Image of one of their current APS-C 19mm E-mount lens.
Plenty of A7 camera owners hope to see Sigma make a proper E-mount version of the superb 50mm A-mount lens you can preorder Amazon (Click here), BHphoto (Click here), Adorama (Click here), WexUK (Click here) and WexDe (Click here). But I have some bad news:
A SAR reader contacted Paul Pizzano (Manager from Sigma) and he told him that there is not plan to make Full Frame E-mount lenses yet:
“Maybe one day but it would take a much larger commitment on the part of Sony. A full Line of cameras and lenses with the FE mount, as well as the conversion of their NEX line to the FE mount. At the moment it is a very limited line and we are unable to invest in it when the parent company Sony seems reluctant to do so.”
IN short, Sigma will wait to see if the Full Frame E-mount will become popular or not…
0 Responses
total understandable! sony has too many camera lines for lens changing systems. as a thrid party marker – like sigma – how should you know where and how to invest. but hopefully sony and sigma are talking with eachother and not just about eachother.
Too many lines? Sony has two mounts, just like Canon and Nikon.
Two mounts with each two lines equals 4!
So Canon and Nikon have 3 mounts then. HUGE difference. 😛
I’d agree with you when Sony makes a comittment, that they will stick to those 4 lines. but this is company busniss, not ours.
The same can be said about the Canon EOS M and Nikon 1 series system. Sony are way ahead on bodies and lenses than either Canon or Nikon.
And … is Sigma making EOS M and N1 lenses?
The thing is, why doesn’t Sony itself create, design, develop more lenses for all their lineups?? It feels like that the Sony lens department can’t follow the camera lineup.
I do have all I need for now. But I feel sorry for E and FE users, where there are more cameras then lenses. Sony released – I think it was – more than 50 diffenrent cameras since they joined the lens exchange business. I don’t know if they released 50 lenses, propably not.
“But I feel sorry for E and FE users, where there are more cameras then lenses.” – I don’t. They knew very well what they buy in and how reluctant Sony is in releasing lenses.
Everyone can feel sorry for the other camp…
Nikon F users feel sorry for others who can’t use lenses from way back when like they can.
Canon EF users feel sorry for others who dont have an extensive lineup of modern and unique lenses like they do.
Sony A users feel sorry for others who don’t have IBIS.
Sony FE users feel sorry for others who don’t have FF mirrorless.
Pentax users feel sorry for others who don’t have pretty looking small primes.
Olympus users feel sorry for others who don’t have IBIS mirrorless.
Panasonic users feel sorry for others who don’t have their GH-whatever.
Fuji X users feel sorry for others who don’t have a mirrorless lens lineup like they do.
Leica users feel sorry for others because they think they have the better cameras.
very good point 🙂
and – I laughed @ your Leica point, hehehe
Nice. Especially the Leica one.
There are 25 lenses for E-mount, which was announced four years ago. Sony is releasing FE lenses at the same rate now. For comparison, Canon released four EF lenses last year–and that’s catering to a broader body lineup and a clientele who desire larger lens collections.
But Canon (and Nikon) have a hugh amount of already released lenses. They just don’t have to release as many lenses as Sony does.
Their catalogs are very dated in some respects, and they have a higher class of enthusiast through the 1DX/D4S bodies. What I failed to note is that only two of those lenses from Canon were full frame capable EF, the other two being EF-S. Canon and Nikon really do need to stay up to date on optics, and that means doing a little better than two full frame lenses in a year.
They both have lots of lenses even with overlap within themselves. Releasing too many lenses will only confuse users and work against them (business-wise).
“The thing is, why doesn’t Sony itself create, design, develop more lenses for all their lineups” and why doesn’t Canon create more lenses for EOS-M? Why don’t they make a proper mirrorless body? Why they don’t bring an EVF camera? Everybody has their own resources and strategies, nobody is perfect. And there are not more cameras than lenses in either NEX or FE lines.
