We had a lot of new (and expensive) FE lenses. But a short look at the Amazon Mirrorless Lens ranking (Click here) unveils how the low-cost APS-C E-mount lenses are the most sold in USA. It would certainly be nice if Sony and Sigma would in future release offer some low-cost FE lens. It’s something we really do miss on our FF lens lineup!
And what about the cameras? Well again, APS-C Sony E-mount cameras are on top of the ranking (Click here).
51 Responses
I want a 300mm 2.8 OSS or a 400mm 5.6 non OSS (or 300 / 400 2.8 non OSS for that matter) in the same quality (IQ and build / relative weight) as the 50/1.8 or even the 55-210 for E-mount APS-C 🙂
Yes a nifty 50 for FE would be nice, a set of 3 cheap lenses like they did for sam would make the FE lineup a far better thing for people who still need to develop their GAS
A 85mm 2.8 135mm 4.0 50mm 2.0
The 50mm and 16mm are two of the worst prime lenses you can buy for any camera system, yet they’re best sellers and rated 4+ stars on Amazon. It goes to show that most people don’t read reviews and don’t care about image quality.
Well, I don’t know the 16mm but the 50mm is excellent for its price. It equals a 75mm on film and works great as a portrait lens. Very sharp and nice bokeh. Is there any comparable lens for that use in the sony-e lineup? Hm? Let me tell you, there is none! But well, you, as a pro photographer probalbly already know that.
Compact, lightweight, reasonably priced f/2 FE primes would be great (like the range Canon added not so long ago with IS).
BUT, I keep on saying I don’t know why Sony is neglecting it’s APS-C lineup so badly. Clearly it sells very well and not everyone wants the size/weight FF lenses seem to demand (at least from Sony/Zeiss.
The A7000 should have come sooner, and they should keep developing a nice set of primes and zooms for that to compete with Fuji/Oly/Pana.
I want Sony to make a f2.8 or even f2.8-4 zoom for APS-S, something like 16-70 f2.8-4 or 18-55 f2.8
If it would be much cheaper in high quality? Sure, I agree.
I’d like to see a high quality 16-70/4 on day.
The analysis is definitely intersting, but in my opinion the high sells APS-C lenses+cameras first and foremost show that a lot of consumers want/need APS-C stuff, not FE.
The fact that the lenses are cheap is a matter of non-existing alternatives or no reason to buy something more expensive (e.g. FE lenses).
What about a good APS-C fixed wideangle, a faster or cheaper, non pz, APS-C zoom alternative?
People certainly buy into the Sony APS-C system because there’s a big hype about their FF system. People then get recommendations and look at their budget and end up with an smaller APS-C version. So, when Sony invests and markets FF, it also helps APS-C. And you can also use excellent FF on APS-C. I wouldn’t waste my money on cheap lenses, regardless of FF or APS-C. And if FF is an future option for you, you better only buy lasting FF lenses.
+1 for APS-C. The industry wants everyone to tell themselves that they might “move up to FF some day” so they’ll buy those big, heavy, expensive lenses. Sorry I’m not going to do it. At some point, the big FF hype party will end and there’ll be a ‘morning after’. Then we’ll see more practical, compact, lightweight gear with darn near the same image quality.
I want Sony … and just about everyone else … to stop making any more of these short lenses and make something above 300mm. What use is a camera system which has no native long lenses. There must be a lens for just about every number you can think of between 1 and 150 so enough of copying each other and trying to outdo each other! Give us long lenses ……or get some new A mount cameras out there.
Sony made their E-mount spec publicly available for free and don’t charge any royalty for anyone making lenses for the mount.
So instead of telling everyone else what to do, why don’t you sit down and do these yourself if it is such a good idea ?!?
You know, put your money/resources where your mouth is.
If syd has the millions of dollars to risk on R&D and tooling a factory to build lenses, then you make a very good point.
If he does not, then surely he can make a request from those who do?
Stop lying, it’s not publicly available, only for companies Sony considers worthy and only under NDA — the exact opposite of “public”
Wow, that’s a nasty little b.itch comment!
