If you want to see the first hands-on images with the new FE lenses jump over at Photographyblog:
16-35mm hands-on
90mm macro hands-on
35mm 1.4 hands-on
24-240mm hands-on
Those lenses do look quite big in a lady’s hand!
Preorders, price and specs (Click on store name):
Zeiss 16-35mm FE at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, Sony Store US.
Zeiss 16-35mm FE in Europe at Sony DE, UK, ES, IT, FR, CH, AT, NL, BE, FI, SE, NO, PT.
28-135mm powerzoom in Europe at Sony DE, UK, ES, IT, FR, CH, AT, NL, BE, FI, SE, NO, PT.
Sony FS7 4K camcorder at Adorama.
HVL-F32M Flash at Adorama, BHphoto.
HVL-F32M Flash in Europe at Sony DE, IT,
Sony RMT-VP1K Wireless Remote Commander & Receiver Kit at Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony XLR-K2M XLR Adaptor Kit (with microphone) at Adorama.
Sony LCS-PSC7 System Bag (Black) at BHphoto.
0 Responses
Hmm, that 90mm looks kinda big. I wonder how heavy it is. And how it compares in size and weight to the 70-200
also, a push-pull sliding ring for manual/auto focus. old school….
The 35mm 1.4 looks surprisingly big.
Not unexpected.
LOL at the size of those lenses!
Now i understand the weight and size advantages of mirrorless! Oh wait…
I would bet on the advantage still being there compared to SLR mount combinations. If one wants to keep it small… shop only Leica. 😀
Yeah… OK LOL!
And for THAT they decided to push A-Mount aside and switch to mirorrless with its slow AF, tiny batteries etc.
At least it’s compact.
Wait unitl they actually get those f/2.8 zooms they’ve been asking for…
You mad bro?
Well, the Nikon 16-35 f/4 is exactly twice the weight of the Sony… 1kg vs 500g.
The D800 is 1kg VS 465g for the A7R…
No it’s not. The Nikon weighs 680g, compared to the Sony’s 518g. The Nikon doesn’t extend while zooming, it looks like the Sony does.
No I guess you dont. Only noobs thought everything would be smaller in mirrorless because they had never picked up big lenses or looked at one properly in their life. Others knew that only some lenses could be made significantly smaller.
It was tongue-in-cheek. I understand full well.
well it’s sarcasm alright… against e mount
Is it me or do they all look distorted in the class of 2015 photo?
All people that wanted a fast prime, there you go. Hope you’re happy with the size hahahaha.
Just wait until they start demanding 70-200/2.8 and 300/2.8.
Then they will want a larger body to balance it out, like, oh I don’t know, the A99?
They will, of course.
Meet FE – it’s the same size as A-Mount, but it has slow AF, tiny batteries, crappy ergonomics and you can’t mount pre-2013 Sony lenses without an adapter!
I’d definitely like A7s sensor in a larger body.
There you go: fast glass meets physics… reality check 🙂
What is shaping up be (presumably high quality) fast glass, is looking nice and chunky. Just wait until (if/when) something like 85 or 135 1.4 comes out. The size difference is negligible vs. A-mount or any other FF glass.
Good to see nice primes added to the E-mount, nonetheless. For less than critical needs I just might get into E-mount sooner rather than later. 16-35/4, 55/1.8, 70-200/4 paired to one of the A7 models is a kit that’s hard to argue with for travel.
Maybe the future ‘miniaturization’ is improve the very high iso on all sensors, to finally use f4 lens without compromising the light capture.
Doesn’t fix the issue with depth of field.
You are compromising it by using an F/4 lens, instead of a large aperture prime.
Modern sensors are already fairly close to the ultimate physical limits imposed by the nature of light. The Quantum Efficiency (QE), which is the proportion of photons detected is over 50%. The A7S has (high ISO) read noise measured in fractions of an electron. If an efficient method could be found of detecting color without filtering, then that would help a lot, but the method used on the Fovean sensor is simply not efficient.
So there isn’t going to be some wonderful breakthrough. Ultimately it’s the nature of light that dictates the limits.
90 macro is very hug
All are looking quite big. However smaller than A mount counterparts.
A good thing is that the two ZA zooms and the 35/1.4 have the same filter size.
Regarding the macro I wonder whether the tube extends or not. It would be big enough for an all internal design, but I am not sure.
A 90mm macro is always likely to be very long to allow for all the focal movement for close subjects.