People seem to entirely discard the fact that Sony is building systems from the ground up. I’d like to see what Canikon would have done if they were starting now. Oh wait, I saw it with both Eos-m and Nikon 1.
Sony has more lenses than either Canon M, Fuji X, Samsung NX or Nikon 1 system.
It lags behind only m43 system. They have many camera bodies because thats what the target audience is generally buying. Lens sales won’t be as high as camera sales.
Yes, but they have 2 of them with huge line up of lenses, Sony meanwhile constantly receives complains about lacking lens offering on every single mount they have.
Oh, and if we’re on mounts – they also have QX which is integrated lens-sensor line. That makes 5 lines on 3 mounts.
QX is not a mount it’s a compact camera in an another form factor, therefore it could’nt be count like you do. If you think so then Canon and Nikon have countless mount for every camera they pushed out.
You seriously can’t consider a QX series camera as another mount ! You can’t change the lenses so its not an ILC. And the Sony A mount is pretty much close to being a complete mount. Very few lenses are really lacking.
Canon and Nikon have shown very little interest in developing their mirrorless system though.
I don’t understand what they mean by “conversion of their NEX line to the FE mount” when all NEX cameras accept FE lenses. There will be that separation between FF and APS-C for the foreseeable future just as there is in the A, F, and EF ecosystems. If they mean making more FF glass than APS-C glass, that’s clearly on the way too as indicated by the road map, but as with the other mounts I just mentioned there will need to be a healthy selection of cheap crop glass to complement the flagships.
If these are there only reasons, there is no reason not to jump on it. My theory is they are in the early stages of getting the mount figured out so they can port and tweak existing lens designs once Sony makes a commitment. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sigma announcing a couple of FE lenses in 2016 shipping by Q2 2017.
I believe they see no sales of their existing lenses on E mount and feel its best not to invest in a single mount when their DSLR line of lenses earns them far far more and with a simple tweak the same lens can be made for Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax and their own Sigma mount. If Olympus had a APS-C sensor then Sigma lenses might have made more mirrorless lenses but currently FE lens sales must be a miniscule fraction of what Sigma sells for their DSLR lenses.
That’s what I was alluding to as the real reason, and that’s why I think we’ll see an announcement in 2016. By that time FE will not be so skeletal, second generation FF FE bodies will be coming out (assuming Sony holds with the faster release cycle mirrorless follows) and Fuji or another player will likely have announced their own full-frame mirrorless option shortly before.
Yes, I think that another FF player would help. Even if Sony was fully commited to FF, Sigma simply wants to maximize their potential return on investment, and being able to slap the same lens on bodies from different brands is a safer bet for sure.
Plenty of A7 camera owners?
Why do we need another 50 lens when we have the amazing 55 lens?
I’m talking about native small good AF lenses, not lenses with a huge adapter … Sony has to establish an e-mount camera system, not only a lot of bodies and a few lenses.
Because if Sony can do it for $1000 with a Zeiss badge on the side, Sigma can do it slightly better for $800.
“Because if Sony can do it for $1000 with a Zeiss badge on the side, Sigma can do it slightly better for $800.”
There is little evidence of that. Sigma did a good job with the 50mm Art, but even though it is not optically compromised by any design decision to make it smaller, it is still debatable whether it matches the FE 55mm. Yes, it’s faster, but that does not automatically make it a great lens. With the FE 55mm in existence, I have zero desire for an e-mount version of the Sigma.
I would stick to the FE 55 just because it’s smaller but if we were to compare, the Sigma 50 A is the better lens. Now if the Sigma came with OS, even the size difference wouldn’t work that much in favour of the FE.
Why do you think the Sigma is the better lens?
Because the Sigma has better CA correction… even better than the Otus. Tested the two side by side on my a7r the other day. The FE 55’s not upto the same level. But they’re all very very good lenses. None of them will disappoint.
