If you missed the Sony announcement you can play the video on top to watch it again. While there was no new A or E-mount stuff Sony talked quite a lot about their Alpha range. And they are also displaying the new FE lens prototype lenses on their CES booth (images here at Amateur Photographer). We already saw these prototypes back at Photokina and Sony doesn’t add any info today. But full specs and pricing info will be announced in 4 week right before the start of the CP+ show!
So far the rumored price info is (source SAR article with VBL):
– 28mm f/2.0 G should cost 499 Euro (February shipment)
– 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss should cost 1399 Euro (March shipment)
– 90mm f/2.8 G macro should cost 999 Euro (March shipment)
– 24-240mm f/3.5-6.4 should cost 1099 Euro (March shipment)
– both converters should cost 229 Euro each (March shipment)
You can also preorder the new CES stuff:
USA: 4k action camera at BHphoto (Click here). 4k camercorders at BHphoto (Click here) and Sony Store (Click here).
Europe: Sony Germany, Sony UK, Sony France, Sony Italy, Sony Spain, Sony Holland, Sony Belgium, Sony Austria, Sony Switzerland, Sony Portugal, Sony Sweden, Sony Norway, Sony Finland.
One more thing:
All AX100 camcorder owners will get a new firmware update soon. Sony writes:
The FDR-AX100 will also support XAVC S 4K 100Mbps high-bitrate recording through a firmware update scheduled for March 2015.
297 Responses
Depending on reviews the macro is a must-have for me.
The 35/1.4 is of course desirable but for my taste a little bit too expensive for my needs.
I am pretty interested in how the 28/2G will perform.
I too would be interested in the 90mm Macro…only because it is the closes thing that Sony make to a portrait lens focal length.
I wish either Sony or Zeiss would make an autofocus 85mm, 105mm or 135mm. It seems that all their lenses are in the wide-angle to normal focal length range (except the 70-200 f4) and it far too restrictive.
Agree. That’s reason why I will not sell my 85ZA. Love this lens. 🙂
Agree. Plus it’s smaller and lighter than the Samsung APS-C lens and focuses a sight better even with the ‘antiquated’ LA-EA4 that we hear so much about. Won’t be changing mine or the 135ZA either.
Their lenses over 40mm turn out to be bigger than FF DSLR analogues, of course they want to show the best side of the system first with smaller wide angles (not needing so much retrofocus).
28mm is not a G, besides G’s are for longer lenses mostly.
Correct, the 28/2 is no G.
@Admin, please correct in your listing. Thx.
Remember the not so famous 35/1.4 G.
35mm was only a G because the Minolta (of which it was one of the early rebadges) was. The only exceptions are the 18-105mm f4 and 28-135mm, which I guess still kind of make sense as G lenses.
Yeah, I don’t understand why admin keeps perpetuating the G label.
My hope is that this lens is based on the Minolta AF 28/2 which I have used on the A7 with the LAEA-4. Wonderful lens but I’m looking forward to native AF performance.
The 28/2 is a classic wide and plenty fast enough too and should be an interesting lens.
For the guy, whose comment apparently has been deleted:
People reading reviews are not necessarily newbies.
I should have detailed the sentence as you apparently misinterpreted.
I
am always trying by myself, not relying on reviews. But reviews (good,
or better say usable ones) may give indications of flaws that could
possibly limit my use case.
As not getting granted much time for testing lenses prior buying this helps to pack my “test plan”.
Like I said before, Sony really needs to stop fooling around and make sure they have a 35mm f/1.8 or 35mm f/2 lens for FF cameras, whether it’s FE or Alpha mount.
The f/2.8 just doesn’t cut it, even though the lens itself is excellent.
Most people CANNOT or WILL NOT BE ABLE to afford the $1399 price for that Zeiss.
In your 1 comment..this comment in fact?
I have a vintage 35mm f/2 lens that cost less than that, is not in E mount but can only be adapted to Sony A7 cams, its my best and most favourite lens…
If they cannot afford whatever that one is you suggest, they should look around for 35mm f/2 with the qualities they want.
I love these comments. Yes on a fledgling system Sony needs to have 3 35mm lenses (plus the Loxia) at f2.8 $799, f2 $999-1099 and f1.4 $1399.
It’s true most people you meet will not be able to afford $1399 for the Zeiss… but a decent number of people who can afford $2000 for an A7R will be able to afford a $1399 lens.
The FE mount is a high end offering, not a budget to midrange system, so the need to cheap lenses is not quite the same. There is always the NEX series with cheaper lenses.
NEX lenses not cheap too: mediocre 20/2.8 is pricey, and 35/1.8 (which is really 38mm, so it’s not much wider than 50 mm) is expensive too.
It depends to what you compare. Most mirrorless lenses are as expensive.
Sony has no idea how to place the system either. They don’t know what kind of photography are FE users suppose to do, nor if it’s a photography at all or rather video. For both they’re missing a lot of gear while at the same time adding random lenses for random uses with no solid concept of a direction in building a system. Fuji got less lenses available yet their system is far more complete and solid for it’s main purpose.
Sony struggles with their usual problem – they have no clue how to build a system.
Assuming you are talking about the X-series?!?
Fuji has got more lenses.
Could you please let me know why you are indicationg the Fuji system being more complete?
Actually Fuji has less lenses, but not by much. Which is disturbing considering that X-mount is almost 2 years younger than E-mount.
Problem here is that Fuji is really making lenses for photographers. Some people do macro, some portraits, some landscapes, some journalism, some travel with a camera and so on.
Fuji decided to make lenses according to what people need. It took them 2 years to make this system very usable.
It often seems as if Sony was making random lenses and hopes someone will buy them.
Example? Macro. Really a lot of people do it: both amateurs and pros.
It has been known for decades, that a good small macro lens for 35mm is something around 100mm (and a better one is around 200mm).
So what did Fuji do? A 90mm equivalent.
So what did Sony do? A 45mm equivalent. Why? Because it is small, easy to sell.
I find it delightful that Sony is making a proper macro lens for the FE lineup. This means Sony wants to make FE a functional system. It’s just a bit sad that E-mount was not meant to be one…
Fuji don’t have a proper macro… Still.
But yes, nobody really seemed to know what to do with mirror less for a while, Oly, Sony, Panasonic all fumbled around for a long while. Even the great Fuji didn’t really know what they fully wanted out of it (what they make now is so completely different to when they started). However the FE line is completely new with a MUCH clearer direction and as such has also developed more quickly than any mirror less system.
I’m aware of the fact that Fuji 60mm is not 1:1, but with the Fuji’s extension tube it offers around 0.76 magnification (with decent 14cm of working distance) – not bad.
Sony 30mm is 1:1… at 2.5cm. Seriously – not enough. I owned a Nikon 40/2.8 (working distance ~3cm). I know. 🙂
You often end up doing with magnifications around 0.5. I’d prefer comfortable 0.76. 🙂
As for the FE lineup…
Of course you can do any kind of photography with a camera, but I know only 1 serious type of shooters, which quickly and massively switched to Sony, because it seemed a revolution.
Landscape shooters love the A7 and, especially, the A7R (even with the shutter shock issue).
And the FE 16-35 is a good lens, although still quite a lot of shooters adapt the much better Nikon 14-24.
To match the Nikkor’s sharpness, you’ll most likely need a prime. So where is this prime? 🙂
Lately Sony decided to make a Distagon lens. Zeiss has designs from 15 to 35mm.
And Sony has a (good) 35/2.8 Sonnar. So which Distagon will they make? Of course the 35/1.4. 😀
Extension tubes are available for Sony as well, to say use with the 55mm. But anyway, Sony are about to release a 90mm macro with OSS, that will give Sony 2 1:1 macros and Fuji none.
An UWA prime is likely to come. In the mean time the Samyang 14mm f2.8 is about the closest lens to the Nikon 14-24mm and is available in native mount for about $300. Zeiss are planning to make a wide Loxia lens.