My lens, it bigger than your lens buddy. Lens envy ensues…
It’s not the size of the lens, it how you use it…
$700 a pound? Incheresting.
This photo looks elongated compared to the roadmap perspective.
too big and too ugly! no thanks!
I don’t understand why the bodies of Sony are getting smaller and smaller but the lenses are getting bigger and bigger! What’s the point…
What would you rather have? A big shaft and a small base or the other way around? Just saying.
Big where it counts is what matters…
It’s the Law of Conservation of Mass, matter cannot be created or destroyed, only rearranged in space. So whatever mass was removed from the bodies, must naturally be added to the lenses. Sony is adhering strictly to the laws of physics here.
It’s likely that in early 2015, Sony will introduce the A9, A high end DSLR sized e-mount camera designed to replace the high end, discontinued, a-mount cameras. These big lenses will make sense in the context of that camera. I’m personally a fan of the rangefinder style A7 series of cameras combined with compact, but slightly slower primes (f/2 range). Hope to see a small 20mm f/2.8 and decent sized 135mm f/2.8 prime in the coming years. Till then, I have adapters for those lenses.
Absolutely no A mount lenses announced! This is great news as Sony is clearly focusing on its mount of the future. Better for them to aim at mirrorless and efficiency than placate an antiquated and deficient user base. Let’s face it legacy users, the E mount is where Sony needs to be to succeed and compete in the future. At least you can use adapters for your old lenses.
You’ll eat those words. I hope you brought a spork:)
Yep. E-Mount is currently worse in every possible way (AF, batteries, ergonomics, lens range etc.), and now it’s also the same size as A-Mount with these new lenses. But it’s clearly the future.
Unfortunately, it seems that for Sony this makes perfect sense too.
E mount is also for those who’ve had enough of dslrs and want something smaller and conceptually better without the need to spray and pray.
if weight size and weight is ergonomic, E-mount wins
AF in a6000, E-mount wins. In low light AF of A7s wins.
Battery life? Spare batteries > no problem.
But I’m talking to an E-mount hater, so what…
E-mount does not need A7s to win in low light.
Although, frankly, A6000 wins at the cost of extreme ghosting with bright lightsources (becase of additional glass layer “thanks” to hybrid crap). Sofware approaches like DFD from Panasonic is the way to go: cheap, does not degrade IQ.
This is total disaster. sony have two lens line. every line missing half of lenses. March 2015. omg. that should be avaible for christmas. disaster. sony wants to we switch to canon.
Amazing. It seems the size of the lens is the biggest concern here. Does quality mean nothing? For me after I climb up into the hills I want the absolute best I can hang on my camera. I came a long way and I want it nice.
I suspect a lot of this is how the camera looks with it’s nice Gariz case on the owners body. Now I’m so far from other humans that I’m almost happy. Almost no one ever sees my equipment.
Birds see your equipment and you may not believe this but bears are fashion concious. That’s why I always walk into the woods with flashy gear. Wouldn’t want to get eatin with a pathetic 70-200mm F4 hanging from your neck. Big ol’ 500mm more like it.
Thomas, the local alpha bear, I have named quite a few, is not really my friend but our meetings are always cordial. So far. 😉
I have a lens on the camera and the rest is in the backpack. I’m not sure he can tell which lens I have on it although my Leica Elmar 135 is somewhat longer than my other lenses.
Well, now I’m sure that aliens were abducted by Leica, because they’re the only ones able to make compact and fast lenses (see the 35mm Summilux).
Yes I know, they don’t have AF, but the Zeiss Loxia line neither, and the Zeiss are much bigger !
It’s the micro lenses. They can get away with film-day lens designs. Lots of manufacturers back in the day made small fast primes. Even now… seen the Voigtlander 35/1.4 VM?
Leica uses exotic glass that is hand-ground. Sony uses cheaper, more common glass that is molded. That’s part of the reason for the size difference.
But take a look at the 35/2,8 FE Sonnar. It’s a great lens and very small, but could be much smaller if it weren’t AF. If we had a f/1.4 Sonnar, we could have a great small large aperture lens. But I think the angles of incidence at such a large aperture would give us smearing at the corners and edges. So we get a crappy retrofocal design because digital sensors are less forgiving than film. Organic sensors and curved sensors will correct this issue in the future.
Have to be honest. Today as an A mount fan made me feel like I was on the Titanic. The idea of all those E-mount fans in their life boats really gets me upset. Guess I’ll just have to enjoy the music if the ship really is going down.
yeahh …. http://www.sonyErumours.com
The guy on the foreground should be holding an A7 with LA-EA4 and 500mm f/4, taking photos of your frown on the Titanic and posting them to Instagram.