Maybe in the charts. the bottom line is that the 55 is one of the best AF lenses that exist, this format don’t need another 50 lens…
We do need a good 85 lens
As I said, none of the mentioned lenses would disappoint in regular usage.
And no… not in the charts but when doing scenery in full spectrum, something which I do. While it doesn’t matter to virtually anyone else, the Sigma 50/1.4 has the better correction followed by the Otus. The FE 55/1.8’s correction in this sense is very average… again, on absolute terms.
And yes, something in a different focal length would be more useful.
I want to see sigma doing the 50 in the same size as the 55 and keeping the same correction.
Since when Sigma has become the leader in lens creation?
One can think that Zeiss don’t know how to make lenses anymore…
That’s strange, as it doesn’t tie-in with the results I have seen. From my experience with the FE 55 and samples from the Sigma, CA is pretty much a non-issue for either lens.
Longditudal CA is an issue for both lenses at wider apertures – as it is for most large aperture primes. The Otus however appears to be almost flawless in this regard – LoCA is pretty much absent.
Have you got any image samples you can post?
Well I did test them on a full spectrum body which brings out all the errors that people dont usually see. This is also why I said none of these 3 lenses will disappoint.
Better how?
See my reply to vlad below.
Gotcha, interesting. Did you compare microcontrast by any chance?
For me CA is the killer of microcontrast. The Sigma is particularly better than the Otus 55 when stopped down. Otus is very good wide open but we don’t do landscapes wide open to utilise that and in portraits it doesn’t matter.
sony is runned bt monkeys. they don’t understand that in order to increase camera sales they need lenses,
They believe bodies, not lenses drives business. Oh, and high cost accessories.
well you’d know all about that now wouldn’t you Mr. Leica fan? 😉
That’s a very odd response from Sigma. Sony just launched their FF cameras 6 months ago and there are 5 FE lenses. There will be around 10 by years end, plus the MF Zeiss lenses from Zeiss in Germany that will be announced at the Photokina.
I feel Sony are being very ambitious with the FF E-mount cameras and lenses and Sigmas is just being very conservative. Especially seeing that the APS-C crowd also would benefit from FF prime lenses. Sigma, Canon and Nikon, Japanese conservatism at its worse?
FE version of E mount Sigma lens is what I want to have. SIGMA 50F1.4 is really awesome but it is too huge for A7’s body.
Neither of those optical designs will be ported as one produces a smaller image circle and the other uses a long flange distance. Don’t worry, any wide to normal FE primes will be smaller than the Art 50.
+1
Their current great lenses 50 1.4, 35.14 and 16-35F1.8 are all big and heavy DSLR lenses. I wouldn’t want to have a single one of them on the A7 or on a NEX body. Sigma would have to make FF mirrorless lenses just for Sony (at the moment). But competing with the Zeiss FE lenses will be very hard. Sigmas lenses hav simlar quality, but at twice the size and weight…
Exactly. Why bother with the Sigma ART 50 f1.4 when the whole point of the system is to be a “lighter” full-frame. Unless they can make something as good as the Sony Zeiss 55/1.8, no point for them to waste resources.
I hate Sigma , they don’t offer the lenses I need for Sony A-mount like
Sigma 120-300mm 2.8
Sigma 300-800mm 5.6
Sigma 800mm 5.6
Don’t know why they refuse to make those lenses for Sony A-mount.. I hate you Sigma
If you needed those lenses you wouldn’t be shooting on A mount.
I didn’t think of those lenses when I first bought Sony DSLR.
So it’s time to go Canon or Nikon.
No way.. I’ll stick with Sony and Minolta super telephoto lenses.
I just want to whine a little
Well perhaps you should of. You do not just buy just a camera, you invest in a system and how it will allow you to grow in the future.
I already invested in Sony system and I’m happy with this decision ,not willing to change.