Macro lenses are not so much about magnification (because, like you’ve noticed, you magnify using tubes), but about the working distance and slow gearing in focusing ring. You won’t get that by extending a normal prime.
You might be able to squeeze good quality 1:1 from the 55mm, but you again end up with few cm of working distance and focusing problems.
As I’ve said: it is good that Sony made 90mm relatively quickly, but this is an FE lens. Yes, it is compatible with E-mount, but it is also very expensive. This price is fine for FF customers, but not for most people with crop bodies.
Fuji X is hardly a cheap system, but their almost-proper-macro costs 600 euros, not 1000.
Also, for E-mount users this lens comes out 5 years after the first body.
As for UWA, I’m not talking about the customer point of view. Of course I can adapt hundreds of good wide angle primes. I can do that on many cameras.
I’m talking about Sony’s point of view. Money in ILC cameras is usually made on lenses, not bodies. And this is also important for me.
If I’m going to switch a system and put a lot of my savings in a new camera system, I would like it to exist for some time. 🙂
And I can hardly believe Sony E/FE systems, with their current strategy of loosing on cheap A7 and not earning on adapted lenses, will exist in 10 years. 🙂
BTW: Keep in mind that Sony has very short flange distance, so while you can adapt most other systems to E-mount, the opposite is not true.
FE 1.8/55 is a great lens, but its not brilliant with tubes @1:1. Glad Sony have given us a proper macro.
“Fuji is really making lenses for photographers”
“Fuji decided to make lenses according to what people need”
No offense meant, but that is nonsense.
You were doing good until you referenced Fuji as a model for a system of lenses. That makes everything you said before superfluous.
You are implying that Sony has absolutely no idea at all what they are doing, which I’d have to disagree with. There’s nothing random about the current FE lineup.
Sorry dude, but that’s BS. And not getting his point, too.
Why are you thinking that buyers of expensive bodies must buy most expensive lenses even if they don’t need their plus of IQ for their needs?
A medium priced lens must nt necessarily be a budget or cheap lens.
It’s not about buyers being supposed to buy something, it is about how Sony is placing the system.
His point seemed to be that $1399 is out of reach for owners of a $2000 camera, which is a point I disagree with.
An A7R, with a zoom and couple of primes is going to run to about $4000, so having spent $4000 already a further $1399 doesn’t appear to be beyond the pale.
Again BS, sorry to say.
It hasn’t got to do with being beyond the pale, it has to do with being willing to pay.
The buyer of a 400k house desiring a motor boot for 250k must buy it, because he already had double that much for house? If he finds it too expensive and says a rowboat fits my needs he is a tight idiot and bought the wrong house?
No need to apologise for stating *your opinion*…
Your analogy makes no sense whatsoever – boats and houses have nothing to do with each other, neither influences the performance of the other.
A better analogy would be cars and tyres. Owners of BMWs rarely complain the low profile tyres they require are too expensive, nor do they go out and buy an expensive high performance car without considering the increased cost of running it.
Ok. Cars and tyres then. 🙂
Actually I can give you a good one then, and you may understand what I as a non-native eng speakerwant to come down to.
I own an F11, and I do like big wheels. For the summer 19″ I make no compromises and I buy the indicate best rf-tyres that BMW specified.
Different for the winter wheels in 18″ a set of best tyres specified by BMW is here in GER about 1.400 € (funny that it matches the 35/1.4). So I was looking for a safe and HQ alternative which I found in the Nokian A3. This set is around 900 €, and its one and only disadvantage in direct comparison is apex speed on snow.
So, am I not a worthy BMW driver because I am not willing to pay the extra 500 € for a discipline that does not have any effect on my style of driving on snow?
I think you’ve stretched the analogy to breaking point there… in any case there will almost certainly be third party alternatives if people find the Sony/Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 too expensive.
Canon has TWO full-frame lenses in sub-$200 range, and a lot of other inexpensive ones…
Canon is a camera specialist, Sony consumer electronics is a generalist, and they are grasping at straws. Some stupid exec made them ditch the good stuff and these toys are the results…
Judgingby APS-C mirrorless lenses in general are more expensive. Add to that the fact that Canon is doing nothing else, but expanding their lens range in a larger market share.
Canon has cheap and compact EF-M 22/2 STM, Sony has huge and expensive 24/1.8 “zeiss”
Also, this is how you get market share — by offering good products for a adequate prices instead of fake zeiss crap
Yes, that seems to have worked very well for Canon with the EOS-M :S
True, but given that EOS-M has 3 lenses total and its cameras were heavily overpriced when they first appeared, it is not much of a comparison. Basically, you chose the biggest exception here. Try comparing to Fuji, Samsung, Olympus and Panasonic, i.e. the majority.
Both of which are film-era lenses, when all SLRs were “full frame” and and some vastly cheaper than today’s full frame DSLRs. If Canon were to start again from scratch in the digital era you can bet they would develop more higher tier lenses to match the camera bodies.
Nah. The 40/2.8 STM is a new design…. and comes in kits with crop DSLRs…
That lens is a one off, and not particularly typical of Canon, Nikon has no equivalent 40mm-ish pancake.
I would not hope for 28/2 at 500 euro (and $500), if they try to sell 35/2.8 at $800…
Why?
Because Sony clearly adopted Gillette model with their FE cameras and lenses…
That has always been the case, a-mount too. When you consider that the 28 is not Zeiss branded and that each converter is more than 200 dollars, the 500 price makes sense.
Blue logo tax…
But then the “blue logo tax” usually means someone checked Sony’s design.
There weren’t that many good Sony lenses which had no Zeiss logo or Minolta heredity…
‘Zeiss’ ZA lenses are all Sony designs, made by Sony. ‘Zeiss’ is just branding like ‘L’… that is why the ‘Zeiss’ lenses are more expensive because they are their tier lenses for wide to normal FL’S, G on longer FL’S.
Sony Zeiss lenses are designed and made by Sony – correct.
However, Sony Zeiss lenses are based on Zeiss optical formulas (hence the names: Tessar, Sonnar, Planar etc) and use Zeiss coating. That’s what the license gives Sony apart from the blue logo.
So while Sony Zeiss lenses are rather good (not great, nowhere near what Zeiss does), the Sony in-house designs are often mediocre at best. Even today, in times when you switch on a big computer and it makes you a great design in a week.
You’ve heard about 85/1.4 ZA? Is it still the sharpest Sony lens?
The optical formula is from 1896…
The 85ZA is different to the Zeiss, sorry. Also the ZA is better than the Zeiss (non Otus) and is an excellent performer compared to Canon / Nikon equivalents. So much for ZA’s not being any good. The rest of the ZA primes are all top performers as well, 50ZA, 24ZA, 135ZA, 55ZA. Not as good as the very latest and best Zeiss? Maybe not, they are also a fraction of the price and have AF. Many of the non Otus SLR Zeiss are not as good as the ZA’s.
Based on their formula… Yes but so are most lenses in those FL’s. Yes they use their coatings which is a big part of the Zeiss signature.
And no, the ZA85 has NEVER been Sony’s sharpest lens.
According to DxO (maybe not the best source, but at least providing a quantitative comparison):
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Ratings/Optical-Metric-Scores
The sharpest lens for A99 is 500/4 (scored 17)
In the second place (scored 16):
85/1.4 (Zeiss Planar)
24-70/2.8 (Zeiss Vario-Sonnar)
50/1.4 (Minolta)
As for the rest of your post… you disagree Sony can’t design optics by listing other Zeiss-based lenses. I find it really entertaining. 🙂
And of course Sony ZA lenses are cheaper than Zeiss originals. Of course they have AF.
Sony is a huge conglomerate, expert in electronics.
Zeiss is a relatively small company. Experts in optic, but not very good in everything else. And they have microscopic lens sales compared to Sony, so they must add a proper profit margin.
