A month ago Sony announced that 8 new FE lenses will be available til Spring 2016. And their roadmap hinted multiple releases in autumn but Sony skipped the chance to show them at the PhotoPlus event. Don’t know the reason for the delay but lately we saw Sony announcing stuff AFTER the big shows. Probably to get some more spotlight from the press. And Sony also recognized in a Dpreview that they have to fulfill some urgent customers demand. And maybe that’s why it’s taking a bit longer for them to announce those lenses.
But I am sure we will get some news from Sony soon. Here is what we know so far about the upcoming new FE lenses:
1) SEL2470 GM
Back in August Sony registered the new “SEL2470 GM” lens at a russian public agency (spotted by Digicameinfo). Usually such registrations do happen 2-3 months before the announcement. it’s unclear yet what that “GM” definition is for.
2) Fast F/1.4 portrait prime lens:
The German Journalist Martin Vieten had a meeting with Sony Germany. And Sony told him confirmed to him that “there will be many new fast primes” and “One of the new fast primes should be a portrait lens (around 90mm).”
3) Fast f/2.8 zooms.
Sony manager Kimio Maki told Dpreview that “our next lenses will be at the upper end of the lineup.” And “a F2.8 lineup is necessary, and brighter [primes].“.
4) Telephoto lens.
The same source who shared correct Batis and Loxia rumors also said Sony is working on the launch of at least one premium telephoto FE lens.
–
As I reported yesterday Sony has a product announcement event scheduled for end of next week. But it’s unclear yet if they will announce the A68 only or also give us un updated FE lens roadmap. I really do hope there is no delay on all those rumored fast prime, fast zoom and telephoto lenses!
169 Responses
If their current /4 zoom lenses cost about the same as SLT /2.8 lens, their new /2.8 lens will cost like a small spaceship.
Bunk of the highest level.
Sony FE 16-35/4 – $1,348.00
Sony ZA 16-35/2.8 – $2,248.00
Sony FE 24-70/4 – $1,198.00
Sony ZA 24-70/2.8 – $2,098.00
Sony FE 70-200/4 G – $1,498.00
Sony ZA 70-200/2.8 G – $2,998.00
Canikon f2.8 lenses are in a similar price range – only ZA 70-200/2.8 is extraordinary expensive. See B&H prices:
Canon EF 16-35mm f/2.8L II USM – $1.499
Nikon AF-S 17-35mm f/2.8D IF-ED – $1,951.95
Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L II USM – $1,799
Nikon AF-S 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens – $2,396.95
Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS II USM – $1,999.00
Nikon AF-S 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II Lens – $2,396.95
But from Tamron / Sigma you get f2.8 for f4 prices:
Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 DI VC USD – $1,299
Tamron SP 70-200mm f/2.8 Di VC USD – $1,499
i think most people go with the tamron or sigma 70-200 as they are equal or better in iq to the sony one :/, and much cheaper and have os on the sigma
as a a mount user its kinda sad how E mount will soon overtake A in lens choices, sony has pushed so hard on FE and done barely anything with A and crop E :/
Crop E has got 12 new lenses in the last two years, plus 10 MF lenses.
Far from it…..do a price check FE lenses are priced like f/4 zooms from Canon or Nikon. f/2.8 are much more expensive from canon or nikon or sony.
Indeed Sigma and Tamron f/2.8 lenses are similarly priced to the Sony f/4 zooms but rarely to the same standard as Nikon, Canon or Sony.
I could live with a wonderfull 90mmF2 lens for $600? 😀
Considering their wonderful 90mmF2.8 costs twice that, it seems unlikely 😉
Why?
FE 35/2.8 = $798.00
FE 28/2 = $448.00
The 90mm macro already is a sony, so it’s hard to imagine that they would undercut themselves.
The 90mm is a G lens, “G” is Sony’s “L”.
If I had and A7rII I would buy the Contax G 90mm f2.8 it seem to perform flawlessly.
