[shoplink 42118 ebay]
[/shoplink]
Image on top shows the [shoplink 42118 ebay]70-200mm f/2.8 A-mount zoom[/shoplink]. A new E-mount version could come soon.
Three different sources sent me messages during the last couple of days saying that Sony is preparing the launch of the very first f/2.8 FE zoom. I am still not 100% sure about the specs and release date but so far I have been told:
1) Current FE zooms will get “updated” to be faster (f/2.8) and also of higher optical quality
2) One of those should be the 70-200mm f/2.8 FE lens. Reminder:Sony registered a new 24-70mm FE GM lens (SAR article here).
3) Announcement is likely to happen some time AFTER the Sony A68 announcement (scheduled for November 5th).
It is also unclear if Sony will announce those lenses for real or just on an updated roadmap with a real lens release in 2016.
–
To not miss any rumor quickly subscribe our social network:
RSS feed: http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/feed/
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/sonyalpharumors
Twitter: https://twitter.com/SonyAlphaRumors
GooglePlus: https://plus.google.com/104216500156717934391/posts
And if you have some “rumor” to share just send me an anonymous messages here:
[contact-form-7 id=”14822″ title=”Share”]
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
415 Responses
They will also be updated to be bigger, according to my source.
If they release an FE 24-70mm f/2.8 Vario-Sonnar I will definitely sell my FE 24-70mm f/4 Vario-Tessar and upgrade.
It is not “Vario-Sonnar”, it is GM. Do you really care about the brand though? 24-70/4, just like 16-70/4 and 45/1.4 are all branded Zeiss, but all are pretty mediocre optically (have unsharp corners etc).
If you don’t understand the Zeiss lens design philosophy, you should just buy a DSLR and shoot Sigma. Sigma optimizes their lenses to excel on two-dimensional test charts. Exactly what pixel peepers need.
Oh I do understand it. But none of the 3 lenses I mentioned are Zeiss, they are all Sony with Zeiss branding added to swing some brand-seeking fools.
I really like my 4/24-70, it’s plenty sharp for me. Color, contrast and rendering is also very good. However, before I switched to Sony, the Canon 24-70 f/2.8 L lived on my camera, and I still find myself longing for a f/2.8 mid-range zoom every now and then. For everything else, I use fast manual focus primes.
So we shouldn’t expect any fast zoom lenses for APS-C E-mount, good to know…
Would like to see a 2x TC as well.
There might be a good reason why there are no teleconverters for E-mount yet. Look at currently available native telephoto lenses – all of them have rear element very far away from sensor. So the native teleconverter would have to be designed to allow for long distance between lens rear element and TC, but very small distance from TC to sensor. Is that optically viable? Who knows…
This is not how DSLR teleconverters are designed optically. They are typically close to rear lens element and pretty far from the sensor.
the fuji tc has a odd shape to it, the optics protude forward quite alot, i guess sony would have a tougher time as its full frame
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=fuji+1.4+tc&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAmoVChMI953B-cX0yAIVRtEUCh1eoAgm&biw=1280&bih=649&dpr=1.5
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1082049-REG/olympus_v321210bu000_mc_14_1_4x_teleconverter_for.html
both likely need special caps, while dslr tcs seem to just be fine with normal caps
Looking Sony is building an excellent system up in the E-mount arena.
I sincerely hope they make a better tripod mount. One that can be used as a handle when moving between shooting spots. There is absolutely no space for the fingers on the A-mount version. They got this right on the FE 70-200 f4 and FE 28-135 f4, so I am hopeful.
There is different problem with FE 70-200/4 on current A7 bodies though. I often just reverse the tripod foot (turn it up) when hand-holding the lens, so it’s more comfortable to hold the lens barrel. But with the current A7 bodies and grip being so close to the mount, this prevents to dismount the lens with the tripod foot locked in that position. I could, of course, just remove the tripod foot (I love the quick-release collar design on the FE 70-200/4), but then I have to worry about where I put it when in hurry 🙂
That is more like it. Although so far there is no body worthy of a 70-200/2.8.
I wonder if they are going to be the same so-so quality as their 24-70/4, 35/1.4, or real competitors to the modern Canon and Nikon pro zooms which are basically flawless. Theoretically, Sony can skip OSS now, and invest the savings in cost and weight into image quality. But in practice, it is Sony (which at least guarantees $3000+ prices).
It really depends on how the size and weight compares to FE 70-200/4 and A-mount 70-200/2.8G(SSM). If it’s about the same size as A-mount version, I am perfectly fine handholding it on the A7rII, gripped or not.
It is not just about weight (I am sure it will be the same size as competitors or even bigger for 70-200). It is about usage, which for lenses like 70-200/2.8 is mostly sporting events. Well, A7rII with 290 shots and only 5 fps and one SD card slot and fake “weather-sealing” without a single real rubber seal is totally inadequate for such intensive pro usage. I mean, something WILL give – battery will die in the totally wrong moment, or SD card will die, or camera will die or start misbehaving or dies in the rain or dust…
Forgive my curiosity, but you seem to have a low opinion of Sony’s current FE lenses, you feel that the existing bodies are fragile and limited, but are pleased with the possibility of a 70-200 f2.8.
Why?
Would your time not be better served looking into Canon’s or Nikon’s equipment?
I spend my time as I want, it is just a hobby. Relax.
Fair enough. That said, I’m often puzzled about this ‘downer’ on the FE lenses and the capabilities of the A7 series in general, especially in relation to ‘pro’ use.
I used a pair of A900 for a few years, even though most suggested they were not suitable, and had no issues. I then moved a pair of A99, subject to similar criticism, yet they never missed a beat. Wanting a much lighter load I switched again, despite the doubters, to A7S bodies and the FE lenses and found them to be ideal.
I’ve just upgraded to the A7Rii and believe that I will be fully satisfied with them too.
Ultimately, though, I haven’t had one client tell me that they weren’t happy with the sharpness (corners or otherwise), none have complained about the colours, none have raised eyebrows about lack of subject separation or dodgy bokeh or noise in the shadows, and none have sued me because my equipment failed.
So what exactly is so average about the FE lenses and A7 bodies again?
I agree that battery life is quite poor on my A7RII.
However many people are overrating the missing second SD slot.
If you are pro, you have the money to purchase high quality cards, and for one-two-three spare cards. Pro photographers not verifying the cards via software are on their own fault. Pro photographers do ONLY format cards in the camera. So losing images by a faulty card is limited to a minimum.
Many hobbyists are so clever to set dual slot mode to images on one, videos to the other card, or similar – so no additional security.
If you mirror, and the camera causes the failure, in many cases the failure is mirrored.
And so on, and on, and on, and on. As said overrated.
Weather sealing doesn’t mean you can throw the camera in a water-bucket and it survives for good.
Some years ago I shot an event with my former A900 with the 2470ZA and the HVL58 attached in a heavy raining condition. The only protection I had was a self-made reflector-rain-cover (just protecting the top of the camera) and a stripe of scotch tape around the mount. And guess what – all three, the camera, lens and flash survived without any problem, and I had several nice shots no one else made because they worried to much about their “pro”-gear.
