Two weeks ago I posted that fullframe poll (Click here) to ask you what kind of lens you need for the full frame Alpha mount system. We had 3.900 voters from all over the worls. The poll gives us a general idea of what our readers want from Sony. I ask you to share your evaluation about the results. These are mine:
1) The most requested lens is actually a surprise because I would have never expected to see so many votes for it. The 12-24mm f/2.8 got a 28% share (1,094 Votes).
2) The most requested focal length is the 50mm standard prime. The 50mm f/1.4 Zeiss (24%, 927 Votes), the 50mm f/1.0 Zeiss (19%, 734 Votes) and the 50mm f/1.2 (13%, 503 Votes). Close behind we find the 35mm wide angle prime lens. The 35mm f/1.4 Zeiss collected 25% of your votes (978 Votes). And the more compact 35mm f/2.0 had 461 votes (12%). Very close behind the 35mm lenses we find the 85mm lenses.
3) There is no surprise when it comes to standard zoom lenses. The 24-105mm f/4.0 (25%, 974 Votes) is the third most requested lens. The 70-200mm f/2.8 Zeiss (23%, 882 Votes) is the fifth most requested lens.
4) Another surprise has been the high request for Tilt shift lenses. The 24mm TS earned a 16% share (641 Votes).
Overall It’s obvious that readers ask for classic good quality prime and zoom lenses. It’s a call for Sony to complete the “backbone” of the lens system. And I am sure Sony is already working on it.
Here are the detailed results of the poll and feel free to add your analysis of the results! Thanks!
[poll id=”81″]
—
These are the links to the current Sony Full Frame lenses (without the older Minolta lenses). You can check the price to get an idea of how much the suggested poll lenses could cost!
SAL-16F28 Fisheye 16mm f/2.8 Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9774]
SAL-1635Z 16-35mm f/2.8 ZA SSM Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* AF SLR Lens [shopcountry 9773]
SAL-20F28 20mm f/2.8 AF Lens for Alpha & Minolta Maxxum Series [shopcountry 9775]
Distagon T* 24mm f/2 SSM Wide Angle Lens [shopcountry 9769]
SAL-2470Z 24-70mm f/2.8 Carl Zeiss Vario-Sonnar T* Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9776]
SAL-2875 28-75mm f/2.8 SAM Constant Aperture Zoom Lens [shopcountry 9777]
SAL-35F14G Wide Angle 35mm f/1.4G Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9779]
SAL-50F14 Normal 50mm f/1.4 Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9780]
SAL-50M28 Normal AF D 50mm f/2.8 Macro Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9781]
SAL-85F14Z Telephoto 85mm f/1.4 Carl Zeiss Planar T* Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9782]
85mm f/2.8 SAM Mid-range Telephoto Lens [shopcountry 9768]
SAL-100M28 100mm f/2.8 AF Macro Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9770]
SAL-135F18Z 135mm f/1.8 Carl Zeiss Sonnar T* Autofocus SLR Lens [shopcountry 9771]
SAL-135F28 135mm f/2.8 Manual Focus SLR Lens [shopcountry 9772]
SAL-70200G Zoom AF 70-200mm f/2.8 APO G(D) SSM Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9782]
SAL-70300G 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G SSM Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9783]
SAL-70400G 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G SSM Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9784]
SAL-75300 AF D 75-300mm f/4.5-5.6 Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9785]
SAL-300F28G 300mm f/2.8 APO G SSM Autofocus Lens [shopcountry 9778]
113 Responses
FIRST!!!
I’ll take the 12-24mm and a 24mm T/S please.
Your mother must be so proud.
What an ignorant bunch. I’m sure most of the people asking for a 12-24mm f/2.8 lens do not have a full frame camera and probably would not even have the funds to buy one if it were available.
12mm-24mm f/2.8 for APS-C I can understand but that is actually just a 18-36mm full frame lens. We already have a Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 lens anyway.
Now, Nikon does sell a FF 14-24mm f/2.8 lens but that goes for $2,000.
Nobody has ever made a FF 12-24mm f/2.8. Sigma sells a 12-24mm but it is a slow lens.
What Sony really needs to do is a serious lens lineup that support both the rich doctors and professionals with their CZs as well as satisfy the average consumers. In particular they really lack affordable fast FF lenses.
For example:
No affordable wide zoom at all. Only the CZ 16-35mm f/2.8. Minolta at least had the affordable 17-35mm f/2.8-4 re-badged from Tamron.
No affordable 24mm lens at all. The only choice is an expensive ($1,000+) CZ 24mm f/2. On the other hand, both Nikon and Canon offer standard 24mm f/2.8 lenses and their expensive 24mm lenses are even faster than the CZ at f/1.4.
No fast 28mm. Minolta made a good 28mm f/2 lens. Sony makes only the poorly rated 28mm f/2.8. Canon makes a 28mm f/1.8 lens.
No affordable 35mm prime at all. The only 35mm lens that Sony sells is the old (soft!) and expensive 35mm f/1.4G @ close to $1,400. Meanwhile both Canon and Nikon have fast 35mm f/2.0 lenses for around $350 or less brand new while old/used Minolta 35mm f/2.0 lenses are going for over $500 on Ebay.
No cheap 50mm at all. Sony released a 50mm f/1.8 lens but for some reason decided to limit it to APS-C. If you want a 50mm lens from Sony you have to buy the more expensive 50mm f/1.4 which is also very old in the tooth, lacks SSM and does not compare to the new Nikon 50mm f/1.4G with silent-wave motor, new coatings and design.
No affordable fast 85mm at all. Sony has no affordable fast 85mm lens. They only released a cheaply built and relatively slow 85mm f/2.8 SAM lens. The price-point is good but the lens is just too slow for many types of portraits behind busy backgrounds. Canon and Nikon both sell an affordable 85mm f/1.8 lens for under $400. However Sony will only sell you a fast 85mm if you pony up $1,500 or so for a CZ lens without SSM.
