The German Journalist Martin Vieten got had a meeting with Sony Germany. And they confirmed to him that “there will be many new fast primes” and “One of the new fast primes should be a portrait lens (around 90mm).” My guess is that most of these primes will be announced by end 2015 but available from early 2016 only. What lens do you hope to get? My wishlist: 24mm f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.0.
All new FE lens preorder links:
In USA at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony US.
Sony Fisheye Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Conversion Lens for FE 28mm F/2 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Fisheye Converter for E 16mm F/2.8 and E 20mm F/2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony Ultra-Wide Converter for E 16mm F2.8 and E 20mm F2.8 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
In Europe at:
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 90mm f/2.8 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 24-240mm FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Sony 28mm f/2.0 FE at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide Angle converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter at Sony Germany, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, AT, CH, SE, FI, NO, PT.
In Asia/Australia at:
Sony 24-240mm FE lens at Digitalrev, CameraPRO, Sony Australia.
Sony 28mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Sony 90mm FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 FE lens at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Wide angle converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
Fisheye converter for 16 and 20mm lenses at Digitalrev, Sony Australia.
440 Responses
It’ll never happen but a 17mm prime would be great. While I’m at it, a 200mm 2.8.
I’d settle for a relatively light weight 200/4…
I’m not really sure that “light weight” prime of 200mm is really needed. Minolta 200/2.8 is beautiful lens (and light enough – just a little bit heavier then the new 35mm:). Still it becomes great just from F4.0 up. At wider apertures the quality goes down very quickly. But having this lens in native FE mount would be really sweet.
Are you sure it’s current? It shows the 20, 35, 90 and 24-240 as being released in 2014…
Yes I know. At first I also thought that’s the old roadmap. But indeed it’s SOny germany itself that told him that’s the updated version from March. And there are two differences compared to the Photokina english roadmap:
1) It says multiple prime lenses are coming (english version says one)
2) The english version shows more grey lines on the future lenses whiel the new version shows only one.
That’s the comparison to make it more clear:
the book year is different than the actual year
Would it be so hard for them to release a 70-200 f2.8 (FE native)? I think that after releasing the 35f1.4 they now know that pocketability isn’t the chief concern for their customers anymore.
Isn’t the 35mm 1.4 the least pre-ordered of the new lenses? Just ’cause Sony made it, doesn’t mean it’s what we customers want…
I would have assumed that that had more to do with the very high price. And I would imagine there are not as many people looking for a super fast 35 compared to a 1.4 50mm or a 2.8 70-200. If they ever want the FE to be a true “pro” contender, they need the lenses that many pros usually spend most of their lens money on. (Of course this varies greatly, but the 70-200 is just ubiquitous).
My argument was just that the fact that Sony released a large prime doesn’t translate into the customers wanting a 70-200 2.8. The fact that a 70-200 2.8 is probably gonna sell well is in my mind unrelated. The only 1.4 primes Sony should release are 50 and 85. Everything else shouldn’t go below 1.8. 35 1.4 is a mistake by Sony in my opinion. Ymmv
I can definitely get behind that.
More high end FE primes? Yes!
Fast 24,85,135 are also on my list as well!! Preordered the 90 but will immedeatly go for a portrait lens 85 1.4 if released. Desperately missing a fast FE 135 for the same reason.
Same as you : 24mm f/1.4, 85 f/1.4
But I won’t have use of a 135mm
I would actually be more interested in a Zeiss Loxia zoom lens.
Something very wide angle, but still with emphasis on high image quality over zoom range.
Like a 16mm – 28mm Zoom.
Yes … a zeiss MF zoom. :))
Leica WATE needs competition… (isn’t it out of production?)
Wasn’t it you who wrote that the presnt Loxias were too expensive? A Loxia UWA zoom would most likely cost at least twice as much as the Loxia 35. If it ever would happen, which I highly doubt.
She is just seeking attention…
A-mount is diet?! For many months, the lack of any specific information!
A-mount diet???
What is it exactly? A new Japanese diet?
Please tell us more about that…
A-mount diet is simply lack of A-mount lenses 🙂
But beside that, A-mount is probably dead as well.
Too much of the good things is bad for you. That’s the A-mount diet.
An 85mm f1.8 would be welcome and it would be smaller and cheaper than an f1.4 version, plus VR would not be required as I suspect all future E bodies will have IBIS.
What is required are wide angle lenses, for me they dont have to be faster than f2.8 just make them top performers so they are a good match for future high MP sensors. I suspect we may see Zeiss Loxia wide angle lenses within the next 12 months
I have a 58mm f1.4 MF, FF, Minolta Rokkor lens from days gone by. When used in APS-C mode on Sony mirrorless, it becomes an 87mm @ f1.4. Such a lense can be picked up on auction nowadays for $50 +/- and a MC/MD Rokkor => FE converter mount for about $20+/- So, if you don’t mind a MF lens, this can be acquired on the cheap. Further, it gives you f1.4 versus f1.8. And, if doing portrait work, perhaps MF with focus peaking might be preferred.
If 20 is the goal, and taking the converters into account as lenses, this would mean at least 7 new lenses in 2015.
Given the price and size of the 35/1.4, are you sure you want “24mm f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.0”? How deep are your pockets, seriously?
24mm f/2 – Sony version only $599.95
24mm f/1.4 – Zeiss $1499.95
85mm f/2 – Sony version only $649.95
85mm f/1.4 – Zeiss $1999.95
135mm f/2 – Sony version only $699.95
135mm f/1.4 – Zeiss $2499.95
Sony please make two versions of each. One affordable version for the sane people and the other overpriced version for those who feel the need to pay thousands more just for that little blue badge.
🙂 1.4 aperture is no small thing.
I can’t remember the times(many) when I had ISO 3200, f/1.4 and there was no place to go higher. Not to mention that you might go away with 2.8 vs 2.0 at 135mm but at 24mm… 1.4 is second to none compared to 2.0
Only a newbie shooting a NEX5 they got used off EBAY and processing on a 600 x 800 monitor with windows 3.1 would write that.
If you don’t stop annoying people, we are constrained to arrest you…
Are we clear?!
I’m going to go ahead and sound like a madman here and say I would like a genuine 50mm 1.4. And while we’re at it, a 20mm. Loxia or Sony.
I can’t believe they released a 35mm 1.4 before they released a 50mm 1.4. How does that make any sense?
It’s not an unwelcome move, just totally counterintuitive.
50mm is a bad focal length. Very bad. It’s too short for telephoto work and too long for wideangle work.
I have a 58mm f1.4 MF, FF, Minolta Rokkor lens from days gone by. When used in APS-C mode on Sony mirrorless, it becomes an 87mm @ f1.4. Sort of a short portrait, but then, such lenses can be picked up on auction nowadays for $50 +/-. So, if you don’t mind a MF lens, this can be acquired on the cheap. And, if doing portrait work, perhaps MF with focus peaking is desired and preferred.
Not even “sort of” short portrait lens 🙂 It is just cropped 50mm lens, but without changed optical characteristics. And here goes away any shallow depth of field and comes into play usually bad bokeh of 50mm lenses.
The FE55 looks wonderful shot loose and cropped on a head & shoulders portrait. Give this a try, compose tight on the head & shoulders in landscape orientation, now crop an upright portrait from that. Note the nose & eyes are sharp and the ears are out, note the background blur @ f/1.8, lovely!
Just shoot in FF mode, but shoot loose on the normal lens (50ish) and crop in post for your portrait. Same difference, but you get two shots for the price of one.
I’ll send a communiqué out to Cartier Bresson and let him know this!
There are no bad focal lengths.
Of course there are. There are bad f-stops, shutter speeds and ISOs too.
… and perfect for pretty much everything else.
What else is there? Don’t say street photography, because that’s not a valid genre.
But cats are?
Everything else that doesn’t require wide angle or telephoto lenses.
50mm is pretty popular for a bad focal length, wouldn’t you say?
FE55 dingbat. Why would they release a 50mm ?
Dingbat is a bit strong for suggesting they release one of the most desired lenses on the market. The FE55 is an f1.8 lens, and what I’m suggesting is one with a stop more light, a 1.4. They should really have both.
Well for someone who makes big claims, you might want to learn the difference between f1.4 and f1.8 (hint: it isn’t a stop)
Thanks for the correction.
But I think you’re overestimating the “bigness” of my claims 😉
Well end of the day I think they made the right call on the f1.8 there, seems to make a 50mm f1.4 that is as good as the ZA55 these lenses have to be massive, cheap little f1.4 nifty fifties don’t really cut it in this current climate.
Hopefully it is a 35mm f/1.8. We didn’t had 35mm for a couple of days, 35mm is always a sweet spot and a 35mm f/1.8 would perfectly fit between the a 35mm f/1.4 and the a 35mm f/2.8, and is even faster than the 28mm f/2. So, I cross my fingers for a nice, expensive 35mm f/1.8.
Updated 135mm STF in native FE mount? Priceless…
Totally agreed this is the lens that keep me in A mount today
That would indeed be a tempting offer!
Why? I don’t think it will get substantially smaller than the A-Mount one and since it’s MF anyway you could use it with LA-EA3 or 4.
I wouldn’t have to purchase an extra adapter if the lens was native, right? This unique lens deserves it. And updated coating or construction could be handy as well and not only due to FE adjustments, this lens is 16 year old.
I would love to have FE14F14!!!!
Indeed, no more need of an nikon 14-24!
A long tele prime (400 mm) or a long tele zoom (like 100-400 mm) for E-mount is completely missing.
Sony recommends to use the LA-EA4 adapter and using the A mount lenses for that kind of use.
They said if there’s enough demand they’ll make it, but no sense make it right now because they can’t make the lenses smaller than the A mount lenses anyway.
85/1.8 or 100/2, like the 55/1.8. No need for anything faster now. If I want a faster lens, it’ll definitely be big and heavy and I can already have that with adapters.
No. They need to release both, but at least do them in in-between FL’s like they are already doing. So keep 28/55/100mm small and around f2 and 24/35/85/135 larger and faster. Then filled out by Loxia and 3rd parties.