I’m not saying anything is wrong with this cooperation. It is great that Sony (who can make AF and other things) takes optical formulas from Zeiss. This should (and often does) produce great lenses.
My only comment was that Sony E-mount lenses (without Zeiss/Minolta designs) are usually not great performers, which is a well known fact.
The 28/2 might be a good lens – we don’t know that. But statistically speaking, it is unlikely.
At this price point Nikon 28/1.8 is a good benchmark.
http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/751-nikkorafs2818ff?start=1
Sorry I am not sure of your point? So we’ve established that Sony design and make their ‘Zeiss’ branded lenses, which in many cases are better than the Zeiss lenses and different optical formulas AND their sharpest lens is not a Zeiss branded lens… Yet ‘Sony’ are not capable of designing decent lenses? It is branding, nothing more. The ZA 85mm is an 8 element 7 group design vs the Zeiss 6 element 5 group design. The ZA is more closely related to the Minolta 85mm f1.4 G LE of which they inherited and gained the design team from.
As for ‘good’ non branded lenses, well these are not Somy’s highest tier lemses, they are usually their inexpensive lenses so will never be their best performers, but these lenses are all very good (certainly as good if not better than other lenses in their class by any brand) and mostly inexpensive:
Sony 30mm f2.8 DT macro
Sony 35mm f1.8 DT
Sony 50mm f1.8 DT
Sony 85mm f2.8
Sony 16-50mm f2.8 (incidentally better than the ‘Zeiss’ 16-80mm
Sony 35mm f1.8 OSS
Sony 50mm f1.8 OSS
There are plenty of other very good performers in their class. I don’t have any ‘high end’ plain Sony’s to compare to because no such thing exists.
You’re mixing optical formulas and lenses. Optical formula is something universal. Possibly tens of lenses were based on a Planar design since it was developed.
Tessar was even more popular – it only needs 4 elements, so was often used in small lenses. E.g. many Pentax pancakes and some older Nikkors are Tessars.
I’m not saying Sony 85/1.4 is identical to Zeiss 85/1.4. It is not!
Only the core optical formula is the same.
It’s like if you and I were making a cake from the same recipe. We would get different cakes, possibly with slightly different ingredients – based on what is available where we live and what we can afford.
But it would still be 2 cakes, not a steak and a carrot salad. 😀
The simple fact is: other lens manufacturers have better in-house designs.
Sony is heavily relying on Zeiss formulas. Maybe they would make better optics themselves if they really had to.
Minolta had been making better lenses and Sony took over both patents and know-how, so what’s the problem here?
Furthermore, Sony-Zeiss deal is a two way thing. Sony pays Zeiss not only for the designs and logo, but also for some kind of exclusivity.
Zeiss is not making lenses for A-mount and they advertise Sony’s lenses on their page.
So there is and possibly will never be an A-mount Otus 85/1.4.
Is it a huge problem? No. Sony 85/1.4 ZA is really good.
But on the other hand… Nikon 85/1.4 is even better and still some decide to get the (2x more expensive) Otus. 🙂
sorry so please explain to me how two different sets of optical elements are the ‘same’? in fact not a lot of what you have said makes much sense at all. You are trying to tell me that Sony design and make better lenses than Zeiss, yet are incapable of making good lenses on their own, when in fact you yourself used DXO as a benchmark which claimed the Sony G 500mm to be the best, maybe you think that too is based on a Zeiss design? Or maybe you think it’s based on a G design licensed to Sony? Sony make great optics, it’s really that simple. Their better optics get branded G for long lenses and Zeiss for normal and wide lenses. The ZA85 mightn’t be as good as the Nikkor 85mm f1.4G but was certainly better than the 85mm f1.4D which was the competition at the time. I haven’t seen many direct comparisons to the G, but a reasonable person would think it to be better. What this has to do with their abilities to design good lenses though… That is where you lose your point.
I forgot about the 500mm (and the 135/2).
Long primes are usually sharp. This is relatively easy lens to design.
I finally found some Sony schematics:
http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/SAL-85F14CZ/Planar.gif
From the left: Zeiss 85/1.4 Planar ZF, Minolta 85/1.4 and Sony 85/1.4 Planar ZA.
As you can see, Minolta added one almost flat lens at the end and Sony added another one. Why? I have no idea. Maybe some minor correction for CA.
Do you find this lenses similar or not? 🙂
For comparison: Nikon 85/1.4. As you can see, it is a similar design, because it is also an 85mm. 🙂
But Nikon added 4 lenses inside the Planar (from the left: 4, 6, 8, 9) and also separated 5 and 7..
http://cdn-4.nikon-cdn.com/en_INC/IMG/Assets/Camera-Lenses/2010/2195-AF-S-NIKKOR-85mm-f1.4G/Misc/AFS_85_G_const_2.jpg
So what is the threshold of being ‘different’ enough to no longer be a ‘Zeiss’ design? Again your argument makes no sense. Sony made an improved design, Nikon did also (but improved again) and then Zeiss also made an improved design with the Otus. How far away from the original do we have to be to be a ‘different’ design? Sony designed it, using Minolta engineers (now Sony engineers) and Zeiss allowed them to use their coatings and stamp their name on it, that’s it. Did Minolta collaborate with Zeiss? Because theirs is a closer match… No they used to collaborate with Leica.
Generic advice: NEVER, EVER USE DXO LENS MARK TO SUPPORT YOUR POINT.
Their sensor reviews are great, but lens tests are complete and utter bollocks. Get some reliable reviews if you want to make a point.
Show me a comparison of these lenses you find more believable.
“Is it still the sharpest Sony lens?” – nope. 135mm is.
I think you’re right! Damn! 😉
This is hardly surprising considering the performance of Zeiss’s own 135mm Sonnar implementation.
Don’t confuse E-mount ZA lenses (all of which were Sony designs) with A-mount ZA lenses (some of which were Zeiss designs)
Yeah… I also think this could be a typo. $1500 would be more believable, when you think about (IMO ridiculous) prices of other Sony lenses.
(IMO ridiculous) comment.
Maybe it’s low-quality plastic-fantastic? I don’t expect much more at this price point of the FE lens.
And 1000 euro for macro? You can have BOTH E-M5 and 60/2.8 macro lens for that price or cheaper, and have GREAT 5-axis stabilization AND 2x magnification compared to FF macro.
Err what? Cool, if that’s what you want go get an Olympus, quit your whining already.
Who is whining, I am giving a buyer’s advice, how to get more for less and not be taken for a ride and waste your money.
well, a Nikkor 105 f2.8 VR is sold at $899 and the Canon IS 100 2.8 is at ˆ$949. So I guess the Sony G will have OSS too at that price
It does. Oh and will work with the IBIS.
It’s bad advice, m43 is the worst quality/price ratio in the market. No worries though, it’ll soon be dead.
Sorry, but that is just you. I had the same opinion until I tested the Oly m43 and it is crazy good and even better when comparing size and weight. I know, this is topic of long and hot discussions on the http://www... Just that m43 offers even affordable and portable f0.95 lenses with 17cm close focus abilities.
Well you can get a 6D with a 35/2 (equivalent to 17/0.95 on M43) for the same or less, and you get autofocus on top! The size is similar, the image quality is head and shoulders above.
And you will get the shot in many cases (dark scenes, moving objects etc) where the M43 raises the white flag. And battery life. And a well-rounded system. And high resale values. And… Well you got the picture.
Advice? Lol.
Yeah but they’re apsc lenses for an apsc sensor…
not even ASP-C, just a tiny m43 sensor
Exactly.
Next thing you will be telling us how much better it is to get a f1.8 45mn because you are getting ‘more’ with that lens as well… why won’t Sony make a nice portrait lens for FE like the Oly 45mm!!! Waaaaah!
Oh wait, no actually you’ll need to buy a $1600 42.5mm + 60mm Macro + body to get lesser results than an ‘overpriced’ macro… Tell us again please how great an investment m43’s is!