No affordable 135mm prime lens. 135mm used to be a dynamite head and shoulders portrait lens in the past on 35mm film. Now, both Canon and Nikon have made affordable 135mm lenses but not Sony. Sony instead gives you only one option of the very expensive and bulky CZ 135mm f/1.8. It is good to have such a high quality lens in the Sony lineup but how many people can afford it. Also the size of the lens is gargantuan when compared to the original Minolta 135mm f/2.8 which could fit in a coat pocket easily.
No 200mm prime lens. Sony expects you to go shopping on Ebay for the legendary Minolta 200mm f/2.8. Since Sony bought a lot of the Minolta optical technology/designs you would think they would have resurrected all the good Minolta glass, but no.
No affordable 300mm prime. Not a big deal for me but I’m sure there are folks who want a 300mm f/4 lens from Sony. Both Canon and Nikon do have this.
No 500mm prime lens. Even the re-badged 500mm f/8 mirror lens has been discontinued. The much talked about Sony 500mm f/4 lens has never seen the light of day. Well that rules out professional sports and wild life shooters right there.
No 600mm lens. For this one I can understand why Sony may not have such a lens at this point 🙂
When it comes to FF Zooms, Sony again is lacking having only three high-end constant aperture models (16-35,24-70,70-200), one or two junk zooms and two better rated “G” slow zooms. Nothing in-between. For example, they simply do not sell *any* affordable kit-zoom for full frame. They already discontinued the re-badged Minolta 24-105mm a few years ago and they never re-manufactured the legendary Minolta 28-135mm f/4-4.5 lens or the 70-210 F/4 beercan. People are rightly asking for a 24-105mm f/4 lens. Canon has one and Nikon has several variants.
Finally, a lot of the Sony lenses are based on very old Minolta optical formulas and lack SSM.
Even on Sony’s latest pet project (NEX), the lack of good lenses is much worse with only *one* better rated prime lens – the Zeiss branded 24mm f/1.8. The 16mm f/2.8 is not very good and the kit lens is nothing to write home about. The 18-200(?) lens is designed more for the VG camcorders than small pocket cameras like the NEX5/3/7.
Clearly Sony has a problem with optics and I personally don’t think they are willing to invest in their lenses the same way that Canon and Nikon do. In fact I don’t even think they are willing to invest the same resources as even the much smaller (in photo market) Samsung is willing to do for its much less popular NX series.
Only someone who works deeply in Sony optics division can explain this reticence on their part.
mmm..interesting…gonna read it all back in home…
I was a sony fan, but lately, after the dissapointment with the A77, i’m thinking about moving to nikon…SLT are good for many purposes, but as a concert photography fan it just simple dont cut it….
Well, I have an A900 and really would like a 12mm-24mm FF equlv lens (I could care less if it’s f/2.8 though). I’m thinking creative use of perspective distortion at the widest Focal lengths. &FWIW, I already own the 16-35 and the 24-70 Zeiss…
The sigma 12-24mm is designated as an APSC lens but actually works quite well on FF with minimal vignetting and creates some great effects. Go give it a try if you can.
Just by seeing you say this:
“12mm-24mm f/2.8 for APS-C I can understand but that is actually just a 18-36mm full frame lens. We already have a Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 lens anyway.”
All your subsequent arguments thereafter have been thrown out the window. Dumb!
the 16-35 will no longer be 16-35 on apsc, 16-35 will be a 24-53mm on apsc. so how does the 12-24 lens = the 16-35 lens??
photonut got caught up in his own nonsense confusion!!!
(but a 12mm f2.8 lens will be massive)
Just by seeing you say this:
“12mm-24mm f/2.8 for APS-C I can understand but that is actually just a 18-36mm full frame lens. We already have a Zeiss 16-35mm f/2.8 lens anyway.”
All your subsequent arguments thereafter have been thrown out the window. Please think before posting.
Number 1 is not a surprise at all. I’d take a fixed 24-mm f2.8 (or faster) though.
The Zeiss 24mm F2 is current. The Minolta 24mm F2.8 is readily available.
i had the 24mm f2 zeiss on A850, did not impress at all, i returned it after 2 weeks.
canon and nikon have 24mm f1.4, zeiss should be able to match that or beat it with f1.2
Andrea, any news on the availability of the 1.04 firmware to the public?
Gimme a 70-200 F2,8 Zeiss then I will be willing to replace my Sony 70-200G SSM F2,8 =D
+1
I’ve actually worn out my Sony 70-200/f2.8 and been holding off replacing it as I wait for Sony to release a lens roadmap. I carry this lens attached to one of my a850 using one of the BlackRapid straps so it bounces around a lot as I walk and its getting sloppy.
The picture of a Zeiss 70-200 (above)used by our trusted admin for this poll just about caused me to have a heart-attack followed by wet dreams for about a week or so till I learned that the photo was a fake.
So, I guess I’ll just wait and see what Sony has planned a little longer and not purchase anything. The truth be told that till I see Sony’s direction in FF pro bodies and how the EVF works for photographers like me, I’m likely to just save my money anyway.
Last year’s $4k budget for two pro lenses has been carried forward by my accountant to this next year and with this years plan to replace to of the a850……………who knows, maybe this time next year I’ll have Canon EOS-1Dx and my much loved Sony.
And maybe that’s okay
Haha, have to agree with you. Sony have been making me worried about their FF directions since the day they announced the EVF bodies and the discontinue of OVF in future body.
At first I was only using the good old A300, after hearing the news, I have to spent big bucks on the A850 body just to keep it as the “Last FF OVF of Sony”. It is a pain on my wallet.