I may be in the minority, but since we have a great 55mm, I’d like a Batis 40mm and an F/1 with AF from Zeiss.
From Sony: 85 1.4, 135 2.0, 24-70 & 70-200 2.8 and a super tele zoom
+1 for a 40mm lens.
It looks like you want Sony’s current a-mount lineup.
Errrmmmm…. lets call it the standard DSLR-lineup.
Let’s call it an A99ii, and I’ll take that with a side of better handling, af, battery life, and fps while we’re at it.
Some outstanding lenses for FE would be nice. 1.0/40mm or some gorgeous portrait lens like 1.2/75. They should find something Nikon and Canon lack. Like they did with the 1.8/135 for A mount – that is the lens that makes A mount worth considering.
I understand that you want AF, but give the Mitakon 50/0.95 a shot. It is an outstanding lens.
I have an old Minolta-era 58mm f1.4 with converter to E-mount. That will give me 87mm with f1.4 equivalent. Would that be acceptable as a decent and fairly bright portrait lens? (although MF, but maybe preferred, with peaking)
Using this lens on a APS-C E-mount equals a 87mm/f2.1 on FF. It is similar to Batis85/f1.8 on FF, except AF and Zeiss-quality.
=> yes it is a very decent portrait lens!
(I have an old Minolta 50/1.4 and love it for portrait on my APS-C)
So the lens would become an f2.1 equivalent rather then the f1.4 it actually is? Not sure how that works out, but then I am a novice on such calculations. I have the MC/MD Rokkor lens f1.4 58mm. Very similar to this one:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/cameralends-dev/items/images/000/003/269/original/rokker_58mm_1.4.jpg?1435317487
Love the old fast primes. Got a Pentax-K 50/1.2 and Revuenon 55/1.2 MC. Surprisingly sharp wide open with stunning bokeh.
I agree. Best part is, it does not cost a cent, yen, pence, or whatever. 🙂
Yes it is.
50mm on APS-C equals 75mm on FF (crop-factor 1.5x)
and f1.4 on APS-C equals f2.1 on FF (crop-factor 1.5x)
You always have to multiply the same crop factor to focal length AND aperture in order to have the true equivalent in terms of incoming light and depth of field.
more details in this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5zN6NVx-hY
The lens Jerry has depicted in the picture is a full frame lens, so it would be F1.4 on both APS-C and full frame.
Then it is a F1.4 58mm lens on APS-C. But it is not a 87mm F1.4 equivalent 🙂
More precisely is that it will be a 58mm F1.4 lens on both format cameras, the image will be cropped on the APS- C camera representing the different sensor size. The depth of field will also be the same.
This is true.
It only doesn’t answer the FF-equivalence outcome (different angle of view). And the FF-euqivalence was the question of Jerry.
Assuming the question was in reference to the lens he showed and all other old full frame lenses it actually does. You examples are comparing lenses designed for two different formats, apples and oranges.
sigh…
I just sold a bunch of MD’s. When I pick up the A7II I’ll probably buy the 28 again along with the 35. I love the build of those lenses. I wish they were all like that. I can handle the flare as well but that bokeh…yikes.
Agreed! Leica has the Noctilux at f0.95. Canon has the 85mm f1.2. Sony needs a lens that no one else can touch. Even though the Canon example above has many compromises and the Noctilux costs more than my first car
Since we’ve got 3 35s I don’t think 40 is possible, but a 43…maybe.
Why 85/1.4???? I would expect 85/1.2 or 85/2 given that the Batis is already 1.8 and is gorgeous coming very close to the 85/1.4 by Nikon. So options IMHO are either go 1.2 and produce something outstanding OR do make cheap fantastic lens like 85/2 or 100/2 or 105/2.5 etc.
Agreed. An 85/1.4 from Sony will have a hard time competing with the Batis, which is spectacular. Unfortunately I think they will go with 85/1.4 anyway.
A cheap 85/2 similar to the 28/2 would be a very smart move, yet again, I doubt they will do it.