You can have your fast lens later, I want the f/2 or f/1.8 now 😉
I don’t care, already have 85mm f1.4 and 135mm f1.8. I want that 100mm f2 and will add the new 28/2 and 35/1.4, big lenses for when I need it and small trio of primes when I prefer a small kit. I can also add a cheap crop body to spin out the FL’s a bit more.
I want the 135/1.8 too but couldn’t afford one. Found a cheap Minolta 200/2.8 APO G HS and bought that instead, magnificent piece of glass.
The 200/2.8 APO G HS is a great lens, finding one cheap is a real bonus.
Why would anyone need all of these lenses? With a 24-240 you’re one and done.
You got a
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
No prime can do that.
You get 217 prime lenses for the price of one! Amazing deal!
Fecking genius!
Taken many photo’s of your cat this decade!
You’ve got too much free time on your hands, pal.
Of all those focal lengths, 25mm, 92mm and 237mm are my favorites.
237mm is dramatically overrated. It’s just a poor man’s 239mm…
Oh come on, how can you still give this old roadmap and these dates any credit? It shows the 28 f2 for mid last year, and even the 90 macro for 2014, which is likely to be only available mid-summer or autumn 2015…
Based on this, I don’t think any new ones will be released before 2016.
That multiple primes and a ~85 portrait lens are coming, that’s quite obvious, as currently there are no tele primes; and if Sony wants people to take this _system_ seriously, they have to start releasing more lenses. The current lens selection is not enough to call this a full system yet, with even the Trinity of 35-50-85 not covered.
What’s not mentioned either, is that there’s no cheaper alternative to the 70-200 f4, it’d nice to have a compact, lighter and cheaper 70-300 f4-5.6 as well. I guess we’d have to use LAEA4 until then…
Because it’s the official roadmap, that can be found on Sony website and is updated regularly? :/
+1!
It’s clear as day that it’s not true, unfortunately. That may have had been their plan a year ago, but in reality, they only released half the lenses they planned in 2014, some of which will have half a year delay 🙁
Waaaaah! 11 lenses in 16 months, they need more lenses waaaah!
Three duplicate focal lengths 35mm
Two almost duplicate focal lengths 50mm
Another almost duplicate focal length (portrait and macro) incoming 90mm
Two almost duplicate focal length zooms 24-70mm
I think it’s too soon to have duplicate focal lengths when certain focal lengths aren’t covered at all. It’s also too late for me to complain about it
Wrong Bobbie, It’s never too early or too late for you to complain.
Of those 11 lenses on the roadmap, currently only 8 have sort-of global, in-store availability; and 6 of those are zooms, with just 2 (the 35 f2.8 and 55) primes. Tell me the prime line-up is not seriously lacking… Especially an 85 or thereabouts portrait lens. It’s not the quantity, it’s that a “cornerstone lens” is missing from the line-up.
Me, I’d have started the system with the 35 being f2 instead and an 85 f2 right at the start. I still don’t understand why they haven’t yet released anything in the portrait range, it makes no sense.
15mm 2.8, 16mm 2.8, 18mm 2.8, 21mm 2.8, 24mm 2.8, 75mm f2, 85mm 1.4, 100mm f2.8 lenses are great. Why haven’t you bought them?One comes with a free unicorn
I would dream on a 85/1.8 APSC-E mount … Why ?? just to save money, size and weight …
What about to not to dream about such lens at all? It would help you to save even more money, size and weight 🙂
Yes because the Samsung 85mm f1.4 is so much smaller than a FF one!?
It wouldn’t save much size or weight as the front element has to be at least 48mm in either case. You only get substantial size/weight reductions when designing for a smaller image circle in wide lenses where as entrance pupil doesn’t have to be visible over as wide a range of angles. An 85mm is quite narrow so this is less of an issue.
85 f/1.8 would be perfect!
Sony omits the Pleistocene just as readily as they omit 14 bit color from the mirrorless lineup.
Shame on you Sony! Every American learned this growing up. (except Texas and Kansas)
Yabba dabba doo Anton!
you make this 14bit color issue look less and less important with every single annoying comment you post… actually you became the biggest (unfunny) joke on this web with this approach…
Charts are a comin”
How many clicks on that spiffy D810 have you squeezed in between your internet spammer day job?
He won’t answer this, he’s too busy earning his spammer pay-check, LOL.
They retain 95~99% of the quality and compresses 30% in file size.
It’s called efficiency.
Just how many short lenses can one camera take ???
Just how many short lenses does anyone want ???
What sort of camera ‘System’ is it which has no lens above 300mm (and, as Sony have said, it is extremely difficult to actually make them for E mount).
Greater than 300mm makes no sense really. The auto focus system on the a7 cameras are atrocious. In addition to this, leica tend not to fit 300mm lenses on their m9 but perhaps I am mistaken
I agree; you’re mistaken on both counts.
Link me to a 400mm leica lens in an m-mount please
Perhaps he wasn’t referring to your M9 comment? Perhaps he meant you were wrong about greater the 300mm not being necessary and the A7II AF being atrocious? That would still be both counts.
Just saying lol
He said he agrees. The “perhaps I am mistaken” was said in the sentence regarding the leica. A new predicate.
“In addition to this, leica tend not to fit 300mm lenses on their m9 but perhaps I am mistaken”
There’s no comma before the but. I hope this post clarifies my last; therefore, I eagerly await a 400mm leica link
You’re an idiot.
This isn’t an English class. Have you ever thought about what your posts reveal about you? What people think when they read your posts?
Take a chill pill, calm down and have a bit of fun. You’ll feel better.
He has an IQ of 156, by his own admission, and he seems desperate to prove it.
I’m amazed he has the time to post on here, what with all the work he must be doing with his Hasselblad H5D-50.
I’m not doing any work (broken bone). I won’t be for a while
Judging by your behaviour on this forum, I guess someone has beaten you up….
Non sequitur
Glad to know you are still studying logic on Wikipedia….
Too bad you don’t understand a thing about it….
I wasn’t trying to educate you, merely highly that his post could only regard the leica comment
Have you used any of them? The a7r, fair enough. The a7 and a7s are good and a7ii is very good
I have yes and I’ve used numerous crop and full frame DSLRs and I’ve used a few (not many) medium format cameras
“The auto focus system on the a7 cameras are atrocious” – that says you haven’t.
Flawed logic
Flawed logic.
Are you saying that the A7 cameras are only meant to cover the same use cases
as Leica’s rangefinders? That’s a rather limited view, IMHO.
You can take my post literally; you need not ask irrelevant questions in order to bait me for you to then inject a straw man fallacy into the conversation later on. Excuse my rude reply but as soon as I elaborate on a post, others make a pigs ear of it; this need not happen as you can take my post literally to begin with. Have a nice day
Just asking for clarification why you brought up Leica in a discussion about lenses for the A7 system. Have a nice day yourself.
“Just how many short lenses can one camera take”
“What sort of camera ‘System’ is it which has no lens above”
“Just how many short lenses does anyone want”
“Just asking for clarification”
“Have a nice day” was my way of saying fk off I think you’re an idiot
“What sort of camera ‘System’ is it which has no lens above 300mm”
That was a rhetorical question. He wasn’t asking if there is such a system, he was saying that such a system is very incomplete.
And I understood what you meant. 😉
Clearly you didn’t
Oh, but I did. But you keep making a fool of yourself in this forum.
“Just asking for clarification why you brought up Leica in a discussion ”
It was blatantly obvious as to why. If all your questions are rhetorical, you clearly misunderstood my point. If they are not rhetorical, you clearly didn’t understand my point to begin with. If they are simply dishonest rhetoric, then you are in no position to judge my character
And you still don’t get it. Re-read the thread until you do.
I spoke first, any questions conform to what I said
Moron
Gobbledygook
You’re both complete tools TBFH.
And so is the Bazzhole!
Are you American?
He considers himself a citizen of the Universe…
You are paranoid….
So you always assume that people are going to use your own words against you? It’s not easy to have a conversation with you, that’s for sure!
This could be the one reason they’d *maybe* keep A-mount alive, because E-mount, as of yet, doesn’t (natively) facilitate those longer focal length lenses very well.
Too much talk about numbers in relation to lenses. 24mm this, f/1.8 that, and so on and so on. What about the qualitative look of the images you take? Just attach a lens and go out and shoot! Don’t be a number slave!
What if you have taken shots already? Some of the guys that complain will surely shoot pictures too. There is nothing to complain?
If there’s going to be a “portrait” lens, I don’t see the point of a 90mm macro. 90mm makes sense if you’re to use the macro as a “portrait” lens but if the macro is going to be kept for dedicated macro usage, 160mm makes far more sense. 90mm for macro usage is awful. In addition to this, I think people go too crazy over wide apertures for portraits. It’s just my opinion but I think portraits look far better when they are small apertures, better lighting etc. Wide aperture is good if you don’t know how to use a flash and you don’t know how to compose properly. I already think a portrait lens exists, the 90mm macro. For this reason I’d rather see a 21mm prime lens but most of this post is subjective
“It’s just my opinion but I think portraits look far better when they are small apertures”
If that’s the case just use your Iphone and don’t waste money on lenses.
Or go mft
I think there’s far more to a lens or camera set up than just the wide aperture, lol.
http://portfolio.joemcnally.com/#!/portfolio/C0000VjAIFtkouVY/G0000iLyNKdcmD2A/I0000bBU862je9X4
I like these types of photographs. Not necessarily this focal length
Show us yours not someone else’s!
You clearly don’t’ know much about photography or else you wouldn’t have came out with the phrase you did. I’ve submitted some work to scott kelby’s youtube video. It’ll be published there, enjoy
It’ll be labelled, “Submitted by Bob from Sony Alpha Rumors.” I’ll look out for it. Idiot.
Bob is short for another name. I’m sure you have the intellect to work it out. There are not many Bob’s in the photography world, idiot
Robert Alvarado, the pinup photographer, is that you?