Just around two month ago, my boss was asking me to get the company a camera, so I purchased the A77 instead. To be honest, I really don’t like the EVF and OVF is my only preference. But I must admit the A77’s EVF is the best out there money can buy but OVF is simply the essence of photography.
P/S I do feel that the A850 produces better IQ and DR compared to the A77 except during Hi ISO. However, even at low ISO, the A850 really has more natural details compared to A77. I do feel like the picture taken on A850 is alive while the A77’s picture is just that stiff and lifeless. Well that was just my personal opinion after all XD
+1
I also shoot using the a850 and own several Zeiss lenses.
The 135/f1.8 and the 24MP sensor of the a850 is a wonderful combo and with a little Photoshop works together as a digital zoom.
With a Zeiss 24-70/f2.8 on one of my a850’s and the 135mm on the second I’m not using my tired and battered Sony 70-200/f2.8 G.
My Zeiss investment is what keeps me on the A-mount and not shooting Canon like my partner does.
The Zeiss 135 and the 24-70 are spectacular lenses. I also recommend that you beg borrow or steal the money to buy yourself an 85mm f/1.4. It will blow you away.
Im just wondering, what is your complaint with the existing 70-200mm ssm? Its missing the big blue logo? It wasn’t expensive enough? I have one of these & the a77 and I can’t think of how it could be better. James
Hehe, because I have seen the color, sharpness and most importantly the “Feel” reproduced on Sony Zeiss lenses and I do believe if they really made a Zeiss version of the 70-200, it will be a killer lens.
Don’t get me wrong, the Sony 70-200G is one heck of a amazing lens, I have been using it for portrait works and results was fantastic on both A850 and A77, just that on the A77, it is a bit soft at 200mm. After all, it is A FF lens. =D
the IQ of the A850 is certainly superior to the A77 in every way, including high iso. It is after all a full-frame camera.
Wasn’t an announcement made a few months (a year?) ago that stated Zeiss will only do primes from now?
I think 12-24mm f4 would be far more reasonable choice from size, weight and price point of view.
The same about 70-200mm, for sure when voting would be with credit cards, then f4 should be much more popular, than expensive f2.8 version.
I Agree! A 2.8 G og Zeiss would be to expensive for me. But for the A77, the 2.8 aparture is essential. Becouse of the mirrors and the ISO noise. My 10-20 F4 is frustrating to use when it is dark. Especiall with my A77.
Darn… I didn’t get my 40-110 f2 Portrait Slayer.
Do we really need another 70-200 f2.8? Really?
no we dont, similarly we dont need a 85mm F1.2…whats wrong with the near perfect 85mm F1.4 we already have? Do you absolutely need that fraction of a stop more light?
They should start simply by recreating and updating the minolta lenses they already have patents and designs for. 200F2.8, 70-210 F4(Beercan), 300 F4, 400 F4.5, 24-105 F3.5-F4.5, 17-35G etc etc. Bring the optical coatings up to date and add SSM. It would give a more rounded lens selection for the cheapest dev cost and lets not forget that (with some exceptions) the minolta versions of these lenses will still go toe-to-toe with anything out there.
When doing this its important to think of what will sell in large enough quantities to be worthwhile, you can ask all you want for a 23-27mm F1.3 because its perfect for you, but for most its a paperweight. Really speaking you need to aim to cover from about 16-400mm in two or three pricing ranges (F2.8,F4,F5.6 type of thing) eventually, with specials outside that 500/600F4..ish at the high end, a nice fisheye or two at the bottom and a T/S for the architecture guys.
Your suggestion that Sony simply ought to modernize a number of the classic Minolta lenses, because this should be possible to do very quickly since the development is already done, and Sony owns the patents. But do they?
As far as I know, Sony DOES NOT own the rights to the Minolta legacy lenses. What I understand is that Sony pays hefty license money to Konica Minolta every year – someone had discovered in the Sony Annual Report that there was a considerable amount of license money paid from Sony to Konica Minolta.
Which probably means that Sony want to get away from those lenses as soon as possible! KM seems to drain as much money from Sony as they can, exploiting the fact that Sony was forced to build up a reasonable lens lineup very quickly in the beginning.
Further, some of the glass used in these classic Minolta lenses are not available anymore, because they contain harmful substances (as lead etc.).
Third, to add SSM to lenses not designed for it is not worthwile. Basically this would require a new design from ground and up. Very little extra costs to make a modern design instead.
Basically, to use even more older Minolta designs, would probably be the most expensive way to increase the Alpha lens lineup, I’m afraid.
However, I agree with you that Sony need lenses with three levels of quality/costs. But don’t forget their “Easy Choise” lens series! It is an unique concept, and no other maker has it. I really would like THAT line to expand quickly!
.
I think we just need a version 2/update to a many lenses. I would like to see the 70-200 2.8 with weather sealing.
If the current one isn’t weather proof then I think yes.
736 people are idiots
who needs a 50/1.0 Zeiss??!!
filling the gaps is much more usefull.
Well, for someone who only shoots with primes I can get more use out of the 50 than I can out of the 24-105 considering I have most everything in-between except a 50. Zooms are useless to me.
Yup, but I doubt many of those 736 would actually buy the lens (easily more than $2k a piece).
a Canon 50/1.2 costs more then €1500, imagine the price of a Zeiss 50/1.0, it would be more then €2000 easly… yep, thats what Sony lineup really need, a lens that no one would buy (ok… you would).
Canon had a 50/1.0 but they discontinued it more then 10 years ago, and they have a huge costumer base…
and you do realise that a f1.0 is only 1 stop faster then a f1.4, is that worth the extra €1500 or more?
keep it real!