Hehe…ouch.
And it would likely be you duott.
Well it’s different when you climb aboard a ship knowing it will likely sink.
I don’t see the big deal, I been a A-mount user for many years I can still adapt my all my A mount glass on the NEX cameras, I’d be more upset if it was the other way around.
I have tons of adapters. I don’t mind using them, but when you’ve paid serious coin for your lenses the idea is a pain point. Yes, it can be done, but it doesn’t make it desirable.
E-Mount guys needed high-end glass on the new A7/s/r would have died on the vine. Pro photogs SH*T all over Sony about this when the NEX cameras first came out.
Good on Sony for stepping up big time.
Why couldn’t the design the 35 as the 55mm???? why so damn huge??? :S Damned idiots
Well I guess that as it won’t enter a jacket pocket anyway… one should aim for the highest IQ then.
If you need a compact lens just get the 35mm f/2.8 !
It looks the size of a dslr lens with the adapter.
exactly what i thought haha
I’d say, BEFORE you add the adapter. Sigma 35/1.4 ART, for example, is 94mm long and 77mm wide (weight: 665g). The SLR adapter would add another 24mm. The FE 35/1.4 looks smaller than 94mm in length (the FE 16-35/4 is 98mm for reference).
Looking at the size, it seems they’re planning to make it sharp or usable wide open at 1.4, think of it as a mini Otus. Though if they fail at doing that, then I have no idea why they even bothered to release a 1.4 at that size
The 35mm in particular looks huge – it looks as though they forgot that they no longer need a design to avoid a mirror box!
It is a Distagon design. That being said, it appears to be smaller than Sigma 35/1.4 ART which is SLR mount (which, would grow even more in size when you add adapter).
It started out as a A mount where size doesn’t matter and the engineers were told to go back to the drawing boards and switch it E mount no matter the size.
I WILL NOT BE FORCED INTO USING FLY-BY-WIRE FOCUSING.
it’s CRAP, with a capital CRAP.
cool, get a Zeiss Loxia then !
I’m sure that was Sony’s plan. Good plan nonetheless. They got a 35/1.4?
you’re okay with the size of the 35 f/1.4?
Option A: keep the lens small, but you’ll end up having to stop down to f2 to get a sharp lens performance as 1.4 will be soft
Option B: make the lens huge (67mm cuz there’s no AF) and heavier to allow acceptable to sharp wide open performance
Option C: keep the lens small, use exotic glass, but because of the material cost, it’ll be roughly the price of an Otus.
Pick your option
Not about size here Tan. Talking about fly-by-wire focus rings.
What if they were to throw in frequent flier miles. Would that make it worth it?
Yeah I could do away with the focus by wire too. Btw why do people say “fly”? If “focus” is too obvious, why not “drive” at least? 🙂
Did they have to print the word “CLICK” onto the AF on/off button?
Leica would simply have printed -/o.
You can put a sticker that says “click” on your leica if you like 🙂
Haha!
Who cares!? It’s a lens, you know, for taking photos with, not for posing with.
A clear statement by Sony that such a lens is aimed at consumer/prosumer but not a true professional.
The “Click” switch is for enabling the detents on the aperture ring. You can ‘un-click’ it for a smooth aperture for when you’re doing video-work. Just like the RX10.
The 28 looks like a winner. Let’s just hope it’s not compromised.
Interesting to see what people will whine about next. .. “waaaa I need a portrait lens huh I can take portraits with a macro lens too? not just flowers?” and “waaa I need f/2.8 zooms with fast af huh I can use an slt adapter?”
😉
;(
OMG … So huge
Are the lense designers aware of how small and compact of A7 really is?
Are you aware of lens design? 🙂
As a user, I don’t care how lens is designed. What is the point that we have small bodies but monstrous lens size? I’m sure that many of us agree that lens are terribly big and bulky.
What matters is that those designers MUST make lens as compact as possible in order to match with small bodies like A7.
If there are any technical or optical constraints, it’s designer’s responsibilities to overcome the problems.
Physics is physics. Tele lenses are bigger than short FL lenses no matter how small the camera is. Large aperture lenses are bigger/heavier than small aperture lenses.
I want a 3 inch 24-240 constant F2. Not going to happen.