LOL I think he is doing this for money. His avatar obviously reflects his iq (not in the sense of image quality).
Sony already has 55/1.8 which when cropped can do about the same as Oly 45/1.8. Of course it is $1000 and not $250, but it is the nature of their game.
They also have a $200 50mm f1.8 OSS, but hey let’s not cherry pick shall we?
It is not FE though. We are discussing FE choices.
Zeiss 55mm f1.8 is $1000 vs Panasonic 42.5mm at $1600. Your choice.
It’s not 2x magnification…. m43 has lower mp count, so if one needs more magnification from 90/2.8G, there is an option to put it on A6000 which produces almost same magnification as on E-M5 (92%)
With Sony you have option to change between crop and FF bodies, with m43 no such option.
Lower mp count than what, A7s?
a7r and a7 and a7 mkII and NEX-7 and a6000
Still, density on m43, and more importantly lens resolution in lp/mm is higher than all of them, and even higher res on 4/3 sensor is coming too for sure. Cropping only works until you hit the contrast limit. Try to find any FF lens with anything even close to >80lp/mm of Oly 60mm/2.8, and it was reached on the old 12mpix E-PL1 with LPF (http://www.lenstip.com/356.4-Lens_review-Olympus_M.Zuiko_Digital_60_mm_f_2.8_ED_Macro_Image_resolution.html), not hard to imagine what it is on modern cameras.
Yawn. That means nothing.
Except that you know nothing.
Why would I crop? If you really believe that the E-M5 and 60/2.8 will be better than a D800 with a 105mm IF-ED, by all means, buy the cheaper kit.
There is no way do higher magnification. With the same magnification as 60mm on E-M5 (which would give you 16mpix), D800 with the 105 will give you only 9, and even less actual sharpness and contrast because of the lens.
A7S is expensive body which is the least used.
….compared to A6000, A7, A7R, of course.
Sony not only offers choice between APS-C and crop bodies, but different MP counts too!
…And ridiculous quality, too. I’d rather go APS, it’s cheaper than m43 and obviously better.
Meaning you know nothing about macro. At the same DoF (and macro is DoF-limited), m43 will give you the same (actually better) quality as FF or anything else, and twice the magnification of FF with 1:1 lenses (like Oly 60mm). Only ignoramuses use FF for macro today.
No, you have been fooled. Or are you trying to sell junk? Only fools use m43 for anything at all… Yeah you have been fooled then.
So, it is ignorance then. Not a single argument.
Here is an argument: you have been fooled. There is no argumenting with the argumentless.
Where is my god damn A99 II
A9 E-mount it is
Nope.
That’d be about £800 for the macro… A bit steep, but I’ll almost certainly end up buying one if it delivers on all fronts (ie also as a general purpose short tele).
Nothing but high hopes here! Sony’s only technical hurdle with making that possible is AF, which seems to be at the top of their priorities.
Agreed, today it’s probably a smarter buy than a fast 85.
Is f/2.8 macro for those who need a portrait lens? Their aps-c macro is f/3.5 only… Strange
Yes, this’ll make for a nice portrait lens too.
28mm F2.0 hmm nobody wants that! Should be even wider. 21mm would have been better
Yes, a neat 42mm f/4 equiv for your m43’s XD I know your game!!!
But wait..What Is This?
‘Macro confirmed only, may not focus infinity with some lenses.’
XD
If it had been 35 etc etc most people would have said its not differential and want 28mm i can only assume saying requirements are for wider than 28mm first is some kind of trolling or seeing FL from crop equiv lengths and apertures…
28mm f/2 is fantastic..no pressure Sony…
If you shoot landscapes you’ll soon find in certain situations 28mm is not wide enough. It’s a good focal length I agree and yes I can zoom with my feet, but for a lot of architectural shots 24mm and under would be preferable!
Landscapes? no, use longer lens for more context with naturally correct perspective not wider…just don’t push it beyond or further back for same framing such that it falls out of that point of most perceptible dimensionality which is already on the way to being lost as you moved from the ideal 42mm to incorporate more context without unnatural perspective being incurred.
Architectural? Perspective distortion? tilt shift? definitely use whatever back stepping space you have or shoot between other buildings to get what you want in the shot exploiting the narrower angle of view also, again not wide angle unless you are inside with back to wall otherwise.
If possible shoot from the same level as the mid point of the building parallel above the ground and in line with horizon to minimize unnatural perspective, perhaps you can do this from an unexpected vantage point such as a window in a building on the other side of the street which you can garner access to for the purpose. Another neat trick is to shoot along the front or facade of the building instead of at its face from a balcony half way up on it for instance, this way you see an interesting vantage while partly engaging the viewer inside it.
This is all part of the natural perspective component in ‘my way of photography’ and thus trademarked 🙂 i will however be accepting contributions towards any interesting mainly Zeiss and Leica and All Sony lenses to test, thank you for your interest XD Your small contributions will help my business thrive and for me to keep getting those ultimate shots in my own work with clients! thanks again XD I guess its just too good not to share my own thoughts on the matters and practice of photographic expression and trolls irritating for me to not do so XD
Just buy “photography for dummies” and give it a good reading.
JUST watch this and consider what art actually means to you.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvUapYCZeSA
Architecture, yes, but when it comes to landscapes it’s actually very difficult to shoot effectively with a lens wider than 28mm, as you end up with a lot of foreground and a lot of sky (unless you crop to a much wider aspect ratio).
It’s 21mm with adapter.
Additional cost though! Hopefully it will make the lens even sharper like the UWA did on the 16mm. Still haven’t got a below 18mm equivalent prime lens on FE-Mount 🙁
14mm f2.8. Additional cost yes, but how much does the average 21mm f2 cost? They aren’t cheap. certainly having 16FE/21/28mm f2 with these additional cost adapters is a lot cheaper than buying each of those lenses.
A-mount is dead.
I understand that a 90mm might be difficult to shrink for a camera with shorter flange distance, but I am still surprised that the 35f1.4 will be THAT large. I would have hoped that at least at this focal length, the shorter flange distance pay off in some way, or at least wouldn’t require larger lenses.
The sizes of the lenses make it more and more attractive to get a LA-EA4 plus Sigma 35f1.4 and 105f2.8 Macro. The overall size in your bag might not be much larger than SEL35F14 + SEL90F28. (Since OSS seems not to be necessary for anything beyond A7II.)
Agree, here FF shows its disadvantages if compared to e.g. an m.zuiko 1.8 17mm (35mm equiv.). I do not want to start a sensor size battle here. My only doubt is, if such a large lens does not contradict the small-mirrorless-paradigm. I’d buy an EF 35mm 2.0 Zeiss with autofocus, but neither the 2.8 nor the 1.4 version of these 35′ would make it into my bag. Let’s wait an see, if perhaps a third party comes with a decent all round small focal length for the Sony A7 system. An f2.0 lens should do when considering the crazy ISO capabilities we have today. Today, f1.4 lenses are specialty lenses without obvious need.
The current 35mm f2.8 is equivalent to a 17mm f1.4… People are weird, very ‘stats’ driven.
No not weird, f1.8 is still f1.8 in m43 in terms of light gathering but about f2.8 in DOF in 35’terms. But that was not the issue… Just step a bit closer if you want shallower DOF with m43 and you will get it.
If that’s what you want to believe…
Just use your imagination if you want shallower DOF with 43 and you will get it. 🙂
the FF DOF of 35mm f1.4 at 1m distance equals the m43 DOF of 17mm f1.8 at about 0.62m distance, according to DOF master
And the angle is completely different. Also don’t confuse DoF with bokeh or roll off or blur.
And that would be f3.6 actually.
f3.6 is correct actually
It’s not FF or one quarter FF, it is this dumb mount, which is too narrow and too close to the sensor. This design error will haunt Sony until they drop the camera hype and decide to stick to sensors.
And it’s too narrow for IBIS.