Well, I don’t really care much if it’s the 1.0 or 1.4 as long as its a fast Zeiss.
and those were the only 2 options to vote for. So, if they decide to make a 1.0 or nothing… guess what, I’ll take the 1.0. For me a fast 50mm Zeiss just makes more sense than anything else right now.
PRIMES FOR LIFE YO.
I think what we all want is a better 50mm lens, but there was about a billion options for it on the poll. Even if it is some laughably priced item, if it performs better then the other lenses available, I’ll buy it.
Not to mention the f/1 had some problems, and the f/1.2 performs much better.
i glad that a 50/0.35 wasn’t an option, or else people (even grater idiots) would vote for it.
this is the problem of pools, everyone can vote! ahah
I too love my DOF measurable in millimeters.
Read my post again, and notice anywhere I defend the notion of paying more for a little more light. It’s not there, my money would be going towards a slightly newer optical design.
Why are you calling people idiots?
I don’t know what a pool has to do with this matter, but the whole point with polls is you have a choice. When this becomes a dictatorship I’d be happy to vote your way or simply you decide for us.
And it needs to be a pancake!
i hope sony management will see this post… 12-24 is a very useful companion lens for travel.. Sony is really lack of such range to cover ultrawide angles.. and I voted for TS lens, this is a lens somewhat a kind of professional lens system should/must offer (like C/N) in my mind 🙂 Minolta did have produced TS lens long time ago.. I guess it’s easy for Sony to release it again, after all, TS lens are manual lens.. (unless Sony wants to make AF TS lens.. which i am sure it will be another legendary lens like 500/8 AF Reflex.. haha)
Minolta made a shift only lens. They never made a lens with tilt.
The top pick is a lens that will never appear. There is no full frame 12mm f2.8 lens in the world – zoom or no. If this fantasy lens existed it would kill Zeiss 16-35mm sales – so it would likely be a non-starter. And if this fantasy lens were possible, imagine the outrage when people discovered it would be $3K, and would be huge and very heavy. If you want a lens in this range, there is a superb sigma 12-24mm out there for you, that is sensibly a 4.5-5.6.
Why would Sony release a 70-200mm Zeiss? They have a best-in-class 70-200mm f2.8 G that is already very expensive. Release the Zeiss and no one buys the G – this would be shooting themselves in the foot.
And if a 50mm F1.0 Zeiss appears, how many people who voted for it would shell out the $3K to purchase it, and how many would then be happy with the sluggish AF performance, the image quality issues, and the size and heft? The same goes for a 50mm f1.2, only less so ($2K, still worse performance than an f1.4). A great 50mm f1.4 is a far, far more useful lens, and would sell many times the number of copies – and is very much needed to replace the badly outdated Minolta/Sony.
Andrea, how about an APS-C lens wishlist? How about a $350 18mm f2 (would even accept a <$300 f2.8) easy choice to complete the set? The other three lenses in the line-up are superb.
What’s needed in that list is a good old injection of realism. Many of those lenses are unrealistic simply due to cost. Many others are niche dream lenses that may sell in tiny numbers.
All Sony have to do is copy the most popular lenses that Canon and Nikon users buy at a given price point. Nikon and Canon have already done the market research for Sony through the amount of sales a lens generates, it’s not rocket science…
People; a lens manufacture product line is not a zero-sum game!
Sony’s lens catalog has under 40 lenses it, to compare Canon and Nikon has more than 100 so to say Sony should not update a current lenses because Sony already has a lens about the same is silly. And posting rants about 1 stop faster optics and why would anyone need a 50/f1.0 when a 50/f1.4 for example is also silly.
Sony need to do both, add lenses to fillout the line and update current optics to match what others are offering.
What I think we all can agree on is that Sony needs to market a complete selection of lenses for both general markets (professionals who what the best and the budget minded photographer that can get by with a slower glass).
What this selection is and how many lenses this would be is open to debate.
The real question is does Sony have any desire to do this and if so when?
And if not, then I think serious photographers that today only need a limited selection but tomorrow might need more choices should look elsewhere and invest in a different platform.
I agree that Sony needs more lenses in general and particularly more pro (i.e., Zeiss) lenses in its catalog. That said, no one should invest in a pro camera system assuming that a manufacturer is going to offer more lenses down the road than they already do, unless they’ve already indicated as much in a roadmap. So do your homework ahead of time and you won’t feel burned.
As for myself, the three Zeiss lenses I have cover more than 90% of my needs. But having more choices would be nice. A 70-200mm f/2.8 Zeiss would be awesome.
why? Just because of the Zeiss brand? Whhat the hell is wrong with the 70-200mm 2,8 G SSM????
I agree. this lens is amazing.
Maximus, there’s nothing wrong with Sony’s G series. Some of them are very good indeed. It’s just that the Zeiss lenses are better, as anyone who has shot with both types will tell you.
+1
That’s what I have in mind~!!! XD
It seems that CZ 35/1.4 full frame prime for reportage and portraits is the one of the most desired!
Many people want to buy the replacement of 35G.
thats right, we really need improvement of 50mm/1.4 and 35mm/1.4, i hope zeiss will make it for that range, refresh 35mm/2.0 or 35mm/1.8 FF would be very nice too, because it would be more compact, useful and cheap. 😀 well if that zeiss i think that will more expensive but quality is good.
sony really need to fill a range in ultra wide lens, prime or zoom cheap version with constant aperture would be nice. maybe 16-35/f4 or 17-35/4 for zoom and 14mm/2.8 or 18mm that will nice 😀
I expect something similar to the tele lens range 🙂 that would be nice so every one can choose according to what is needed 😀
I’m one of the people who really likes the 35G–I don’t need a replacement for that–but I do believe they need a pro (G or Zeiss, don’t care) 50 soon. Even if they redid the Zeiss ZF/K/E 50/2 makro planar, I’d take one of those 😉
12-24/2.8–really? I’m not sure why the 12-24 would need to be that fast, but I don’t think it’s going to happen for full frame (the Sigma variant is f/4.5-5.6 or thereabouts and it’s already big enough).
word
I need a 50/1.0 Zeiss on a ISO 204800 A9x camera !
whaouuu, for being in such a need for speed, you’re either a spy which copy secret plans in a dark room or a reporter aboard the nostromos chasing some alien creature 😉
12-24 f2.8 ??!!
really ?