Dirk,
Come on now. Second SD slot is not “overrated”- I agree with your points, that pros can (and do) prepare themselves with better cards that are more unlikely to fail, but it still happens. And it WILL happen to you one day and you’ll feel like an absolute idiot explaining to a client that you don’t have any backups. That is assumed. I have had a card fail and it is a nightmare. I will never photograph another wedding or commercial engagement without a backup ever again, it isn’t worth the risk of cost or reputation. For everyday or recreational shooting, sure 2 cards is overkill, but lets not for once think its not a necessary OPTION for Professional shooters. I’m assuming you use raids and other security measures on your computer for your files, should be no different at time of inception
Your former A900 and 2470ZA was built to a MUCH HIGHER standard than the current mirrorless bodies. I still have my A850 and my Zeiss has taken falls to concrete. Try doing that with an FE lens ha… So yes again I agree with your point that this equipment wasn’t rated as weatherproof and so on, but the A7 series is no comparison to A-mount full-frame concerning durability. None whatsoever. I am constantly worried about it, especially when someone hits your lens really hard and it’s attached to a fricken lens adapter, I ultimately retired the A7 and only use it recreationally.
So I do hope Sony will release some pro spec’ed e-mount bodies, mainly in the dept of bat life, card slots, but also a damn pc sync port, better balanced body, especially to mate with these 2.8 lenses. I need somewhere to go if a mount really will be discontinued and I’d prefer I can stay with Sony. http://www.frankwithersphoto.com, http://www.myparadisephoto.com
I do appreciate the need for care and the safety of having a backup but, in that respect, what did you do in film days?
Peter what I did in film days is irrelevant to what I can do NOW.
In film days I was careful as fck, simple as that. You also didn’t have to worry about your film magically melting inside the canister. Please give me a break.
It’s true the film would be unlikely to melt, but I’ve had films split, sprockets slip, come off the spool, and be destroyed by the processing lab; the unlikely failure of an SD card pales into insignificance in comparison!
All I and Dirk are saying is that we feel the risk and consequent need for a second slot is overstated.
Okay Peter, that is your preference. I don’t know if you are a working pro or not but wouldn’t you still appreciate the OPTION to have a backup? There may be that day when you are shooting the prime minister and you would really appreciate a backup. I photograph government officials and it is common practice to also give them the duplicate card on the spot and keep mine for backup. Let’s just agree to disagree about whether or not you like/need the feature, but is it so much to ask to have this option available in a $4k body?
I had an entire roll of 120 unroll in front of the client but that was largely my stupidity/butterfingers and not a weakness of the medium
In film days to had no possibility to do backups inside your camera. And other photographers didn’t have it, too. And if it happened to lose 30 pictures of your film roll, it happened not more often than it happened to the others.
But today, the others may use 2 card slots and if you don’t have it, you are the only one that risk losing pictures.
I repeat, I am well aware there is a risk, but the risk is very, very small and I suspect that there are more important technical reasons for only having one.
I am on your side – for me a 2nd card slot is not important.
But I understand people that want to have one, too.
Proper card setup is RAW on one, JPEG on another. You upload JPEG quickly to give proof and/or choice to the client, and then process only the chosen from RAW properly if needed.
That’s exactly what I wouldn’t do.
Why are you mistakenly assuming the a7rII is a professional body? It is not. Sony currently has no professional e-mount bodies. That is reserved for the a9 series, if Sony ever decides to produce them.
That is exactly what I am saying – A7 is not ready for 70-200/2.8.
The FE 35/1.4 is not that bad for real life subjects, if you get a decent copy. Yes, the new Canon is slightly better at off-center sharpness and CA control, but for practical purposes this difference is negligible.
Both new Canon and Sigma 35/1.4 are in totally different class optically, despite having to design for longer flange distance. And Sony even failed on size, despite short flange advantage for WA. Sony lens designers are clearly not in the same class as Canon and even Sigma.
The designer(s) of the 55/1.8 and 90mm macro beg to differ with you.
55/1.8 costs more than Sigma 50/1.4. 90mm, at the cost and size, is what should be expected.
The 55/1.8 costs slightly more in the UK, but third-party lenses are always cheaper, otherwise they wouldn’t sell. The 55/1.8 is a superior lens to the Sigma overall and any Canon at that focal length.
The 90mm macro is pretty much the sharpest out there and is also better than the competition in other areas, such as CAs. It is bearly larger than the Canon 100mm L, yet is, again, superior.
You said that Sony lens designers are not in the same class, yet that isn’t borne out in the evidence, is it?
50/1.4 is far ahead of 55/1.8 in value, it should cost twice. That makes a reasonable price for 55/1.8 something like $400.
Pretty much the best standard 50-ish lens with AF on the planet should cost $400. Yeah, okay.
It is not, Sigma 50/1.4 “A” is better and 2/3EV faster. Canon 50/1.4 is $350 ($290 on sales) and 2/3EV faster, and not too bad stopped down to match 55/1.8, and has real manual focus with distance scale, not the by-wire “endless” thing.
You sound like Stockholm syndrome.
2/3EV faster? You sure about that?
http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Sony-FE-Carl-Zeiss-Sonnar-T-STAR-55mm-F18-on-Sony-A7R-versus-Sigma-50mm-F14-DG-HSM-A-Canon-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III-versus-EF50-mm-f-1.4-USM-on-Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-III__1252_917_1306_795_196_795
1.8 TStop (Sony) vs 1.7 TStop (Sigma) – light gathering is pretty much identical.
DOF between a 50/1.4 @ f/1.4 and a 55/1.8 @ f/1.8 is also pretty much negligible . Go check your nearest friendly DOF calculator.
All that extra size and weight for no real gain.
Why you’ve thrown the 20 year old Canon 50/1.4 into the mix, I’ll never know. It’s very poor wide open and is no match for either the Sigma or the Sony, even stopped down. It’s cheap because it’s outdated and not a good match for modern sensors. If I wanted “real” manual focus, I’d buy a Loxia.
The Canon does not need to be wide open to match f/1.8. But it can be, if you don’t need very sharp corners (like when they are OOF anyway for close shooting).
It’s not just the corners. Only the very central part of the lens is sharp. It is poor at f/1.4 and not much better at f/2.
In fact, stop it down to f/4 or 5.6 and it still barely competes with the Sony and Sigma @ f/1.8.
Bunk.
Please Sony a 16-35mm f/2.8 !
Or even better a 16-50 but I can dream 😀 (and I must start bodybuilding then).
Since we’re dreaming I’ll take a 25-50mm f2.0 pls.
0-1000mm f/0.95 please…. pancake.
If you shot without lens, you have a 0mm / f1000.0 ultra-pancake 🙂
If Sony ever makes an FE f/2.8 zoom, this will mean that the era of bogus ‘compactness’ and BS ‘compatibility with A-Mount lenses’ is over, and so is A-Mount.
It will be true even if they do release A99II later on.
At least the tiresome division between the various Sony shooters will be gone too.
eh we will see. In particular if the price is cheaper than a-mount version and better iq, they will start making a better case for a switch (provided they actually come out with a better spec’d body for discerning users). The 70-200 F/2.8 G SSM II is $3k, hoping that is not going to be the issue with e mount 2.8 zooms, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
The e-mount 70-200 f/2.8 will probably be priced at RRP $4k.
If the E mount begin getting f2.8 zooms, that will be its kiss of death.
Look what happened to the A mount…. it has plenty of 2.8 zooms!
Haha, that’s some backwards logic.
logic?
The only thing I’m not dying to know is the price tag. Ugh.
Not very hard to predict. Something like 2500+ for 24-70/2.8, $3000+ for 70-200/2.8. But I guess the latter is useless without $4000+ A9something. I mean, 290 shots and 5fps at any sports event is not even laughable. Nobody is THAT stupid.
Although I tend to underestimate people’s stupidity from time to time.
I don’t know who these people are that only get 290 shots per battery, but I get anywhere between 500-1000 depending on how I’m shooting.
I think climate plays a big role in battery life, here in the Caribbean I get about 300 shots max out of an A7. I am also using flashes/transceivers the entire time. Rest assured we arent bullshtting, Sean, just different experiences depending on different types of shooting.