So you are accusing me of lying, but the fact is the mount specification IS available to the public! Yes, Sony require you to sign an NDA and this is their right, but they provided a public procedure to gain access to the documentation. It is not like Canon/Nikon/etc that only negotiate with select companies if and when they decide, Sony provided the procedure for any company or person to get acces to the documentation if they fulfil a certain number of conditions and they do not require royalty for using on top of this.
Signing NDA is only one of neccessary conditions, which Sony doesn’t disclose. Obviously it’s very difficult for small companies to get approved by Sony, so de facto is not different from CaNikon. Fuji didn’t “open” their specs but there are Zeiss Touits for them.
And it’s obviously your right to deny you being a liar.
Lenses over 300mm will exploit how bad the Autofocus is on the a7 Series of Mirrorless Cameras.
Well there is Rokinon 300/6.3. A77II is only year old.
Oly/Pana are no real competition to A6000. I have/had a OMD Em 10 and a Pen EPM2 with all the nice Oly Pro lenses. But beginning with ISO 1600 I had my problems with the results. Yes I can remove a lot of noise with LR, but I just don’t want to do it every time.
I then bought a A5100 for video and took some shots with it. Even ISO 6400 looks quite usable. So I sold my pro Oly Pro lenses and got for FE35 and FE55, right now only on A5100, but in the future on some A7 model.
The Oly Pro lenses have superb built quality, maybe even better than the L Lenses I had before (especially the manuall focus tilt ring), but the cameras just don’t deliver at high ISO.
Only thing missing is some serious E Mount tele lens with at least 300 mm.
I don’t have the pro lenses, but I did have the 75mm 1.8 and still have the 25 and 45 1.8. I use an EP5. All those cameras are pretty much identical in image quality. I’ve done enough comparisons to say that I can’t tell to much of a difference- but I don’t shoot above 800 ISO for 90 percent of what I do. The olympus is way more enjoyable than any Sony mirror less camera I’ve played around with. 16 and 24 are hardly worth talking about in differences (RAW)…but in fine JPEG on both- yeah, Sony retains more detail- it’s noticeable.
I wish Sony would make an RX1 style APSC E model. You know, really nice build, put in the dang touch screen. Most of the cameras feel cheap. As far as IQ- I must be blind and I’m willing to admit it. I really struggle to see any meaningful difference between all these formats if you’ve got good glass on the front.
The reason I stopped investing in M43 is I’m content with what I have. Also, investing in FE means I can hopefully squeeze more down the line out of the glass rather than being indefinitely stuck at 16MP. At 36 you do start to see a difference. Of course, I like Zeiss glass a bit more than Zuiko- but it’s all a matter of preference. One other thing and I’ll stop rambling- the technology you do get in Olympus package is fantastic (i.e. 40-150mm 2.8 PRO- worlds first with two focusing motors)..panasonics new focusing system, etc. You may not get “ultimate IQ” but they certainly know how to squeeze every last ounce of performance out of their format. I certainly get more keepers.
I agree. The OMD is far superior in look&feel. It is a real camera, while the A5100 is more like an electronic gadget. but the results are very diffferent. At least above ISO 1600. I had so wished for a Oly APS-C or full format cam. But this is highly unlikely…
It’s hard to believe claim that difference between a5100 and omd is more than two stops. dxomark gives it less than one stop, i.e. less than expected due to difference in sensor area between sensors.
Noise doesn’t show up in same form on all cameras. Nonetheless I don’t say, that A5100 with ISO 6400 has less noise than OMD with ISO 1600. I think one stop might be realistic. Nonetheless I don’t like the fact, that Oly has already a lot of noise with 1600. This is an ISO value I use quite frequently.
Off course there is noise with the Sony at 6400, but this is to expected and the images are still looking good in 100%. Can’t say that from OMD.
the sal50f18 must be 1/3rd that price xD
Why? Unlike cheaper Canon 50/1.8, it has more lenses, aspherics and OIS. It’s quite cheap for Sony lens (unlike 16 or 20)
Cheap stuff will always sell. The shocking fact that the EOS M (not M2 or M3) was the best selling mirrorless camera in Sweden 2014 says a lot. Canon dumped the price with kit lens so hard that a lot of buyers took the bait (appr $250). People seemed not to care that the APS-C alternatives from Sony and Fuji beat the EOS M to a pulp in sheer performance and features. Amateurs often want something that corresponds to their often tightly set budget. Enthusiasts and pros are still sceptical and reluctant to take the plunge and pay for the premium mirrorless cameras. But the few of us who do are having lots of fun though. 🙂
Canon’s brand reputation helps too. They’ve been managing to sell the same old recycled crud in the low end for year on year off the back of it. That’s clearly extending to the mirrorless market too.