OK forget the f 2.8 thats just absurd, but
12-24 ??
reallly ??
Nikon don’t make a full frame zoom like that.
Canon don’t make a full frame zoom like that.
Far be it from me to insult the intelligence of the average SAR reader – in general I have the impresion you’re a
pretty smart bunch – at least those of you who post 😉
But all those people who voted for 12-24.
I seriously wonder whether they actaully read the words “full frame” in the title.
If not – well – sorry but the whole poll is compromised.
I hope I’m wrong about this, but really…..
😉
The Nikon 14-24mm is 2.8. I would take it as indicative of a desire for an UWA zoom, not so much as one for a lens with exactly those specs.
Thank you Carl!
Some posters just need to be picky and are not looking at the big picture.
To SRL,
sorry if I appeared picky, that wasn’t my intention at all.
I was as aurprised by this poll result as Andrea was.
Carl’s point about the Nikon FF 14-24 is well taken.
Nikon also make an excellent APS-C 12-24.
This is a gap in Sony’s APS-C range (and apparently their 11-18 is not very good).
I still wonder how many of the voters were really thinking about full frame.
Polls can be delicate things, and even when it appears clear, the results can
be skewed if people are the least bit confused or inattentive to the question.
Nick
Ok we have had E-Mount pole. We have had FF pole. Do we get A-Mount APS-C pole or are we all accepting the 1650 is a one off and the A77 will get no direct lens support.
I have the 12-24 Sigma which is a brilliant lens. Agreed, f/2.8 is absurd, but a f/4.0 would be feasible. An yes, that is a full frame rectilinear lens.
Take the sigma’s latest design, SSM and then water seal it
Whole thing is insane.
I hope people have $15,000 ready to buy those 7 lenses
16% of people needing a tilt shift. Complete rubbish. You think 1 in every 6 photographers is going to get s tilt shift?! I would be shocked if 5% bought that. That’s still 1/20 photographers. I bet tilt shift ownership is more like 1% or less.
And f1.0 50mm.. again stupid.
12mm 2.8.. ridiculous and will be unbelievably expensive. We already have a class leading 16.35/2.8.
I guess this is a response to my post,
– OK I’m editing my post now – its clear that responses are shifted one down.. I am now replying to Alle
I had no idea that Sigma lens existed !
– its a 4.5-5.6 but never mind, maybe I am wrong after all !
I still wonder whether all the votes for this lens were from people who fully understood that we were
talking about full frame.
12mm on a full frame camera must be pretty – out there – not something you’d want to do every day 😉
Whole thing is insane.
I hope people have $15,000 ready to buy those 7 lenses!
16% of people needing a tilt shift. Complete rubbish. You think 1 in every 6 photographers is going to get s tilt shift?! I would be shocked if 5% bought that. That’s still 1/20 photographers. I bet tilt shift ownership is more like 1% or less.
And f1.0 50mm.. again stupid.
12mm 2.8.. ridiculous and will be unbelievably expensive. We already have a class leading 16.35/2.8.
Whole thing is insane.
I hope people have $15,000 ready to buy those 7 lenses!
16% of people needing a tilt shift. Complete rubbish. You think 1 in every 6 photographers is going to get a tilt shift?! I would be shocked if 5% bought that. That’s still 1/20 photographers, which is too many. I bet tilt shift ownership is more like 1% or even less.
And f1.0 50mm.. again stupid.
12mm 2.8.. ridiculous and will be unbelievably expensive. We already have a class leading 16.35/2.8.
we need some of these lenses almost as little as we need multi postings.
Who posts the shit post?
David,
Three posts, only slightly edited, will annoy most readers. If you are unsure what to write, do it off-line first, and post it when you are done editing. Maybe you are not so experienced?
The content of your post suggests this as well. Although Sony would not sell a whole lot of Tilt & Shift lenses, these are EXTREMELY important to have in the lens lineup in order to be taken seriously (at least one T&S wide angle lens is needed). In this respect, it is the most important gap to be filled (although certainly not the lens that will sell most). There are many professional photographers who would not consider Sony just because of this single missing item.
.
thank you spammer
Where is the 12~600 F2 tilt-shit lenses we all pray for ? 🙂
You mean the one with 1:1 Macro ?
is a 1mm – 1000mm f1.0 ssm ziess G-series too much to ask for???
Macro Pancake version.
With a shutter cap!
David,
Pro photographers that shoot using FF Canon or Nikon do.
If you don’t believe me just look at the price lists.
Canon’s 70-200/f2.8 is about $2,400 and it’s 85/f1.2 sells for $2,000
The good stuff costs money and sometimes you get what you pay for.
So, what’s your point?
Sony should not make stuff that you can’t afford?
And who said that you decide what’s stupid?
exactly.
There lies the problem. How many of these votes were actually from serious pros? I have no problem paying huge amount for the lens I want, but to use this poll to gauge the lens demand is pure ridiculous. If Sony would come out with an excellent 50mm 1.0, would I buy it? Heck yes. But would I believe that there are 700+ shooters from this limited pool will buy this lens? No way. If we really want Sony to be around in this business, a realistic poll should be done. Only when they are on top of the food chain (on par with Canon and Nikon), then we can demand for these highly specialty lenses. Sony is still trying to gain more market share, so specialty lens would not help. Personally, I would snap the 200/2 in an instant if it’s available in A mount.
