A reader just sent me this message. For privacy reason I removed the name of the store which is one of the biggest in Europe:
I went into (
Store name hidden) yesterday to test out a few FE lenses yesterday and to pick me up a 16-35 f/4. He asked me if I didn’t mind waiting a couple of months. I said explain.
That’s when he turned his till terminal screen to face me and asked if I wanted the lens pion their incoming inventory list… It was the Sony FE 16-35mm F/2.8. Naturally in response i said someone has mistyped put FE instead of ‘A’ mount. He went off again, came back with management back-up and stated its accurate even though they haven’t physically seen one yet.
He stated that because of their buying status with manufactures they get wind of what’s coming and place their orders accordingly… This was one of them and is due before Christmas…
So far we don’t know for sure what new zoom lens will be announced from Sony. All we know is that Sony stated many times fast f/2.8 zooms are high on their priority list. And the info coming in via anonymous sources seems to confirm that they will make f/2.8 zoom of all their current FE zooms whcih are the:
- [shoplink 42147 ebay]16-35mm f/4.0[/shoplink]
- [shoplink 42149 ebay]24-70mm f/4.0[/shoplink]
- [shoplink 42151 ebay]70-200mm f/4.0[/shoplink]
Stay tuned on SAR!
–
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!
293 Responses
awww and i just bought the FE 28mm an f of 4 vs 2 made the 28mm the obvious choice for me over the 16-35 but from 2.8 to 2 that’s close enough for me as i’d love a wider wide angle
maybe that’s why the 28mm was on sale 😉
i assume that there will be a “negligible” difference of ~1500$ between 28f2 and 1635f28 😉
lol, sigh, well we can hope otherwise right? 😉
and no doubt the new 16-35 f2.8 will mean an inevitable and huge price drop on the current 16-35 f4.
(well one can always dream!)
So now the concern trolling will switch up from “we need fast professional 2.8 zooms to seriously consider these cameras for professional use” to “the A7 was supposed to be lighter and smaller, with these heavy lenses there is no advantage over a conventional SLR”
Many actualy use the A7 system slready for pro use.
Even with current line up.
yes
but reasons to switch are
a)sensors
b)size/weight
it may be a perseption vs reality thing, if you researched you might decide you wouldnt gain much if anything.
but if you didnt sony will happily sell you a lie of “small n light” 2.8 zooms that are same as canonikon in weight and size, or worse.
Would rather prefer something wider like the Canon’s 11-24. A7 series is the ultimate architecture and stills camera but the widest you can go natively with AF is 16mm, which is not a gamechanger and makes hardly anyone change systems.
Really? 16mm is wide enough for the majority. 11-15mm is a pretty niche requirement in a lens.
If you are a Canon user that already has access to a native 11-24, you’re not going to suddenly migrate to Sony just because they release one.
The most important lenses Sony can release are the ones in most demand, and that includes your basic 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 focal lengths.
Yeah but everyone has at least one of those 16mm zooms. Canon has 2, Nikon has at least 2 and those are just native FF options. APS-C systems have plenty of them too, both native and third party and moreover, most of them are even slightly wider than 16mm.
The point is, nobody will change systems because there is another nice 16-35 in some other system. They will however, consider it if there is something more attractive like an ultrawide or something much smaller or sharper or cheaper.
Voigtländer has it covered. And you are crying about AF but if presented with a choice between a 10mm Voigtländer, or a 10mm AF Sony at twice the price, people will pick the Voigtländer.
Voigtländer doesn’t zoom. You’d prefer a zoom when shooting architecture. Also, people prefer AF. Only a few of us don’t mind it.
I don’t know about you, but for architecture I’d pick the option with the least distortion, which I can tell you is the Voigtländer and not the zoom.
You can correct distortion pretty easily. Much better than changing lenses because suddenly you need to go from 10mm to 17mm or cropping later and losing all the resolution you had.
I think exactly the opposite way : nobody will change system if this system doesn’t provide the classical zooms 16-35, 24-70, 70-200. And f/2.8 is better to convince a lot of photographers. It makes sense.
If you ask me most of the people are jumping to A7 system due to compatible adapters as they can use their existing lenses on an excellent sensor. I highly doubt those Canikon guys will dump their lenses in favor of Sony ones.
Because they are (for now) not good enough and slower to make the switch, and because it’s cheaper that way at the beginning.
But now that we have more balanced review of the real usability of the A7RII with non native lenses, I think that a pro will hesitate to use its superior canon lens on an A7RII (AF in low light, tracking, etc). In terms of real usability, native lenses are still miles away from adapted lenses, even if their optical performances are not on par for some of them. For everyday use, adapting lens can be great, but I didn’t found the reviews convincing for a more “nervous” use.
24-70 and 70-200 are a different story but seriously, do you want to put a huge 16-35/2.8 on that tiny A7 body when there is the 16-35/4 which is only one stop slower? Even if you absolutely want the 2.8 aperture on a 16-35, you can always buy the A mount version which is an excellent lens.
I agree that the 16-35 is not the first lens to change into a 2.8 version. 24-70 seems more urgent, especially considering that the 24-70 f/4 is average at best… But I maintain the main point : 2.8 lenses are asked by the consumers. Some photographers may switch for a very specific lens like a kind of ultra wide that you mentioned, but the majority of them just want a functional and well balanced system. Specific lenses come after.
24-70 2.8 Yes please as long as it is better than rhe ones that came before.
With Voigt’s 10mm f/5.6 confirmed, I think they can wait before making wider than 16mm.
If this is true, it means that there will be other two F2.8 zooms along it as well, because out of the holy trinity, this is probably the least essential. Bring on the 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 and pretty please make them optically amazing!
I can’t see why everyone is so matter-of-fact about this.
I mean, I doubt Sony would ever release f/2.8 zooms, but if they do, it’s HUGE.
It will mean that A9 is inevitable, and so FE turns from laughing stock to a real replacement for DSLR. Not bogus pseudo-compact “replacement” pushed by marketing people along with the BS “compatibility with A-Mount”, but, in the near future, a real one.
All SLR mounts will be dead: A, EF, F, K, SA.
A release of a native f/2.8 FE zoom would be the biggest thing since digital photography.
“I mean, I doubt Sony would ever release f/2.8 zooms”
Why do you think that? One of the main Sony guys recently effectively said they are working on it.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0717419525/interview-kimio-maki-of-sony-the-customer-s-voice-is-the-most-important-data-for-me
“KM: Exactly. And also aperture. A F2.8 lineup is necessary, and brighter [primes].”
SSM II lenses were supposedly released to increase “compatibility” with E-Mount… so why make them, if they are preparing native FE zooms?
“SSM II lenses were supposedly released to increase “compatibility” with E-Mount”.
It might just be a happy coincidence if they do perform better with OSPDAF. I don’t think Sony ever said that the point of them was to increase e-mount compatibility – that was simply forum speculation.
The SSM II focus better and faster on A-mount too, especially the A77II.