I’ve sort of lost hope on Sony, and would rather just wait for new Batis and Loxia lenses.
Agree! Building a new lens line up from scratch is long story and it is difficult to wait. Sony have competing priorities and simply cannot cater for all. So most people are unhappy. I guess they just release the lenses they think will sell most.
I got the Batis 85 and few of the Sony lenses. I feel like I am done buying lenses for A7. Perhaps 135mm FE even at f/2 would be the one that will make me think about selling the current f/1.8 A mount lens and buy the new one but that is the only one I currently crave because EA4 is crap.
300/4 or 400/5.6 may be. 70-300 may be. Also if they can make very small 15/4.5 like Voigtlander with AF and aperture control. These will be things I may consider down the road.
I got worried when I saw “premium” telephoto.
As someone who was quite happy with a $150 Tamron 70-300 on various Pentax K bodies, and also happy with a Sigma 50-500, I want to see affordable “pretty good” telephotos like the Tamron/Sigma 150-600 lenses, or pretty much EVERY mount’s 70-300 options, not “premium” telephotos.
A compact 85/2, like the old ZM, could still be something…but so far Sony’s failed to come up with anything that’s notably compact for the focal length and speed. If they release a 85/2 it would be at least as fat as the 35/2.8 and much longer than the ZM, likely the Batis size, just slower…
Sony does not make Batis lenses.
Agreed but I bought Batis for my A7 and it works like any other lens. Af is a bit worse than the Sony lenses…..
I’m not speaking to performance just lens strategy. Sony’s lineup lacks an 85mm, I don’t think the fact that a competitor has a 1.4 will prevent them from releasing new one.
True, but there was an indication a few weeks ago that Zeiss and Sony do discuss release strategies with each other, so you would hope they won’t duplicate (or nearly duplicate) each other’s lenses.
A friend of me owns Canon 85mm 1.2L for his 5Dmk3.
It’s a superb lens, but very very very slow of AF actions because a ton of glass has to be moved by the tiny motors inside. And it’s heavy. A 85/1.4 (but cheaper, faster AF + ligher) would be okay for me if I need more than 1.8. (But this is just my personal preference)
Batis is Zeiss. Not Sony. I have 85mm f1.2 on Canon and I never use it at 1.2. Too narrow. Too unmanageable. I use it at f1.6/1.8 most of times.
Exactly. I’d rather have a spectacular 85mm f/1.8 than some unmanageable f/1.2.
Zeiss gets this. The 85mm Batis is incredible in the IQ and rendering department, yet manages to keep a small size and low weight. Same with the 25mm Batis. Very similar in concept to the FE 55/1.8, and this is why I bought into the system.
Does the f/1.2 work for full length shots? I use the 1.8/135 as the 1.8/85 leaves a bit more detail in the background then desirable. 70-200/2.8 I guess does great job but now we only have 70-200/4 which is vaguely similar to the 85/1.8 for full length
Depends how many meters there are behind the subject. And to shoot a full length model, you have to be far. So.. you increase your focus distance behind the model. And u have the same result with the 135mm at 1.8.
Agree. I was using the the Planar ZA85 on my A99 mostly at f1.8 to 2.5 for the same reason.
Secondly when I was shooting outdoor there were issues with bokeh fringing between 1.4 and 2 in specific high contrast areas.
I’m not a big fan of the batis bokeh. If they manage a 1.4, 1.8 or 2 with better bokeh and good sharpness in the center without too much loss in the corners I will get one.
What is your concern? f/1.8 aperture or something more substantial?
My concern is that I have the 90/2.8 with a lovely bokeh, but I like to shoot faster than 2.8. Faces looks gorgeous on the batis, but (in my eyes) not the background. So this lens is not an option to me. From f1.8 to f2.2 I prefer (a croped pic from the 55/1.8 or) my manually focussing contax zeiss 85/1.4 over the batis, even the contax isn’t made for a 42mp sensor on f1.4 to f2.2. And from f2.8 the 90/2.8 is too good that I need to look after the batis.