I’m curious how many of the protestors have an A900/A850? Because that’s what’s under discussion, lenses for full frame users. Obviously if one can afford a full frame camera, one will also budget more for glass and be more demanding in terms of specification and performance.
It’s not like it’s a matter of either/or when it comes to these or the easy choice lens range, I hope Sony continues to expand the range of both. As an example of my needs, I have a lot of respect for the optical performance of the cheap 85/2.8, but I wouldn’t buy one because I need the 1.4 aperture for the kind of things I shoot. It’s important to make a distinction between “I don’t need it” and “no one needs it”.
agree, for potrait lens 85mm really need more extra aperture to catch a lighting, isolated subject, and more ‘bokeh’, so 85mm/2.8 currently now is not worthed.. i wouldn’t buy that lens. why sony dont offer 85mm/1.8 (>.<)a
Nice work, I’ll take the 35mm 1.4 Zeiss the 50mm f1.0 (oh please please plase bring the legend to A-mount!) and the 85mm 1.2 Yummy…..
12-24mm f2.8?
Why? 12mm is too wide .. 14-16mm is more than enough.
Plus at f2.8 it would be ridiculously expensive and big (and heavy) and no way to use filters. That idea is simply stupid.
Rest is pretty decent, except outlandish things like ZA 50mm f1.0 .. can you imagine price?
I think Carl has it right.
what we are looking for is a fast high quality UWZ wider than the Zeiss 16-35/f2.8
I have both the Zeiss 16-35 and the 24-70 and I find just to much overlap with one going to 35mm and the other starting at 24mm
The difference in a photograph between 12-14mm and 16mm is much bigger than one would think.
I don’t think 12 is necessarly too wide for a lens which exists for the entire purpose of being really wide. There’s always the 16-35 if one doesn’t need the extra angle of view.
I’ve seen some excellent shots taken with both the Sigma and Voightlander lenses despite their terchnical limitations. I’m not sure I would personally go that wide (though I do wish my 17-35 was wider sometimes), but there are clearly photographers who do shoot that wide, and are capable of making some excellent photographs that way.
The bigger issue seems to be whether a 2.8 aperture is worth the corresponding additional expense and size.
i think we need to improvement of 50mm/1.4 and 35mm/1.4, i hope zeiss will make it for that range, refresh 35mm/2.0 or 35mm/1.8 FF would be very nice too, because it would be more compact, useful and cheap. 😀 well if that zeiss i think that will more expensive but quality is good.
prime 28mm/2.8 need improvement to, more extra light like f/1.8 or f/2 will nice, its will still compact and beautiful like minolta before with a new coating and SAM or SSM 😀
sony really need to fill a range in ultra wide lens, prime or zoom cheap version with constant aperture. maybe 16-35/f4 or 17-35/4 for zoom and 14mm/2.8 or 18mm 😀
I expect something similar to the tele lens range 🙂 that would be great so every one can choose according to what is needed
The reason why (at least some) people want a 50mm f1.0 CZ: bokeh. Just look at what the Leica Noctilux does: http://www.flickr.com/groups/noctilux/pool/with/6381953239/
Some people are willing to pay a price for that (Leica users up to 10000 US$ / 8000 euro for the recent f0.95, a bit less for a second hand f1.0, which is out of my budget btw).
What a dumb, dumb list
I hope people have $20,000 to buy those 7 lenses
Plus the statistics fall apart with 2 seconds of thought about them:
16% of people needing tilt-shift. That’s 1 in 6 photographers. Ridiculous. I bet tilt shift ownership is less than 1/100 photographers.
12-24/2.8 – get real. VERY few people would buy something this heavy and expensive
Photonut is right. Sony has a LOT of amazing, first-class lenses but not much mid-range. Let’s have f4 versions of the 2.8 zooms. Let’s have f2 primes instead of the 1.4s. Introduce a proper mid-range of quality but affordable lenses.
For someone who wants wide angle sometimes, a Zeiss 16-35 is too much. Or for the occasional portrait, the Zeiss 85 1.4 is too much. They are amazing lenses for people who want the best, but a lot of enthusiasts will be happy with 17-35/f4 and 85 f2 full frame.
As for the 50 – how about just a good 50 1.4? 0.95 or whatever is stupid. Can’t we just have a decent 1.4 with SSM?
I totally agree with this sentiment.
There seems to be some sort of orthodoxy creeping in here that the
full frame format is reserved for pros and the super rich. This need
not be the case. Back in the days of film it was a perspective that
was taken for granted. If anyone can bring it back down to the enthusiasts
pocket, Sony can. And they should. How much would an A77 with a FF sensor
and everything else the same cost ? Add to this some decent FF lenses that don’t
necessarily have super fast apertures but do have reasonably fast apertures and
SSM. It would certainly get some attention if the alternatives from other brands
cost significantly more.
That would be nice to see.
Sony did that with the a900 several year ago and Sony’s lenses prices are better than Canon or Nikon.
Maybe a little high David
Sony’s prices currently are a little lower than Canon and Nikon.
I insured my bag last year for $14,000
5 lenses 2 a850 bodies and a CF tripod and RRS ballhead, flash, etc.
Sony’s prices currently are a little lower than Canon and Nikon.
I insured my bag last year for $14,000
5 lenses 2 a850 bodies and a CF tripod and RRS ballhead
If you saying that this stuff is expensive I can’t argue with you, but if you are saying that I don’t need it…..