Low IQ egotist…
You are right… There aren’t other morons that shoot with a Hasselblad H5D-50….
Yer full of crap matey.
Your work with what gear?
You wouldn’t believe me if I told you
Let me decide it myself if I would…
Don’t worry… Answer the question, please…
Panasonic CM1
The point is that the statement you made makes you sound like a buffoon.
It was poorly worded, but I mean, wide apertures aren’t the be-all-end-all to good portraits in my opinion. Most studio work uses lighting for separation rather than aperture (who doesn’t shoot f8 in the studio?) and for outdoors, there’s plenty of nice places where I’d rather capture some of the environment rather than miss it altogether
Imposter. I’m Anton.
I’m sure in your opinion Potraits are still better in smaller apertures for some rare cases. Composition and flash is not absolute, and will differ from different photographs. There is no point complaining of people being too crazy with wide apertures.
“I’m sure in your opinion Potraits are still better in smaller apertures for some rare cases”
In most cases. For studio use, you can use lighting for separation, lenses usually function better at f8 and you can see the subject more clearly. For outdoors, there’s plenty of nice scenes to be captured and smaller apertures capture it better.
The point in it for me is so people think more about the photographs they take
Well, not ‘rare’, but there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment.
How you perceive that smaller apertures potraits does not matter, because you should be aware that those stunning wide apertures potrait are taken by a professional photographer, not people who go ‘crazy’ about wide aperture on potraits.
Argumentum ad verecundiam and argumentum ad populum; in addition, most “potraits” are taken with a small aperture (2.8 or smaller); furthermore, all photographs should be about the subject in my opinion. You can still guide the eyes to focus on the subject and have a good environment. One isn’t the antonym of the other.
It sounds like you need to go back to art school
It seems like you have just read a textbook on philosophy, and are now hitting people on the head with all the fallacies you have read about. Most people don’t behave like that in normal conversation; this isn’t an academic debate.
Kant believed that the concepts of space and time are integral to all human experience and a lot of Kant’s claims were nonsensical but not all of them were. I’ve read many philosophical books.
“Most people” aren’t as stupid to begin with
I’m very familiar with Kant, because I have studied philosophy myself. And I have no doubt that you’re well read too. My point was that your behavior make it seem like you have just read about something, and are dying too show people how smart you are.
I believe you assume that because you assume I care about intelligence or being smart. I think you feel inferior so you assume I feel superior. It’s your own character coming through your writing, in my opinion.
I only label fallacies because they’re the quickest way to remove rubbish from an argument. As for intelligence, there’s plenty of happy morons
Says the one who wrote two times in this forum: “The bokeh is out of focus”
LOL
I am a moron
I apparently said the bokeh is out of focus
See you just reaffirmed it.
I wrote this comment
Yes I did, to highlight the fact I did not say “The bokeh is out of focus” but instead someone else did
Sure….
You didn’t know even what SLR means…
Wrong
Until few hours ago, I mean…
LOL
Wrong
But you mention those fallacies fully aware that most people aren’t familiar with them. Most people who haven’t studied logic, philosophy, cognitive science or psychology won’t know what an argumentum ad verecundiam is.
Then how can they judge I have used the terms incorrectly? In addition, I’m sure they can google
Well since they have no advantageous function, Bob was clearly showing off his intelligence to us all so that he can cover his statement ‘Bokeh shouldn’t be out of focus’!
I did not say that.
“there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment”
This is completely untrue.
https://i.imgur.com/wCr9kd7.jpg
This was posted above
Baloney…
Hocus-pocus…
You read too much – get out and experience life through your own eyes (and lens).
There is no need to use philosophical statement like that. And fail statements like ‘go back to art school’. If I referred to what these ‘crazy’ peeps that complains about wide aperture are saying, then those philosophical statements would be rightly said. But I used Pro photographers as an example, who of course, puts attention towards the details of their works. Their work is not based on what people like, but what they like and what they choose as they have many options.
We are essentially arguing about subjective opinions here. I actually have no problem with anyone stating an opinion which could not be proven to be incorrect. I do not have any problem with you saying that ‘I like small aperture potraits’ or ‘I think people shouldn’t be so narrow minded to check out small aperture potraits’ but I do not like ‘People should not be crazy about wide aperture potraits’. They can be crazy if they like it. Suggesting them to look at what they usually doesn’t look at is good, but you shouldn’t complain about people’s craziness on a subjective view.
And ‘It sounds like you need to go back to art school’ What a joke. I hate art school. Be creative as you want as long as it helps the world. Art schools are only necessary to help you with the theories, not practicality. Stop spitting these rubbish please. I have been keeping my argument from any insults, you should too.
“There is no need to use philosophical statement like that”
I used argumentational terms; your post was fallacious. It was the quickest way to reply to your gibberish.
“But I used Pro photographers as an example, who of course, puts attention towards the details of their works. Their work is not based on what people like, but what they like and what they choose as they have many options.”
Your example contradicted your argument; most “potraits” are taken with small apertures (2.8 or below).
“We are essentially arguing about opinions here.”
No, we are not. You brought up objective information that can be proven wrong; it was fictitious.
https://500px.com/popular?categories=People
Go crazy
http://www.joeyl.com/favor-galleries/quick-selection/
http://catherineasanov.viewbook.com/catherine_asanov_photo__creative/portfolio
http://larajade.co.uk/gallery/overview/
http://ricksammon.com/memories-of-myanmar/
Some more links if anyone is interested
Wow, you seem like a troll in an internet sense. There is no need to be not-cooperative here.
Where’s the fallacy on my posts? Just because people tend to take wide aperture potraits means that people shouldn’t be crazy about them? Is that what you’re trying to say here?
Yes, go crazy as you wish. We can all look into your craziness with annoyance and insulting laughs. You can get banned too FYI.
“Well, not ‘rare’, but there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment.
How you perceive that smaller apertures potraits does not matter, because you should be aware that those stunning wide apertures potrait are taken by a professional photographer, not people who go ‘crazy’ about wide aperture on potraits.”
Firstly, you are stating “wide apertures are more commonly used”, this is not subjective, this is you making a claim. Similar to if I say “the moon is flat”. This claim is either wrong or it is right.
Your second claim, “potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment”. This is taken slightly out of context, but as part of the sentence, you are implying wide apertures are used because “potraits are mostly about the subject” whereas other photographs are not.
Sony already have a 2.8 aperture 90mm lens. So if I talk about wide aperture, I am talking about 2, 1.8, 1.4, 1.2 etc. Your first claim is fictitious, wide apertures are not more commonly used.
Your second claim that implies portraits are about the subject and not the environment therefore shouldn’t include the environment, is completely strange to fathom. You can capture the environment but light the subject in a way that make the photograph about the subject. Your claim implies this is impossible and for this reason the claim is fictitious. Your claim also implies other photographs are different from portraits in that they are not about the subject, this too is fictitious.
Your post also implies that professionals are a greater source of truth or that they do it therefore it is correct. Even if your first claim (that they generally use wide apertures) was true (which it is not), it appeals to authority because you are using them (the “professionals”) as weight to your argument, namely, their authority. You are using them collectively, or their population, as more weight. Clearly you have injected argumentum ad populum into the discussion by doing so.
“Yes, go crazy as you wish.”
The phrase “go crazy” means indulge yourself. It is not an insult.
“We can all look into your craziness with annoyance and insulting laughs”
This is insulting; therefore, you are a hypocrite
So let me recap in my way.
You stated ‘people go too crazy over wide apertures for portraits’. I know this is an opinion based on ‘I think portraits look far better when they are small apertures’, which is odd, because I never liked how you said ‘too crazy’, which is a statement based on your opinion. I question this, which I did by saying a statement. I expected your clarification. But at least I did this politely and replied with:
‘There is no point complaining of people being too crazy with wide apertures’
Then at this point no doubt you replied with a decent response ‘The point in it for me is so people think more about the photographs they take’. But still doesn’t want to elaborate why do you say that people that are obsessed with wide aperture potraits are ‘crazy’, in your description.
But then, I want to discuss more about this and replied ‘but there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment.’ I didn’t say only potraits are about the subject.
You then replied with that insulting and provocative Philosophical response and ‘It sounds like you need to go back to art school’. So I decided to go back to my initial point and again questioning why do you state that some people are ‘crazy’ because of your opinion. Also questioning your responsibility for those insults.
Then, you replied with a very misused argument. Very out of the context and fictional. And stupidly insulting too, to say the least. Gibberish, go crazy, etc. I literally said ‘pros shoot with wide aperture because of their choice of photographs’. No way I fought with my own argument.
Most potraits are taken with wide aperture (you said it), that’s a fact. I said the environment on a potrait is less important, not not important (unlike what you claimed). So, If my ‘argumentum ad populum’ is incorrect, what is your ‘argumentum’ based on? Your opinion? That’s to say the least much more insignificant. My referral to the pros is the best way to explain as there are no any better explanations, care to explain better? Yes sure, but not with insults and your approach to your particular opinion.
I was aware that you are going to call me hypocrite. I don’t care about your claim on this. You started the insults, I kindly warn them, and you continued. The decision to insult you was justified.
“Most potraits are taken with wide aperture (you said it), that’s a fact.”
I said you made this claim, I did not state this claim is true. It is fiction. The “go crazy” statement was not insulting, it means to indulge yourself.
“Like I said I am arguing with a subjective claim”
Like I said, the claim that “most potraits are taken with wide aperture” is not subjective. It’s objective, although fictitious.
“I never liked how you said ‘too crazy'”
It seems you have a problem with the word “crazy” in general. It has multiple meanings, for example it can mean extremely enthusiastic.
It is not my problem you are illiterate
This is not an english lesson
Correct but he is too much of an idiot to look at a dictionary
Dull, childish, predictable reply.
Illiterate response
More childish reply. Dumb.
How would you know if I am “illiterate” or not?
You’re confusing the noun “illiterate” with the adjective “illiterate”. Another illiterate response
Idiotic reply.
How would you know that?