LOL. Joke of the month!
Are Sony fanboys really this delusional?
@Anita:
some of them – yes. The rest is trolling here for fun, because trolling in CanonWatch is boring. But you are a bit narrow-minded of what a “Pro” is. You have one stereotype “Pro” picture in your mind and apply this to all “Pros”.
Haha, alright, apparently that’s not everyone’s experience? I don’t use flash or AF, which probably helps, but I’ve shot north of 100,000 photos between my A7s and A7II this year and it’s been pretty consistent.
Your totally right! I made the same experience – about 1000 shots.
CIPA. You know, standard tests comparable between all cameras.
I just want to live in an illusion a bit longer. Reality is usually too harsh for my wallet. 🙁
Your math regarding battery life is quite flawed. It is mostly not about the number of shots, but rather about the time you spend taking those shots. So far my experience with A7rII in various scenarios is pretty consistent – around 3 hours of shooting, no matter if it’s 150 landscape shots or 2000 fashion show shots.
I do agree about 5fps and sports, though. And what’s worse is not the fps, but the EVF lag after each shot, even with preview turned off.
It is 290 according to common CIPA methodology (and because the camera does not have built-in flash, it is even exaggerated compared to cameras like D750 with flash).
Pro cameras have 10 times as much, and semi-pro ~5 times as much for a good reason.
It’s way out of your price range so don’t sweat it, just be happy with your Iphone.
I guess that this lens will come along with 16-35 f.2,8, 24-70 f.2,8 and 70-200 f.2,8, together with the A9.
This changes everything. I’ve always considered my Sony as my ‘prime lens’ system and my Nikon as my ‘zoom lens’ system. With the AF improvements… and now f2.8 zooms I’ve run out of things to ask.
The thing to ask is that they actually make these. So far, it’s only an SR3 rumor.
Hopefully Sony will release these native f/2.8 zoom lenses alongside a professional e-mount body (a9 series). Otherwise it makes little sense to have $3000+ lenses with no competent body that can make full use of these lenses.
please define “professional”. Many a7 series top dslr qualities and been used by many “professional photographers” around the world. I am a wedding photographer that used canon gears for over 6 years and never been more happy after switching to A7rii bodies.
>please define “professional”
Professional build, being able to record longer than 15mins, no overheating, proper weather sealing, long battery life, top plate LCD, extensive reliable flash system, dual card slots, reliable warranty service etc. etc.
Yes, any photographer can use any camera. But by that logic an iphone is a professional camera and professional photographers should have no problem relying on it in a photoshoot and no one needs interchangeable lenses… and an a7 and kit lens should be more than enough camera for anyone and nobody needs any other camera etc.
professional = making money from your photograph. enough said.
Professional photographers prefer having a reliable camera. An a9 series body would fulfil that role easily as there are currently too many limitations and restrictions with the a7rII and the a7 series in general.
This is why people would just get a Canon DSLR when they have one look at the the 250 shot battery life of the a7rII. An a9 with bigger battery will fix this. That’s just one example.
“Professional photographers prefer having a reliable camera.”
I’ve been using Sony since the day the A900 came out and none, including the A7 series has missed a single beat, fair weather or foul.
Where are these ‘statistics’ that the A7 isn’t reliable, or durable?
And of course you’re not a professional photographer but you know one that blogs online right.
sound to me you just youtube and read up the specs online.
Which forum did you get that silly 250 shot propaganda from? Is the battery life really the main concern why you think those cameras are not suited for professional work?!?
Actually, the number you are looking for, if you shoot one continuos bust is 106,524. That’s exactly double the rate on any “entry level Canon DSLR” and that quoted rate is from ANY entry level Sony mirrorless. Your thought processes are rather transparent and two dimensional. Just sayin’
The last time I paid money to a professional photographer for a passport-photo, I was shot with a Canon 1200D and a kit lens 😀
Actually the photograher earned the money, not the Camera ^^
More troll talking points but not much substance, you’re going to have to try a lot harder Anita.
And merely calling people a troll without adding anything to the conversation isn’t trolling? lol
Care to elaborate on the record time?
A little bit of an equivalence fallacy there. If my iPhone had the specs of my A7RII, I’d happily use it on a shoot.
Yes Tim, thanks for being so #deep but I think it’s pretty obvious what we are asking for. I personally don’t shoot weddings without a redundant backup and when the day comes that your card fails, you’ll understand why too!
What do we want? We want dual card slots! When do we want it? We want it now!
It’s just a stupid phrase trolls use when they have no legitimate argument.
The only one trolling here is you. Not sure why you wouldn’t want to see Sony growing as a company and catering for all markets. If Sony wants to be further taken seriously as an alternative to Canikon, they will need an a9 series line. Period. I bet you’re one of those people who defended f/4 zooms because there were no f/2.8 zooms, but now you’ll be praising the f/2.8 zooms.
And you are sure the ‘A9’ series would be designed to your specification how exactly?
So your argument is a little late to the game now that the 70-200 F2.8 is soon to be released so this should make you happy. But being a troll it makes your life harder and that is really sad for you Anita.
And if the a9 ever comes out, you’ll be agreeing with me no doubt and praising it, ignoring ever saying Sony doesn’t need a professional body line.
But if the A9 comes out you will have no reason to live and become suicidal, trolling is a tough life.
Says the person getting so defensive about Sony not having a product line because you personally don’t want it and if they had it you might have buyers remorse or something. Weird.
Who’s being defensive Anita? So you’re not satisfied with whatever you’re using now and you feel the need to come here and troll, why don’t you make an appointment with your therapist and have your medications adjusted. No One here is interested in hearing you whine.
So you would rather Sony not continue to innovate and release no new bodies or lenses? Why are you this defensive? Are you afraid if they release new professional grade equipiment, you’re stuck with you current equipment? Newsflash: A professional line will not replace an enthusiast or entry level line. They can all co exist together. No need to be so defensive and insecure about your current purchases.
Wow, you’re all over the map. 95% of what your saying is complete BS, the rest is just stupidity.
Nice ad hominem.
Why don’t you go back to the Canikon blog and tell everyone how much you like your big lens.
What is with your defensive fanboy mentality?
Let’s get something straight Anita, the current A7 series bodies are plenty rugged and are being used by professionals all over the world, so stop with the BS. You don’t have a clue as to what you’re talking about.
Wrong. The a7 is considered entry level. None of the a7 series body have professional weather sealing. Also the mount is too loose to be for professional use. If you have to adapt amount lenses with the LA-EA4, it is quite poorly built and you lose any weather sealing and often the contacts would get misaligned and disconnect. Very unreliable and not fit for any professional use. Even the original Canon EOS M with their entry level adapter had better build quality. An a9 series body would fix all of these issues and be better suited for professional photographers that need a reliable system specifically designed for rugged use. The current a7 is really best suit for enthusiasts/hobbyists.
Which is it, sensor envy or body envy. Please tell.
@Anita + Emph:
http://gifsec.com/wp-content/uploads/GIF/2014/05/eating-popcorn-reaction-gif.gif
I guess I should just refund the money to all of the people and publications that have paid me for photos taken with my a7R and a7R II since they are entry level cameras not fit for ANY professional use. Your comments are ludicrous, the camera does not define whether you are a professional or not, your skill and ability to sell your work does.
Yeah, and that’s why Canon only sells their entry level rebels and kit lenses? Right…
How is the video and audio functionality of any Canon DSLR “fit for professional use” in 2015? It appears that you, like many Canon hobbyists are stuck in 2008. Just Sayin’
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Rq2KzoTSg
No, the troll are you, because you assume that Sony is NOT going to address those concerns with their future products
The ninja edition A7 is coming. Be patient.