Who are you to say what I need
SRl, Yeah maybe the price is a bit high, but things like a f1 50mm or full frame 12-24/2.8 aren’t exactly going to be cheap.
And I’m not saying that nobody needs/wants those things. And I’m not saying that people won’t spend serious money on photography.
But what I AM saying is that those types of lens shouldn’t be a priority for Sony right now. They’ve got much bigger gaps to fill first. Once they have all essentials covered, then worry about f0.95 lenses!
I shoot an a850 and already own the 16-35 and 85 1.4, and I’m buying the 35 1.4 soon. They are focal lengths I love to use, and use regularly, so I bought the best.
But there are other lenses or focal lengths which I want to have available, but I won’t use as often. I.e. I would really like a 135mm prime for occasional use, but can’t justify the cost of the 1.8. A mid-priced f2.8 prime would be great. I’d also like a longer flexible zoom with a constant aperture, but the 70-200/2.8 is far too expensive for the limited amount that I would use it. 70-300G doesn’t appeal to me, nor does the 70-400G – even though I’m sure they’re both brilliant lenses. A 70-200/f4 would be great, and it’s definitely a popular Canon lens. A shame Sony doesn’t have one.
I also appreciate that a lot of people would want a walkaround 24-105/f4. Not my thing, but I can see why it’s desirable, and honestly I find it weird that there isn’t a current version of that lens since it’s basically a full frame kit lens.
Mind you, I probably wouldn’t put it past Sony to release ridiculous stuff. Their behaviour is pretty schizophrenic imo. Just look at cameras in their range. The a900 is probably the most “pure” photographic camera out there, amazingly well built, huge viewfinder, no video, no liveview etc. But the other dSLRs are liveview-centric with smile activated shutters, small viewfinders and are plasticy. And now we have SLT too, making a third type of Sony camera.
Plus the build quality… comparing my a580 and my girlfriends d90.. the 580 is plasticy and creaky and the buttons feel nowhere near as sturdy. But the a850 is built way tougher than a 5d2. They clearly have great capabilities but never seem to carry it on in a logical way. Sony aren’t exactly consistent! But I guess that’s why I kinda like them.. they’re a wildcard!
Dumb survey, period.
If it were done by category of photography it might be useful:
– portraiture indoors
– portraiture outdoors
– landscape
– daytime street scenes
– nighttime street scenes
– architectural
– macro
– sports
– wildlife
– cinematography/videography
etc.
Lens preferences without context is useless information.
This right here, folks. High content post.
I’m not sure why so many of you are arguing about it lol…it’s a bloody poll ffs! The whole point of which (based on 3k votes, again like it or not) is to find out what people want. Just cause you don’t want what the other 3,799 voters want it doesn’t make it any less valid! Personally i’m ready to buy an 85mm 1.2 just like many of my Canon compadres already did and I would be ready to save for a 50mm f1 so stop telling other people what they want!! #rantover
The amount of votes for the 50/1.0 Zeiss is a bit ridiculous to say the least. How many can afford to spend over 2K GBP on one lens? Very few, from what I’ve seen. Not realistic at all, not sure why it was even included.
You would think…………
But visit the B&H website and look at the lens reviews done by “certified” buyers of the products and look at how many people bothered to review Nikon and Canon lenses that sell for over $1,500
You will be surprised
Personally I have never taken the time to do a review and my guess is a relatively small percentage of buyers do.
Canon and Nikon sell a lot of very expensive lenses to someone
Then look at Sony’s reviews
Believe me, there is a message in the numbers.
Professional photographers buy expensive lenses form Nikon and Canon, but reading post on SAR it looks as if Sony A-mount shooters just can’t afford it and many can’t understand why anyone would spend this level of money in the first place.
B&H in the US who supply to the two brands that most professionals use, yeah, that proves that people buy expenses lenses. It doesn’t prove that people will buy Sony lenses at the price I mention, that’s not what I’ve seen from the Sony users I know.
I was talking in GBP, not USD – many own premium lenses, the Zeiss lenses by Sony are well worth the money to some professionals and enthusiasts. People clearly buy them. But they’re priced competitively against the premium offerings of other brands – a 50/1.0 would cost over 2,000 GBP (that’s 3,100+ USD). How many would be willing to buy this over a premium 50/1.4, or 50/1.2? Very few. Just look at the Canon 50/1.0 – MSRP: $4210.00 – discontinued. It didn’t sell well.
Somebody itt is samefagging and should be ashamed.
Canon made a 50mm f/1.0. They discontinued it. They replaced it with the 50mm f/1.2, which trades off a little aperture for increased sharpness through the range.
Canon saw a demand for a fast lens and made it. With Sony vying for the #2 spot in a few countries, they might win over some speed demons with an optical formula that isn’t meant to compete with the entry-level lenses from Canon and Nikon.
Sony has a few nice CZ lenses that own bones. The 85mm could be a little better in the CA department, but nothing that could be worse from other makers. The Zeiss 135 f/1.8 is what tipped me into buying into the Sony system anyways. Not because of speed like some faggots will tell you, but because I like the images it produces. If Sony releases a stinker of a higher-end lens its not going to give them the margins that they want. Sony has an amazing knowledge of market dynamics.
tl;dr, drop your “a bloo bloo price a bloo bloo Canon 50mm f/1.0” gimmick.
I think it just reflects that there’s a significant minority who’ll take all the speed they can get.
The reasons are much the same as adapting manual focus, manual aperture f1.2 lenses. They certainly have optical and ergonomic shortfalls, but are deemed worth it because they have a different “look” from slower lenses.
Anyway, this is all probably moot. Sony have a pantent for a 50/1.2, but not for anything faster, and are unlikely to go back to the drawing board for half a stop.