Let me whine .. I’m hoping that Sigma will hear me and send me the first 300-800 as a gift
Compared to the price and size of such lenses, picking up another body (in an available mount) and keeping it on the side won’t make such a big difference.
because the market is to small to get enough revenue … simple is that … there is no conspiracy against Sony … Sony is not
market leader …
I know that Sony mount lenses won’t be sold as much as Canon or Nikon mounts.
But I still hate them
I don’t like them, too … But I have the strange feeling that Sony act like a pure engineer company that produces cameras for themselves. And this is sad, because the Sony camera community is very committed.
Mirrorless uses totally different technology than dslr. Sigmas dslr type lenses are easily made in different versions to fit different dslr mounts, to lots of best selling cameras. mirrorless market is small, and afaik on top of that mirrorless camera owners don’t buy a lot of lenses. What’s more, there are too many different sensor sizes in mirrorless, which makes cross adaptation even harder. Sigma are being rational.
Adaptation isn’t any easier on mirrored than on mirrorless because the flange distances are similar. Sensor size doesn’t have a ton to do with it, as Sigma would be smart to stay away from M4/3; that market is getting commoditized quickly due to the mount being compatible between body manufacturers, while the larger format (APS-C/FF) mirrorless segment has room for good sales and margins in the long term.
Yep. Sigma themselves gave exactly the same reasons for why they don’t manufacture mirrorless lenses in one of their interviews few months ago (I’m not sure, but I believe it was linked to on SAR).
Why should Sigma take the risk of investment for a small e-mount FF market? It’s up to Sony to change their behavior for photographers and invest money in new lenses and confidence for their market strategy.
Uhm, Sigma should releases lenses before Sony does, they shouldn’t wait for Sony to create a full.compliment of lenses… considering they make lenses that they want to sell. A while Ago Sigma said that they were assessing attachment rates for FE as MILC were very low (majority buy just kit lenses), but Sony FE I woukd imagine is really very high competitively.
As photographer and customer I wish Sony would act more like Fuji. Middle priced good G lenses and first class service with firmware updates to enhance their delivered products. And please no compressed raw files, and no overheating flashes etc. Sony has to hear the voice from their customers like good software companies.
use the sigma 30 mm nex without the baffle on the A7 in FF mode x 1.2 clear image zoom.
So you become a 36 mm FF.
I do, and it works perfect.
See also here : http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3594558
I just read the full article .. So Sigma manager said “the parent company Sony seems reluctant to do so.” !
Reluctant !
They concider producing 5 lenses every year is reluctant !
So how many lenses Sigma make every year for their DSLR ?
Even the Fuji X had a more complete launch and an attractive range within a very short time. Sony rushed. The system has no macro, no wide, one fastish lens, essentially no roadmap (unless you count “here comes a cine zoom and a wide zoom sometime, but we don’t know when as a roadmap).
No way Sima or Tamron invests now.
Fuji X system are all APS-C sized sensors so they are focused on 1 type of lenses, Sony have more work to do in lenses Amount FF and APSC Emount FF and APSC too, I wouldn’t compare Fuji lens production to Sony I don’t see it as a fair comparison.. you can compare Olympus to Fuji.
Maybe Sony is a little mysterious when it comes to release dates, but from the road map we know that 16-35 is coming soon ,macro lens and a wide aperture (more likely to be a 85mm) are coming this year.
Sony A7/R are only 7 months old and the FE lenses available from Sony are :
28-70 kit
24-70
35
55
70-200
when we celebrate the first birthday of A7/R we will have about 8 lenses in 1 year.
I agree with you that Sigma and Tamron won’t invest in Sony FE mount now but I disagree when Sigma manager said Sony is Reluctant.
At the moment, you have the choice of APS-C and 35mm for SLRs and APS-C for Mirrorless, Sony is the only one with a 35mm Mirrorless. The Flange DIstance of every SLR is about the same, about 45mm. Mirrorless also have almost the same flange distance, about 18mm. And APS-C lenses are cheaper to produce. So, why should a third party company release lenses for just one system? The other three parts have many systems. Many Systems means more costumers. They can make a lens and just switch the firmware and mount, to provide a lens to another system.