What is full use? You seem to have a lot of opinions, but post in a very vague manner which gives the impression that you’re making sweeping generalisations and haven’t actually used the equipment you’re commenting on.
Once and for all, can we stop saying that releasing 2.8 zooms is stupid because the cameras are supposed to be compact? If you want the camera to be compact, you buy primes or f4 zooms or Leica lenses. The point of the system is no to just be small all the time, it’s to be flexible and versatile. Wouldn’t it be awesome to have a camera that can be super lightweight and portable and also become a serious tool with quality 2.8 zooms?
Right then, it’s decided. We’ll stop making that erroneous claim.
Except only the 16-35mm is the only really compact f/4 zoom. The 70-200 is way too big and the 24-70 is okay but has the IQ of an above average kit lens.
Touché. The current 70-200 is still large. But, it’s a 70-200 — they’ll always be a little big. And I do wish the IQ of the 24-70 f4 was better. So maybe I just mean everyone should shoot primes, haha.
“The 70-200 is way too big”.
Too big for what? I find that lens perfectly manageable on the A7II, which is a pretty small body.
These are likely people used to 55-200 lenses
Or people that don’t understand the concept of properly holding a camera by it’s body and lens. Some people should stick with point and shoots.
Too big for most people. If the 70-200 f/4 is the compact version of the 70-200 f/2.8, then I cringe at the size of what the 70-200 f/2.8 is going to be.
If “G” graded, how compact a professional 70200/2.8 can be?
There’s no chance of it becoming pocket-sized.
Just look at the A-Mount or Canikon versions. It will be roughly the same.
Who are most people?
About the size of a normal 70-200/2.8 per chance?
You do realize than Sony FE 70-200/4 is actually around same size as Canon 70-200/4LIS and only slightly heavier?
Considering it’s a mirrorless system, but bigger than a DSLR version, isn’t exactly a GOOD thing.
There, wall is that way. Go bang your head against it.
Nice ad hominem reponse.
What’s the point arguing if your mind is closed and you disregard anything anyone else says.
Says the guy spouting ad hominems. Ironic.
Anita learned a new word today and is practicing using it in a sentence. Very good Anita, your elementary school teacher will give you a gold star.
Emph = Unlimited ad hominem machine (also a proud Sony fanboy)
Anita = limitless entropy generator and dissatisfied Canikon user.
Bigger isn’t necessarily better, unless your talking about an item you use for personal pleasure. Let’s not confuse personal items with cameras.
Then don’t buy/use it – problem fixed. I don’t want F4 standard zooms but I *do* understand the reason others might. And I welcome more lenses to choose from as long as they are good optically & reasonably priced.
Compared to a 2.8, the 70-200/4 is pretty lightweight.
Some people just don’t get the benefit of possibility to have a single system for both compact and large setup. For some reason they assume that A7 size cameras is all there ever will be in the FF E-mount. You are just wasting your energy talking to them 😉
Exactly. It’s about versatility – and putting the power/choice in the hands of the photographer.
Many of the old film cameras were relatively compact yet lenses of every shape and size were offered. The beauty of a compact body is that it gives you the option of packing a small kit when appropriate, on the other hand if you constantly carry long lenses then a bigger body may be more practical but not absolutely necessary.
I don’t get that “unbalanced”-talk either.
When I was still keeping both mounts (until early 2015) I often went out with my A7R and my ZA’s and G’s.
And besides the strange look (big lenses on relative small body) I never found it uncomfortable to use or to carry.
Exactly. When using the 70-200 or any large lens I always carry it by the lens anyway. Its a simple technique adjustment.
More is better, more lenses = more buyers, and Sony continues to be aggressive, then we all benefit.
That being said, I’d prefer a 70-300 or 100-400 over more repeats of currently offered FLs.
Any system that encourages photographer to remove hand from shooting grip is a flawed design compared to those which encourage carrying and operating with one hand from grip.
Minolta 80-200 f2.8 with lesser metal, would be compact enough and light weight
>updated to be bigger
>f/2.8 lenses
Nah, they’ll be smaller.
Whoosh!
Also if Sony start producing f/2.8 FE zooms, EF, F, K, SA mounts will also be dead.
I’m longing for a 100-400mm F5.6 zoom instead.
We need small and fast teleprimes, not bulky zooms with 2.8.
Define “We”, or did you just actually meant “Me”?
Me and Arne S. And many other portrait photographers i know. So.. two or more people with himself = we. 🙂 grammar.
I would not mind a 135/2 or even 85/1.4, but I am reasonably happy with the Batis 85 and Samyang 135 right now.
how is that 135 compared to the sony 135mm 1.8
Optically fine. But, honestly, I would buy native AF FE 135/1.8 TODAY, if it performed as good as A-mount 135. MF is very usable on A7x bodies, but Eye-AF changes how you shoot portraits.
have you tried the 90mm G? debating between the batis or the 90mm macro…leaning towards the macro…since it’s able to shoot macro too lol
I have both of them, but unless shooting products or macro, I do prefer Batis. Multiple reasons really. I like the “character” it has wide open and how it renders OOF areas, there is some swirl to the bokeh which you might like or hate. It is over full stop faster, at portrait distances that’s quite a difference in subject isolation. It is sharp wide open and handles back light pretty well. Batis is also a slightly smaller lens.
Don’t get me wrong – macro is amazing lens, and if I ever could only have one of them it would be a very tough decision…
thanks for the reply! i like the look/form factor of the batis too, but something i’ve always loved but never had was a macro lens of my own (have my dads to use) that’s why I’m pretty certain i’m sold on the idea, although like you, i prefer the look of the batis photos too :/ would be great to have both!
“we” is what we say when we want to convince people that “me” is what it is important. lol
We? That’s definitely not what I need!
Not this “we”. We need fast, sharp glass. And that takes some size.
It’s an interchangeable lens system, you can have BOTH small fast primes and bigger fast zooms.
What we really need is FE24-70 F4 MkII with sharper corners this time! This is what will sell system to masses. Not your yet again primes of which we have tons of.
I need you and many others to stop saying “WE need”…..
I hope they’re heavy as fk.
Take clues from Minolta 80-200 f2.8, little less metal, and there could be a compact lightweight f2.8 zoom
That lens did not have inner focus design – it both rotated and extended when focusing. While inner focus makes lens optical design more complex and as a result potentially larger, it has a lot of benefits in sealing and usability.
That’s a really good point.
Whether they are or aren’t doesn’t really matter, so long as they’re there. When I need lightweight, I’ll go lightweight, but when I need a fast zoom, I need a fast zoom. I’m slowly starting the transition – just plunked down for a used A7S (w/ grip) on eBay last night…
Cool beans for people who like f/2.8 zooms. I just hope they also release a tele lens with longer reach. I’m perfectly happy with f/4 or f/5.6 as long as the IQ is there.
What bothers me is that the announcement is pushed back yet again. Sony urgently needs a competitor. Preferably one for which Zeiss also produces Loxia and Batis lenses.
100-400/4 would be nice.
Behold for 24-50mm F2.8 lens. Its compact, its f2.8 and its zoom
I’d be okay with that.
I own the sigma 24 60 2.8 and I find it really useful, really fun and really compact.
This would be nice if it included close focus/macro.
300-800 f4.8, 5, or 5.6 with 150mm barrel extender for close focus/macro mode and drop in 1.8x teleconverter. Price mid $3000 range.
And a professional caddy service for someone to carry that house of a lens for you
I actually have developed several methods to effortlessly handhold and stabilize large lenses
I have various camouflage carts in differrent sizes for carrying them in even the roughest terrain.
Such a lens would be about half the wieght of a 600mm f4 prime.