I fully expect Sony to launch larger bodied cameras ala the a3000/3500 to match these larger lenses. When that happens it will be the end of consumer focused a-mount.
yeah, and we’ll probably see a larger A7 (which probably will be called the A9) in not so distant future
Since when have lenses that weight 1 lb or less been considered “monstrous”? Yet, all this time, people have been demanding Sony make faster and longer lenses, like Fuji and Samsung have been.
Some people demand those faster and longer lenses for APS-C E-mount, not Fullframe.
I want my lens to be AF, f1.2, weighs 300g, sharp wide open like an Otus and the size of a Leica, how difficult to do that?
Not a problem if you’re willing to pay as much as a Leica lens, but they can’t promise to get you the weight you want and Otus wide open performance, it’ll likely be a glowly look at 1.2 instead and because high quality glass is usually heavier, the focusing will likely have to be slower (which means some people will still complain about it)
Sony did make compact lenses that is sharp enough wide open at the cost of it being a slower lens, but lets face it, f1.4 beats out f/2.8 and f/1.8 because it’s brighter and different DoF, perhaps I should talk in T-stop which you’ll see some lens is f1.4 but has a t1.8 and a f1.8 with a t1.8 which means in terms of “brightness” both of these lenses is the same!
Ok, rant over
Yeah, it’s definitely the designers job to overcome physics to appease you. What kind of work do you do?
Clearly you’re a business school knock knock joke graduate.
Well, they also gave you a really small and compact FE 35. That being said, which comparable lenses are you thinking that would be smaller and lighter on a7?
Yes, they are AWARE of how small and compact the a7 is. So they compensate by making the biggest lenses for mirrorless 😀
Afraid to show how silly they look attached to camera with full dress hoods on. And let’s perch it all atop a teeny weeny bottom plate tripod socket. Real confidence builder for the guy who needs to grab tripod/cam and move fast.
Better of with Alpha glass .You get a trypod coller built into the adaptor .
Why are they making more lenses? We need more bodies!
Should have gone with A mount. You’ll have nothing to complain about. Literally ;D
Como and embrace A-mount system. They don’t release many bodies, they don’t release many lenses. There is little to complain 😀
Why the hell are they so big? The 35/1.4 is as big as the 24-240. Ridiculous. APS-C still has its uses I see.
make me wonder if A7 series lens mount can handle the weight from these huge gigantic lenses?? hhmmmm
They’re not big or heavy. I use my 2.8 kg lens on the a7r no issues.
The A7R’s plastic flange leaves a lot to be desired, imo. All of my lenses are wobbly on the A7R.
Gigantic? Heavy? And all this time, I keep hearing how Sony does not release big and bulky lenses like Fuji and Samsung do.
and where is fast prime portrait lens? 85mm,etc.. we’ve had 35mm 2.8 why on earth sony release another same length.. poor strategic move
Watch how many of the 35/1.4 they sell and then tell me it was a bad move.
Still disappointing. Sonnar will have a nicerdrawthan the Distagon.
they’re..they’re beautiful.
My 55/1.8 FE already wobbles on the mount just by turning that stupid focus ring. And the slightest torsion I can see gaps between the mounts.
These new manufacturing methods are good at making cheap stuff “seem” high quality on the surface. But a little business brings the cheap right out again. The LAEA adapters don’t have any wobble or flex.
Are these lenses still forcing us to shoot a closed down aperture? Do they have mechanized live aperture so I can have the option? Or are they cheap and thoughtless designs as I’ve come to expect from Sony?
The A7S’s stainless steel flange remedies this issue. The fit issues are due to the ridiculous plastic flange on the A7 and A7R.
My last comment was deleted by the SAR mods. Really weird.
My lenses wobble on my A7R because of the plastic mounting flange. The stainless steel mounting flange on my A7S remedies all fit issues–lenses are tight and do not wobble when on my A7S.
There’s an option to disable live preview so it’ll work like a traditional viewfinder if you so prefer.
No, it won’t. It will auto brighten and darken all the time
Sony E-mount cameras do give you the option to choose between composing wide open (aperture closes with shutter), or “live” aperture.
And I thought only my a7 wobbles.
I sent in my A7 for the loose mount and Sony fixed it and the light leak. Took about a week to get back. My lenses lock in tight now, no wobble.
will the 35 1.4 be a manual focus lens?
AF.
Yes, these are all manual focus.
zeiss loxia are manual, these big lenses are AF and OSS
Sorry no OSS on the 35/1.4.
So the 35 Distagon has an aperture ring. How cool. I wish my 55 Sonnar had an aperture ring! But why don’t all of the new lenses have it? Sony needs to standardize.