You’re confusing the noun “illiterate” with the adjective “illiterate”… You should get a dictionary. I did not say you are illiterate I said it was an illiterate response
Nonsense. This confirms you are an idiot….
Non sequitur
Pedantic quack
I am literate
Sure… You are an omniscient pro photographer…
You wrote two times on this website a couple of days ago:
“The bokeh is out of focus”
Then you were convinced until few hours ago that the A7 cameras were SLRs….
You didn’t even know what DSLR means!
You found it out on Wikipedia…
Today you have also learned the difference between a Mirrorless and a SLR…
A day full of discoveries for you…. and you claim to be a medium format user….
Wrong
“Sure… You are an omniscient pro photographer…”
Hyperbole.
“You wrote two times on this website a couple of days ago:”The bokeh is out of focus””
Libellous gibberish.
“Then you were convinced until few hours ago that the A7 cameras were SLRs….”
Libellous gibberish.
“You didn’t even know what DSLR means!”
Gibberish.
“You found it out on Wikipedia…”
Gibberish.
“Today you have also learned the difference between a Mirrorless and a SLR…”
Gibberish.
“A day full of discoveries for you…. and you claim to be a medium format user….”
Gibberish
Stop spamming, Bob…
Stop spamming, Bob…
What does it mean “illiterate response”?
Don’t listen to him.
He’s just a maniac.
Illiterate response
It seems that you (probably, deliberately) missed my initial point by kilometres away.
Well, your 500px link shows that they’re taken with wide aperture. I’ve wasted my time explaining it to you.
I am aware that it meant overly anxious, but that’s what I’m asking. Why are you complaining that they’re ‘too crazy’ based on your opinion? Initially just questioning that. But since you like to argue stupidly, this is where it ended.
No need to spit rubbish like ‘illiterate’ you eat dee yet. Shut up.
There’s already a 2.8 macro 90mm that can be used for portraits. Any wider than that would be considered relatively wide, for this discussion.
“Well, your 500px link shows that they’re taken with wide aperture.”
You’re delusional.
The majority of professional photographers and work sold is not taken with apertures wider than 2.8.
The majority of wide aperture photographs are amateurs taking photographs of their pets.
“It seems that you (probably, deliberately) missed my initial point by kilometres away.”
It’s not that I missed your points (more than one claim was made), it’s that you’re delusional, spread fictitious information, and an ignoramus in regards to photography.
You also have a poor grasp of this language
OK, delusional, your language, fictitious claim, etc… Seeing it just for a few seconds, I see a lot of pics that are not possible without taking it at >=f2. How you claim this ‘objectivity’ seems to be your only argument to distract me from my initial point…
Let the others judge how stupid you, oh well. Not. I’ve replied serious responses to you now I’m just going to follow your way of insulting you.
‘Fallacious, illiterate, gibberish, Libelous’ said the guy who complains that a bokeh can’t be out of focus.
You should be banned too, your rude stupidity has become a meme for SAR users and in an other sense – it could be said that your posts are just as pointless as MCS’ ones.
“OK, delusional, your language, fictitious claim, etc… Seeing it just for a few seconds, I see a lot of pics that are not possible without taking it at >=f2.”
Irrelevant, your original claim was that the majority of professionals shoot at wide apertures; they don’t; study any portrait studio photographer and you’ll be hard pressed to find one that shoots above f8 for the majority of his photographs.
“Let the others judge how stupid you, oh well.”
What is this illiterate garbage?
“said the guy who complains that a bokeh can’t be out of focus”
I did not say that.
“I’m just going to follow your way of insulting you”
By your own logic…
“You should be banned too”
Do as you say not do as you do? You know little about photography, you must be delusional and I’m not saying it as an insult
Mental bullsh*t….
Why are you wasting your time arguing with “Bob”???
He’s an egotist, he doesn’t really listen to people….
Mumbo-jumbo…
Verbal diarrhea…
Freak….
Gobbledygook….
Good grief, you never take a moment away from this forum do you Mr Retired Lawyer.
It sounds like you need to go to a Psychiatric hospital….
“there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment”
http://i.imgur.com/wCr9kd7.jpg
Wide aperture (2.8 and above) photographs are in the minority. You do not know how to spell portraits
Potrait come true
Bob,
#1 (I’m the real Anton Berlin) not sure who you’re arguing with below nut it isn’t me.
I have to disagree with you this time. Most of my bread and butter come from portrait work and an 85mm is in most cases the best choice. The Zeiss Otus 85 in particular. The main reason being is that a 100 or 135 means you have to back off quite a distance and for indoor corporate work that isn’t always possible. A session I did this week had me almost needing to switch to the 55mm Otus due to tight quarters.
In outdoor work I sometimes use the 135mm and even the 200mm because for some people it flattens out their faces but most of the time the 85mm works fine and I don’t have to yell.
Even with perfect lenses like the Apo Sonnar and Otii, I use 2.8 – 4.0 as it gives sufficient bokeh but covers any focusing errors.
In bright light (outdoors) the transmission of these lenses all require either 4.0 + on and ND filter – which I don’t have for the Otus 85mm and it’s 86mm thread yet. So I’d use the 55 and move up or the 135mm and move back.
I agree that around 85mm is the best choice for portrait usage. I am saying that a 90mm macro lens already exists so if they are going to come out with a new portrait lens, the macro lens should have had a longer focal length. Rather than make duplicates. It seems they’re making many duplicate focal lengths (35, 50, zooms etc) without covering all of the focal lengths to begin with.
As a portrait lens in its own right, the 90mm macro is probably very good and I don’t think you need super wide apertures all the time.
Perhaps my original argument wasn’t very clear but basically I think there should be a dedicated portrait lens, 85mm. And a macro lens (it can be f4 for all I care), 135mm or longer. I’m not in favour of all these duplicate focal lengths when other lengths aren’t yet covered
Sunny 16 gives ISO 50, f2 and 1/4000s. Usually no problem to use f1.8 for me outside.
It’s rarely sunny where I live, so that’s irrelevant.
And the A7R tops out @ 1/8000th, no issue at all as you know (unlike old Anton).
Obviously, not every Anton Berlin comment is posted by the same Anton Berlin, just as some Bob comments are not posted by Bob. Some of them are posted by me.
I wrote this comment because I am a retarded psychopath….
Bob’s fun, he pays me $250 an hour after coming on here.
I admit I wrote this comment. I was actually talking to myself….
I’m so lonely and desperate for attention….
>Even with perfect lenses like the Apo Sonnar and Otii, I use 2.8 – 4.0 as it gives sufficient bokeh but covers any focusing errors<
You too are a worthless pustule coming out with comments like that!
That’s why until some hours ago you didn’t know what the bokeh is….
“The bokeh is out of focus” you said…. two times!
LOL
You are quite famous now…
Nope
Yup!
You didn’t know what the bokeh is… I explained that to you yesterday…
Not sure you have understood yet though…
I’m fluent in Japanese, and I doubt you’ve even watched lain. Bokeh is said just about everywhere, in every review. It’s always pronounced incorrectly too. They also explain what bokeh is in every review. It’d be quicker if they simply didn’t use the word to begin. It’s like the “pun intended” crowd. Furthermore, the majority of people don’t know what the word “bokeh” means.
It wasn’t me that posted about the word, but I’m going to play the devils advocate here. Explain to me what bokeh means in its literal translation.
嘘つき
I should add please reply in Japanese, knowledgeable person
But you won’t post a picture, curiouser & curiouser.
That’s because he’s SharpShooter reincarnated.
あなたは馬鹿です
You are just a quack.
Everyone knows that. No one takes you seriously anymore.
Obviously, not every Bob comment is posted by the same Bob.
It remains to be seen… It only appears that way…
That’s why he always posts as guest…
Non sequitur; I post as a guest because it’s easier; if you’re too stupid to differentiate between writing styles, that’s your problem
ROTFL
Sure…
There are so many “writing styles” to say: “The bokeh is out of focus”…..
Please, Bob, stop making a fool of yourself…
Yeah, I troll through hundreds of replies manually ’cause it’s easier (I’m not too bright obviously).
Here’s hoping for an 85mm f/1.4 and a 135mm f/2!
fantastic 135mm f2 currently available from Samyang/Rokinon
I’ve not played with the Samyang, but Samyang does produce nice optics. My reason for wanting a native FE lens is the AF. Not that I can’t work with MF, but it’s just easier using AF.
They are the two lenses I want above all else. I’d even settle for an 85mm f1.8 and 135mm f2.5
Say goodbye to APS-C. It exists only because FF CCD sensors were prohibitively expensive and power hungry. In principle, any APS-C lens, at 2/3 the FF focal length, should simply scale to 8/27 (30%) the weight and volume. In practice, Sony E and FE lenses share mounts, focus mechanisms, barrels, etc so their size and weight are not so different. All the quality lenses will be FF or m4/3.
‘Simply scale to 8/27’? How can you say that? Focal Range =/= Volume
If there’s a market for them, (a6000 for example, which sells very well, even for pros), there is no reason to abandon it.
Whether the camera industry is leaving APSC behind in the future or not is still indeterminable, but as of now APS-C is not slowing down.
Weight and volume are 3 dimensional. 2/3 x 2/3 x 2/3 = 8/27.
Nah, what? Focal Range =/= Volume =/= Weight. Please explain the 2/3=8/27 theory with examples, because no way that you can have 35mm f/1.8 (50 for FF) 30% the size of the FF lens, unless you’d like to elaborate how.
Consider a cube lens for ease of calculation. FF version is 3x3x3 with volume 27. The smaller APSC version is 2x2x2 with volume 8. Weight scales the same.
Yes but it isn’t as simple as that… You don’t somehow shrink the thickness of the glass by 2/3 and so on.
I expect the A7000 successor will have a FF sensor.