IBIS is for noobs. Olympus brought it out to counter their awful high iso performance. And “moron” is not English.
There are no disadvantages to larger sensor, not even size. That’s all there is to it.
The web is infested by marketing trolls who are paid to make you believe otherwise, but this is rather simple physics. Try things yourself before you trust others, who might be shills (including me, who knows?)
Well, actually size of the lenses is an disadvantage. Sometimes a huge one, sometimes very minor, depends on case-by-case basis. If you use TTL optical viewfinder than you also want to have it larger – making it another potential disadvantage. But other than that – larger sensors are superior in pretty much every possible way.
Only problem is that in mirrorless cameras size is one of the major principles – which is why m4/3 is so popular there while it completely died out in DSLR market where size isn’t that much of a concern.
35f1.4
The trouble is, the E mount was not designed for full frame. Now they are paying for this wrong design, which no doubt came from the usual noob execs.
n00b, how many lenses have you designed? or…. have you ever opened an optics textbook?
You’ve designed 0.0 lenses, stop pretending that you know what you’re talking about.
Very true. But remember, everything is possible in the realm of the web, and asinine web “experts” who, no doubt, will tell you off.
All (new) 35/1.4 are about the same size. Just look at the Sigma 35/1.4.
If Zeiss is going to make a 35mm Otus, it’s going to be twice as big 🙂
Agree to an extent, plus the Sigma 105mm macro has OS. But despite being a big user of LA-EA4 adapted lenses, I would prefer the natives. Saying that, should be able to get the 35 + macro + adapter for less than the 35mm native lens on its own.
is sony using gold parts for the lenses or just the EU prices are always like that ? cuz for that money i’ll get MORE from Canon..
coz it’s a SONY. You pay for the name.
and with Canon i’m paying for QUALITY AND *name* but still… less 🙂
ok… i remember:
i’m sorry, it’s a sony. and their moto: let’s kill our market share 🙂
Sony is simply a cooler brand.
yeah, right! and I’m the Queen of England? cool 🙂
European prices really too high! Do not buy anymore at Sony Store, but just were I can get a product for a fair price. If I cannot find reasonable price with time, I just do not buy.
You ever bought anything at Sony Store?! LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
While others are not, I’m excited about the 28mm f/2 with wide converter. Great for glidecam / gimbal setups. The 16-35mm is too large, and the 35mm f/2.8 will work but a tad too narrow.
Why is the 35mm 1.4 so HUGE???? Looks as large as the 24-240.
I use a zeiss 28mm m mount on my A7s….great for video and compactness. (if compactness is a word)
Because it’s 1.4, for FF and have OSS.
Nah. “Zeiss” 24/1.8 is huge through it’s not FF and not f/1.8
Sony doesn’t want to make small lenses
It’s also a Sonnar design, I don’t think it can be made smaller.
Sonnar design was developed by Ludwig Bertele for normals and telephotos. SEL24F18 has nothing to do with Sonnar except Sony paid to be able to use “Sonnar” trademark.
Nothing to do? Zeiss begs to differ : http://www.zeiss.fr/camera-lenses/fr_fr/camera_lenses/csc/sonnarte1824za.html
the text you refer to has word “Sonnar” but it’s a trademark, not a design
If you are referring to the 35/1.4 I believe it is a Distagon.
Sorry, I was referring to the SEL24 @dmitry_anisimov:disqus spoke about.
Yes, the 10-18, the 16-50 PZ, the 16, the 20, the 30, the 35… they are all huge!
It doesn’t have OSS.
No OSS on the 35mm.
They’re all a similar size, they have all to project at least a 36mm imaging circle. Optical physics is what it is. The only way to shrink these things is with something like diffractive optics, but then you loose a little in the resolution dept. Wides are pretty much cutting edge in optical design (read: toughest to design).
What you are stating makes sense, but it seems substantially larger than the amazing sigma 35 1.4. or the canon 35L 1.4. Those are the two I’m most familiar with, before taking this somewhat frustrating leap of faith towards Sony E mount.
I used the 35L for many years, stunning lens, but cannot speak to the Sigma. People are looking for slight increases in performance with each generation of glass, look at Canon and their 24-70/2.8, the new version is an 82mm front filter, its quite a bit larger than the old 77mm 24-70.
Maybe for Sony to step-up their FE 1.4/35 to the next level the size increase was warranted? We will see. BTW, the above poster (Leica guy) is clueless, Leica M digital is all smoke & mirrors, they use off-set pixels and seriously cooked/corrected RAW’s to “try” to compensate for their analogue-era glass.
The imaging circle has little impact on the lens size.
Really, go tell that to MR OTUS……. LOL
Go tell that to the Leica M engineers,,, Sigh.
Yeah, (without secret-sauce corrections to the RAW file) M glass tends to look crap on a digital sensor. Sigh………
Yes to the 28/2.
35 Zeiss is EXPENSIVE! Then again, you have to pay if you want that speed and the Zeiss label on the side. I still contend however, this lens belongs in A mount!
who cares about a-mount?
My bank account, cause I have all these A mount lenses hanging around.
so they’re not working anymore now that E-mount exists?
They work, but I’m cheap so I refuse to buy an overpriced adapter.
http://store.sony.com/35mm-f1.4-g-prime-lens-zid27-SAL35F14G/cat-27-catid-All-Full-Frame-A-Mount-Lenses SHHHHH let the emount people have our day!
Earth to Sony/Zeiss…an 85 1.4 or 1.8 or 1.2 is what so many of us are waiting for. I know 90 macro will be nice but 35 (think they’ve covered that one), 50 (need a macro of this) and 85 are the A B C’s of prime lenses. Get it done Sony/Zeiss!
Noone going to say it? ok
Uber fast 85mm is great for one particular look that outside of pictorial rendering of such as the helios 85mm 1.5 and careful model or human miniature like looking 3/4 angle views and diarama’s JUST look uncanny valley with squashed perspective while exhibiting a lot of otherwise realistic shallow depth of field vision simulation! Ugh
1. the good..
http://www.bobatkins.com/photography/reviews/Helios_40-2/swirl3s.jpg
2. the bad..
http://www.lenstheory.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/Canon-85mm-1.2-Sample-Image-by-Al-Gawlik-photography-10.jpg
3. the ugly… anyway, you get the idea regards it ‘special’ useage
Try a reflector under the chin for cases like “the good”. Sensor and tech specs are irrelevant in comparish.
considering focal lengths though…the best example of lighting? a photo taken purely with the actual natural light and no tricks whatsoever, just like a sunset in all its authentic beauty, not squashed into a silhouette and post processed to ‘perfection’.
With the ‘ideal’ sensor and digital imaging system and image display there would no longer even be need for lighting as the dynamic range would suffice such that it would be your subject selection and framing alone that would matter. For theatrical form of dramatic purpose of course lighting will always be relevant but expressive and not ‘correct’.
Are these you images that you post here?
No they are not. I look them up for purpose which also adds an element of objectivity to the exercise as this is what someone finding out about focal lengths can do. I do in fact however own that lens in the modern incarnation and like it 🙂
Yeah, we all have the 85. Post some of your stuff, I’d love to see it. Nothing worse than some dudes words BUT using some other dudes photography examples. It adds ZERO credibility to the author your way.
Which author? the photographer of that photo? or my credibility? Is it bad form to post such an image here?
If you p***** me off troll i will just mix in lies to make you choose wrong equip that only you wont be able to recognize while feigning photographic mastery and being on same level of understanding, Afterall, that nikon D810 surely looks better every day right? You and the other owl people should JUST bug off! If you don’t need a Sony camera, why talk about them every day huh?
‘This luminous CA is fashionable! Luminosity and high contrast wide open is for users of M cameras XD’
It is bad form if you don’t quote the author. It makes you look dumb too, because you are trying to make some argument based on other people’s work. It’s much better to openly say you are a beginner, and ask for advice. Most people here are beginners, too.