But they are phasing out A-Mount, releasing A68 for “those with a precious collection of A-Mount lenses”. Releasing new expensive lenses kind of runs counter to it, no?
The logical conclusion should than be that they are not phasing out A-mount, given the evidence. Not holding on to the falsified hypothesis.
But they are rumored to be developing f/2.8 FE zooms. If one ever sees the light of day, all SLR mounts are dead.
At this stage I’d be more surprised if the aren’t. The a-mount may not be as dead as we thought, but they’re clearly trying to get the “pro” crowd to go e-mount (and succeeding)…
They pretty much broke the “only light and small system” concept with the 35/1.4 and 90/2.8M. After those it was quite obvious that at some point there will be F2.8 zooms. And with F2.8 zooms the bigger body is probably inevitable. They also said that they will focus on wedding and event photographers in short-to-mid term. That crowd will want F2.8 zooms and F1.4 primes.
I doubt Sony would ever release f/2.8 zooms
I don’t get that statement at all. Also, releasing 2.8 versions SONY, hopefully, will improve their lens quality as MP will only get higher as time goes on. The Sony 24-70 does not test well with many reviewers. This is the bread and butter lens for many pros using Canon
Sony is positioning FE as a system for professionals too, and F2.8 zooms are norm among those. It will be impossible to convince them to use system where those are not available… so those fast zooms will come.
Exactly.
f2.8 zooms are never coming – sure.
The same sure as E-mount FF was never coming before 2014.
The same sure as E-mount IBIS was impossible before A7ii.
The same sure as BSI for FF sensors will never happen.
Nevermind. Sony is confusing. SLT => E-Mount, Minolta flash => iISO flash, OSS in lens => IBIS, compact system => full-featured system?, SSM II zooms => native FE f/2.8 zooms?
Whoa, slow down.
Btw, Minolta flash shoe IS the iISO and new Sony one isn’t 😉
Laughing stock?
Remember when they took an 5D3 with 24-70 f/2.8 and put in beside an A7 with 24-70 f/4 and exclamied ‘look how smaller it is!’
Priceless
Still laughing stock is a stretch.
And about the 24-70 f/4 I would rather talk about the poor image quality.
Or or remember when they presented EVF as some revelation of the mirrorless world?
Or when the guy presenting the 70-400 SSM II had an A99 in front of him, looked at it, scratched his head and put the lens on an A7 with an adapter?
Or when they talked about “A-Mount compatibility” and “single system” before IBIS in A7II and OSPDAF of A7RII?
Or the whole “Alpha mount” thing?
The FE story has been so full of marketing gimmicks!
Meanwhile every Sunday I visit SAR and see many beautiful photos captured with a7 bodies. I want an a99 successor but these a7 cameras are great not gimmicks. Your hyperbole does a disservice to your arguing for a dSLR replacement.
Sony, please don’t make the zoom lens faster. Just make it better! The 24-70 is a shame…
To all the “pros” and “f2.8 zooms or bust” moaners, thanks for ruining the system!
How does having more options ruin the system?
I don’t know if he is just ironic all the time or if he simply does not know better, but you can ignore his statements. 9 of 10 are utterly nonsense.
Yeah just read above. If you are happy with getting nothing but massive DSLR lenses I’m sure you will be very happy.
LOL
thank you – it must be ironic and you are just troll-feeding. good move 🙂
So is you name ironic? Yes I’m expressing an opinion, SO sorry it isn’t the ‘we aren’t Pro unless we have the wanky “pro-trinity”‘ rhetoric that experts like to suggest.
So is you name ironic? Yes I’m expressing an opinion, SO sorry it isn’t the ‘we aren’t Pro unless we have the oh-so-pro “pro-trinity”‘ rhetoric that experts like to suggest.
Let’s see, this isn’t MORE options, these three lenses will mean we don’t get three other lenses that we would have otherwise. So that means MOST of the new lenses coming are going to be enormous. Sony changed their plans based on market feedback which said ‘we need “Pro” f2.8 zooms’.
hopefully they do “pro” zooms. Owning the beast called a7rII I can tell you that the native 24-70 (or 28-…) is really sh**…. I keep using my Tamron with LA-EA adapter despite it’s huge and the adapter adds some more bulk. But it is sharp and provides some room in low light conditions…
It seems like you need a better lens, not a bigger brighter one no? There was no mention there that the f4 was slow and thus you use the Tamron, just that it wasn’t much good.
Of course they change plans, any responsible business would. The uptake of the a7 series has far surpassed their wildest dreams so they have to change their plans to accommodate the wider than anticipated userbase. You may not like that, and I can definitely sympathize with that as I am one of the folks that bought into the system due to it’s smaller size and lower weight, but these are market realities and constantly whining about it doesn’t really accomplish anything.
‘Constant’? Hardly. I’ve mentioned it once, maybe other have I don’t know.
Yes this is true, however I think they could have gone for a more balanced approach. Release ONE f2.8 zoom now, heck even two, to show that they will develop more and are not afraid to.
I also get a real sense that Sony aren’t bowing to market ‘demand’ more ‘internet experts’. Things like 14bit RAW is the same, but at least that doesn’t take anything away from actual users. No matter what, people will find excuses for not buying into the system, it will be f2.8 zooms, then battery life, then dual card slots, then weather sealing etc etc and yes they can make things that counter that, but then it will be something else like ‘oh yeah, great they got all those things, but now its as big as a DSLR so what’s the point, why would I bother switching?’. I doubt releasing these things will cause much advantage for Sony. They already did the ‘lets try and compete with basically the same as what everyone else has’, now they have an opportunity to do something different and people are flocking to them, so they should go and make it as much the same as possible again?
Really really bad move.
Sony seems to have competent managers. They will make what there is a market for based on what is selling. If you find yourself in the minority, blame the market. Meanwhile Sony continues to make many compact options. Perhaps an rx100 will suit your taste for tiny things
I have an RX100, thanks. I also already have large lenses including f2.8 zooms that I use with my A7R II. That’s one of the great things about the system. But if I want massive heavy lenses I can already use them (and do) what I want is smaller (not small or tiny) native lenses.
I want the system to be modular, big and small as needed. But we aren’t getting small, just big, THAT is the problem, especially as there is already such great adaptability for big.
Irrelevant argument.
It is the obvious next move to expand the A7-system with a larger (more professional) A9, and hopefully a smaller A5.
And in my opinion, even if Sony were desperately trying to destroy their FE system, I wouldn’t be worried because Zeiss has everything under control on their FE-lens front.
How does it ruin the system? If you don’t like them, don’t buy them and if you don’t buy them it represents no change to you so nothing is ruined.
Except Sony are only releasing 8 new lenses, that means I’m getting less options because they are choosing to pander to internet chatter. So it DOES affect me. Just as these ‘experts’ have been allowed to express their opinions about what Sony should release, so too am I.