So the same can be said for MFT right? In the future small MFs will replace FF. APSC will replace MFT?
i dont think there will ever be an A7000
the rumor that it was coming begin when a6000 become a huge hit seller
dont be surprised that canikon fans spread the fake rumor
nothing kill more the sales of a product than the rumor of a better model soon to be announced
ces come and go and A7000 wont
reality is, that the only think sony could put in a new aps-c body to better the a6000, its IS, and sony clearly stated that the a7ii IS was enginered for ff, so its very unlikely sony will invest to adapt it to aps-c
a6000 its the way to go if you are in aps-c, and its a damn one way
Man, I hope not. That’s what I love about my a6000 – how compact it can be with high-quality lenses when using native APS-C e-mount lenses. It’d be shame if they just abandon it. I fear you may be right, though.
same hopes and fears as you
i love the a6000+10-18 combo
Don’t worry about it. My son’s buddy works at Best Buy and he says the A6000 sells like hotcakes – can’t keep them in stock.
I’m sure Fuji will keep producing good quality APS-C lenses
No. FF is Much, much more expensive to produce than APS-C. From a single production wafer, you can get many, many more APS-C sized sensors than FF sized sensors.
And there will always be a market for 400-700 USD cameras. And Full Frame can simply not compete in this market segment.
Even the smaller 1 inch sensors will live on inside smartphones.
It would be interesting to know exactly how much is more expensive to produce FF sensors than APS-C.
I’d like to see the economic data.
It depends on how new the manufacturing is and how immature/mature it is. And it depends on how big the wafer’s diameter is.
But it’s safe to say Full Frame is still very expensive, and APS-C can go down to price ranges which is impossible for Full Frame to reach.
You get roughly four times as many APS-C sensors from a wafer, suggesting FF sensors are four times as expensive.
However, if you consider that a wafer practically always has a number of ‘imperfections’, that make the sensors unusable, it’s easy to see that, for any given number of imperfections that are evenly spread out across the wafer, a larger area of the wafer becomes unusable, the larger the sensors you make. This means that the yield is lower for larger sensors, and the cost increases exponentially with sensor size.
In other words, FF sensors are much more than four times as expensive to make.
Agreed. In normal microchip logic, you can add redundancy structures, or even amputate parts of the faulty logic.
But for camera sensors, you’re pretty much screwed if the process isn’t mature enough.
This adds latency which is why ecc is used typically for important infrastructure rather than redundancy; ecc has 11% SR; price
Go away Bob. I’m not interested in your funny stories.
Are you norwegian and like aircraft? Just curious
Stop annoying girls, Bobbie…
He’s a guy
How would you know? My slow-witted brother…
Cellphone industry will obliterate compact 2/3” cameras. They will never achieve IQ of an APS-C sensor though, so APS-C is pretty safe. Unless someone manages to put APS-C sized sensor into a cellphone. But that would be niche, because not many people will want big lens hanging from their phone.
With the introduction of the 55mm Zeiss, I thought Sony was going in that direction with their prime lenses, still fast, yet not as large and obtrusive as 1.4 lenses. I was totally on board for that since, using FF, 1.8 gives you far shallow enough depth of field IMO. I fear future prime lenses will all be 1.4 and large and expensive. I suppose though, Sony is mostly trying to capture the video market with these new lenses with aperture rings, and those that really want the 1.4 aperture. Who knows what their aim is…
A7s was/is still very disruptive in the indie film market. Many friends who used to look funny at me for using Sony gear have been giving it so much more attention ever since A7s came out and several now are warming up to the e-mount with their adapted Canon glass. Many are willing to invest now into native lenses and are loving the fast primes and clickless aperture rings. Sony is aware of this trend and addressing it with all these new lenses.
I love my a7s + 55mm f1.8. I pre-ordered 28mm f2 + Ultrawide converter for wider end. I shoot a lot from 16mm to 200mm focal length.
Would like to add: 85mm f1.8 and 200mm f2 to my current A7 kit. I tend to shoot with two bodies. I like to have 28mm or 55mm on body and 85mm or 200mm on others.
at this point i build my hopes on Loxia. dont let me down Zeiss!
At photokina 14 I talked to a Zeiss guy while trying the 35 and 50 Loxia.
I tried to get some info about the three Loxia lenses planned for this year.
When I thought loud and mentioned that I would expect an uwa (18-24), a fast medium tele prime and a macro he replied “Your assumption goes into the right direction”, but nothing specific…
Let’s wait and see.
I’ve spoken to a zeiss manager, the next lens is going to be a 21mm biogon. Others are going to laugh at this post, but wait and see. I’ll be proven correct
Boll*cks…
I said a 21mm BOGUS… not biogon….
Don’t you get it?!
I was just making fun of you….
Yes I get that I said others are going to laugh at this post and you thought it was humorous to behave in a detestably predictable manner
Touchy touchy….
21mm would be my favorite in the range between 18-24
I simply want a 24-105 f4, a vanilla 70-300, affordable 24 and 135 f2.8s and a fast, expensive, bulky Zeiss 85 f1.4 forged from black steel with aperture ring. Okay, ignore the black steel forging part. And please, let them focus closer than a mile away.
That sounds like an excellent lineup and in line with what I’m expecting them to do. Go big and bulky and fast 35/85mm f1.4’s, and some smaller primes around those. Personally hoping there is a 100mm f2 in there as well.
Everyone complains, there aren’t enough, they are too big, they are too slow, too expensive etc etc ‘what are they doing’, ‘ridiculous’, blah blah blah. But what has been released thus far is only half way there, they ARE doing fast, they ARE doing small and slower and there will be a good cross section of both to satisfy most users.
Despite the many moans from users that want this system to be all about them, Sony has thus far come out with possibly the most intelligent rollout possible, but complainers will never be happy.
50mm F1.2
I’d like to see a compact 85mm prime.
And when I say compact I am talking about the height of Pentax 70mm/2.4 Limited lens, plus say 25mm for the difference in flange distance.
I’m willing to go as slow as f2.8 if it is really compact.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/data/34/pentax_70mm.jpg
Okay first, 85 vs. 70 is a huge difference particularly if it’s going to sell which means it’s going to have to be f/1.8 or better. Nobody buys slower 85mm lenses these days. There’s no market.
And B, you’ll need to add 27.46mm to match the E mount flange distance to a K mount lens. Without modifying the telephoto factor, You’re talking about adding over 4cm to the length of this seemingly tiny lens, and most likely significantly more as today people actually care about decent background blur and aberration control.
So, in summary, don’t count on this ever existing, and especially don’t count on Sony making it.
Why so much negativism, mate?
The question above is “What lens do you hope to get?” and I’m just saying what I’d like to see.
1) The Pentax 70/2.4 Limited is an old design, it has been sold for 10 or so years already.
2) It has NO aspherical elements and NO low-dispersion glass.
3) Then I am asking for a SLOWER lens.
4) With Sony/Zeiss using not only simple aspherical elements, but double sided (Advanced Aspherical) elements and ED glass the design can be improved significantly.
5) When talking about the 70/2.4 Limited lens we are talking about top sharpness, contrast, colour and bokeh. Compactness can be prioritised slightly at the expense of IQ.
6) If you know what you are doing f/2.8 is perfectly sufficient to isolate a subject even with APSC sensor, saying you need f/1.8 is ridiculous!
A random f/2.8 shot from flickr on CROPPED sensor:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/69424694@N06/9762439673/
And, yes, you missed the elephant in the room here, the lens I quoted is designed for only APSC imaging circle, which would need a lot of work to make it FF.
Nice pic.
This is a random shot from one of the guys at PentaxForums review of the lens.
http://www.pentaxforums.com/lensreviews/SMC-Pentax-DA-70mm-F2.4-Limited-Lens.html
They are very passionate about their Limited lenses and some of their shots made me consider getting this 70/2.4 to use with K to E mount adapter on my NEX 5N, but changing the aperture is a pain since it is changed with an On/Off lever on the adapter and is a bit of a guesswork for most apertures.
>And B, you’ll need to add 27.46mm
they can make it retractable
Yea i want a fat fuck like the canon 50.12 over a long 85.lol
That’s a POS.
What?
Pentax lenses are probably the most overrated in the industry. Pentax fanboys are unbelievable.
Overrated??
I have not heard any praise for Pentax lenses…or actually even talk about Pentax lenses to begin with lol
Pentax lenses are just fine actually, and i admire them for heaving one of the best weather sealings in industry, along with their cameras. Pity that they make stupid marketing and model choices, like that new UFO lights camera, forgot the name of the model… And their SLR design is maybe only one in industry that actually has a shape compared to the competition`s SLRs which look they`ve been molded from a ball of mud.
You don’t visit DPR often, then? The Pentax fanboys are having a field day there every time a CaNikon camera or lens gets announced or reviewed.
That’s an APS-C lens. Why not just get the 175g 85mm f2.8 and adapter, that combo still costs less than $500 if you shop around and you can then use other small and cheap f2.8 A-Mount primes into the bargain. Oh and that little 85mm is optically excellent.
Yes, I know. I used just to illustrate what I hope to see.
Keep in mind that it is an old design, with no aspherical elements and no low-dispersion glass.
With Sony/Zeiss using Advanced Aspherical (elements with two aspherical surfaces) and ED glass maybe they can increase the image circle and keep the overall size. Of course adding some height due to the larger flange distance.
It’s even down to $230/200 €.
Yes, I wonder what happens to the “Don’t think” lens series for A-mount. They had some wonderful, excellent, ridicules cheap primes in it. Where’s something for E-Mount? All we see is bigger and costlier – but with very good optics, sometimes.
Any new News about a A7000?
APS-C or FF?
Touchscreen or not?
Any new News about a new A-mount to E-mount adapter?
A7000 will be APS-C, because Sony uses the four-digit model names for APS-C E-mount cameras. The FF models have one-digit model names, like A7.
It won’t have a touchscreen, because that’s a consumer feature according to Sony. Enthusiast and pro models don’t get a touchscreen.
I actually don’t get why many are desiring ultra fast uwa.
Wasn’t there a rumor of a Sony Zeiss 24/2?
As of going for the G macro anyway a fast tele prime could convince me only if 1.8 or even 1.4
Definetly a 135/2 or so would be a desirable lens. Longer tele primes are for my style not needed.