Ok, so CN 800/5.6 lenses are $15k, with Sigma being half that. And you want a zoom lens with similar fixed aperture and focal length, yet priced at $3k? Don’t get me wrong, that would be ultimate lens for many purposes, but it’s just not realistic at that price point at this time 😉
Typo..300-600 fixed it
I’ll take a 70-200 F2.8! Is it too much to wish for it to be a 70-300? haha
Since this is SR3, I flipped a coin and according to that, this is not true.
Sorry to disappoint y’all but it looks like we won’t get even more gigantic, heavy, $$$$ glass. I know it’s what everyone wanted but now we all just have to go back to Canon.
Yep, move along, nothing to see here.
If you want small, just go to Olympus.
End of Amount.
No! End of E-mount. It’s ridiculous to mount such a big lens on an small a7x body. It’s a rumor of a rumor and it will not happen. There is plenty of lenses that are more important than a 70-200 f/2.8 in e-mount.
Not going to stop until EMount system duplicates in every way, becoming AMount reincarnate.
And they’ll claim it’s new and innovative… getting back to AMount lens lineup from 1985.
The current 70-200 f4 is going to look immensely better when people see the sky high price of an FE 70-200 2.8 zoom. Likely twice the price of the F4.
and the size relative to the f/4
Which would simply put it into similar territory to the A-mount equivalent; no reason to think a similarly performing lens would be a lot cheaper. That said, the current version of the A-mount zoom is way over priced ($1k more than the previous version!), which is why I ended up buying the Tamron instead, which is actually an outstanding lens, too. I’d love it if they decided to make an E-mount version.
It’s not even a rumor, it’s a plain compilation of hints from last Sony manager interview video.
So is this the “hint of something else” after the a68 announcement? Or is that something different?
Its gonna cost similar to sigma 120-300 2.8, and i dont believe it will be as good, honestly
Personally I’m not too concerned with this (I’ll likely stick with the f4.0) but I hope, for the sake of the discussions here and the equivalent forums everywhere, that if Sony do release any f2.8 lenses they are not just like the Samyang creations, whereby an almost identical lens to the existing version is made with a piece ‘welded on’!
If you look at many of those Samyang lenses for A mount and then the same denomination for E mount, there is almost no difference but with a longer mount end. I love my A mount 24mm T/S and realised the ‘new’ E mount lens was no different to just getting an adapter.
I think if Sony are foolish enough to go down that route there will be an absolute uproar.
That said, I have absolutely no idea what needs to go into making a 70-200 f2.8 which is more compact than the A mount version; after all, every make now appears to be very similar and it would be a heck of a trick to do better!
They haven’t been doing that so far, so I doubt they would.
True, but unless they come up with some fabulous new glass (I mean that literally, not in the sense of a complete lens!) then I can only wonder how they will get around the basic limitations of physics and make it any smaller than the A mount version.
If they do it will be an astonishing achievement, but probably bring criticism for not releasing that first. If they don’t and it is a ‘heavy bruiser’, then they will be criticised for it being unbalanced for the small body.
A bit of a no-win stuation if you ask me!
Simple: just make an A99-sized FE body. Problem solved.
Yeah, I think some bigger bodies will need to follow these bigger lenses…
>I think if Sony are foolish enough to go down that route there will be an absolute uproar
Why? The only problem is the adapter. If the lens works with all functions of the camera (Eye-AF etc.), I don’t think there’d be any complaints. Not like this kind of lenses were going to be any smaller anyway (probably bigger), so…
I think the furore would be on two counts: if it was all they needed to create f2.8 versions then why did they not do it when the A series was first launched and as it means the size of the A7 is no longer relevant, why have they spent so much time on it to the detriment of the natural A mount?
Indeed, if the only issue was the functionality of the adapter, now the A7Rii provides full AF for those SSM lenses, surely there’s no need at all for a new set of faster lenses?
But if they are to be made, they are going to have to pitch them exactly right in terms of size, weight, and performance. Get just one aspect wrong and you can bet there will be howls of protest.
When they started with FE, they tried to pitch it as a pseudo-compact system, and didn’t have much tech in there. So, they went with pseudo-compact lenses first.
Since 2014, they started pitching FE as “the next generation of DSLR” and a complete replacement for A-Mount. They got some of the tech right, and it’s more efficient to have 1 mount with 2 sensor sizes (2 lens line-ups) than 4 lines. It wasn’t going to be compact anymore, but ‘adjustable size’.
So now what they need to do to achieve that is release all A-Mount lenses in native FE.
>now the A7Rii provides full AF for those SSM lenses
It doesn’t. See the interview with the Sony guy a few posts back.
Samyang I’d manual. The AF mechanisms of dslr and mirrorless respectively are different. They will have to design the lenses very differently if there is AF involved. So there’s nothing to worry about.
Don’t see any reason for this lens since A-mount already has it, unless it is much smaller and cheaper, which I doubt is even possible.
And if they made this, A-mount and e-mount system would be inconsistent and overlapping. Not wise to do so. E-mount are supposed to be small and light, and with the up coming A68, this is apparently not a replacement lens for the A-mount, so the introduction for this lens makes no sense at all.
Who says they’re “supposed to be small and light”? The beauty is that they simply *can* be small and light, but can also work with much more robust lenses when necessary. To win over more pros, they’re gonna have to offer (native) fast zooms at some point.
This makes no sense. You’re talking about two different mounts. From an e-mount user’s perspective, there’s no overlap created by an existing a-mount lens, any more than there is from Canon EF lenses. A-mount glass needs an adapter, Canon EF lenses need adapters. Maybe we’d like to not have to use adapted glass at all times.
Native, supporting all the AF-modes like eye AF is great. I don’t care about weight, only IQ is important for me. This is not a walk-around lens, but normally used professionally. For me it is a lens representing an important cornerstone of a professional system.
They’ve been slowly phazing out A-mount for the last years. Little wonder there. They’ve rebranded FE as ‘the next generation of DSLR’ and try to pitch it as a complete replacement for the SLT system.
I’m not buy that crap Sony!
So there is no reason for E-mount lenses at all, because each exist already in A-mount or another mount from anybrand.
Yep!
Makes not one bit of sense and it will cost 4000.00 dollars!
85/1.4 ZA with 35/1.4 design please.
I would rather wish a “Standard”-Zomm like 24-105 with 2.8 instead of another 70-200, because I think the existing one with F4 is pretty good and fast enough.
Also I think the 2.8 will be much more expensive
Agree! FE70-200F4 is already very good. We need 24-105 F4 but with sharp corners please and take my money I’ll buy 2 such zooms!
We need??? 😉
We = PhotOguz + BrianSmiths – and the people that upvoted it. So we are already 4 🙂
I’d also prefer a 24-105/4 over a 24-70/2.8. However, I’d wish them to stick with the Zeiss rendering formula of the existing 24-70/4, and not budge to internet trolls to deliver a sterile G lens.
Just because lenses score well on two dimensional test charts, doesn’t mean they are good.
I prefer the f/2.8 version for portraits only. You can always step down. But indeed f/4 versions are cheaper and lighter.
24-70 F4 ver.2 with sharp corners or 24-105 F4 with sharp corners please. And make it G zoom this time instead of expensive Zeiss badge that is a joke.
G zooms are just as expensive.
While I agree with the first sentence…G lenses are essentially like Canon L.
Zeiss is just a third-party partner that is also high quality for the most part.
I do not know about 2.8…
I’ll stick with my old Walkman.
No SR rating huh? Playing it safely…
“(SR3) First rumors about the upcoming new f/2.8 FE zoom lenses!”
ahh just saw it! Thanks! Should load the page twice next time.