I don’t care if these lenses come out, I already have f2.8 zooms, what I DO care about is these being released at the expense of other lenses they might have released instead, had they stuck to their original plans for the system.
Sony ruined A-Mount because they wanted users to migrate to FE. Blame them, not us. Naturally, we aren’t migrating to a dumbed-down pseudo-“compact” system.
I dont care what clowns like you think you want in a system that you don’t own and have no intention of owning even if they had what you supposedly want.
So, you skip rational discussion whatsoever and jump right to insults. Okay, let’s see. My camera is bigger than yours!
What ‘rational discussion’? You come on here and demand this and that for this system, you out it down calling it a joke and blah blah blah saying it MUST have these things and yet YOU don’t own or use these things anyway. You won’t be buying these things anyway. You are just a loud mouth with big opinions on something that really doesn’t actually affect you in any way.
How exactly does the existence of such zooms “ruin the system”? If you don’t want them, don’t buy them!
Yes, that’s fine, I don’t want them, but it will mean I can’t buy something else, something I do want. There are only 8 new lenses coming, the 5 that we seem to know about I already have and won’t be any smaller. So that leaves only potential for 3 to be in line with the original concept of the system. That’s my issue. I don’t care if someone releases something I don’t want, but when that comes at the cost of something I do, that’s when things get annoying.
I think this news is pretty straightforward:
– There will be a Leica-SL-sized Sony A9.
– There will be 16-35/2.8, 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8 professional zooms.
– A-mount is over.
Heck, this was already expected after the 35/1.4 and 90/2.8. Sony is not going to sit there and let Panasonic grab that market.
And in fact, I find it very good practice to let Zeiss focus on the compact primes, while Sony focuses on large zooms and what not. I mean, the 55/1.8 and 35/2.8 were quite nice, but the Zeiss Batis/Loxia lenses are so much better and follow the same pricing model. I will think twice about any new Sony release, knowing that a better Batis lens will come along within the year.
Please, not the Leica SL size. There is absolutely no need to go the high-end SLR bloated size route. Slightly bigger than A7, perhaps with an integrated vertical grip is plenty enough for good balance with larger lenses and to fit large batteries.
With Leica-SL-size I mean slightly bigger than A7.
Ok, as long as we can agree that SL is NOT slightly bigger than A7 😉
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/sized/images/uploads_ee2/news_images/leica_sl_hands_on_sidebyside-550×399.jpg
Yes. The SL is poorly designed. I’m sure Sony will do a better job at a more ergonomic FE camera with larger battery and dual card slot. But the concept is the same: professional mirrorless body aimed at wedding photographers and what not.
If the X-Pro 2 really get dual SD, I think Sony will release a dual card model too.
That salesman looking cold with scarf inside, like store having trouble keeping the heat on.
I disagree. I would say slightly bigger. They’re both pretty compact. I would say a 5d3 or a99 is bigger and a 1d-x is much bigger.
It needs to be big enough to accomodate for a proper AF point select joystick, which is an absolute must.
Also all control elements must be big enough to work in thick gloves (which is the only way in winter in many regions).
They can just level the top of the camera to get rid of the faux prism design, that would be enough, the grip would be bigger and get more room for button placement/size.
Kinda like a mini medium format rangefinder style.
There is most definitely a market for an SL sized camera if Sony doesn’t bring an a99 successor. Some working photographers on here very much want a larger body for long-use ergonomics, ruggedness, dual card slots, high speed frame rate/performance/cache and better battery life (which requires bigger battery), and flip out LCD. For those that do not desire these things – the a7 series already exists.
Why oh why do people insist that they need D4s or 1Dx sized monstrosity for “working photographers”. Those cameras are not large because of ergonomics – the DSLR size bloat started because manufacturers couldn’t fit in all the electronics. Seriously, slightly larger than A7xII to accommodate all the controls, bells and whistles, deeper grip and perhaps integrated vertical grip would be ideal. Have you actually held A7xII camera with attached vertical grip? Just give it a week or two and the big FF DSLRs like A900, 5D3 and D810 will feel like fat abominations. And my hands are not particularly small either.
It’s called personal choice. I want a bigger camera, so do many others. I don’t want a D4S or 1DX sized camera either, but Leica SL sized, bring it on! There are plenty of smaller options in the mirrorless market if that’s what you want..
How long have you used A7xII with a vertical grip? If it’s less than a week, then you should really try it out for real before making assumptions on what you need or like. I used to think that A900 and A99 are good size and ergonomic with big lenses. I no longer think they are.
P.S. I am not arguing that you don’t need more controls, like focus point joystick, bigger battery or dual cards. Those are besides the point. I am talking strictly about the size and comfortable grip for whole day shooting sessions like weddings.
I use both Nikon D800 and A7R, and for me, each have their uses. I’m making no assumptions, but you are being presumptuous. Who are you to tell people what they should or shouldn’t want or like?
Like I said, it’s called personal choice.
The a7x series isn’t going away. I use a 1dx 5 days a week. The lower half is not empty space it’s a giant batter that allows for 14fps and all day shooting. It also feels like it can take a bullet and still function.
Would I like slightly smaller? Yes, that’s why I have an a99. That said there is demand for a body (like the SL) that is sized between the a7 and a99 that can feature the best of both worlds (ergonomically, durably and shooting options).
My point was that SL is not in between A99 and A7. It’s about as high and wide as A99, however a fair bit thinner due to shorter flange distance. My ideal size for events and weddings would be something in between A7 and A99, with an integrated vertical grip, if it can be made that small without sacrificing anything. By the way, if you look inside 1Dx and D4s, they are much more loosely packed than A7. There is plenty of wasted space. One might argue that it’s for better heat dissipation and structural integrity, but in reality they did not really bother to miniaturize, unlike Sony.
Out of the 3 standard reporter zooms, the 16-35/2.8 is the least urgent and necessary. A 24-70/2.8, 24-105 or 24-120/4, 70-200/2.8, 70-300 and esepcially 70/80/100-400 would be far more important.
Yes! And if this is true, it probably means that the others are coming too.
“He stated that because of their buying status with manufactures they
get wind of what’s coming and place their orders accordingly… This was
one of them and is due before Christmas…” So as per source lens is coming for Christmas, and from what i have seen its usually announced 2-3 months in advance. And so far no such announcements have been made, so i would say chances are slim.
From what I have heard, new lens road-map and lenses were ready to be announced in late August, but were delayed for whatever reason. What makes this a bit suspicious is that 24-70/2.8, 70-200/2.8 are probably more popular and wanted lenses than this.
True 24-70 and 70-200 will give more volumes as ultra wide angles as 16-35 are not as much desired, so this looks wrong. Maybe there was a typo in the list. But as i see it 135 and 85 are essentially missing primes, may be a 24 too; so those must come first
Agreed. Short of actually shipping almost immediately on announcement (in which case there would be more leaks due to the large vendor notice that has to be given), there’s simply no room to do a late announce/ship at this point. Most retailers have already committed all the dollars they want to commit to Christmas inventory. They don’t have the cash to buy lots more inventory, nor do they want to do any new training/info to staff at this point. What retailers want to do is sell the boxes already on the shelves.