Holy sh** ! Been thinking I was the only one to say this. I looked all over the web for any reviews not liking the Batis 85 but couldn’t find any.
Like you, looks like a really good lens, great optic, but the most important thing, its character, is not for my taste and the bokeh plays a major part in this conclusion.
Soooo, like you, i’ll love to see a cheap 85 F/2 or something like this. At least I would be able to fully use the A7 power instead of Nikon to FE adaptors or my Tamron 90mm in A-mount 🙁
Some do like the IQ of the batis. It’s just a matter of taste. 🙂
Ok
I actually like the Batis over 55/1.8 for very similar reasons. However I would prefer the silky smooth 1.8/135 any day over any other. Actually Nikon 105/2.5 AI-s is fabulous lens.
On the other hand I’m glad that there are still a lot of holes in the lineup. I would never shoot that much with old lenses or have a look on canikon without that. my skills in manual focussing are quite impressive now. 🙂
But I’m a hobby shooter, so it’s not to on me to judge the native lineup.
Portrait fast prime? 135mm 1.4 confirmed?
ох котьо..
Well G is G, it’s a G series lens, but the M…
—————-
………Macro? Would that be possible with a modern AF lens? A 24-70/2.8 with macro??
The Canon 24-70/4 has a 0.7x macro mode, so yes.
Then it’s probably a G macro 🙂
The G macro doesn’t have GM in its name.
Still the most likely…
So there is absolutely no updated news whatsoever.
If the 2470GM is real, and will become a constant 2.8, I am in. The ZA2470 was my favorite lense on the A99 together with the Planar ZA85.
Regarding the rumored portrait prime I still doubt that they will bring it in FE. I still bet, that they’ll announce updated 85Z14 and 135Z18 with SSM for A-mount.
My second favorite would be a 70200/2.8.
The ZA’s no guarantee for the ZE’s quality though.
The indication of the ZA being my favoite lens was meant with regards to the focal length range.
Oh, but then there already is one.
Yes. An f4 with corners that won’t even become sharp at f11.
And as mentioned I am curious if the GM will be a 2.8
@admin:
is this rumor updated recently by your sources or is this still relying on a 2014’s roadmap?
I don’t think there is any new information here at all.
Note that the Sony interview was posted back in June, and the Martin Vieten blog post talking about the 90-ish portrait lens was posted in March!
Just what the world needs …..
More short lenses
More overpriced lenses
More of the same lenses
More lenses for a system who’s main claim to fame is the ability (with adapters) to use ANY lens you want! Come on guys, aren’t there enough great, and reasonably priced, lenses out there for you to use without jumping all over the place with excitement when Sony announce just more of the same old.
Loxia 85 f/2 yes! I knew it! =P
Sony does not make Loxia lenses….
No, they (fortunately) don’t. But yeah, a ZEISS Loxia 85 f2 would be great!
2/85 Loxia is a given. I bet we will see it in 2016.
I know, I am just expressing myself. Thanks anyway…
Loxia 85 f/2 coming! yes!
I am 100-400mm away from buying into Sony FE system .
This system needs only 135 2.0 now. We have all the rest.
I’d even be willing to accept a 100/2 for compactness sake.
you have 85 + 90, that is too close.
No it isn’t, lens line-up wise.
We have 85 1.8 OIS which is bigger than it have to be due to Image stabilizer and it was designed to be top performer.
90 2.8 Macro is another good choice for Macro but 2.8 only.
100 (or 105) f2 without OIS and less stellar image quality can be a cheaper, smaller and lighter option just like FE 28 f2.
I used to have canon 85 and 135L before i move to Sony and I really feel that for my use 100 can replace both as i usually feel 85 too short and 135 too long.
300-600 f4.8, 5.0 or 5.6 with 150mm barrel extender for close up/ macro mode and drop in dedicated 1.8x teleconverter. Price ..mid $3000. range.