Perhaps you’re right in that respect. I just want them to refresh their normal lens. Perhaps that’s the point I’ve been trying (admittedly failing) to make all along.
Is see your point
So, people don’t buy expensive Sony camera products and because of this, Sony shouldn’t waste its resources by making these products.
Well, Sony should just forget it and quit trying is that what you think?
I hope Sony executives don’t feel this way, because if they do, I need to sell my Zeiss lenses now and move to Canon before everyone else learns about this!
Предлагаю выпустить Nex 9 FF с байонетом А, EVF, дизайном как Mamiya 7 и размерами, примерно, 140/90/65. Если к ней выпустите еще объективы 16-40/4, 40-140/4(2.8) и 18/3.4, 21/3.4, 24/2.8, 28/2, 35/2, 50/1.7, 90/2, 135/2,8, то мы вас, Sony, на руках носить будем
Lets face it, the Sony bandwagon has it’s fair share of fanboys and idiots, probably more so than other makes in all honesty and judging from that wish-list, it’s a fair call too.
I only wanted the one lens which is the 35/2.0, it doesn’t need to be G or ZA, just reasonably sharp and relatively CA free wide open. Also prefer it’s quality to be better than the ‘easy choice’ range, and i’d pay more for it.
Metal body, mount and smooth focus ring would be lovely.
I find it ridiculous the amount of people wanting a Zeiss version of existing gear, seriously wake up idiots.
Perhaps not what you’re looking for, but there’s nothing wrong with the old Minolta 35/2.
I would (and have) considered this, however this lens is fairly sought after and ebay doesn’t throw many up. I’d love the 1.4G however that is more than I want to spend at the moment.
12-24 is either a fisheye or an APS lens. Fisheye with zoom range is unlikely. The widest FF lens starts at 16mm and 14 for nikon. Either way 16 mm is very expensive.
Sigma makes a full frame 12-24mm rectilinear.
As for a fisheye zoom, Canon makes an 8-15mm.
Both are over 1400$. Given Sony’s attitude towards FF users, we should expect a 50mm and 500mm and that is it. Their widest lens is CZ16-35 currently, while Minolta started at 17-35mm. How likely is it for them to design a lens from scratch and put a 2000$ tag on it hoping that somebody is going to shell out, not to mention that it will be a 4.5-5.6 like Sigma.
Crap.. The demand for 12-24mm is overrated. I dare bet that the current 11-18mm will sell better than this lens solely because a 12-24mm lens for FF with constant f2.8 is just too expensive (and maybe too heavy for some) for too many of APS-C users, and not absolutely necessary for many FF users, especially when there’s a wonderful 16-35mm CZ in production.
With the 35mm f1.4 G at its current price, I’m sure even more will shy away from a 35mm CZ. I believe the 35mm f2 deserves more votes.
I’ve got mixed feelings for 70-200 f2.8 CZ.. it’s name alone sounds and looks good, and definitely will function as well as any other CZ lens! But hey, aren’t you satisfied with the current 70-200mm G that has already made a hole in your pocket?? You sure you willing to offload that wonderful lens just to have a blue label on the white lens barrel? (It’s gonna be of the same lens design, same glasses, from the same factory..) Not referring to pros but serious hobbyists who hardly earn nuts from their passion.
Folks wake up!! This is not a wishlist in some animation wonderland where you get what you draw.. Not trying to mock or insult but the poll results are just too unreal. Your desire and your spending power must strike a balance(i call it compromise haha) Imagine Sony comes up with all those ‘wishlist’ lenses and hardly any of us buy? This will be disastrous to both consumers and Sony 🙁
I hope Sony would collaborate further with Zeiss in the direction of prime lenses. All due respect to Sony G primes but there are wonderful lenses like Zeiss Makro-planar 100mm f2, etc that deserves a place in Sony CZ lineup.
But then again it boils down to money and profit. Long gone are the golden days of primes and nowadays ppl trade in quality for convenience..
Absolutely.
The thing that frustrates me is why there are Minolta lenses that Sony aren’t making. 35 f2, 28 f2 etc, plus the long telephoto primes
I thought they bought the designs and tooling capabilities for these lenses, so at some point they actively decided NOT to produce them. grr..
David, how are we gonna convince Sony when the consumers themselves aren’t even convincing to the ears? haha
Honestly I’m SHOCKED that the 200mm and 300mm primes didn’t make it into the top 10.. My Minolta 300mm f4 G is a gem and i really hope Sony would revive these legends. And I want a 35/2 and 200/2.8 badly.
But what I see are:
– 50-150/2.8 among the top (wow, sorry that 70200 is alittle too long for you..)
– both 50/1.4/1.0 in top 10 (oh no I will DIE if there’s no CZ50mm 1.0, 1.2, 1.4, 1.7, 2.8…. in my dry cabinet! (yeah right, lame shit))
I would like buy a Sony 28-135mm f/4(0-4.5) too. Why is not the legend in the list?
35 and 24
Regarding how popular the NEX-7 and NEX-5n are, I am surprised about the low ranking of the mirror lenses.
Let`s face it; Sony will probably never offer a mirror lens with native E-mount. But maybe they will for Alpha, and even with an adapter such a lens on a NEX would be a terrific combo for compact and lightweight wildlife photography.
When I bought my NEX, one of my intentions was to revive all the nice Nikon MF lenses I had. In the meantime, the only lens I find myself actually using is a Tokina 500/8.0, with which originally I had never been really pleased, but on the NEX it delivers great results. Once I even almost sold it… fortunately I changed my mind in the last minute. Now my universal hiking gear consists of the NEX, the 18-55 kit zoom and the 500 mirror lens. The only possible improvements I can imagine would be trading length for a little more speed (350/5.6 instead of 500/8), and of course adding AF capability.