Can anybody tell me, what the wide-end lens of the classic “holy trinity” is?
In Nikon lineup I find a
14-24 / f2.8
17-35 / f2.8
For Canon: EF 16-35 F2.8 II/24-70 F2.8 II/70-200 F2.8 II
For reporter 16(17)-35 is probably a more desirable range as it also covers a bit of normal and provides overlap with 24-70(105) for fewer missed shots due to lens changes.
For landscape work 11(14)-24 is probably more interesting.
I’m not a fan of the “holy trinity” concept, as it reinforces the lazy professional’s tactic of using 16-24-70-200 f/2.8 zooms with a flash and take uninspiring photos. There’s nothing professional about such trinity.
Professional is not defined by what lenses you use. It is defined by the quality of your work and the ability to sell it.
Agreed. Moreover, being able to carry 16-200mm in relatively fast optics in a smallish, three-set group is more convenient than carrying 18, 20, 24, 28, 35, 50, 85, 105, and 200mm primes. What Mike is arguing is that someone carrying those primes is not lazy and knows what they’re doing while someone carrying those zooms is. In my experience, I see lazy in both groups, it just shows in different ways ;~).
Not exactly. What I am arguing is that the “holy trinity” nomenclature will stick to photographers who are too lazy to research their own lens kit, and ironically also result in lazy photography due to the nature of these lenses. That is: zoom to fit the subject, ignore perspective distortion, and fix low light with a flash.
And I see nothing holy about such trinity: 200mm is awfully short. f/2.8 is awfully slow in the 24-35mm range.
It’s up to each professional to assemble their own kit. But I would argue that a good 35/1.4 and a good 80-400mm or 100-400mm tele is at least, if not more professional than any f/2.8 trinity.
Those lenses are just very good for reportage, where you don’t have the luxury of changing lenses. Taking two primes instead would entail 2 camera bodies, which is awkward. f/2.8 is just the maximum zooms currently go, although Sigma has been rumored with an 24-70 f/2 for some time.
Sigma ended up releasing a 24-35mm f2, the 24-70 was just wishful thinking.
Sigma tends to listen to the customers. It may still materialize, even if they didn’t plan for it. Shouldn’t be much bigger than 70-200 f/2.8.
So they made the 24-35mm just for ‘funsies’ and are really going to make the 24-70/2 as well because ‘they listen’? And why would it be sized like a 70-200mm? Do you have any idea how ignorant that sounds?
You seriously need to come off your high horse and chill out.
There’s so much wrong with this. Many who research their own lens will arrive at the conclusion that the “trinity” kit is what best fulfills their need; though usually it’s not just those zooms, but a combination with them and some quality primes. Also, the fact that you’re using a zoom doesn’t mean one doesn’t understand perspective distortion. I can see wide-angle distortion at 16mm on a zoom just as well as I can on an equivalent prime. And a 80/100-400 zoom would be way too slow for something like a wedding, definitely would not be the “more professional” choice.
You can argue all you want, but the bottom line is – each to their own.
Don’t forget 135 😉
It’s not the certain gear that makes professional lazy. It’s himself. Nothing wrong with versatility for when it helps the task at hand.
Zoom selection has little to do with setting up beautiful lighting, posing/directing, and composition. I find it just as lazy when a person buys a super fast lens so as to never have to light and always shoot wide open because he/she thinks that bokeh / shallow DoF makes all photos great. That and an Instagram filter.
70-200
24-70
12-24 for Nikon / 16-35 for others
(All 2.8)
Funny that Nikonians prefer 14-24 over a 16(17)-35.
And Nikon has a 17-35 f2.8 in the lineup.
Well, their 14-24 is widely regarded as the best wide-angle zoom out there.
Then it is not a matter of usability, but a matter of being proud to have something Canon does not have – right?
Probably. 🙂
The Tamron 15-30 is better!
Is it really? Have you personally used both? I know the reviews speak very highly of it. The thing that turns me off from it (and the 14-24, were I a Nikon shooter), though, is the bulbous lens surface. I’m lazy and cheap, and like to use screw-on filters; don’t want to have to buy a special kit to accommodate that one lens. Of course, the flip side is expense – the Tammie is much more affordable than the name-brand equivalents.
Neither the Nikon 17-35 nor the 16-35 f/4 are that great where Canon’s 16-35 f/4 is a very good lens although their f/2.8 gets a lot of bad publicity (some of it undeserved like the Sony 24-70 f/4 – they both have issues but the Internet amplification effect has made them much worse than they actually are). Nikon’s 17-35 is ancient and just doesn’t hold up to today’s sensors and is quite bad in the corners, the 16-35 is OK but not really good. The 14-24, even though it doesn’t natively take filters is a pretty darn good lens (Canon’s 11-24 is better though but also many years newer).
I hired a second photographer to cover an event while I was preoccupied elsewhere. He used mainly the Nikon 17-35mm. It did not strike me as a very good lens. The 14-24 has been the king of the wide angle zooms (before the release of the amazing canon 11-24mm anyway).
The 17-35mm f/2.8 is an old lens. I wouldn’t say Nikon users prefer the 14-24mm either. The 16-35mm f/4 is often picked instead (one of my favourite lenses for land and cityscapes).
bear i mind the Nikon holy trinity, in its recent iteration, is relatively new. The 17-35mm was introduced 15 years ago, and along with its predecessor (the 20-35) was a must-have for professional photojournalists. A very common combo was F100 + 17-35mm, and the zoom lens easily outperformed most prime lenses of that range of that period. With the release of the 24-70mm, a lot of photojournalists migrated to the new lens, sacrificing a bit on the wide end, but gaining a bit more on the long end.
I’m currently shooting with Batis lenses, FE55 and FE16-34.
Assuming the list above is true. I would pre-order 70-200f2.8 to cover longer end(unless Zeiss Batis 135f2 arrives before). Will wait for price drop for other two?
sure who wants to sell something so he asked to wait.. what a BS
Releasing any large sized f2.8 zoom will completely defeat the purpose of the E-mount of being small and compact. Sure, if they actually made f2.8 zooms for the e-mount, it would make e-mount users happy but whether they buy it or not is another question. And if they did make them, it would be highly unlikely for them to be as good as the current premium A-mount glass line up. As Kenta said, having options is a good thing, and having him acknowledge that SLT tech is superior in certain aspects as opposed to the e-mount, it is pretty obvious that Sony will not simply dismiss the incredible potential that they can achieve with the current premium A-mount glass line up.
ahahaha
>And if they did make them, it would be highly unlikely for them to be as good as the current premium A-mount glass line up
Why? (given they have no restraints of ‘compactness’)
For many the main purpose of the E-Mount is NOT that everything has to be light and small. Not even for Sony, as you can see the FS7 is a huge camera. Not for most users and all former non-Sony users, as you can see they use adapters with large Canon/Nikon lenses.