Ok but a lot if not all are ironically amateurs shots and not selling their works or such and have them publicly on display in flickr etc. I will add names though i was just making my green tea when i got your interruptions…I also have to open alot of windows to inform on the things i am stating with those as mere illustrations of said objective point, cant you do it? you are surely great at that kind of thing and that way you can put your amazing ability to supposedly retro engineer my superiority of photographic practice into your own to use for the betterment of all.
P.S. you cant ironically, that’s why you are still sobbing under your cover of anonymity and made up names to fit the lurid imagination that got away from you altogether.
That part possibly creates counterchange with the bottom left, but hey, when we look at old carts on antiquated photos we don’t go.. omg with no turbo?!!!
OK I am going to help you.
1) I would start with an English course.
2) Then you can buy a couple of photo books. Get something simple to understand the basics and then a lot of books about composition, graphical language, lighting…
3) Buy a camera with good usability and reliable, with one prime around 50mm. Only Nikon or Canon, the rest is junk and you will regret it later.
4) Go out and shoot for at least a year, better two or three.
5) Ignore gear forums, they are only there to make you buy junk you don’t need.
6) Ignore forums altogether, go out and shoot.
Done 4 and i learn from handling the lenses and camera and working out how i can best shoot with them. I then do the..well the stuff you cannot comprehend unfortunately.
What a shame I cannot “comprehend” that…
Novel approach to photography mastery isnt it 🙂
Also this girl would look better with a reflector, or a brolly, or a softbox. PP tricks won’t do I am afraid. Plus, why always focus in the middle? It’s boring.
If you want to stretch legs and not forehead instead..sure its boring…you want to survey the bad rendering and poorly rendered out of focus areas and fashionable CA and lack of decisive luminosity with no realistic dimensionality and ignore framing completely yeah…why not? in fact, doesn’t the mere average procanikon equip give you that sort of a perfected system anyway?
Just crop off that piece of junk on the right, it means nothing and don’t tell me it’s art.
But they are not your pics, so why do you care anyway? Are you telling us your pics are even worse? 🙂 And no, CaNikon are more advanced than that, but your problem is not equipment it seems.
My photographic image making is limited only by my ongoing photography theory, which as you may have noticed is in fine form after just a few years already…
You sound like chap from local Indian establishment…….
Sound? can you read people, just from nuance, from assurance, from lack of judgmentalism..visually? troll on, next…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pO40TcKa_5U
i answered this and post was lost. sorry
Into the future my images will surely be some of the most advanced nevermind camera system, i thank Sony for the A7R and want a Medium Format interchangeable in future 🙂 I speak on the matter of photography in part out of thanks to Sony for making this gear and in support of the systems future with me part of it.
Really, I am trying to help, keep the good money…
Would you say i know anything about or understand shooting with a 35mm sensor camera such as my A7R?
(Before, i shot with Pentax K01 and m42 lenses, a few K mount and converted contax etc)
Yep. Sorry.
No i don’t, having carefully acquired lenses in various focal lengths, i have shot only four times with 35mm camera to test the 55mm 1.8, a tele and the widest angle. Otherwise i have been busy with web related developments for same end, and of course the theory which has well blossomed hasn’t it…? Im a natural photographer and dream about it every night in one way or another, testing my objectivity on what really matters to it as i wish and of course, i have aquired skills related by pursuing cross media art fervently my entire adult life. If photography isn’t enjoyable it doesn’t exist, you don’t understand that, bad for you, however knowing that principle and that i want to be the best i can expressing myself in THIS art of PHOTOGRAPHY, objectively and confidently, know also i want to move to somewhere with the subject i am most interested, nay only interested in, final irony and enduring one is that many people might like to shoot where i am situated, i don’t. Why? simple answer in two simple parts for you to fully comprehend, No expanse of trees and woods, and not many people to shoot at all. Thank you and i require funds as i am on tight budget building a Roman empire styled plan around my pursuit of photography, for purpose, and that is another matter i am not obliged to relate however you wish to skew the objective facts of the matter as i already have presented them as factual. And yeah, i can shoot…i have arms, i have legs, i can walk and some cant..can you walk? is this some kind of strange ‘catharsis for you to doubt the obvious vigour and objectivity of someone without a shadow of doubt themselves about it?’ how about you go walk and think about why anyone even does photography in the first place. You will see the photography once i have built the whole(one or two years as their is no pressure whatsoever on what is subject to other constraints etc unless you wish to fund the whole enterprise JUST to see it happen sooner.) otherwise no. And i still want and require the Medium Format Interchangeable in 3 or so years…so that’s what matters now: development of that superior system for photographers such as myself to overturn the whole ‘pro’ game completely. The matter of lights etc, is open, and i think one of the best things about Sony A7R is its so compact that you could carry more portraiting gear for instance onto location, but i still want medium format as that is best. I don’t have to make that any more objective do i, Medium format is JUST superior…
He’s taking the piss, well, I hope he is. LOL
Number one isn’t from an 85mm, its a software creation. Just sayin’
You got that indication from the review it is from? ignore the review- its similar to others that are also basing the quality and price on an absurd measure a kin to saying ‘oooh that’s expensive, i remember when donuts were a penny a pound! real apples in them donuts then…real apples…’
For full disclosure, i have one other vintage and in this case very inexpensive 85mm which is f/1.8 🙂 (and flares i believe, but one in 10-20 vintage lenses will surely anyway regardless the quality otherwise- the helios is in fact great, just heavy and feels naturally weatherproofed for some reason when you are lens picking 😀 the rendering is lovely stopped down a little and that’s where i might use it)
Its horrible. Post the link.
What is?
Your first example. Pointless having a creamy blrry back-ground if your main subject looks that crap. LINK to article?
that’s not creamy blurry, its intentionally expressive by picking up on highlights in background, i don’t personally shoot that way, though the brushstroke effect would still be there with more average tones which wouldn’t have explicit circles on them once merged together in beautiful filmic colours as you say creamily. Subject is irrelevant to these matters…
Where do you come up with this stuff……
Again, she looks BAD, looks like she’s taking a crap. Who cares about the cobbles. I’m sitting here, head tipped wondering what you’re trying to do FFS. Very pretty girl, she deserves better than an exercise in whatever it is you’re trying to do there?
BTW. Nothing to do with trolling, but you tent to pap-on about crap that’s irrelevant to anything artistic or photogenic. Why?
Here we go again. Another “I don’t want/need something so therefore it isn’t wanted/needed by anyone!!!” post.
Some, not all, portrait photographers like the eyes sharp, and the ears soft. Often these portraits are shot against white, grey, etc seamless — so there is NO Bokeh.
Sort of like poor mans medium format huh? XD
Or…not quite hipster enough and too tight, despite fetishistically manicured beard, for medium format analog film camera and all it might ‘actually’ entail XD
55 is the new 85 🙂
In case anyone cares. I just got an email from B&H. They are clearing out the Nex7 Kits for $598. I paid like $1600 for mine 🙁
That’s pretty good, still sell for quite a bit s/h.
Waiting for the A77II to drop to that “steal it” price.
No thanks, I already snatched my Panasonic LX100 m43 which obliterates in 4K quality my Sony RX100M3 1″ 🙂 And that’s even 900$ for 4K, and not 1K$ for 4K as Sony offers. So, as I said earlier, Bye-bye Sony, Panasonic’s the new 4K King on the Block 🙂
M43….. I just threw up in my mouth a little. I guess you hate bokeh.
It isn’t even m43’s, it is cropped m43’s.
I don’t get it.
M43 is fine BUT ONLY north of 50mm, and that’s the issue most M43’s people are obvious too.
Ho-Hum, SSDD!
Wow so it is $$$’s to 4K ratio that is important… Got it. So the X1000 (or whatever) actioncam today at $500 must be WAY awesomer than the LX100 at $900 then?
even cropped m43 is still bigger than RX100M3 1″ 🙂 And ActionCam is no awesomer because it has smaller sensor and is still 4K @30p, not 60p. If LX100 had 4K @60p that would be awesomer 🙂
You definitely don’t own the rx100, so what is your point here?