I agree, they stirred up quite something here… like the “Zeiss” Name instead of “Carl Zeiss” on the front – and the overall slick and minimalistic design of the 55/1.8 also seems didged. Maybe it’s just because they’re pre-prod.-models.
But I welcome the new lenses. ‘Course I do.
the 90 Macro is really growing on me. Lovely retro-styling. The witness marks are especially welcome in a modern lens. Beautiful!
wow!! it’s good news!
I dont know why the Alpha guys are panicking .This FE glass the size exc shows theirs little diadvantage to useing your glass via adaptor .I bet my sigma art via adaptor giving me a nice trypod coller would be about the same dimentions as the 35 1.4 shown .I will just hang on until sony make A7 with 10+FPS and make a Adaptor with STL phase detect add a battery grip away we go .Might buy a smaller lens so I have the option to be more covert during street or family and freinds stuff .All in all the future looks good .If you have Alpha just hang onto it enjoy it pepole from other mounts are going to join sonys inovative solution and more and more glass will become avalible .Its worth to note that Sigma are giving us a 150 600 with OS .While that OS has no use on our Alphas it will be a good option on the A7 or the future
As an Alpha guy I’m not panicking at all. You know what the number 1 complaint about the E-mount has been? No pro level glass. With the A7s/r series they had to step up here and deliver or their new baby would die in the cradle.
They delivered big time.
In the mean time – you all know how many Minolta era lenses we can buy that work fantastic with the A99 and A77II and don’t cost a mint?
Alpha users are fine. E-mounts need some love.
Speak for yourself.
Since I started with the phrase “As an Alpha guy I’m” I AM speaking for myself.
Reading comprehension, it’s a Good Thing(tm), mmmkay?
you said, ”alpha users are fine” at the end. That’s not about yourself, you’re talking about many people.
Alpha users are fine, they just don’t know it..
Given some of your other posts, you don’t even seem to *like* Sony.. why are you even here? Go troll DPReview…
If you have read my other posts, you should know by now that I have invested quite a lot in A-mount equipment. So you’re right that I don’t like Sony NOW because they didn’t announce ANYTHING at all about the A-mount lineup in one of the biggest -if not the biggest- photographic expo in the world. That says a lot of the future of the A-mount lineup.
You know, if you have a group of investors in a company, you have to tell them what’s your next step, what is your future plans in order to keep them investing in the company, have a short, mid and long-term plan prepared. If you don’t say anything at all about your plans….do you think investors would put some big money blindly in your company???
Those people have really small hands.
Whooaa…. great news..
the 90 macro need tripod collar, they will be fine on metal ring mount of 7r and s, but can A7 handle this?
what the advantages of being small bodies with this big lenses?
You can choose to stick with smaller lenses, if these are too big for you.
do i have a choice for makro works?
how this unbalanced setup will works well on tight makro sliders? unless using a collar.
and look at this 35 f14 to loxia 35 f2?
af and oss feature make a lot size diff than 1 stop light
and this mean we wont see any A7 family with IBIS in near future
You are not going to find nice and compact macro lenses with long FL… not just due to the focal length but also because close focus requires it. Lenses designed for close focus will usually be longer (which might also explain why many rangefinder lenses can be very small… they can’t focus close).
I wouldn’t bet on seeing IBIS in E-mount, at least nothing beyond a basic throw-in version like Panasonic did with a 2-axis set up (yet, it kept that lame version out of its flagship, GH4). E-mount is about as compact mount as it gets (and also the only one with FF sensor). OSS makes sense.
The FE 35/1.4 is using Distagon design, which makes it longer. Although, it isn’t really out of place either. Sigma 35/1.4 is also long and big and that is before you consider an adapter which only adds to the size and weight. All new lenses are larger in size than we’d seen in the past, including 50mm lenses which used to be smallest of SLR lenses… not anymore, take a look at Sigma 50/1.4.
A7R has plastic mount too.
no, a7r are metal mount
The mount flange of all E-mounts should be plastic, the front plate though varies.
All of the A7 cameras have a magnesium lens mount chassis, so as far as the structural integrity of the mount, they all should be the same. The magnesium faceplate of those two cameras slip over and around the actual lens mount chassis, so any extra support would be negligible. The extra bragging rights, on the other hand, is immense. 😛
A7 front plate made from plastic, A7r are full magnesium front plate
Both have metal mount (the chassis part) but the alpha 7r has a magnesium front cover unlike the 7 which is plastic.