The main E-Mount purpose for most right now is:
– having a mirrorless fullframe system which Canon/Nikon don’t offer
– being able to use great mirrorless workflows like focus peaking and zooming in the viewfinder
– using a camera that offers 42MP and 4K video at the same time
– shooting extreme lowlight
If you personally want to have a light and small system, just only use the light and small lenses!!! And realize that it’s probably impossible to build something around 200mm at 2.8 that is light and small.
Yeah but the m4/3 squad is bent on making fake ones, 100/2.8 advertised as 200/2.8 and stuff.
And again, the fallacy that the “purpose” of E-mount is to be small. It’s a broken record. E-mount is modular and CAN be small. It doesn’t HAVE to be small.
yeah cause the a mount 35mm 1.4 is better than the fe mount 35mm 1.4?????????
Sony FE has officially eaten the mario mushroom and there is no going back. Big lenses, bigger bodies and bigger batteries. Big big big!
Meanwhile- A mount bodies will continue to shrink.
The only thing that’s shrinking about A-mount is sales 😉
Nice. Honestly, I’d rather travel a) light or b) geared-up.
For travelling light, primes are my lenses of choice. For being gear-up, f2.8 zooms is what I’d want.
I can definitely see the benefit of f4 zooms for many people, but for me it’s a ‘middle-ground’ I don’t often find myself in.
Similar for me.
In the mid-range I would use the kit 28-70 if I want a lightweight equipment and go for 24-70 f2.8 if I want to gear up.
In the 70-200mm range, I really don’t know if I prefer a 2.8, a 4 or a 70-400 lens. Need to see specs and prices and reviews when the other options have been released.
And no idea if want a 16-35mm at all. I usually shoot at longer focal ranges.
I was just thinking the other day of the wonderful work of photographer Lana Slezic. A lot of her (fantastic!) early work was done with a D200 and the Nikkor 17-35mm f2.8 (so approx FoV of 25-53mm).
Geared up… You mean Rambo photography? I usually have a few bodies strapped down on me with extra lens ammo strewn around my body. Batteries in a magazine and shin guards in-case the natives try and kick me.
Haha – yes! And an RX100 in a leg holster 🙂
P.S. – would love to see a photo of the above!
It’s arguable what exactly “light” means. To me, a 16-35 f4 may be lighter and smaller than 3 primes.
I’m sure it means very different things to different people. For me ‘travelling light’ means carrying a camera/lens in a jacket pocket, or small waist pouch. ‘Geared Up’ means taking the back-pack or large gear bag.
It is a rumor site after all, but the story seems ridiculous on all levels.
I would love an 17mm f4 tilt shift FE lens…
There’s this company called Canon… might want to look it up.
I would love a native one.
I’ve used the 17 & 24 canon ts-e lenses extensively on the a7r. They perform beautiful (better than on a canon). There is little benefit in a native only version (since the lenses are manual and won’t get smaller) but a higher resale value with one that can be used by canon or Sony users.
Indeed, if Sony could get it to AF, then more people would be interested. That said, AF on a 17/4…still doesn’t sound too useful.
Why would they discourage a sell. This is SR0. Next ?
If the salesperson doesn’t work on commission, then he might just be more interested in what’s right for the customer?
Possible, but if I was his manager and I’m coming over I’d be pissed.
Maybe 16-35 F4 was out of stock that week. And before I lose the customer to another shop I tell him to wait and preorder.
If it was truly coming out, it will be a lot more $$$ than 16-35 F4 = more $$$ for shop. Might be a good play in the long run?
Agree. And if it turns out he wasn’t lying, the customer becomes a grateful one and buys probably again in this shop.
Usually it doesn’t work this way, but I’ve noticed it sometimes happening in Japan. You need really really decent salespersons for this to happen.
always the less needed lenses first… 🙂 and the most need – never. i’m sorry. it’s a sony.
🙂
And what would be the most needed?
Also rumored next to the 16-35/2.8 are: 24-70/2-8, 70-200/2.8, 85/1.4, telephoto…
The ones you listed pretty much are all needed, but 16-35 is probably last in the line.
First lens I would buy.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, just don’t expect everyone with it.
So technically the 55/1.8 is the least needed?
The more I use that lens, the more I need to use it.
Classic documentary/photojournalism zoom, like the 16-35 by Canon and the 17-35 by Nikon (and, stretching things a little bit, the new Sigma Art 24-35mm). If the story/rumor is true, it makes a lot of sense.
f2.8 native zooms must be available before release of a9. This makes perfect sense. The camera wouldn’t be taken seriously otherwise.
Close- it’s an F2.
I think 16-35 F2.8 is probably last lens I would need. Why is Sony always doing opposite of people want? Yeah, let them do 16-20 F5 too while they are at it. Or let’s do another 28-70 F8 this time. Sometimes I feel that Sony is trolling us.
Why do you think that what you want is what everybody wants? 16-35mm f2.8 is one of the most common zooms for all systems. Why shouldnt Sony have one?
Is it priority #1? Look at FE lineup and take a wild guess what is desperately needed right now? I’m not talking Sony shouldn’t have this lens, I’m talking priorities. This lens may be anywhere at #12-20 priority.
Agree: Next lens we need is 24-70 f 2.8!!!
All Sony engineers now have to develop the 24-70 f 2.8. All together – no exception. Lets’s pause all other lenses, lets pause smartphone development, lets pause TV development. If 10000 people working on the 24-70f28, it will be finished in 6 hours, maybe even earlier!!!
Joking aside, you do understand that IF they are to spend R&D into some lens that would be released – it better be a lens that is most needed or the one that is absent in FE lineup. This can be either tele or long primes but not the 16-35 f2.8. I hope you know it better than I do.
Joking aside, Sony has several teams for lens development. They are developing different lenses in parallel, and this good practice.
I am just sick of reading “We don’t need this. Please let’s do that first.”
Using a fake name doesn’t make yourself better.
Is Q Hm your real name? 😉
Yes, first and last letters of my name.
Nothing wrong with abbreviating I suppose, but lots of people use nothing close to their real name as an ID.
The way you’ve abbreviated does remind me of a British slang term, though. :/
I’m using my real name.
yes, but using abbreviations of your first and last name doesn’t make you better either.
Q Hm is nothing known.
Brain Smith is a well known Sony Artisan with a big reputation. And you are stealing this name. And I don’t believe it’s your real-life name.
I know who is Brain Smith. That’s why I tell that guy is a scammer. Duh! BTW, I don’t care who knows my name, but at least I don’t use sb name then post some b*llsh*ts.
Because it’s not your name.
SAR readers are used to trolling
This FE mount needs 3-4 more zooms that overlap the 28-70 range, just look at the APS-C lineup.