A 70-200 2.8 is nice, but a bit boring. Why dont bring something likes Sigmas 100-300 f4 or the impressive 120-300 f2.8? 😀 And for the longer range a 200-500 f5.6 like the new nikon 🙂
Those shall come as well… but they have to get the 2.8/70-200 out there first.
Agree.
I would like to see a fancy 65-195 F 2.7 first
I am not worried about the long end. Never seen a lens going wider than labelled except for wide-angle Canon lens.
Sony, please for god’s sake drop the “white” for telephoto… You don’t have to copy Canon anymore.
Canon’s lenses are beige. Sony’s are actually white.
Actually they are only white in photo. They’re more beige than white in the flesh (at least for the FE 70-200) but not as beige as canon’s lenses.
Also I don’t know why the Ultra white in Sony’s photo make them look like they’re made of plastic while they actually are metal.
I agree; I hate the white. Give us something that looks aesthetically pleasing with the a7 Series.
Blue? paint yours, or apply some vinyl…
Blue?
Black!
black/silver is so boring :p it’s not the 1900’s anymore 😀
Silver is boring.
Black is classic and never goes out of style. 😉
White is for a reason – when you shoot outside the white color helps to avoid overheating and metal expansion (even a tiny fraction of a mm matters to spoil the IQ). So if the lens body is metal – it better be white, if it’s some special plastic / poly-carbonate that won’t expand – then black is ok.
Actually, the original reason Canon went to white was due to fluorite glass which gets brittle and a bit unstable at higher temperatures. By choosing white, the lens is less likely to generate very high internal temperatures outdoors. Those limitations have largely been overcome in the decades since Canon went to white and now it is more of a marketing thing for them. I don’t know if Minolta went with white for the same reasons or not.
My understanding is that the use of fluorite glass was the reason NASA never worked with Canon on any optical designs in their equipment.
Well, I guess this is the reason why almost any other “pro” and high quality lens from Leica, Zeiss, Nikon and even Canon are black…
Maybe it was the case long time ago, but white is just for most of people a way to appear as a “pro”….
There is a phenomena called sun loading which affects the alignment of complex optical systems, this is the reason why most if not all military optical systems are painted in a highly reflective paint. In addition sensors are employed to measure the effects to on the mechanical subsystems to apply compensation. Keep an open mind, you may learn something.
If I am a soldier I would love my high-profile outfit, especially in some places other than battlefield.
This is not something a soldier would be concerned with, we’re talking precision optical tracking systems for ground or air based lasers. But if you were a soldier you would know this.
laser itself is causing high thermal loading.
You should contact the lens design division of Canon and enlighten them on the finer points of lens design.
FL elements are used to cut down weight, and it’s common in Nikon’s super-tele lens, which are black. As described by Peiker beneath it’s not that fragile as they used to be in 1970s.
Did you just google that Chris. LOL
ever heard of confirmation bias?
to be honest, i would worry about my camera being heated too much and degrading cmos performance before worrying about thermal expansion inside my lens.
They are both significant, why only concern yourself with one and not the other?
Go ask a sniper if it matters he used a black scope for targeting stuff 1000 meters away.
And this has what to do with complex zoom lenses and optical tracking systems? Stop now, you’re sounding more ridiculous with each post.
As opposed to optically tracking an aircraft at 50,000 feet.
I’m not sure if we’re on the same page talking about the “pro” a.k.a. “high quality lenses” 🙂 All Canon’s long telephotos (meant to be used outdoors) are white (or beige as somebody noticed). Less absorbed heat for metals always means less deformations. Nikon’s are black. I personally don’t care what color they are as long as the IQ doesn’t degrade outdoors and reasonably priced. Sigma’s 500 f/2.8 is the coolest looking lens hands down 😉
They’re copying Minolta no?
Yes Canon Copied Minolta !
Which company had first f2.8 for 14-24 / 24-70 / 70-200 ?
Which company had Auto Focus first?
And the answer is?
Yes I love my Minolta 80-200 HS F2.8! I’ll die before I put it on a e-mount!
I would be also afraid, that a 42 mp sensor unveils the limits of a 1993 lens.
I don’t think you have to be affraid. It’s perfectly usable. My old Minolta 24-105 is sharper at f/8 in the corners than a new 24-70 e-mount. Take that!
And what about other f-stops, or in the center?
What about a 24-50mm constant F/2.8 to make the lens more portable ?
Maybe as an option. But only a true FE 24-70 f/2.8 would be a replacement for the A-Mount version.
Well if we are making a wish list, a 20-80 f/2.8 works for me for 90% of what I do 🙂
Honestly, a 24-50 F/2.8 is not a non-sens lens (would be pretty compact and easy to design and build)… going wider than 24 at the wide end of such a zoom lens is unrealistic… 24-80 can be made though, but it would be a big lens.
I never understood the desire for such short-range zooms.
The excellent 35/2.8 pretty much does the same give or take a few (very short) footsteps.
Perspective distortion.
Don’t have to change lenses for 24, 28, 35, 50.
when you can have a 24-70/2.8? I don’t think it will be very small if you are after image quality. Please keep in mind how f-number is calculated.
I’ll be happy if they stick to black. Please get rid of the ugly looking white lense paint.
you could always paint yours or apply a vinyl wrap
Hmm what kind of paint would be recommended.
id paint it something crazy 😀 with texture too so it’s grippy
Well they do say once you go black you never come back.
I dont think it’s ugly but too attractive.
Yes please, I hate sticking out like a sore thumb when shooting with a 70-200.
These lenses are not white to look pretty. 😉
Put a sleeve on it. I love white lenses.
Can anyone tell me what a 200mm focal length is useful for except shooting a big object not too far from you :D…
My first try with the 55-210mm lens show me that even close to an owl in a tree ( less than 10 metres) the view angle was too large to make the subject take a big part of the image.
70-200/2.8 is a good lens for portraits and sometimes useful for landscape. The 200mm is not so useful for things too small, such us a squirrel at 5m away.
Its an event shooting staple. You can get candids of people interacting without being in their face. Its flattering for portraits too. 200mm is generally too short for wildlife, even on a crop body.
That sucks I was thinking of getting the 70-200 f4 to put on my a6000 for hiking. I thought the crop would help.
What are you on about? 300mm equiv and 24mp is more than adequate for hiking and wildlife.
I don’t know, never used anything more than 210. I have the crappy SEL55210 and I hate it. It just sucks the big hairy meatball if you know what I mean.
Have you considered 18-200? I don’t have it, but 70-200 is big and not wide enough for hiking, in my opinion…
True its not wide enough, but I still have my old NEX 5N, with a wide angle on that it’s small enough I can carry both in my bag. Beats having to change lenses on the fly. That’s my theory anyway.
Its a great lens and used prices are below $1000. I’m not saying you can’t use it for wildlife, just that typically wildlife lenses are a little longer.
They don’t call it a “creeper” focal length for nothing. It’s for being creepy and taking pictures of people without them noticing. I’m not much into massive creeper lenses unless I’m taking pictures of birds- then I get all sorts of creepy.
Sports. 200mm is a must-have on a soccer field.
For a soccer field, 200mm is too short. For a volleyball-game – okay. But 200mm is better than 24-70. And in combination with a 2.0TC, a 140-400f5.6 is usable on a bright soccer-field.
For indoor cycling track it’s very usefull for shooting down the straights but also for portraits and landscapes or for a 2.8 lens also when you want to seperate a motiv from the background.
That’s your opinion.
One handed shooting is inherently less stable. And I’d like to see you use one hand with 3 pound zooms, or even a fast 85 or 135mm lens. I seriously doubt that’s the case. Even with small primes I support my camera/lens with my left hand.