Yes, but the actual lens mount chassis itself is what bears the weight. You could remove the front cover(magnesium or plastic) and still be able to mount a lens. Look for one of those tear downs of the camera and you’ll see.
Well if you have not got orgazmic looking at these beautiful lenses then tell me what will make you have one … LOL
Canon just announced the 7D mark 2. How does that compare to the A77 Mark 2? Aside from the lens line up, I didn’t see much of a body improvement from it either. Burst rates of 10fps, it now finally has continuous AF, shoots at 60fps I assume at 1080p. Most of these features area already in the A77, so what is the other advantage it has over?
It says “Canon” on it… which tends to float many boats for some reason. Although, Sony needs to rethink its strategy on A-mount. Sony’s approach is primarily responsible for such sales continuing to go to Canon (and Nikon). At the very minimum, maintain a 3-body lineup, and update those lenses we expected to see updated with SSM (35/1.4, 85/1.4 and 135/1.8). About time.
it offer a CANON brand, with long list lens lineup and good cutsomers support
Canon isn’t going to phase out EF-mount and focus on EF-M anytime soon. That’s the advantage.
From a Sony user… I can tell you a few things the 7D Mk.2 is better than the a77 Mk.2
It will have full support worldwide, if you need a repair in non-developed countries, it doesn’t take months. You have CPS, Sony has just “started” offering their equivalent service in Germany, Hong Kong and Japan.
It has way more options of lenses. You don’t have to pay 3000USD for a 70-200 f2.8 lens. A 500mm f/4 is way cheaper than the Sony equiv… I can tell you more things about it, but I think, with just the first point is good enough.
Uhm do you have CPS? I agree that CPS shooters will have one of these in their kit, but it isn’t a selling point of the camera, but is for pro photographers buying a system. Not just anyone with a 7D MkII gets CPS, so isn’t a ‘pro’ of this camera as such.
No, I’m not enrolled in their CPS programme but a friend of mine is and from his experience I want Sony PRO so badly to hit the Americas now. It’s very useful.
Too bad only three countries have it. My 70400G2 was damaged recently and the local official repair centre will probably take MONTHS to repair it just to replace the rear mount bayonet… meanwhile I’m left out without a replacement. If only I had Sony PRO it wouldn’t be a problem at all.
Even if you’re not a pro, Canon support and lenses will be a better option to have. But if you like SLT cameras, and the whole concept of it (live view shooting for example) then go for Sony. I tried the a77mk.2 in a trip for two weeks and it’s a great camera. The main improvement over the last generation is AF performance. Was a charm to use with the 70-400 G 2 and the buffer was great compared to first gen (but the Canon 7dmk2 seems to have
This huge bucket (yet another “zeiss” lol) 35/1.4 looks exactly like if it were designed for A-mount and then converted for E. In this case don’t expect anything spectacular: it will likely perform worse than Sigma 35, just like another “zeiss” (ZA 50) performs worse than Sigma 50 Art.
That’s exactly what it looks like. Most of the FE lenses don’t look like they were designed to take advantage of the small flange distance at all. Lazy, lazy Sony, at a time when they can’t afford to be.
It still amazes me how people can complain about fuc@°ing anything.
“Not enough lenses”… before. “They look ugly and big”… now.
“I wanna a 35 f-whatever”… before. “That 35 looks huge and gigantic”… now.
“I hope they’ll trow a 90 macro”… before. “That 90 macro is old school”… now.
Get a fuc@°ing life!
Well everyone has different needs. You’re saying this like everyone has the same needs. Its not the same people complaining, its a bunch of other variants. Me, I don’t mind those wide apertures being big lens, it looks cool. I’m personally waiting for an 85 or a 135 wide aperture.
Agree with you.
You’re right: everyone has different needs, but those people should not bashing a product because “it looks huge and ugly” or stuff like that.
People should be a little more “educated” in their comments, using a little more judgment maybe.
I was just pointing out how people are never satisfied: but maybe I’m still putting to much trust in the human kind.
I just had to throw it out.
That’s it. 😉
You know those lenses especially the 35 and the 90 macro they’re starting to look like Fuji lenses lol.
Sony made waves with the full frame E-mount cameras; we saw camera bodies that had no weight/size gain over crop cameras. Given that they’re mirrorless, there was/is an expectation that the lenses would be smaller, and it’s justified. Smaller flange distances should mean smaller lenses; this is one of the reasons rangefinder lenses are so small and light.