It’s not like people use focal lengths longer than 90mm…. Where’s the 135 & 200mm primes? Nothing beyond 300mm, no prime in the 40-45mm range, no Tilt/Shift, other than the Loxia 21, there is no UW primes… Plus the lenses they do have have QC issues like decentering.
You’re not Brian Smith. Brian Smith would see the value in this fast wide zoom.
I want one! Get all your wide angle and landscape shots, plus it’d work for night/astro!
In my nerdy, GAS-y dreams these 2.8 zooms all use fresnel lens technology to maintain a similar size and weight. I really, really doubt Sony has the lens designing chops to pull that off though. Canon has only a couple zooms—and not their 2.8s—and Nikon only has one prime (that I know of).
I can already hear all of the outrage about bokeh if that happened 😉
I am only aware of one Canon DO zoom – the 70-300 which is a pretty old lens and costs about the same as their much better L grade 70-300,
I don’t think DOs are ready for wide yet.
Atleast on Ultrawide like 16-35 it shouldn’t matter much.
Perhaps. I was thinking more in terms of the 70-200 and 24-70. I’m certainly not qualified to say one way or the other except that the concept isn’t tied to wide or telephoto designs it is simply about making the necessary large glass elements smaller. Both fast telephotos and wide zooms have such elements.
You’re right. One zoom and two telephoto primes at this point. The 70-300 DO seems to be well regarded just overpriced. With Sony it will overpriced regardless so no disadvantage there ?
Give me a 20-90/f4 – THAT would be a cool lens. Must not be that sharp for my A7s … 🙂
70mm of the standard zoom is somehow short for me. 35-105 would also be way more usefull for me, combined with a 16-35.
You are in luck, they make a 28-135mm f4 just for you 😉
When it’s between the kit lens and the Seiss (Sony-Zeiss) with quality and price I will buy for sure!
Seizz ! Great one !
Oh yes that happens to me ALL the time. I want to spend some cash but when I am just about to pay they ask me to wait a couple of months because a better product comes out……
Actually in Europe, these things happen.
Personal experience? I’m from Europe. It’s never happened to me or anyone I know.
If you’re a decent human being, interested in what you sell, and not working on commission, it’s not the least bit implausible. And it generates the type of goodwill that usually leads to repeat customers.
Well, I’ve experienced salespeople at a few stores stearing me away from Sony A mount while voicing their frustration over how they’ve handled the system. If that indicates anything. As far as FE sales, they say they are decent but more interest in Olympus and Panasonic due to cost. I get the impression that for most people- if they’re going to dump big money- at least where I live- they are still doing it with Canikon.
Reader’s name was Anthony David?
The guy that posted the A6100 / A7000 specs on dpreview some days ago?
Yep. “Specs”.
It reads like specs.
It sounds possible at all.
If it is fake, he did a good job!
We’ll see on the 16! 😀
92mm front filter thread
I have the 1.8/55… give me the 2.8/16-35 and 2.8/70-200 and I’m happy.
…oh, but Sony, come on, is making them reasonably priced really that unreasonable to ask?
These won’t be any cheaper than their A mount counterparts. I bet we get a pro A9 body next year. The first dslr sized mirror less full frame and I bet it’s the size of an A77II without the mount bulge.
Would be perfect!
It’d better match the 1D series in AF and burst, then they could still boast a size advantage 😉
I agree the a9 is coming, but I don’t think it will be as bulbous as a dslr. I hope not at least. I understand it needs to be bigger, so maybe between an a7 and bloated dslr. I know the “professionals” want something intimidating looking so clients feel they’re getting their money’s worth and photographers can intimidate with size… and there are the big, burly men who need a dinosaur size camera to fill their masculine hands… but I hope Sony doesn’t just release a big, hollowed out a7 so the pros feel more secure.
As long as I can still hold it up with my mustache.
actually, as a professional, one of the things that are making me consider mirrorless is the size/weight. If I don’t have to compromise much, i.e. if the body is solid, reliable and weatherproof, and if the camera allows me to do pretty much the same as a dslr, I really wouldn’t mind carrying less weight. If they absolutely need to make it a little bit bigger, that’s fine, but IMHO the goal should always be to keep its size in the neighborhood of the Leica M.
When I tried it last week I had the impression that the Leica M was much larger and heavier than the A7r or A7r mk2…
Sony will not release a big hollowed out A7, they’ll pack it with technology instead…
and pretty please keep the darn FM500 battery! Or come up with a better one!
The 55mm 1.8 is a stellar lens.
It’s believable if the f2.8 is due to arrive in a couple of weeks even with salesman’s honesty. We know how tight lips Sony has been so I doubted the first leak is coming from a retailer.
I believe it possible because with the AF update on the A7II I’m getting the impression- no new A7III for the holiday. They’ve released so many bodies this past few months so what’s the last minute holiday suprise?
BIG 2.8’S!!!!!
If it is, it has to be the 24-70 and not 16-35.
The current 24-70 sucks for its overpricing
Sony have been rumored to be working on 8 new lenses. So maybe all of them? 😀
It’s not a rumour, its on their roadmap.
It just sucks, actually. DXO had the kit 28-70mm rated higher than the Zeiss 24-70mm… until something mysterious changed. It’s not the first time I’ve seen a strange Sony influence at DXO.
How could Sony have such an influence at DXO ? Aren’t these two completely separate entities ? I think that the DXOone camera relies on the Sony 1″ BSI Exmor RS sensor but this should not give any influence to Sony over the DXO test results and reports…
if they can make 16-35 F/2.8 and 24-70 F/2.8 why not a 16-70 F/2.8 ? it would be nice on APS-C camera
full frame 16-70/2.8 would weight about 3kg (7 pounds) with current technology…..
I heard a rumor about Sony making an APS-C 16-70mm f/2.8. Even if it were a little big it’s hard to imagine the lens not selling cameras.
There is glass and significant electronics in the evf hump. It is now a faux shell. They cannot shave it off as you suggest. They can raise the sides to make it a block if there were an actual benefit.
If these big lenses with wide bodies get released they’ll need to move that grip over a little bit to the right. Need to be able to get my fingers in there. Call it the fat finger edition.
They will be similar to the 70-200/4 i.e. have thinner part closer to the bayonet.
Sony will make 16-35/2.8, 70-200/2.8 and 24-70/2.8 for FE someday. Very likely they will announce one or two of those lenses in the next few weeks……
By the same token they will some day release portrait lens and a 70-300 lens
This not a news really.
My personal idea for Sony to retain the small size of the FE-mount lenses while maximizing the amount of light captured by the camera? Remove OSS and completely depend on 5-axis image stabilization. We can assume that most, if not all new Sony FE and E mount products will have 5-A-IS. This way, the lens developers can focus on “Panning”, image quality, & autofocus speed.
Perhaps that’s what they’ve done. Though their video line still doesn’t use IBIS, and it’s hard to see that happening.
It could appear on an entry level device and make its way up– and since it would be a defeatable option, video shooters might end up welcoming it were it fine-tuned for video.