I would buy it 🙂
I recently attended a Click Away photography conference in my hometown of San Antonio. About 95% of the attendees were women who primarily shoot various forms of family photography. I was there with my Sony A7Rii and of course I noticed the gear that other people were wearing. 99% Canon and Nikon. And, the majority of the Canon shooters had 85 1.2 and 50 1.2 lenses on their cameras. My point is, and F1 .2 Lynn’s isn’t something that is “exotic” or even “unmanageable”. This is a go to lens for people in certain market segments. And, they aren’t paying $2000 for a lens that they didn’t stop down. I don’t think there’s a snowballs chance that Sony is going to make a 1.2 lens. But, an 80 1.4 portrait lens would be an enticing piece of equipment for people wanting to make the switch to Sony. I have rented the Batis 85 mm and for my tastes, it doesn’t come close to the character of Canon’s 1.2 lenses. I rented the Canon 85 and 50 1.2 along with the metabones I’ve adaptor and was blown away at how beautiful and smooth the images are.
https://flic.kr/p/yNbZTt
https://flic.kr/p/yNbsSF
Where is the art?
Who are you? Where are you?
My name is written above. It is Joe Van Wyk and I live in San Antonio, Texas.
The answer to your question is that the art is in those two photos I posted. Because you see, photography means a lot to me and it is a form of creative expression.
So now let’s talk about you. Why would you write the comment “Where is the art?” Was it to be funny? Was it to hurt someone? Why do you feel the need to anonymously write insulting comments?
I’m sure you will just write another insulting comment. But, I sincerely hope you will look at this nature of yours to tear someone else down. Certainly you aren’t only doing it anonymously on some online forum. It doesn’t show how you feel about me, it shows how you feel about you. Please get help.
Hello I’m What?? from Wherever??,
I was asking the question because the pictures didn’t make me think.
The first is an underexposed shot of a random guy with a strange metal bar through the frame. No composition, no expression, nothing that makes me think.
The second picture shows a happy guy holding his loving dog. Nice shot but it doesn’t make me think for a second so I would not consider it art.
The single fact that the back and forground of a picture is extremely blurred does not automatically make “art” out of it. That was my only point. No pun intended.
Regards,
Whatt??
You have to admit, the bokeh looks nice.
The bokeh of the Canon may be 85 1.2 very nice, but I don’t see anything in theses two backgrounds that renders something particularly pretty.
Agreed.
So are you Whatt or What? 🙂
art is kinda personal and a reflection of yourself, unless you want to get paid for it. you just have to stop being yourself and see it from a different perspective.
You could always just buy a Batis and smear vaseline over the front filter.
This is exactly what I’m trying to avoid (appreciate you sharing though). Increasingly, I’m finding more need to stop down even for my general photography. More context!
Have you rented the Batis? Is that true?
This is my personal taste, but I think the Batis would have done a better job at the two images you posted. Really not impressed by these images.
CHEAP LENSES PLEASE CHEAP LENSES PLEASE CHEAP LENSES !!! PLEASE !!!
My experience with Sony is that cheap lenses are not worth buying. This is if sharpness matters.
The FE28, SEL50, and SAL85 were all excellent inexpensive lenses to name a few.
Ok you got me on the FE28, it is nice and I like it.
I picked up the FE28 as well. Very nice lens and friendly price. I was thinking about picking up the converters, or at least the Wide angle 21mm. Have you tried either of them?
FE28 is nice until you buy the 25mm Batis. Then the FE28 will collect dust. But for the price & compactness, the FE28 is exemplary.
My experience says the opposite.
The A-mount 35/1.8 and 85/2.8 are two of the cheapest and worst built lenses by Sony, but are also very sharp.
E-mount 50/1.8 – again, sharp.
Yeah we are gonna have to disagree. I have multiple copies of that 50/1.8 E mount so either you idea of sharp is different than mine else you have a much better copy. I don’t have the others but… I have lots of example shots..
Please can you post a couple of examples?