In keeping with the size advantage of the A7’s, I would prefer to see an 85mm 1.8 first. My EF 85mm 1.8, this is a beautifully sharp lens with excellent bokeh and would serve any portrait photographer for 90% of their needs. The 1.4 would be unnecessarily large, heavy and expensive as a first portrait prime.
I myself would even be happy to go as slow as F2.8, if the lens is FF and compactness is prioritised.
You myself would be happy for that. I him doesn’t know
In case I would only use slower primes and zooms, I would go m43 or APSC. If using FF, f1.8 is what I personally prefer as a minimum for primes and 2.8 for zooms. But everybody has different needs of course.
pls no.
That makes perfect sense and I for one would jump straight in, but when did sense drive product development?
I don’t mind 1.8. 1.4 never really was that much of a difference to me.
Yes because 85 1.2 of superior CANON L (always in capital letters!!!) master lens race would break puny shameful Sony mount
Just give me a native 16mm primeeeeeeeeeeeeee or something UWA like that has a filter ring. Rather Sony/G than Zeiss to keep costs down. F/4 is fine.
http://static.bhphoto.com/images/images500x500/981720.jpg
:DDDDDDDDDDDDDD Manual focus :DDDDDDDDDDD
A 150-600 A-mount would be nice paired with a A99II. Feb is long gone? Are there any news from these trusty Sources ? Release date of the refreshed lenses?
What is the rating of this rumor? SR0 ?
“My wishlist: 24mm f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.0”.
Oh, God, new prime MONSTERS on the way to be mounted on small bodies. Total madness already rules!
My thoughts exactly with comment above. Pentax and Leica already have portrait lenses small and of perfect size for mirrorless system…
This s madness. Who uses portrait lenses anyway? Absurd.
don’t use, don’t buy.
not Sony FE user, cause they will never get one 😀
I thought an iPhone is the new portrait lens.
I am happy with my favorit portrait lens Sony 135 mm 1.8 . now waiting pationtly for sony a 99 mark 2 .
As much as I love my 135/f1.8, it would be nice to not have to deal with the adapter and related limitation on AF abilities.
My 135/1.8 works fine without an adapter.
Yes but I’d like to use it with a modern E mount camera, not a legacy one.
LOL
Bob is the best.
His best quote so far: “The bokeh is out of focus. Epic fail!”
Priceless…
He’s a proper genius.
He shoots with a Hasselblad H5D-50 without lenses… And he doesn’t even like shallow depth of field….
We’d love to meet him in person…
Simply the best.
That’s a good one!
Simply the best
You shouldn’t be so hard on Bob. Some of his comments are posted by one of our resident trolls, who enjoys playing people off against each other.
“one of our resident trolls who enjoys playing people off against each other”
Then he should get out more….
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery
What about parody?
Irrelevant as it’s out of context
“Illiterate response”
LOL
Prey tell, how so?
“Augmentum de verecundiam response”
A parody isn’t complete imitation as it requires exaggeration for comic effect; my comment was clearly directed at those copying someone’s name; simply taking someone else’s name is not the definition of a parody. I’m sure you could have googled this yourself
Gibberish…
You are such a moron. You don’t understand anything…
How’s the weather in Australia today numbskull? 😉
BUSTED
Nope, wrong again, got it all bassackwards.
At least they didn’t imitate your idiotic insults. They’re still better.
Says the one who imitates “Bob the Builder”….
Bob’s a “camera-club-retired-lawyer-blow-hard-hobbyist” passing himself off as a professional & authority. If he’d stop BSing maybe he’d get a little more respect, but that’d take earning it the old fashioned way.
I wrote this.
I made a fool out of you all…
You think we don’t really know you’re SharpShooter, dickwad.
What???
Who’s this “SharpShooter”?
Zeiss 135mm f/2.0 FE
The current SEL35F14Z is almost as large as a SAL135F18Z already…now imagine a 135mm for E-mount…
What Sony should do is to update this roadmap because we’re on 1st quarter of 2015 and we’ve just seen released the 2014 optics and we have no clues about the 7 optics that they should at least show during 2015 according they info (+20 fe lenses for 2015 end). And they cannot say that A7 line is selling bad
And they will? Oh you mean you want it yesterday.
No need for heavy fast primes ! Give us excellent and sharp lens but light ones. I want a 24mm F2.8, but one that has very low distortion. Why put a fast aperture on a wide angle : those focals aren’t made for bokey, but for shooting architecture and landscapes at max sharpness across the frame and low distortion. Keep them small to respect the philosophy of the body. We don’t need huge DSLRs like lenses.
Yes, but f/2.8 is quite fast already 😀
Yes, 35mm f/2.8 seems interesting too… Which is a rare lens, even in DSLRs.
or a 21 f4 manual focus too…. who really needs a so fast wide angle? If you need it you’ve a 28 f2…. 21 or wider ar mostly used in hyperfocal
Fast 85mm please
First next lens i would like to see in Emount is Zeiss Makro Planar 100mm f2. AF or no AF, doesnt matter, just make it as the original, best macro-portrait combo of all times.
You must all be wondering who I am, maybe you’re even a little scared? Who is this imposing figure looming in the background? What does he want with us? Why is he here? Is he… God?
No. If a god of love and life ever did exist… he is long since dead. Someone… something, rules in his place.
Hullo. Are you the ghost of Terry Pratchett? I guess not.
Lots of weirdos here.
How is that syphilis working out for you?
WTF?
Andrea should delete this.
Andrea wrote that…
Why must every even slightly humorous comment be deleted? It’s not like the guy is trolling or being offensive.
LOL, I think it’s too OOT. Imagine if all these people commented 100 comments of these. I think we’ll all get annoyed. So banning one might be the solution.
A fair point, but there are other worse offenders who spam this forum on a daily basis with off-topic or trolling comments. I don’t think I need to mention any names…
Yes and they’re the one I’m also talking about. I’d like to see the moderator cleaning up mess.
You continued an argument where you stated
“Well, not ‘rare’, but there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment”
This is completely fictitious. You “spammed” as much as I did. When I used the word “crazy” you got offended by it because you don’t know all of its meanings. It’s quite clear you’re illiterate because you continue to spell portraits “potraits” lol.
https://i.imgur.com/wCr9kd7.jpg
This statistic says it all really.
By all means prove that most portraits sold use wide apertures or that most professionals use wide apertures for portraits
OK, sorry for that you mastermind bob. I forgot that you referred about f2.8 as small aperture. Happy?
“Well actually, According to your statistics wider than f/2.8 has some share of pictures. Not most, (because I wasn’t aware that you were referring 2.8 as small aperture).”
There’s already a 90mm f2.8 lens. Re-read the discussion.. Comprehend the conversation as a whole rather than invoke a straw man fallacy.
Even if you were referring to f4 as a wide aperture, small apertures are still the majority. Regardless of what way you choose to swing this argument, your argument that wider apertures are the majority, is simply incorrect
I can’t believe you still bother to telling me that my argument are fallacious. Since when asking clarification can be a fallacy? I may missed your point, but that’s what I want to initially asked. Delusional claims like illiterate and straw man fallacies should be put aside. These are statements that are used by most teens arguing, not ‘one of the smartest people in the world’.
That’s wrong math. Even if If ‘small aperture’ is smaller than f4 it does not have the most share. Yet I thought you referred small aperture as f8. So, my argument that wider apertures are majority is still correct. Yet, wider f2.8 still has some important share, which means the way that you’ve requested Sony to not release a ~90mm potrait lens wider than f2.8 was a fallacy.
You’ve misunderstood most of what was written. I can only assume this is because you’re illiterate
Does Bob’s assumption have any significant degree at all? Like I said, I may have missed your point, but the response towards the questioning of that is not supposed to be an insult, but proper explanations. Other than the things I’ve missed, I won the argument bob, you can calm down now.
You did not win the argument.
My argument was that if a dedicated portrait (a word you could not even spell; you spelled it “potrait”) is being produced, then the macro lens shouldn’t have been sacrificed. 90mm is a little too short for typical macro usage BUT it is a good length for portrait usage. 2.8 is also wide enough for most portrait usage. Portraiture is typically much smaller apertures because you can light the scene in a way that separates the subject but still keep sharp focus. A 1.4 aperture won’t even get both eyes in focus, in some cases.
You started off by saying I am wrong and that the majority of portraiture by professionals is done with a wide aperture lens. Keep in mind that I had already discussed the 90mm 2.8, so a relatively “wide” aperture lens defaulted to being wider than 2.8. I showed you proof of photographs taken, proving that wider than 2.8 is NOT the majority. Yes there are photographs taken with wider apertures, but they are NOT the majority. If you say all swans are white and I find ONE black swan, I have proven you wrong.
You then proceeded to insult me. You tried to imply that “go crazy” was an insult, it is NOT (but you’re illiterate so you wouldn’t know). You manufactured things I had said, like I don’t know what bokeh is. Bokeh comes from japanese, but it’s not even a japanese word. It comes from bokashi. How do I know this? Because I’m fluent in japanese.
http://iplogger.org/1VhX3.jpg
If you weren’t completely stupid (which you obviously are), you would be able to tell that multiple people post under my name. However, you did not, and you cannot win an argument with me.
You clearly do not know a thing about portraiture
I did Bob. You showed your defeat by a dump of insults and repeat the same argument, that I refuted earlier. If you said that you were referring to less than 2.8 as small aperture earlier, the argument will not be as stupid as this. I am initially here to ask, without insults, yet you replied that with ‘illiterate garbage’?
You are not showing that you were referring anything less than f2.8 as a small aperture in your first few posts. ‘People should not be crazy about wide aperture potraits’ supports that idea. You are not recapping this very well. You were the one who insulted me first and ‘Go crazy’ was an insult. Because in this argument, it was expressing the wrongness of my ideas, it was an insult regardless of what you think it was meant to be.
Great that you know Japanese. I can also hear that you know Russian, German, Portuguese, Arabic and Swahili. But I don’t care. It doesn’t matter to the world either, especially for a guy who always impose himself to show off to the world that he’s a mastermind and one of the smartest people in the world.