It is believable they will announce 2.8 16-35. What is less believable is that seller didnt want to sell his product he already had in stock, just because he might sell different one in future.
worked in a camera shop.. we did this all the time.. its called customer service. Not everyone is out to rip you off.
Yeah, selling a product someone wants to buy is ripping somebody off.
introduce a much more expensive equivalent makes total sense in industry, rather than selling EXACTLY what customer want at teh EXACT price customer expected
Sony, just please don’t release a 70-200mm f/2.8 and then try to sell it for $3,000 again … I will liquidate my Sony gear and switch to Canon in a heartbeat if I feel I’m being made a fool to be taken advantage of.
Yeah, I think they need to keep it around $1999 if they want to be serious
I’d be okay with $2200 ~ $2500. I believe those are the initial listed prices for the Nikon and Canon versions before their respective price drops.
I’d start moving over to Canon then.
I think that they should make it 16-24mm to keep the lens a little smaller. I already have the Tamron 15-30 f/2.8, which is humongous, and I don’t really need an FE version of that, but if Sony does make one… Maybe keeping the range shorter would allow for a slightly smaller lens and better IQ across the range?
This is what I was hoping for IF they really did have to make f2.8 zooms, make them less ambitious for focal range, like 20-35, 35-70, 70-150 (or 100-200). The idea that there is something ‘inherently perfect’ about the current standard is absurd.
15-30, 30-100, 100-250
Will never happen 🙂
That would be great, but hardly ‘less ambitious’. Minolta used to make some really great short zoom range lenses, so did Canon and Nikon. In fact the larger ranging zooms weren’t really any better quality wise until quite recently, but they were certainly much bigger. The 28-75mm f2.8 is a great example of keeping things relatively simple and therefore relatively small.
But 15-24, 24-70 and 70-200 are certainly possible.
As much as I don’t like agreeing with MdB, he’s right that there’s nothing that makes current standards perfect.
Just like I wish Sony made a 50-150/2.8, the same way Sigma does for APSC
Personally I find 24-70 absolutely the most useless lens, big but not wide enough nor long enough nor fast enough. I shoot plenty of lenses in that range but I don’t find there to be any convenience there that make them worthwhile. 70-200mm is good, though I would happily have it a but shorter to make it smaller. 16-35mm I am and would continue to be perfectly happy with the f4, but a shorter ranging f2.8 that errs towards wider wider would certainly satisfy a lot of people.
Lets see – on the one hand there is conservatism and the established spacing. On the other I’d consider choosing new fl ranges to avoid the retrofocus kink in the current standard zooms. Make it as wide as possible without that switch in the optical formula. Now use the freed resources to optimize the lens design and you should get an advantage over the DSLR counterparts.
That would be again sacrificing functionality in the name of the bogus ‘compactness’. They won’t be able to create an A-Mount replacement this way. It would be, again, a system for the mirrorless shooters, not a DSLR competitor, which Sony seem to be currently gunning for.
Clearly have zero idea what you are talking about, considering you think a 24-70mm lens will be the size of a 70-200mm.
Stick with your A65 with kit lens and leave the thinking to the adults.
A 24-70 f/2 can be the size of the 70-200 f/2.8, why not? The pictures that circulated with the rumor showed it this way.
And what does the A65 has to do with anything again? You seem to be weirdly fixated on this camera for some reason.
You mean the fakes? Do you have any idea whatsoever the relationship of focal length in lens design?
I’m not an optical designer. Again, come off your high horse. Your random bashing is uncalled for.
Yet you feel it nessersary to bash the system I favour and your perceived inadequacies in every single post, even though you don’t own it / use it?
I’m not bashing the system, I’ve been bashing Sony’s irritating policy of presenting FE as a full-featured replacement for DSLR/A-Mount when it clearly wasn’t. This idea has also been mindlessly repeated time and time again by E-Mount trolls on this forum.
It was all fine when Sony had two different systems, the Alpha and the NEX; the feud started when they tried to present A7x not as a different product, but as the “next generation of DSLR”, “same functionality but more compact”, which was total BS, but was the reason why they all but discontinued A-Mount. And E-mount trolls here wrote things like “why waste resources on obsolete mount, let’s just focus on E-Mount”.
I’m sure the former-NEX and the FE are great systems!!!, but they are NOT in their current state a replacement for SLT yet, the fact I’ve been trying to bash into E-Mount trolls’ thick skulls.
Ouch ! That was un-necessary, wasn’t it ?
I agree. Even the Nikon 14-24 has a fairly short range, but it’s a great lens. And the 24mm and up range is already covered, so may as well make that lens go to 24mm.
I agree. 28/30/35-70 f2.8 would be OK.
When they announce 2.8 zooms it will signal the end of the A-mount. There would no longer be a reason to keep the A mounts if the FE does everything the A does and more.
I’ve been saying for a long time:
1) Make A7000 and A9 bodies, the same size as A77 and A99 (and keep FM500 battery while you’re at it)
2) Make essential high quality zooms with mechanical manual focus
3) Make A7000 with the same AF system as A7rII
If Sony does this, hordes of A-Mounters will migrate to E-Mount fairly fast. The only ones that will stick to the very end, are the ones that need absolute best Z-axis AF tracking, for sports, that is until Sony is able to match OSPDAF capabilities to standalone PDAF.
But it’s not only A-Mount. If they do this, all SLR mounts will become obsolete.
Yeah, it was just Sony’s compassion to wait so long to announce 2.8 zooms, which will kill the entire DSLR industry. FACEPALM
It haven’t been “so long”. The first A7 was only announced 16 October 2013, and has been initially positioned as a pseudo-compact system
Yes I know, what I was trying to say is, that the advent of 2.8 FE zooms will not be THE game changer, or like you said, “.. all SLR mounts will become obsolete…”.
We’ll see.
I do believe it’d be THE straw to break the camel’s back. Not the A7, not A7S with 4k, not the A7II with IBIS, not the A7RII with OSPDAF, but exactly the f/2.8 FE zooms that say “NO MORE PSEUDO-COMPACTNESS” in big neon letters, if they ever produce them.
Maybe you are right and this will be the breakthrough. We’ll see.
However, I never got what the term “pseudo-compactness” is all about.
Pseudo-compactness: small camera body + large lenses… The camera bodies are advertised as the smallest full frame i.e. compact but the catch is the the lenses do not follow the trend hence the term which applies to the (body + lens) without which no pictures can be taken…
Why would they become obsolete ?
The announcement of 2.8 zooms for FE doesn’t mean, that suddenly FE does everything the A does.
It may be true for you, but not for me and according to the comments here, many others.
Exactly !
I totally disagree.
Some people within this forum have their own reasons but they do prefer cameras with larger bodies than the present E-mount and that is the A-mount.
Tu put it simply as soon as the proportion of people preferring to lug around large and heavy camera bodies does not become negligible, Sony should keep the A-mount to satisfy this demand. Why not ?