Great!
And here’s hoping for an “A9” to go with it. Bigger camera, faster burst, bigger cache, faster AF, dual cards, etc.
A true DSLR killer. Although the A7Rii sure sounds close…
If they start making big lenses, I’d say a bigger body is inevitable.
The most famous DSLR killer is Matt Granger.
You mean that Nikon Guy. I’m not sure he’s latched on to Sony just yet.
Yes. But I actually meant that he broke his D810. And some of his Nikon lenses ^^ (by accident)
That Nikon guy is sounding more and more like “That Sony Guy.” But really, it should just be called “The Matt & Tina Show”
Now we start the Sony Full Frame conundrum – lenses are too big for the body, so why buy mirror less.
Sony needs a larger FE body and to keep developing lenses appropriate for the a7 series (mostly primes and f/4 zooms)
If you *only* shoot with big zooms, maybe, yes.
There are LOTS of people that don’t use zooms but stick to fast primes. I may be biased, but the majority of my colleagues (photojournalists) don’t use zooms unless their specialty is sports. Most of them work with 24/28mm, 35mm and 50mm. Even those who cover everyday news usually limit their kit to a wide zoom (like the 17-35mm 2.8) and a tighter one (24-70mm 2.8). A few bring the 70-200mm along.
If Sony just looked at, say, the Canon lens line-up and copied it lens by lens, I think it would be a logical and wise move.
Right, that’s what I mean. If you shoot with primes mostly, the Sony bodies don’t seem too small at all (IMO).
Frankly, once you use a 400mm 2.8, even a Dslr looks pretty small.
“…so why buy mirrorless” there are plenty of things that set mirrorless cameras apart other than size:
– adaptability
– IBIS
– video capabilities
– silent shooting
– evf
All of those reasons mentioned except for adaptability would be perfectly possible in a-mount. I believe compactness is the main selling point that turned people towards e mount. Still, needing to go big sometimes doesn’t stop you from enjoying compact primes on other occasions. So you’re right they should develop bigger lenses as well. I wonder though why there are hardly any F2.0 primes yet. Those are the perfect compromise between speed and size/weight to me.
Adaptability is nice but not essential.
IBIS can be had in any camera
Video capabilities- got me there
Silent shooting can be hand in A mount certainly. Canon does a pretty decent job with this and so too the D810. Not totally silent but still.
EVF- A MOUNT!!!!
Better to have it than not have it, IMO.
Yeah, but it *isn’t* in any camera…
Yup.
Still, only one currently does it silent.
Tie, but not advantage.
🙂
With Grip and big lenses, A and E mount can be big.
But E-mount can be small when using small lenses.
Can A-mount the same??
You’d be surprised what stomping on your camera can do after awhile. With that said, I only wonder how slim Sony could make their A mount camera. The hump on top is practiically cosmetic at this point. The grip certainly could be slimmed and carve out the inside to maintain the same depth. Slimmer tilting screen? Certainly so. Come on sony- feel free to hack away at the thing. I personally prefer it as it is though. If I want small I’ll just use a smaller format.
A-mount can not be thinner than 50mm, E-mount can be only 25mm thick.
BTW: I don’t want to use 2 different formats (A&E-mount). Now 4K is coming – I have no interest to update 2 different systems to get this feature everywhere. No interest to have 2 battery types. No interest to have 2 different chargers in my backpack. No interest to have the most used focals lengths available in 2 mounts. I want one sytem for everything – and E-mount has a better base to develop than A-mount.
e-mount is junk!
how old are you?
I’m currently on my 28th year of Camera and Photography retail and 36 years of photography!
Ok – that explains your mindset. You have so much experience with existing Systems that you know more than 99% of all other photographers. And you are proud of it. Seeing a new system on the market that makes some of your knowledge obsolete scares you. Your wisdom advantage over other photographers shrinks and young people learn faster than you.
A7II series isn’t all that bad but dat AF doh!
Agreed. I don’t have a horse in this race (yet, I guess), but if (when) I move 100% away from dslr, I’ll probably pick a RX1R and then later the next iteration of A7. By reading comments and then posts on the forum, it really looks like the A-mount crowd is very vocal, but at the same time it looks like Sony is moving in another direction. All they’re talking about is their A7 series, they admittedly aim at introducing more and more lenses for those cameras, and frankly they’re quite silent when it comes to their A mount line, unless they’re really pushed to answer some embarrassing questions (as in “is the a-mount dead?”).
No one can predict the future, but one thing is quite certain: having 2 different mounts is not sustainable in the long run, especially with the overall digital camera market declining.
EH, I think you are a wise man…
I’m ok with this thinking. I’ll probably purchase an A7II before next year and steadily start building an FE mount system. I’m totally ok with that but not yet. Financially it makes no difference to me but I enjoy my A mount gear to0 much to start selling the rest off right now. Sometimes it’s just worth waiting without reason.
Why has e-mount a better base than a-mount? There is way more a-mount lenses and cameras around than e-mount. Take a look at Flickr! You can just choose e-mount if you want but let me keep a-mount.
Maybe you don’t remember the alpha 230 a small DSLR which was hated because of the small grip. They measured:128 x 97 x 68 mm (5.04 x 3.82 x 2.68″) and 490 g (1.08 lb / 17.28 oz)
Yep it’s already been done years ago A33, A55, a37 and the mount was already capable of handling big lens unlike e-mount when you had the mount separating from the body and they already had Steady Shot built into the bodies!
Been there done that years ago look up and compare the A33,35,55 size to the A7! Very small A-mount bodies that already took full frame lens and had Steady Shot inside!
But not a sensor twice the size
You seem to forget the A-mount was already Full Frame unlike the e-mount. All Sony had to do was put a the Full Frame sensor in the body.
For comparing camera sizes you chose A33 + A55, but for comparing sensor-sizes you want to talk about A99?
come on – be serious and take one of them!
For fraction of the money Sony spent on the A7 they could have put a Full Frame Sensor in the A55, A33 cameras! Sony knew they could charge e-mount shooters a lot more money for Zooms that were not f2.8
than they could for A-mount shooters! And A mount does not have issues with soft corners like e-mount.
That would be easy to do.
With the same agrument I can say, there is an A5100 with FF sensor…
But both hasn’t been done.
No but it’s possible!
I simply don’t understand why everyone wants a small body with a crammed button layout. I guess they live in very small Appartements!
It’s for people doing a lot of travel, street photography or doing a sort of sport where small equipment has advantages. And a touchscreen would help to have secondary functions easily accessible without buttons or menus.
The a99 weighs 812 grams. The a77II weighs 645 grams and the a7rII weighs 625 grams. Where is the advantage in weight. It simply isn’t there especially if you use a 70-200 f/2.8 on the camera and have to add a battery grip to the a7rII to get the same battery life and balance as the a-mount cameras. It’s plane stupid! If you want to take street photos unnoticed then use a mobile.
This small battery and the need for a battery grip to come close to A99’s battery life pinches my nerve. Size/weight advantage is then gone…
For the activities I named you, my mind was more on a A6000-sized body with a smaller lens. But I could use the same body with a 70-200/f.8, knowing the combination is heavy.
The first curtain shutter on the A77m2 is very, very quite!
So what non-mirrorless has all these features in one package ?
Big big BIG. Grip for my grip- extra batter slots for my extra battery slot. Quad dials front and back with massive- absolutely massive- magnification.
Surely there will be a professional grade a9 body coming soon, otherwise it makes little sense for Sony to bring out big $3000+ f/2.8 zoom lens with no appropriate body to mount them on.
Anita gets it.