Cheers
Certainly, as a matter of fact I just took some after this
discussion using a A6000 on a tripod with a remote trigger and constant
lighting. I first took them with the 50 f/1.8 and then with the 55 f/1.8. all I
changed was the lens.
Let me get them up to flickr and get a link.
I agree. The 16-50mm pancake kit lens on the Alpha 6000 is a cheap lens but practical and sharp enough for most practical purposes. That is, if you don’t want to start spending $100’s of dollars for this ‘holy grail’ lens. And then, to what avail? Print a photo from two different lenses and present to someone and ask which lens took which photo. Most people will not know, and furthermore, could care less.
Then you must have very little experience.
Obviously more than you. Perhaps your eye doctor time?
Was giving you the benefit of the doubt based on inexperience, guess I was wrong. You’re just an idiot troll.
Oh I see, I disagree with your opinion and take exception to your comment that I have “very little experience” and I am a “Troll” really? I use my real name and base my comments on what I have seen and experienced so based on this I am a Troll? What does that make you? I am sorry but you need to grow up.
Yeah, you only end up wanting the good stuff. Might as well bite the bullet and empty your wallet first time around.
The 28/2 is just fine for the price. Sure, if you can afford it, the 25mm Batis is incredibly much better. But cheap lenses like the 28/2 have their place and are good enough for most.
So this I can agree with whole heartily. I guess my issue is people wanting something for nothing and the desire to have a Ferrari with a VW budget. I can understand that I would like to have this also! Then the reality sets in and I realize there is more to it than that just like with any tools. You are not going to buy a Festool compatible product at Harbor Freight for example. I have purchased many older lenses based on people saying how good they were online only to be disappointed. Then I bought the Sony 55 FE and saw what sharp really looks like. Kind of made me reevaluate what I think sharp means to me and what I want out of a lens I plan on keeping for a very long time. I think Sharpness is subjective to ones own opinion and for the most part under normal print or web usage it is not nearly as important. In the end you get what you pay for and if there happens to come along a gem in the rough, buy
it 🙂
The SAL-8528 is a good example for a plastic fantastic – making great results while being embarassingly cheap.
Very simple. Old primes with converter/adapter… done!
I do that, i have no problem with that, but for the system to be interesting to others there has to be a cheap native option
i see. Makes sense then. I would prefer something compact with AF myself, like the pancake 16-50mm lens. It’s cheap but one of my most used lenses. makes the A6000 compact, easy to carry around and decent photos too. But, does not cover low light spectrum. Lens under f2 would be nice. Bought the new Canon G5x as a side kick camera just for that purpose. Rather then invest money in a lens, figured it’d be better spent on a compact camera (competitor to Sony’s RX100 series) and have f1.8 to f2.8 in a compact form factor and giving my 24-100mm coverage. (when I want to use in low light conditions.) Alternatively I have SLR Magic’s very compact 35mm, f1.7 MF lens which works quite well too. 🙂
today’s rumors:
I really hope there isn’t another ~90mm, expensive, AF lens. If so it had better be stupidly fast,expensive, and huge. Then let’s move on to other focal lengths. A top flight 135mm lens would be great. I also think an AF (CDAF) capable STF lens would be smart. The effects should be more noticeable than the Fuji 56mm and that could further give Sony an edge in the portrait market.
EDIT: wanted to add that I think the reason the announcement is taking so long is because Sony has changed priorities. I suspect they had some half finished designs when they initially announced eight new lenses, and then user feedback cause them to change which designs would be released first. I think a lot more people are clamoring for fast Zooms then Sony expected.
Indeed. Maybe not so much change deaigns, but completely changed the roadmap (which is why it hasn’t been released either).
Those fast f1.4 portrait primes are nice, but they will be like fat pigs sitting on a little stool. I would prefer Sony to focus on compact designs such as the Minolta 100 f2. That thing is very similar in size to the FE55. Corrected for the shorter flange distance is could still be reasonably compact and light. Add an aperture ring to it and I would buy it without question.