Weight is a problem along with size. Looking at the 16-35mm, which I read somewhere is an enhanced version of the optical formula in the 10-18mm (sharp on FF and almost covers the entire sensor), it just shouldn’t weigh 518 g vs the 225 g of the SEL1018. These lenses weigh the same as full frame dSLR lenses, so where’s the advantage of going mirrorless? More than double the weight and nearly double the price, do you think that the image quality will be significantly better than the 10-18mm?
We’ve seen that Sony can engineer smaller optics when they really want to… look at the 35mm f/2 in the RX1. They can engineer better optics too… the lens in the RX100 M3 is a lot sharper and more contrasty than the kit lens with the A6000.
The effort in lens design and product simply does not match the effort put into bodies and sensors.
You should thank your lucky stars that we as a race are not satisfied with things, or else we’d all be huddled over a fire in a cave somewhere.
“Sony made waves with the full frame E-mount cameras; we saw camera bodies that had no weight/size gain over crop cameras.” If you’re talking about mirrorless crop cameras (APS-C, 4/3), yes, it’s obvious that you can find the same size or lighter than A7… What is your point here?
Almost every FE lenses are lighter than their DSLR counterparts. Do you know any ultra wide zoom FF at 518g?
The 35mm f/2 is a fixed lens, with all the benefits you can imagine. Fixed lenses are always (and will always be) smaller than interchangeable lenses. But I agree on one point : instead of a tiny 35 2.8 and a giant 35 1.4, may be just one 35 1.8 or 2 would have been simpler… Whatever.
Concerning the fast small autofocus OSS etc etc lenses you were waiting for, you were just wrong. I’m not an optical expert, but I think than only few focal lengths can benefit in size from the short flange distance. Otherwise, physical laws remains the same… A FF lens remains a FF lens. The 35 1.2 AF OSS 4*4 cm 200g is not for tomorrow…
Cool! I like them, especially the 90 macro and the 35 f1.4.
35 f1.4 has the same “click less” option of the RX10 lens: nice.
I was excited to hear that Sony is finally bringing a macro lens to the lineup. But now I think I’ll stick with my 100mm Canon and use manual focus like I always do. 90mm is too short, the lens is too bulky to have an advantage over adapted (and probably better) SLR lenses, and the AF/MF switch on the front makes me want to vomit. If the 7DII wasn’t a huge disappointment I would stick with Canon because Sony’s lens lineup is just as disappointing.
Is it too much to ask for a >100mm macro with smooth MF and rain/splash/dust resistance? Not everyone shoots in a studio! It’s times like this I wish I could live two lives and major in engineering on the side.
Anybody knows if the 16-35 is made in Japan or Thailand?
My favorites for the moment are the uwa zoom and the macro.
Hopefully they have some samples at Photokina to watch – I’ll visit PK tomorrow. 🙂
Alright from the looks of the 35/1.4 all future Sony lenses with aperture rings will have the rings go backwards. Everything was in the right direction in the Minolta era so this is purely a Sony decision. I wonder why…
——————
BTW it isn’t at all that big in the live shots, it looks just about the size of the FE55.
Far from FE55. Filter diameter is 72mm, compared to 49mm of FE55.
Oh wow, then the 55 must be smaller than I thought! It’s still the average size for a retrofocal 35/1.4 though.
Pull up for AF, pull down for MF, I love that design on the 90 macro. IMO all lenses should have that design.
Is that a 35mm or a 135mm? LOL
Any idea about the 90mm macro pricing?
The a mount macro was in my pro store available at 798,-€.
So I guess that the G will be 999,- or even more unfortunately.
The 100mm’s about £550, the Canon L 100mm is £699 and the Nikon 105mm is £629. My guess is it’ll be under £800, assuming you’re paying G tax, maybe a bit cheaper if they’re staying price competitive with Canon…
Yep, 16-35 is tiny. And 28. Suspect the latter is sf corrected though.
Size wise, the Distagon 35mm F1.4 ZA looks exactly like the old Contax Zeiss Distagon 35mm/1.4 with an extension tube stitched to it. Just google it.
Pretty clear this lens was conceived for A-Mount, and then adapted. This is a retrofocal lens meant for SLRs. I can only hope that they will also release it in an A-mount version where it belongs.
In my mind, the 90mm macro seemed like a good idea to combine the functionality of macro and a portrait focal length, but seeing the size of this thing – this is not going to happen. What was I thinking? So happy to have a Zuiko 90mm F2 Macro which is not only optically awesome, but a full stop faster and half the size. Perfect portrait/macro combo.