Not disparaging a7 bodies. They’re awesome. But these big lenses are going to be ridiculous in them.
For each lens size, use the right sized body: A5100 for pancakes, A6000 for 50mm, A7 for 24-70 and wait for A9 to use 70-200…
Yes – this shows the flexibility and true power of an interchangeable lens camera system over fixed lens cameras.
LOL
LOL Again!
As i wrote earlier, usually photographers care more about what they can get with their cameras and lenses rather than how they “look”. Any Dslr with a huge zoom can look ridiculous, but if you absolutely need a 400mm, you can’t really choose between a small and a big lens. Just my 2 cents…
Are you implying professional photographers dont care about ergonomics? Sorry but that is not true. Your hand will get cramped with using an a7 and 70-200/2.8 for more than an hour. These f/2.8 zooms need a suitable professional body to go with them.
If I work for more than a hour with a 2kg lens + a 1kg body, I would be happy to use at least a monopod. And if I have to carry the equipment or having it hanging around my neck all day long, I am happy for each gram weight-saving of a smaller body.
So the only solution is to use a monopod? Not a good option for professionals. Wanting to save a few grams for a less ergonimic body is an odd compromise. Bigger body does not mean triple the weight. Look at the a3000, great grip and very light. And if sony were to make a pro grade a9 body, that doesnt mean they will stop making the current smaller entry and enthusiast level bodies.
If I have to hold it for an hour in front of my face and don’t stop taking pictures all the time, then I want at least a monopod. But if working for you means that you are handholding the camera all the time and once a minute look through the VF and take a series of picutres, then I prefer to save weight where possible.
For ergonomic a purposes a hand-wrist strip helps more than a blown up body. just my 2 cents.
Well a hand-wrist certainly doesn’t help on the crammed button layout compared to a a900 or a99.
ok
I don’t believe the a3000 was a magnesium, weather-sealed, stabalized, full-frame, 8+ fps, dual cards, huge battery… and so on… “professional” body.
Of course ergonomics are important, but have you ever tried holding a Nikon D4 with a 70-200mm, around 6 pounds/3 kilos, for more than an hour?
Meh was using the a7r ii no grip with nikon 200 f2 and adapter. Tell me that isn’t one balanced setup.
My hand gets cramped holding a a7 period!
Good point!
I totally agree!
Don’t you understand it’s the rumor only? Good F/2,8 zoom for FE mount is an A-mount zoom with LA-EA4 adaptor. FE mount zoom must be longer than A mount zoom to maintain picture quality… Sony needs more pro A-mount bodies to compete with Canikon. I wouldn’t even trade my excellent A900 for A7 having good A-mount stuff.
Hope they make it black
Haha agreed
Do you know that these kind of lenses are white for a reason?
And my Nikon 70-200 says, “Why?”
Sony, please don’t listen to the complaints about the colour. In fact please make a white A7 series camera to complement these beautiful white lenses.
Say hello cause your prayers have been answered!!!!
Dang, I gotta get me one of those.
Once you start down this path, you end up there with Pentax.
https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5016/5435214958_0ec908d8b1.jpg
Sony tried that route luck would have it they stopped after just one color!
http://static.thetechjournal.net/wp-content/uploads/sony-alpha-dslr-a380.2964570-300×225.jpg
ROFL
Nikon seems to success:
http://www.conrad.de/medias/global/ce/9000_9999/9600/9650/9652/965242_LB_00_FB.EPS_1000.jpg
Haha, it is getting better and better..
Lol!
In person that color is nasty to look at!
Epic titanium shiiit brown probably wasn’t the best first color to roll out.
Then you have the q-series.
Keep it white!!!
I guess all these fools who request black telephoto lenses, have never shoot for hours in burning sunlight. They just want a big lens that looks pretty and most importantly, does not look like the hated Canon lenses. I’m far from being a Canon fan, but their idea to fight overheating of big lenses is so simple and elegant, that most other manufacturers, except Nikon of course, copied it. Which is a good thing.
Seems to be true, that for most “pro” gear customers, the fashion aspect are way more important than usability.
Canon copied Minolta!
Then the complaint about no more Sony lenses that look like Canon, sounds even more ridiculous to me. LOL
Yep!
So I should correct myself:
My point is that white telephoto lenses make sense from a technical point and it is a good thing that many copied this, regardless of who invented it.
White lens are a lot cooler to the touch when shooting outdoors in the sun than black lens!
And what about the bodies like 1D and 24-70mm lenses?
And why are the big bodies and 24-70mm lenses not white?
I don’t know.
IMO this “white lens is cooler thing – and for big lenses it is important” is a fairytale. It’s like saying: “When you want a big car, buy it in white color because it has so much surface. A small car can be black – no problem.”
White lenses have a different look and you can recognize from far away, that there is a “Pro” – that’s all.
Like I said, than you never shoot for hours in hot sun. In my experience it is no fairytale.
But with small lenses I can shoot for hours in hot sun?
BTW: if I shoot for hours, I have to change my battery. :/
Dammit, you make me crazy!!!! Of course all black equipment is heating up in hot sunlight, but the fact that many gear is still black, dosen’t change the fact that the white paint on big lenses makes sense.
“Dammit, you make me crazy!!!!”
I like when you say that – especially with your avatar 🙂
😉
Would it work if the lens was chrome?
Of course, like all the chrome cameras in the old days.
Not if your doing surveillance…
Lol
Actually it’s to combat thermal sensitivity the Flourite elements have, they can and do shatter due to temperature change(and shock).
They are not white for cosmetic reasons.
http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/lenses/black_or_white_lenses.do
then I am okay with big white lenses – actually they look good
I don’t think Sony lenses use Flourite elements.
Not likely, but temperature changes can effect the dimensions of internal parts(coefficient of expansion)… But we are getting way far ahead of ourselves, we don’t even know if the lens will be white, the above picture is an A mount lens.
The FE 70-200 f4 is white. A constant 2.8 version is a lock for white paint.
It may make sense more for the standard, very large outdoor sports 400mm, 500mm, 600mm lenses but 70-200mm lenses are a mainstay of indoor event & press photographers too. The white casing kills any discretion and the subjects often catch you when trying to take a candid. A black option would be nice.
You mean at the n*de beach? Good point!
But seriously, I see no discretion in a 70-200mm lens whatsoever.
It gives you distance. At a wedding, you can blend in to the dark suits and shadows much easier if you aren’t wielding a bright white long lens.
with white lenses you can blend with the bridesmaids 😀
Only the bride wears white at a wedding. It is considered poor taste for any other woman to wear white.
I know, I know, but I’ve seen them wearing light colors quite often…so a white lens would definitely help….by the way, it was a joke 🙂
I think the Bride has other problems if everyone is looking at a lens and not her….
Everyone at the wedding looks at me.
If I see a D800 with a black 70-200 lens, it looks smaller and less important than a 5D3 with a white 70-200. I know it’s the same size and same class, but the black lens is IMO more unobstrusive.
Surveillance…
Hot news! Uncompressed raw along with phase detect AF of A7RII that can be adapted to other lenses are coming to A7II:
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/sony-bring-uncompressed-raw-a7-ii-via-firmware-update-follow-b-h-photo-explora-blog-2069937.htm
Oh wow. If the af is as fast as a7rII with sony/canon adapted dslr lens, that is indeed huge news. An alternate budget option is great for the market and new users. How come SAR didnt pick up on this big news?
i didn’t find B&H source yet. SAR probably post it tomorrow if this is trusted.
Huge news!
I hope they don’t forget IS. Videocameras like the FS5 will need it and if the a6xxx doesn’t have IBIS it will be a necessity too.
399 comments! Need to make it 400.
Made up rumors maybe???