I won the argument. If you have 10 swans, 3 are black, why do you have to say that they’re irrelevant? Why do you have to not feed them? If I understood that you were referring to small aperture as same or less than 2.8 earlier then I would question your opinion; If wider than f2.8 has an important share, why do you say that they’re completely pointless? Based on this, I can tell that your initial point was fallacious.
Bob says: I am illiterate, I am completely stupid and cannot win an argument with a delusional person like himself. Ridiculous. Not funny and embarrassing. If you’re competing for an insult competition, I’m telling you, it is not good enough. But don’t blame me if you’ll get banned.
“Well, not ‘rare’, but there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals), because potraits are mostly about the subject, not the environment.”
The majority of portraiture by professional photographers is with apertures around f5.6 to f8. Your statement that the majority of professional photographers shoot portraits at wide apertures is untrue.
If you don’t know what is considered a “wide” or “fast” lens. Read this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture. It is not my problem that you do not know what a wide aperture lens is. I shouldn’t have to explain this to you. A direct quote from that page — “Lenses with apertures opening f/2.8 or wider are referred to as “fast” lenses”. An f2.8 90mm lens already exists. You should try using a bit of logic.
“You were the one who insulted me first and ‘Go crazy’ was an insult.”
Go crazy is not an insult. I have told you it is not an insult. You continue to think it is an insult. You have misunderstood the word “crazy”.
Another example of “go crazy” is “go nuts”
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=go+nuts
I was talking about looking at the photographs, I linked you to a lot of them and I said “go crazy”, as in, look at as many as you would like to look at.
180.253.99.132, 180.253.99.132, 180.253.99.132
Indonesia Jawa Barat Bandung
Just like I thought, you’re from a third world country. You don’t speak my language, and you haven’t had an education.
” If you have 10 swans, 3 are black, why do you have to say that they’re irrelevant? Why do you have to not feed them?”
You’ve completely misunderstood the point.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=g_mVFLk4kN0C&pg=PA298&lpg=PA298&dq=all+swans+are+white+argument&source=bl&ots=iIOyaeo99n&sig=lzGA6sO8Lq1ROpVOTQuN0Nqyzvs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=PWIQVb76CtjdatjmgegI&ved=0CEgQ6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=all%20swans%20are%20white%20argument&f=false
http://pastebin.com/T7KRJSZY
Apparently you are a known troll
Cool points Bob. Then, you’re an insult. Now, you’re insulting and being racist… Good progress there, you should thank me for the advice I’ve given earlier.
‘Go crazy’ is an insult, you can’t ridiculously say that it isn’t. Urban dictionary is not formal English. ‘Go nuts’ means break down mentally.
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/go+crazy
http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/go%20nuts
It’s not my problem if you’d like to speak wrong English.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aperture#In_photography
What’s the point of explaining me what ‘fast’ and ‘wide’ lenses are? To show how smart you are, as well as embarrassing yourself? Maybe. ‘Typical ranges of apertures used in photography are about f/2.8–f/22 or f/2–f/16, covering 6 stops, which may be divided into wide, middle, and narrow of 2 stops each.’ You don’t have any idea what it is, I do. Wide is >f4-f5.6, which is what most pro photographers use for potraits.
‘The majority of portraiture by professional photographers is with apertures around f5.6 to f8’
Wrong, http://i.imgur.com/wCr9kd7.jpg (your own statistics).
‘You’ve completely misunderstood the point.’
You do.
‘Apparently you are a known troll’
You are
Put it this way. If you don’t have any irrefutable points (Worse yet, wrong points), just shut up. You are embarrassing yourself, being ‘one of the smartest people’ humiliated by a person from a third world country, that you claimed to be relevant to this argument. I’m honestly honoured by that. Take my advice, it’s rare to hear advices from a situation like these’
“‘Go nuts’ means break down mentally.”
It does not in that context. http://www.dynamic-coaching.com/blog/BOSVIEW/Indulge-Your-Senses/
“Wide is >f4-f5.6, which is what most pro photographers use for potraits.”
You are incorrect, wide is considered >2.8 for portraiture.
Most professional photographers shoot at smaller apertures for portraits. A word you cannot even spell.
“(your own statistics)”
My own statistics show that the majority of professional photographers shoot at narrow apertures. If you care to look properly, you’d see those using wider apertures are typically amateurs
‘http://www.dynamic-coaching.com/blog/BOSVIEW/Indulge-Your-Senses/’
Hahaha.
‘You are incorrect, wide is considered >2.8 for portraiture.’
Elaborate that. Stop defining words as you want.
‘Most professional photographers shoot at smaller apertures for portraits. A word you cannot even spell.’
No and continue with that ‘you can’t even spell’ idiocy and at the same time, keep embarrassing yourself.
‘This is simply not true’
Might as well repeat ‘I am one of the smartest people in the world’.
‘This isn’t even english lol’
Lol
‘My own statistics show that the majority of professional photographers shoot at narrow apertures. If you care to look properly, you’d see those using wider apertures are typically amateurs’
I’m Astonished by your claim. Show me the statistic you’re talking about?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens_speed
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=canon+wide+aperture+85mm
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=nikon+wide+aperture+85mm
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=leica+wide+aperture+90mm
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=zeiss+wide+aperture+85mm
To my knowledge, no company advertises an f4 prime lens AT THE FOCAL LENGTH WE ARE DISCUSSING, as wide aperture, when comparing it to a 90mm 2.8. Keep in mind that there’s already a 90mm 2.8, so wide would default to being wider than 2.8 Otherwise, relative to the 90mm, it would not be wide. That’s just basic english and logic.
http://ftape.com/media/?page_id=90421
http://catherineasanov.viewbook.com/catherine_asanov_photo__creative/portfolio
http://www.joeyl.com/overview/category/quick-portfolio
http://larajade.co.uk/
http://ricksammon.com/cowboys-and-cowgirls/
http://salcincotta.com/
Here’s some popular professional photographers
‘To my knowledge, no company advertises an f4 prime lens AT THE FOCAL LENGTH WE ARE DISCUSSING’
What’s a ‘wide aperture’, again (not advertisement, but the real definition)?
‘That’s just basic english [sic] and logic’
english is not a word, you are from a third world country who doesn’t speak my language.
‘would default to being wider’
If this is what you said to answer my first post, I’ll acknowledge it. But you took 4 posts to clarify, yet your opinion is still fallacious.
‘Here’s some popular professional photographers’
What’s your point here?
“What’s a ‘wide aperture’, again (not advertisement, but the real definition)?”
Wide means “of great or more than average width.” Wide is a RELATIVE word. If you said to someone, “their head is wide”, it wouldn’t tell you how wide their head is, but you would associate it with someone else’s head. This thread, and my posts, were about a portrait lens. There is already a 90mm, f2.8 lens that can be used for portraits. I repeat, not to insult you but to clarify, wide is a RELATIVE word. Therefore, in the case of this discussion, and in the case of what we are discussing, wide would HAVE to be relatively wider than f2.8. If it were smaller than f2.8, it would be “narrow” relative to the 90mm macro lens available. In photography, the “speed” and the width of the aperture, regarding lenses, is related. A fast lens is a “wide” lens, it has to be or else you wouldn’t get a fast shutter speed (excluding ISO etc). On the wikipedia article, it says that fast lenses are considered f2.8 and beyond. Beyond that, there’s no clear cut definition of what “wide” is regarding photography in general, but I was not not discussing photography in general. I was talking about lenses relative to the macro lens.
This conversation has gone so far off topic that I think you don’t even remember the initial point I made.
“I agree that around 85mm is the best choice for portrait usage. I am saying that a 90mm macro lens already exists so if they are going to come out with a new portrait lens, the macro lens should have had a longer focal length. Rather than make duplicates. It seems they’re making many duplicate focal lengths (35, 50, zooms etc) without covering all of the focal lengths to begin with.
As a portrait lens in its own right, the 90mm macro is probably very good and I don’t think you need super wide apertures all the time.
Perhaps my original argument wasn’t very clear but basically I think there should be a dedicated portrait lens, 85mm. And a macro lens (it can be f4 for all I care), 135mm or longer. I’m not in favour of all these duplicate focal lengths when other lengths aren’t yet covered”
To clarify there, there is little in the way of wide-angle zoom lenses but there are already a few longer focal length options.
“If there’s going to be a “portrait” lens, I don’t see the point of a 90mm macro. 90mm makes sense if you’re to use the macro as a “portrait” lens but if the macro is going to be kept for dedicated macro usage, 160mm makes far more sense. 90mm for macro usage is awful. In addition to this, I think people go too crazy over wide apertures for portraits. It’s just my opinion but I think portraits look far better when they are small apertures, better lighting etc. Wide aperture is good if you don’t know how to use a flash and you don’t know how to compose properly. I already think a portrait lens exists, the 90mm macro. For this reason I’d rather see a 21mm prime lens but most of this post is subjective”
For a lot of macro usage, a longer than 90mm focal length is helpful, for example if you want to photograph a bug. At that distance, f2.8 is simply not needed. I don’t wish to insult you in this post, but most macro photography is shot at small apertures (relative to normal photography) because the depth of field is so small at that distance.
So I am saying that if there were a 160mm f4 macro INSTEAD of the f2.8 90mm macro. That would leave the 90mm open for a nice, wide aperture (f2.8 or wider) portrait lens.
Subjectively, I think portraits look far better at f8, where everything is crisp and if you want subject separation, you simply use a high quality flash and make the background dark.
The links I provided show some good examples of this.
Keep in mind that everything which was my opinion or something that is subjective, I said “it is my opinion”, or “in my opinion” etc. So I have not and I did not say anything which was remotely fallacious.
Saying “go crazy” or “people go crazy” was a colloquialism. You can argue it was insulting, but it truly wasn’t; furthermore, if you understood the context of what I was writing, you would be able to understand I did not insult.