Then the 28mm F2 – this looks like a lens made and designed for mirrorless. It worries me that it’s neither a G nor ZA. Is this just marketing, or is Sony not really confident about its quality? I’m also doubtful about the converters, but let’s wait and see.
24-240 – not interested in that, but probably will sell. Good for Sony
16-35/4 – yes, this is spot on. I never got the A-Mount 16-35/2.8 as it was just too big and heavy in comparison to my trusty old Minolta 17-35/3.5G. This is smaller, lighter and according to MTF data much sharper at the wide end.
All in all I can’t help but to feel deceived. I got into the A7 system hoping for a small FF system but this is not quite where it’s going.
Sony has every bit of technology to follow through with miniature lens designs akin to Leica. The best proof for this is the FE55, the 35/2.0 from RX1 or the tiny lens assemblies of their RX100 series. They’d better be careful, as they are about to overlook the only major selling point of the A7 series.
Isn’t that also the case with the 70-200?
I really don’t know. The 70-200/4 must have been designed with the OSS in mind, otherwise it would not be easy to implement.
Another possibility is that Sony calculates optics in a way to make them compatible for both E and A mount. It’s easier to change the mechanics, than the optics.
35mm Loxia looks interesting to me. Manual focus works well for me on the A7r.
These lenses are not that huge compared to the alternatives.
My Tamron 17-35mm f/2,8-4 is about 12cm long mounted on the LA-EA4 and it has 77mm filter thread. Its probably lighter because it has plastic housing, but i dont feel its to big for my A7.
My Tamron 90mm macro /f2,8 is about 11.5cm long mounted on the LA-EA4. Both sizes without the sun shades.
size wise these all seem huge compared to leica mount alternatives! For me Sony is getting its compromises wrong. They have developed an amazing line of compact cameras but are failing to make the compact lenses to go with it. I do sympathise with the issues of compromise, which is a much bigger issue than on SLRs. I came from nikon and my nikon lenses are all fast primes. On this system a bit more bulk is not really felt. That said the trend for nikon lenses to grow was already an issue, the 50mm f1.4 af-d was tiny and with some MF primes like the 28f2 and 35f1.4 I could cram a lot of lenses in a bag. The new equivalents are physically a lot larger (if not heavier) and would mean carrying less lenses. Primes have all grown in size over time, getting close to the size of zooms and loosing some of the benefits of primes.
On the A7 I want small and fast. I have the 35mmf1.4 voigtlander, which is tiny, it has its optical compromises but its small and light. I have several 50s already the 50 f1.5 sonnar being the favorite, small and not too heavy. I like lenses I can put in pockets. the 90mm macro looks huge for a f2.8, OK its macro but not what we are all looking for. 35mm just seems to follow the modern trend for huge, probably optically amazing lenses. I would rather they came out with a compact, less amazing lens (but if they do then people will of course moan about the quality). Its an issue with the system, full quality sensors demand full quality lenses while small bodies also demand small compact lenses, its all a compromise.
I am happy we have the legacy glass option to satisfy my needs. One day I might get a 50mm af lens but no time soon.
Does Leica lens have AF and Stabilization ?
Not all of these have stabilization, for example the 35/1.4, one of the largest.
And AF’s not much of an excuse either.
Cool. Look pretty much like the old beercan Minolta lenses. And finally a fast one will be released.
Here, the lenses look longer than they should as the image is squeezed horizontally.
Try resizing it to 1422×803 and they look a bit less like a row of chimneys..
I think you have wobbly lenses. My high quality lenses are fine.
I own an A7R, an A7S, a 35FE, a 55FE, and have owned a 70-200 FE (which was returned). My lenses are loose and wobbly on the A7R, but all of the same lenses are snug and stable on the A7S. I know more than you.
steel flange > plastic flange
As someone else has already said – these lenses all look as if they have an E-mount adapter slashed onto the bottom. even the “real-life” photos show that look.
As for the 24-240mm zoom, why on earth did they persist with the stupidity of having f/6.3 at the telephoto end? Whatever happened to f/5.6? It really wouldn’t make such a big difference to the size, especially since it’s limited to only 240mm.
I regard that thinking as simply idiotic. Nikon seems to be the only company that’s got its brain working properly in this regard.
My dream:
Body – NEX-6,
Sensor – A7,
AF – A6000…
Umm if you’re going to talk about what we’ve used you’ve clearly missed the link below:
http://www.flickr.com/people/genotypewriter