Fucc the sony 90 2.8 oss is bigger and larger and probably heavier than the nikon 105 2.8 vr despite shorter FL 15mm less……
Bummer, Bummer, Bummer….
WHY ?? Could anyone explain this to me???
WHY ??
Because Sony is trying to make an accidental temporarily successfad fad seem like an intentionally directed long term professional strategy.
**//\**Sony E mount Camera Tech**//\**
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUXe-UjQRQA
Because it will be a much better lens? You guys amuse me. Give me super IQ, a small lens and keep it cheap. ROTFLMFAO.
I wil probably but a Leica R lens in that range as best bang for the $.
As if Nikon 105 VR would leave any space for creating a “much better” product. lol
Now this is funny. Hey, Ken Rockwell likes it a lot. 😉
You probably need to get some experience of other lenses. You will be surprised.
Such as?
Any Leica lens at all. A lot of Ziess is golden …
Before I went digital I had Schneider Apo Symmars, among other lenses and I thought they were stellar. Then I bought a 60s Leica Elmar 135 4 and I fell in love. If I have a choice I will buy Leica lenses, but I am a poor person, took almost a year to get my a7R.
Leica m mount/m39(more so as older?) commonly have a lot of blades as they never had auto aperture to mess them up.
You guys and your bokeh. I don’t usually have any to speak of. The shot above is an aberration, lovingly crafted, as I left the area. 😉
I was seeing what the sun would do as many of my shots of the mountains have sun in them and do amazingly well with the Elmar.
Some Leica lenses flare a lot. For example, the famous APO Macro 100/2.8 is a very elegant lens but useless in backlight. I have several Zeisses and they are superb, and very flare resistant. The 100/2 has too much colour fringing though. Above 135 mm, there is only Canon for me. I have tried many lenses and some Nikons and Canons are simply first rate. Anyway, good light and good focus control will help your photography way more than lens details.
Elmar 135 4 right into the sun, well it’s just outside the frame. A Fuji X-E1:
http://carnagepro.com/photo/EX1/gravelsuns.jpg
It’s hard to say if all those false colours are your post processing or lens flare, or even sensor artifacts (I hope not). If they are flare, they might help this particular picture (if you like it this way, I do) but will ruin others. You may find it easier to add flare in post, if you really want it; I’ve never felt like I needed more flare, but some like the creative effect.
Right out of the camera. Almost won a geek contest at lens rentals.
The sun is almost in the frame.
OK then it’s lens flare, but it does a cool psychedelic job here.
Indeed, but I had to do stupid stuff, right into the sun, to make it show.
Yes and how are the Leica R in this respect? i haven’t got any…
The APO Macro 100/2.8 flares a lot. I tried a couple more and they flared, too, but I don’t remember which ones. I think one was a 50 mm. Other models may flare very little, you need to try.
I generally avoid flare as i really dislike it, but it is inevitable sadly even in some otherwise fantastic lenses…some lenses that from all the reviews etc might be considered to flare…JUST don’t however.. 🙂
“90mm f/2.8 G macro should cost 999 Euro”!!! Holy cow! The 100mm f/2.8 is around $450 slightly used on eBay.
And? Wow a legacy Macro is only $100 from $1973… MUST be overpriced!
What makes you think the SAL100M28 is “legacy”? 🙂 It’s nice and sharp current gen A-mount macro lens, I’ve used it for a while until got the Sigma 180mm f/2.8 APO. Letter “G” does not add any extra value IMO.
Because you are comparing a used SAL that is a near 30 year old design to a completely new lens on price, which is silly that’s why. If the SAL suits your needs (it is after all a fine lens) then that’s fine. But suggesting this G lens is somehow overpriced because of it is just wrong. Do you think Sony should be pricing their lenses like used lenses? What is the RRP on the SAL?
Are you always paying MSRP? I hope you don’t mind if I find you cheaper 🙂 http://www.ebay.com/itm/New-SONY-SAL100M28-100mm-F2-8-Macro-Lens-From-JP-/181285951316?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item2a357c1754
If you need a lens to do a job, does it matter if it’s new or used, if it looks and works great?
Why do you think the 90mm is a “new design”?
You miss the point entirely. Yes if you buy used you save money, who’d have thunk it?
Well because Sony have never sold a 90mm Macro before? They have also never sold a CDAF optimised FF Macro before. They have also never sold a stabilised Macro before. So yeah, I would say it’s a new design when all of those things require a different optical design, let alone all three.
All things you’ve mentioned do not affect the optical design. The are part of the lens, but have nothing to do with the optical performance.
Of course they do… This is just getting pointless now. Do you really think a 90mm OSS CDAF lens is going to be the same as a 100mm PDAF screw drive lens? Just believe what you want to believe, your Macro is great so you don’t even need to be comparing, go and shoot with it instead. Fool.
You can’t distinguish between optics and mechanics. Where did you see I said those lenses have the same optical design? I’ve said the 90mm is not necessary “new design”. Can you read or you are still in the kindergarten? The 90mm Sony is not the only 90mm macro on the market. You’re arguing about things you have no idea about. Who cares about AF in a macro lens? Amateur dumba$$. My macro is the Sigma 180mm APO. It is great indeed.
Goodie more personal attacks from childish internet folk, another day and all that.
So now you think this lens is designed by someone else, someone else who has designed an OSS CDAF optimised lens? Feel free to point that someone out? Optical design is linked to the limitations of mechanics, after all it has to move those elements around… Or are you really that thick that you think they are all just the same? That they just magically make it work? Ret@rd out.
ORLY? How many lens have you personally designed? Your statements belong to the 3rd grade. Optical design is OPTICAL, and you’re so dumb you can’t understand it. You never took a macro shot in your pointless life. Dumf%ck.
Bahahahahaha! You take Macro photos so you are an expert on mechanical design? F%cking child. Optical design NEEDS mechanics to move it you f%cking moron!
Your ONLY argument it that there are other 90mm macros so it MUST be one of those designs.
I do take macro photos, but I never claimed myself as an expert, unlike you, ret@rded dumbf%ck from kindergarten.
Where did you see I said “must”? You proved again that you can’t even read. What argument? I just said the lens is overpriced, how hard to understand that ret@rdo?
Compared to what? You can’t even compare two simple objects, haven’t progressed passed coloured blocks in school I see.
I never claimed to be an expert, but if you actually do some reading (I know this is hard for you, just sound out the bigger words like ‘at’ and ‘the’, you can do it!) you will know that in order to have OSS you need different optical designs, same with CDAF, same with different focal lengths. If you can’t understand these simple descriptions then I can’t help you.
Compared to the Canon 100mm f/2.8 L, the Sony 100mm f/2.8, the Tamron 90mm f/2.8, etc…
Don’t tell me what I’ve already told you, that’s just stupid, but of course not surprising. I was wrong saying you belong to a kindergarten, because you actually belong to a mental facility. Just take it easy and who knows, you may even win some special olympics one day and it’ll make your mommy proud.
Does it have OSS?
Why would you need it on an A-mount lens if all A-mount cameras have IBIS? I believe the E-mounts will have IBIS going forward anyway, like the A7-II, which is superior to the A-mount IBIS.
And also works with OSS not instead of, to have the best IS possible.
Have you done any measurements to compare the 5 axis ibis alone to the ibis + oss shooting a 1:1 macro? Do you mind share results?
Considering it is not available yet, no. Considering the abilities of other IS macros vs A-Mount IBIS the difference is stark. Considering the abilities of 5-axis IBIS vs A-Mount IBIS, plus the difference between 5-axis vs hybrid 5-axis etc one can make a pretty good educated guess.
Try a non-macro E-mount OSS lens and share your results with the community.