The larger bodies should also allow to pack more technology in there and / or more efficiently evacuate calories when filming full frame in 4K or 8K even…
The development and sophistication possibilities offered by the larger A-mount bodies are certainly very different than what may be achievable within the E-mount smaller bodies… This can lead to a very strong product differentiation which could complement each other rather than go against each other.
This is a strange time to be into photo and video. Diehard photographers and videographers will go with the lens or camera that suits their needs with the least compromise, but for someone like me who is split between the two (with a little more focus on video), the lens that excites me most is the upcoming Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8 IS.
Even if I only shot using Sony bodies, it still makes more sense to me than the E-mount 24-70mm 2.8 that’s also on the horizon. On a FS5/7 or on a a7rII APS-C crop area, a speed booster effectively turns that Canon 24-70mm f/2.8 into a 17-50mm f/2.0, and w/o the SB you have the reach of the normal 24-70 at f/2.8. Both the Sony and the Canon are stabilized, and the Canon (should) have useable AF, though AF isn’t as crucial a feature to some as it is to others.
Having used speed boosters for a couple years on many different cameras, it’s hard to think about going back to a “locked” system (any mount with a long flange distance– Canon, Nikon, Minolta, etc.). I’ve never seen a speed booster degrade my image, and on sensors smaller than APS-C, you have even more options re: effective focal length and aperture. Soon they’ll be getting cheaper and potentially better (I’d love to be able to buy something other than the Metabones brand).
I think the risks Sony has taken by so aggressively bringing high-end technology down to it’s consumer equipment- and going as far as to even tacitly approve of another company’s lens on its cameras- is going to pay off even more into the future. Because even I, at some point down the road, would probably pick up the FE 24-70mm f2.8, just for the sake of that extra convenience and compatibility. But for now, the EF, not the FE, is strangely not the lens I’m excited about for FE mount cameras.
Well, if it is true then it might be my next astrophotography buddy although I do like my Rokinon 14mm 2.8.
I have the Samyang, a well corrected one too. Yes, I can’t recommend these UWA’s enough, they’re superb.
Is it related to the endlessly repeated news that 8 more lens are coming out before Q1 2016 ends?
I think this lens isn’t going to be light and compact due to f/2.8 wide aperture. The weight of the entire system will grow closer to dlsr systems. In that case, I happen to recall the Canon 1635/2.8L is actually a very nice lens priced friendly. If newer Canon/Nikon bodies are quick to adapt new sensors from Sony… That will be a nice game to watch.
If Canikon joins the mirrorless fray then it will be interesting. I may then switch to the brand producing the best image quality, most technology advanced, compact, lightest FF camera AND with the best after sales service.
Probably is going to be ridiculously expensive.
I don’t care too much about the price as soon as it remains well clear from Leica’s territory which is exorbitant…
Ridiculously expensive and huge. Defy the purpose of mirrorless…
people seem to think the driver of mirrorless is compact gear. WRONG.
The purpose of mirrorless is less moving parts. It is the same concept as solid state storage. The smaller size is a nice side effect, but if people want to use fast glass mirrorless will still be better than a mechanical system (DSLR) once the technology matures…
from a manufacturing point of view you’re probably right: less moving parts, cheaper to make, bigger profit.
But from the customers’ perspective, the smaller size is definitely one of mirrorless systems biggest selling points.
maybe for NEX, but the FE has never been compact, even with an 28-70. RX1 is, FE isn’t, especially the 2nd gen that is amost as heavy as a Canon 6D
Almost. LOL
Have a look at camerasize.com. The size difference is quite significant.
Weight, not size. A7II 600g, 6D 755g
OK, that’s true.
Sorry, I didn’t see that. Still, the size is a bit smaller, small enough that a 1-camera/1-lens guy like me can leave the bag at home and carry it in a pouch. Not possible with dslr, unless you use a big pouch.
Maybe I didn’t explain myself clearly, but I was referring specifically to the A7 line. An A7x with a small prime is about the same size of a Leica M. Very personal choice, though. I haven’t used any zoom in the last 10 years (except for video), and 99% of my stills are shot on a 35mm, so I guess I’m part of a minority of professional users.
Compactness relates to volume, not weight though…
Exactly !
Exactly, once the technology matures. But thats a long way to go. A camera is not only electronics and specs. Never will be. You will never be able holding just 1’s and 0’s in your hand. (Unless mankind gets digitized itself.)
Even with less moving parts, a camera (or at least a significant part of it) is still an old economy product, which needs decades to mature.
I understand your analogy, but a camera (-system) is way more complex than a harddrive, especially when is comes to usability.
It will be to big for the existing lineup. When Sony decide to launch a body with bigger grip, I may change my mind, But Sony FF A7 serie was always about compactness, and this new 16-35 f/2.8 is really not “fitting” into the existing system.
Hope they can release something about the size of the A77 to handle well bigger glass… A9 anybody?
Mike, Agreed, the main driver may not be size but small size is necessarily a strong collateral advantage since it allows to produce full frame digital cameras the size of an Olympus OM2 ! Isn’t Sony advertising the A7 series of cameras putting forward their small size advantage ? If Sony, who design the gear in the first place, was not perceiving the small size as a strong strategic advantage, do you think they’d try to sell it to their clients that way ?
After the initial spend in R&D and manufacturing tooling, within Sony’s perspective the advantages of mirrorless are less moving parts / more solid state thus lower manufacturing costs vs DSLRs. The more solid state means warranty service should, in principle, also be simpler thus costs of service should be lower or to a point outright replacement may even work out cheaper than service… Overall this should produce much higher profit margins vs traditional DSLRs which are more costly and complex to manufacture and service. This should be taken with a pinch of salt though since the A7 mk2 index of repairability (ease to repair) was noted as 4/10… this certainly due to the sheer miniaturisation.
Is there some way to automatically delete “but it has to be small” comments? It’s a frickin broken record. CAN BE. Not HAS TO BE… ferfuqsake
If too large and heavy I don’t buy… To me it defeats the purpose of the small size package which I am looking for. I’d love to have top quality pancake lenses for my A7r and A7r mk2.
sounds more like a gossip 🙂 but the f2.8 lenses would be the final frontier for many to get into Sony A7 line up. Can’t wait.
If true, all I hope is, that these are not Zeiss lenses. Otherwise they will be insanely bulky and bloody expensive. I have used the Zeiss 24-70 for A-Mount for a few days. In my opinion the usability sucks, just because of the huge diameter.
Wrong, he has a certain sale now, vs uncertain sale later. One more reason, when the new lens arrive, it will be harder to sell the old one. Thats why the older things usually get discounted.
Because Sony will have to release A9 along with f/2.8 zooms, and then there’d be too little difference between mirrorless/DSLR
The M body is 12mm wider and 18mm less thick than the A7R II. As for weight, the M is 680g, the A7R II 640g.
Thx – was afraid nobody noticed 🙂