I have a few 1.4’s but I’m over it now. 1.8 is surely enough for any situation and the size difference is pretty astonishing. Mino 100 F2 for the win!
f/1.4 only makes a difference on a ~35mm lens. Anything longer f/1.8 is more than enough. Anything shorter you won’t get bokeh anyway.
It is a pity that the current 35/1.4 is so large and heavy. The Zeiss Distagon 35/1.4 ZM shows that such lens can be made compact and light. Please bring a similar design to FE, with or without AF, I don’t care. Loxia would be the ideal platform.
Agree 100%! Give us a 100/2 please, that’s the only lens I need. All the people on here can have all the lenses they want so long as I get a 100/2.
+1 for 100/2 without OIS. Either small and light like Minolta (or FE 28 f2) ,or a bit bigger with some macro performance of 100 f2 Zeiss Planar are good for me.
I found 85 too short and 135 too long for my preference.
I think the issue is more the linear focus drive. All the FE lenses (if I’m not mistaken) are internal focusing with no helicoid which usually means the lenses need to be longer because they don’t extend. That not extending bit is important not only for speed and aesthetics but also for weight since lens motor will be moving fewer (and presumably lighter) elements/groups. Still I’d love an FE100mm f2.0 which priced similar to the FE 28mm (i.e. more but less than $1k). I don’t think that’s what Sony is going to release, or if they do I think they’ll charge more for it.
Yes, thought about that too. The Minolta 100 extends when focusing closer. The modern E-mount lenses are mechanically quite different from classic AF lenses.
24-70 F4 redone- 9 blades, better corner to corner performance. Basically, wipe that current turd off the market. 135 batis and 35mm 1.8. I’d be covered then. I’d be covered…..for now.
Admin, are you recycling the “rumors”?
do you ask this question with an expectation that she will reply with “yes?”
Anything else than the 3 missing essential basic lenses
24-70/2.8,
70-200/2.8
100-400 (!!!)
in SMALLER size than from the Canon/Nikon/A-Mount competitors is not on top of the wish list and would be a huge disappointment.
Right now the E-Mount system ends at 240mm – Canon and Nikon systems with Extender are 1600mm!!!
Right now the E-Mount system does not have a zoom faster than f4, while Sigma did show that even f2 is possible!
Who needs f2.8 zooms if they first have to do decent F4 zooms? F2.8 will be expensive ($2500) and bulky/heavy. While 24-70F4Z version 2 could be sweet spot given it will have sharp corners!
Doug is right – completing the enormous gaps in the line-up is way more important than doing relaunches of any lenses. It is intolerable that after all these years there is no native solution for ~135 with AF or something larger than 240 at all. The missing lenses make Sony currently an unusable option for animals, concerts and sports and and and.
I’ll give Sony a chance to redeem itself and get its $hit together. If I wont’ see a high IQ walkaround zoom with descent corner sharpness this time (hello mediocre 24-70Z) around – then I’ll sell my Sony stuff and jump the ship. I’m just tired waiting for descent zoom. It should have been the 1st lens actually they should have produced to begin with. I mean 80% of users buy a mid-range zoom and they want it to not be mediocre and with soft corners. How hard is it to get it Sony?!
*decent (descent is to come down from above)
The FE 24-70/4 is plenty sharp.
I just checked the date and today is not April’s Fool, so I don’t understand your comment, Mike.
This lens is said to have a huge quality variance. You can get a good or a bad copy.
In fact, and this might even be the case, Sony should complement their Zeiss 24-70/4 with a Sony G 24-70/4. The latter clinically optimized for flat test charts, with incredible corner sharpness (on flat test charts), and no character.
Those who want nice Zeiss rendering can go for the Zeiss lens, and the pixel peepers can go for the G lens.
LOL!!! I love the comp.