Are you aware that adapters exist? You can shoot the 100mm with the 5-axis ibis on the E-mount platform too.
I am well aware. Are you aware that optical IS still performs better in many cases? Are you also aware that the A7 II does hybrid IS where it uses the IS for each when an OSS lens is attached as for certain types of IS OSS is still better?
What is your point in all this anyway?
I do have the A7-II and I didn’t notice any difference shooting with an OSS lens vs regular one. If you have any numbers – please post them here and we’ll talk.
You can find my point at the beginning of the conversation. Now what’s your point?
Again, wow a used lens is cheaper than a new one.
That’s all you’ve got LOL?
I’ve sent you a link to a new lens.
A 30 year old lens with less features is cheaper then. Wow! Have a look at the Canon 100mm f2.8 Macro vs Canon 100mm f2.8 IS L. I guess the L is overpriced as well?
Don’t say ‘LOL’ it makes you sound like a little girl.
I can say whatever I want even if it sounds surprising for you. The Sony 90mm f/2.8 is overpriced for a 90mm f/2.8 macro lens. Is that hard to understand? If you are so dumb to disagree – you are welcome to buy it, it will work just fine for a ret@rded person that never shot macro before.
Oh now I’m ret@rded because I’ve pointed out the idiocy of your continuing statements? That’s a good one! Go back to your poverty cave, surprised you have Internet there… government subsidies maybe? And if it makes you feel better, yes it is just a rebadge of your 30 year old lens, happy now?
You’re ret@rded because your momma born you ret@rded, that’s the only reason. You can’t do anything about it, but just accept it. You may also ask your momma why did she smoke crack being pregnant if you’re really concerned.
I have lenses you can’t even dream about. I don’t care about neither the Sony 100mm nor the 90mm, that’s for poor and stupid like you Kenny…
Hahaha I can only imagine the ‘dream’ lenses you have when $1000 is too expensive for you so you have to use a third rate lens instead.
“Because your parents born you retarded” – So whom here is retarded?
You are, your retardation has exceeded all my expectations buddy.
I didn’t say a $1000 lens is too expensive for me, I said it’s expensive for a 90mm f/2.8 lens. Read before you fart here.
How can you even begin to claim that it is overpriced before seeing/testing it? What if it is the best 90mm macro ever? What if it has the best bokeh EVER?
People originally thought the 55mm FE was overpriced but now that people realize it’s nearly identical to lenses 4x or more all of a sudden everyone shuts up. Sure it’s not the fastest 50mm ever but in all other aspects it exceeds.
Believe it or not you can shoot a macro lens for non macro subjects, I think buyer would be mighty annoyed if their lens didn’t have AF, but you can’t seem to grasp even the most basic of concepts it’s like talking to a big bag of turd.
Well, if you’re so poor and can’t afford another lens – that’s a quite possible scenario. Does the Sony 100mm have no AF?
*sigh* Did I say that? I said a native lens needs to be made for CDAF! Get it f%cking spastic?
All the lens needs to be compatible with CDAF is to have a stepping motor, imbecile. You should stop smocking your crack right now!
Bahahahahaha! Yes a stepper motor and everything is cured, you really are a genius aren’t you? I guess this is what I get for attempting to converse with such a spastic.
Dude, you confirmed so many times you don’t understand sh%t. Do you think your “bahaha” is a really good argument? Well, if you think it’s good we have nothing to talk about. Go back to your mental facility, keyboard warrior.
what about the roadmap lenses FE 24-135mm F3.5-5.6 Sony G lens – Sony FE 35mm F2.0 ??
again endless Zeiss lenses – it is clear that Sony owns Zeiss and they are profiting nicely as else Sony would be producing more Sony G glass – the Zeiss lens – lens caps have Sony labeled on them 🙂
I think in the long run when Canon and Nikon come out with a A7 competitor Sony will all of a sudden start producing lots of G glass – but might be late then –
*sigh* Do you know what G and Zeiss are used for in Sony branding?
G – stands for “Gold” and specifies Sony’s best, highest-quality, most expensive professional lenses. – yet they are less expensive than their Zeiss branded lenses – what if say Panasonic produced a full frame GHFF in 4 variations or 4 different bodies yet only 3 Panasonic lenses while Leica had produced 4 lenses –
The roadmap for FE lenses show by end of 2015 5 G lenses and 10 Zeiss lenses – I just find that odd – Sony sure can pump out the bodies like NEX3/NEX5/NEX5n/NEX5r/NEX5t/A5000/A5100/NEX6/NEX7/A6000
A7/A7r/A7s/A7 II in just few years and how many lenses for E mouth and FE mount – I look at much smaller Fuji – I look at Panasonic and Olympus so many more lenses branded by them – I just smell a plan from Sony to make extra money off the Zeiss logo – yes sure they are a bit better – but 5 lenses for the A7 FE line with 4 bodies – the E mount has been around since 2010 and not many Sony branded lenses – No 24-70mm F2.8 no 70-200 F2.8 Fuji X has those and so does Panasonic and Olympus –
Sony leads the way and makes awesome sensors and has led the way in small FF camera – anyway just find it odd giant Sony cannot produce more Sony branded lenses for the E and FE mount – while Zeiss is producing twice as many – unless they are one and the same
G lenses are for long focal lengths and Zeiss for normal and wide. They are all designed and made by Sony, it is simply branding. Sony branded Zeiss before the take over of Minolta, who used the G branding. Zeiss is not making these lenses for Sony, just like Leica is not making lenses for Panasonic. Canon use their L branding for premium lenses, Sony just have two brands for different types of lenses. G lenses are no cheaper tha Zeiss lenses in the lineup and G’s represent all the most expensive lenses in the Sony range (because big telephoto lenses are generally the most expensive).
So having x amount of Zeiss and y amount of G lenses on the roadmap simply represents roughly what ‘type’ of lenses they will be. The non-branded (other than ‘Sony’ of course) are the inexpensive lenses in the range.
So Sony is the one pumping out lenses. Zeiss themselves make two lenses, the two Loxia’s.
Also there are currently 7 FE lenses not 5 with these 4 (plus 2 adapters) coming in the next 3 months.
I agree. Sony Zeiss lenses (55/1.8 and 35/2.8) are very different animals to Zeiss for FE (the Loxias). There is a lack of more affordable FE lenses, but the 28/2 suggests Sony’s at least open to the idea.
I sure hope Sony also has an update for the Sony CX-900. I just purchased one for work and didn’t need the 4k capabilities. Not sure what they would update, I just love updates!
Still so expensive. There already was the great Loxia Biogon, now another expensive 35mm… I dont understand, professionals still use canikon gear, but Sony keeps producing only high grade pro expensive lenses for e-mount. We need some flexibility in lens prices there. Make some nice cheap 50/1.4, in quality and price range of EF 50/1.4, it doesnt have to be spectacular like FE55 Sonnar or Loxia…
Nikon is like soma, its really good, canon too, nvm the sensor, it was born to do your work for you believe me
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uVDIe9lGKg&feature=kp
Just ignore the disparaging remarks about image quality, cost and form factor…
Sony don’t even DO Alpha anymore,….
Any rumor regarding a A7s with IBIS?
The size of the 35mm f/1.4 illustrates one major reason why people pay up for Leica Ms – the offset microlenses and built-in corrections, which allow a more symmetrical lens design (that can be significantly more compact, especially for wide angles) vs telecentric designs such as the distagon.
You do realizes you can adapt any Leica lens to the A7 series, right?
This is no bigger than the canon 35mm 1.4 brah
You had to say all that JUST to say m mount 35 1.4 is smaller because of short flange distance? and still mess up how you said it!
Good point. The 55 f/1.8 and the 35 f/2.8 are gems. But you can’t say the same about all other Sony lenses released after those two. The rest are just “lenses”. But we’ll see of course. If I wanted the best bokeh ever, I would probably go with the 135mm f/2.8 STF 🙂