You however, fabricated quotes, manufactured things I had not said, made fictitious claims, accused me of being racist etc. I am not racist, I had found your IP, your location and I looked at what the third world countries are on wikipedia. The language barrier is partly responsible for this poor discussion
Alright, Bob. I knew all those wide and relativity business regarding this style of ‘photography. It wasn’t clear. I thought you were telling me that:
-No faster 90mm needed
-People are crazy* about wide* aperture
-People should shoot at f8* because they capture the scene better
(words marked with asterisk are the ones in dispute)
That’s what you told us, so I assume that You do not like wide apertures at all. I asked for your clarification, but you answered with delusion. ‘Straw man fallacy’, ‘illiterate’, ‘completely stupid’, etc. Rubbish. You then add with racial and fictitious claims that wide aperture (>f5.6) is not the norm… Of course the discussion is going to go far out of topic.
If you had clarified all of this, without any insults, then I’d simply acknowledge, but you didn’t. It is free to interpret anything as the post itself was unclear.
‘You should try using a bit of logic.’
Sorry, but if the post itself was unclear, Is this statement needed?
Your initial post sounds like ‘Sony shouldn’t be releasing other primes because f2.8 is already good enough, because people are too crazy [mental problems or stupidity] over wide aperture [wider f5.6, as it wasn’t referring to the 90mm f2.8] and I think f8 are better to capture the scene [which is subjective].’ In your first posts, it seems that you are insulting the people that subjectively like wide aperture pictures more (which of course is pointless, as there are no basis for that, except your own subjective view), as you weren’t clarifying your statement. Your job is to clarify this, but you didn’t. Well at least, didn’t do it before the insults began. You are unclear, yet you’re blaming people for their illiteracy because they do not understand your unclear points – This is idiotic.
‘Saying “go crazy” or “people go crazy” was a colloquialism.’
It doesn’t matter. Slang/informal language is not English. Like I said, it is not my problem if you speak wrong English. I can also interpret as it was an insult. Because ‘crazy’ as ‘mental disorder’ can as well suit the discussion.
‘So I have not and I did not say anything which was remotely fallacious.’
I wasn’t claiming that your initial point was fallacious, except the fact that wider than 2.8 has a share and you’re claiming that it is totally irrelevant. But at least, the claims such as ‘Illiterate’, ‘Stupid’, ‘Crazy’, ‘third world country illiteracy’ etc. was definitely and objectively fallacious.
I am honestly was planning to cease this mockery out of you, but I stopped that plan when I read the final paragraph. ‘fabricated quotes, manufactured things I had not said’, In fact, Bob said ‘the bokeh is out of focus’. ‘made fictitious claims,’, your attempts to show that your claim that my claims were fictitious is true were always unsuccessful.
‘I am not racist, I had found your IP, your location and I looked at what the third world countries are on wikipedia.’
Idiotic. I do honestly not believe that someone can be stupid enough to say ‘you haven’t had an education’ and ‘you are illiterate mostly because you are from a third world country’, based on that fact.
‘The language barrier is partly responsible for this poor discussion’
Like I said, It is not my problem if your posts are unclear. Your idiotic manners is mostly responsible for this poor discussion.
I’ve wasted my time on you. I can’t waste any more time with you. I can’t respond to you seriously. Ciao, Bob.
“Well, not ‘rare’, but there is a reason why wide apertures are more commonly used (by professionals)”
This is simply not true
“it’s rare to hear advices”
This isn’t even english lol
LOL OK self proclaimed mastermind.
The reason people think you are spamming is because you keep bringing up old disputes in completely unrelated threads. What you just said here is a continuation of a conversation you had elsewhere on this page. You clutter the forum with all of these comments.
He’s as guilty of it too, and I only responded frequently because others responded to me or spoke about me. There’s about ten people posting with my name and admin is going to see that from the IPs I would assume. I cannot be certain
Why don’t you sign in instead of posting as guest?
If you do, no one will be able to impersonate you.
Actually, I didn’t have you in mind at all. The spammer/troll I was alluding to was Anton Berlin.
Actually, I didn’t have Anton Berlin in mind at all. The spammer/troll I was alluding to was me.
I replied seriously then someone resorted to fallacious nonsense. I presented with evidence and then they spoke about fallacies themselves rather than rephrasing their argument into a non fallacious form.
Pointing out a logical fallacy is a way of removing an argument from the debate rather than just weakening it. Much of the time, a debater will respond to an argument by simply stating a counterargument showing why the original argument is not terribly significant in comparison to other concerns, or shouldn’t be taken seriously or whatever. That kind of response is fine, except that the original argument still remains in the debate, albeit in a less persuasive form, and the opposition is free to mount a rhetorical offensive saying why it’s important after all. On the other hand, if you can show that the original argument actually commits a logical fallacy, you put the opposition in the position of justifying why their original argument should be considered at all. If they can’t come up with a darn good reason, then the argument is actually removed from the discussion.
Unfortunately, with the people here, they tend to continue their logical fallacy even when it has been stated as fallacious and proven to be fallacious. For this reason, it is not my problem there’s extra spam, it’s theirs for not accepting their argument is fallacious and letting it die an honourable death
Verbal diarrhea
Canon EOS M isn’t a DSLR – you are a moron Bob.
Neither is our Nikon 1………… are you really this dense Bob.
I am astonished by your story… More fallacies from you please.
You are illiterate, mostly because you’re from a third world country
Yes I am, because people from third world countries are always illiterate, according to a self proclaimed ‘one of the smartest people in the world’.
A7s will capture you whoever you are
“Who is this imposing figure looming in the background?”
Maybe the Admin who has gone out of his mind and he’s embarassing himself?
You embarrassed yourself
Like I always do.
Look at you lot… You’re all so vacant….
What’s wrong with this text?
You are so ignorant you can’t appreciate philosophy?
Yes… I wrote that… It’s obvious…
What’s with all the dots? I don’t write like that at all
I don’t like periods either
Illiterate clown
And this is an example of Dissociative Identity Disorder.
He is like Gollum from “The Hobbit” and “The Lord of the Rings”.
LOL
The strange case of Dr. Bob and Mr. Hyde…
LOL
The ones mentioned would be nice, but all of them one stop slower
1kg lens?
For me a zeiss 85mm 1.4 and a 135mm 2.0 please!!!! Loxia is ok. But AF would be nice! Or real MF.
Loxia will be without AF.
And would certainly not be shown on a Sony roadmap.
But indeed such two lenses would be desirable.
end
20152017, maybe135mm f2 would be huge on E-mount. The 35mm f1.4 is almost the same lenght as the SAL135F18Z already.
I don’t mind big. It must be lightweighted. That’s what counts for me.
Well Im using the C anon 135f2 on A7r with adapter very happily, and I’m sure a native one would be a little bit smaller…
Sorry Mods for this Bob Fiasco… I really can’t stop replying to his comments!
Your profile shows you had poor behaviour and wrote fallacious nonsense long before I made a single post on this site
You cannot tell a true troll from someone with personality issues. That’s not to say a
true troll doesn’t have personality issue or why else would they be amusing themselves in that way?
With this said, I’m sure I have personality issues. I cannot think of many people that do not.
That said, my goal to improve my English by posting on these sites seems to work for me. It’s helping my typing skills too. I average 125 wpm. I can do better.
I studied in Oxford and Sheffield University.
I scored 156 on the IQ test. Marilyn Vos Savant is a friend of mine. So I am arguably one of the smartest people in the world.
I don’t understand why you hate me…
You lot should be glad to speak with a mastermind like me.
You just made my day, big thanks for the laughs!
Oh well, I’m actually really honored to argue with a self proclaimed ‘one of the smartest people in the world’.
For God’s sake, Bob… Stop it.
Your ability to embarrass yourself knows no bounds.
“My wishlist: 24mm f/1.4, 85 f/1.4 and 135mm f/2.0.”
24mm for sure (probably f/2.8). I expect at least one other 50mm (f/1.4?). 85mm for sure but not f/1.4. Maybe f/2. 135mm will be the last one, if any. Maybe f/2 or f/2.8 – or a very small f/3.5 from the old mid-70ies Zeiss designs with lovely bokeh.
100mm f2 please. PLEASE
A Zeiss customer service manager told me that there will be come a several further real Zeiss FE-Mount lenses in 2015. Both: MF and AF primes. Didn’t ask for details. In anyway he could not have told me more. I am really lucky that the Zeiss Contax story that ended 2005 continues now with Sony. Really good News is in particular, that Zeiss will indroduce own AF FE-Mount primes this year.
I’ve spoken to a Zeiss manager, the next lens is going to be a 21mm biogon.
And me too. Zeiss distagon 90mm f1.4.
The time has come for me to reveal who I am. I am the one pulling the strings here. You are all my puppets, you are pawns in a game you aren’t equipped to understand.
I am quite pleased with what I have accomplished here. Just look below, look at the glorious, vast wordscape I have created through you.
Who am I then? Who is this mysterious mastermind? Once I was a simple name-changing troll on the site known as 43rumors. I was known under many names, all of them striking fear into the minds of the commoners.
However, I noticed that another site, SAR, was infested by several equally capable trolls. And so it came to pass, that I ascended to a higher plane of existence, and took command of the proceedings here, not by trolling as myself, but by impersonating the trolls already present here. I am henceforth to be known and feared by my true name:
I am META-TROLL!
I hope you’re getting paid for this. It’s hilarious! LOL
Actually, I am just a fool embarrassing himself.
Fascinating. So what else have you been up to lately, Mr. Meta-Troll?
I’d still love and welcome 70 or 75 mm with f1.8 or f2.0, but small, light, priced to be reachable for everyone. So far most lenses for FE are not smaller than their SLR equivalents, loosing that way some of system advantages over mirror equipped cameras. Such a 75/1.8 would be really compact and light, providing results not that really worse than two times larger and heavier 85/1.4 would. Pentax and Leica already have such a lenses greatly suitable for their small camera bodies and they allow for a really great results in portraiture.
http://www.us.ricoh-imaging.com/camera-lenses/smc_PENTAX_FA_77mm_F1.8_Limited
http://pl.leica-camera.com/Fotografia/M-System/Obiektywy-M/APO-Summicron-M-75mm-f-2-ASPH