I don’t own this lens, but based on the multiple samples I’ve seen online, in real life, I don’t see any special “rendering”, but I see a lot of corner sharpness, even visible on screen without pixel peeping. A 24-70 at 1000$ has to be sharp at least stopped down. At certain focal lengths, this is just not the case with this lens. f/2.8 or f/4, whatever, but I think that they need to successfully refresh this fundamental lens…
Crappy rendering can be considered as special, you don’t see that often.
If only I had a 24-70 lens that is sharp in the corners, it would make all my poorly exposed and composed boring images best sellers.
All right all right, a good photographer remains a good photographer even with a poor lens, a bad photographer can buy everything he wants, his shots will remain boring, etc, etc, blah, blah. We all know that 😉 But a 24-70 with modest aperture has to be sharp stopped down, particularly if it’s the only one in the line-up… I own a 24-70 in an other system and I know what I ask to this kind of lens and why, and I assure you that I would never buy some kind of 24-70 with the performance of the FE Sony/Zeiss…
Actually, you’ve hit the nail on the head there. Well summarized!
Demand for a 24-70 2.8 is greater than a mark 2 version of the less-than-two years old FE 24-70.
135mm f/0 😉
Personally I hope they don’t make another ~90mm lens. We got the macro and the Batis, that FL is covered.
I’d like to see a 35/2AF that’s been overdue. I’m a 28~35 guy, but the current offerings leave some to be desired. The 1.4 is huge, the 2.8 is too slow for bokeh. The 28FE seems very good for the price, but not Zeiss quality.
And I hope this new 2470FE can be small enough for the A7. I’m usually a prime shooter but a compact zoom would get me interested.
“it’s unclear yet what that “GM” definition is for.”
SONY says: “G Lenses stand shoulder to shoulder with the outstanding Carl Zeiss optics.”
http://www.sony-mea.com/microsite/dslr/09/gLens/
If that SEL2470 GM is going to stand shoulder to shoulder with that 2470 F4 ZA outstanding crap that Carl Zeiss makes, don’t even bother. Shame on them! Anyway, looking at the bright side, it should be really easy to make something far better.
BTW, the M probably stands for Macro.
So, here my suggestion for the 8 new FE lenses, based on what comments I read so far:
24-70/2.8
70-200/2.8
100-400/4.5-5.6
24-105/4
135/2
85/1.4
50/1.2
And for a 8th lens I personally wish for a 24/1.4. Or a really ultrawide prime.
that last one isnt going to happen
70-400/4.5-5.6 instead of 100-400/4.5-5.6
Then why doesn’t the 90mm have ‘M’ in its model name?
It does. The model designation for it is SEL90M28G.
Ah so it does, always thought it was the SEL90F28G… My bad!
85/90 range is covered yet what we really need is another 35mm… Rigggght.
That’s why I said personally, I know most people want portrait lenses.
then 100mm, it wasn’t covered by anything between 95-105mm yet.
After FE 24–70 mm F4 ZA OSS I hope “G” stands above outstanding Carl Zeiss optics.
Once again, no mention of any wides or super wides. Shame.
Of the overall 22 FE lenses there are 7 wide primes and 5 zooms which are at least partially wide. But there are 5 primes and 3 zooms for the whole range from 70-2500mm only, only one of the primes with AF (90). So imho we need a prime as much as a pain in the ringadingdongaringdingdong, sorry, mate.
> 24-70/2.8
Whatever it is, its already made, right?
But I’d like to see longer range, like 24-85mm f2.8, or even longer.
Some of us want just one REALLY GOOD zoom lens that we
(really good IQ, even if a little heavier, a little pricier)
can put on a simultaneously purchased A7RII, otherwise we pass…
It’s obvious each of these lenses will cost at least $2000 or above. Say what you want about Canon, but at least they have both high end and inexpensive lenses with good quality. If only Sigma and Tamron can get their shit together and make FE native lenses
a 24-70 macro lens makes absolutely zero lens.
I wish there could be a 50mm f.1,4 Batis size. Dont have to be razor sharp. But a compact 50mm f.1,4