Agreed w.r.t 16mm. But the 50mm?? Worst?? It is an amazing lens. Very sharp and very nice Bokeh. It is slow focussing though.
OK the 50mm is not the worst, but you would expect better performance across the frame at wide apertures for a 50mm lens on APS-C
Sony should pay some attention to the APS-C. I get that A7 is enjoying enormous popularity but A6000 like camera is probably selling lots more (may be at more modest margin)
Anyway today’s a6000 shooters may upgrade to A7 so some attention is not bad. New camera body, couple of cheap lenses. The premium full frame lenses works great on a6000 too.
50mm on APS-C is way too zoomed in for everyday use. I hope people enjoy backing up into walls.
that’s why 85mm is sold so often for FF
Used the SEL50mm on Nex7 exclusively on a trip recently & is just fine. No, excellent. Have no clue what you’re talking about.
Well, isn’t that why sigma 30 sells better?
Anyways, 50 mm good for portraits.
Sigma? f/2.8? Give me a break.
That depends on what one’s everyday use is…
I had the 50mm and I returned it for the 35mm.
less expensive will always sell. Howeve, for me after a month or two I forgot what I paid for and am only interested in performance. I just want the more expensive route and bought the 55 (Sony/zeiss) and ordered the 85 Batis. Also ordered the 7rII. This is my re entry to Sony. Will use some canon glass with the 7rII. Trying to figure out the best adapter for the canon to emount conversion. Any advice will be greatly welcomed and considered.
What struck of from the amazon mirrorless list — as a Sony user — is how few Fujinon lenses there are. I just see one. It appears that Fujifilm is not doing well in the US market.
I have a Sony A6000, and cannot get these cheap lenses, even though I want them, because few of them are stabilised. I do a lot of low-light photography, and stabilization is very important for me. I’m waiting for an A6000 successor to have IBIS, and then all these non-stablized lenses will become an option for me, whereas now they’re not.
You have no idea claiming the 50mm as bad lens. It’s very unique with the optical stabilization. People use this lens are quite happy with the results. Others just read reviews.
You obviously don’t have very high standards
I bet you have no good landscape shots. Or how did it feel standing 50 feet away from your subject for a full body shot?
In the grown up world, we recognise that other people may have different needs and preferences to us. I sincerely hope that you manage to get there one day. Good luck. 🙂
The 50 and 35mm are stabilized. It is better to get may be tripod or flash as to tam high iso
The stabilised ones you mentioned are very expensive — to me, at least. The 35mm SEL3518 is the one I’d like, but it’s really expensive.
I’m keen on the cheaper Sigma primes — and these will become very attractive once Sony produces an IBIS body.
You rather buy a new body for several hundreds of dollars instead of just a few good lenses? How’s that?
Btw: Lenses are much more important to image quality than bodies. And if you’re on a budget, get some small, light tripods. A tripod works much better in low light than IBIS/OSS. If you have human subjects in your frame, you at least need 1/50 s or fast shutter speed (even with portraits). IBIS/OSS doesn’t help you at all. If you’re shooting stills, a tripod solves your problem much better. I, for example, have a very small mini-tripod which always fits into my jacket pocket.
I’m just saying, IBIS/OSS is not that helpful as it looks on paper. I’m using IBIS since 2004 with the Minolta Dynax 7D, then with Sony A mount and now OSS with E mount. It’s nice to have but only useful in some cases (stills without people, shoot between 1/60-1/10s handhold).
For 90% of the world population smartphones for camera usage are enough. So these sony lenses are totally good for the most part of the remaining 10%.
What’s wrong with the Zeiss 16-70 f4?