping down for reasonable DoF.
what do you mean worse??Do you mean shorter??How is that classed as worse?? You can always stop down…
With the right lens?!? Well that is a pointless comment…
I am yet to see better image quality on APSC 4/3 or other comparable sensor when put up against FF…Dream on…
Worse = less suitable for the purpose. Less effective magnification, longer exposures for the same DoF, closer working distance = worse.
“Less effective magnification”…= sensor crop factor=pointless comment
“longer exposures for the same DoF”…= So what?!? with better FF image quality you can alway use a slightly higher ISO if it is an issue…
“closer working distance = worse”…Not even sure where you are going with that???
By your argument you should be shooting with a 1” sensor…Good luck.
It is not pointless. Try to fill the frame with an 17mm-wide object on FF with 1:1 lens and you will see.
lol why not? open your mind!
Because it is terribly suboptimal, unnecessary big and expensive, and harder (than with smaller sensor formats) to achieve high real magnification and necessary DoF.
Right tools for the job – and FF is simply WRONG for macro.