It is be possible that Sigma or Tamron will produce lenses for the 35mm E-Mount, but other mirrorless systems have to have also 35mm Sensors.
No, it didn’t. Complete in what sense? They had three lenses, one of them a mediocre pancake, a macro lens (do you really start the system with that?) and the neat 35mm.
I guess that Sigma has financial controlling problem since the new strategy came out with new CEO.
They just want to hold most profitable parts of business conservatively with aggressive high class product.
But, please, just create an interesting lens for FE the short-flange-distance. Just do it creatively, please!
па те тва го казаха отдавна… бях го забравил вече. благодаря за подсещането.
I would guess Sigma will wait if other manufacturers will have a FF mirrorless. If they now design for the FE 18mm (I think) flange distance and Nikon, Canon will have a larger flange distance they would have to redesign the whole lens. Smart of Sigma to wait, because they can only make competitive prices when designing for more than one mount.
Sigma could also easily take the existing E mount and M43 lenses and make them in X mount but they haven’t yet. The last time Fuji released their sales numbers was in November last year in an interview where they said since the first x camera was released in 2011 they had only sold 700,000 x series cameras. I think this gives an indication of the numbers Sigma needs to make lenses for a system.
E mount is dead…. 😉
Their comments are spot on. Sony has not yet provided any reason for a 3rd party to divert money and attention to FE, and the A7/r are clearly painful to design good lenses for
I think it’s more complicated than just Sony’s commitment on FE line and they using it as an excuse for hidding the fact that they are dragging their feet to fully enter the mirroless market.
There is actually 5 lenses on the market after 6 months of existence…not so bad. The new Leica T-mount came out with 2 lenses and no complaint. Of course you can adapt M-mount but that’s true for the 7/7r/7s too and with a wider lenses selection.
The Sigma comment apply to every mirroless manufacturers as the market is too small too divert money for it. Sigma doesn’t make lenses for Fuji or M43-mount either.
Sigma show the same behavior than Nikon and Canon regarding mirroless market: not big enough right now, we will look at it when it reaches a significant size of the market. The problem is that it may be too late for them when time will come.
the DSLR market is shrinking but it’s still the largest one and by far (though the Canon’s revenue figures in Australia is alarming) so why spending money on R&D for a middle size company when Alpha 7/7r/7s users who really want Art lenses will buy them anyway since they can adapt them.
They are in a status quo that suit them right now, and maybe they will find the right time spot to invest when the wind will turn (if it ever happen) but it’s a dangerous game.
Also you are probably right on the technical side, as good as the ART lens line is, they are probably not able to match that quality or the FE55 Zeiss’s one in the same size.
Only time will tell who is gonna win the mirroless vs DSLR battle or maybe they all will crush by tiny super robot painter that can render a truly artistic view of your life.
And what would be the reason that Sony is supposed to provide, exactly? Lack of commitment is a joke, FE (if taken separately from NEX) is the first mirrorless system to bring so many products, both lenses and cameras, that fast. Sigma simply doesn’t want to invest in a system that hasn’t caught on is all. Nothing to see with any reluctance from Sony, whatever that means in the present situation.
What, also, do they mean by “conversion of the NEX line to the FE mount”? If the guy making this statement doesn’t even know that A) NEX is a dead name and B) the APS-C Sony mirrorless cameras use the same mount as the full frame ones, I am not very convinced about his reliability for other statements.
SQLGuy, I totally agree on that. The FE lenses can already be used on Sonys what was called NEX line – they just don’t profit of the smaller APS-C form factor because they are designed for Full Frame. So for me the whole statement seems to be very doubtful…
The question to be posted here is how one company (Sigma) can speak of commitment from another company (Sony) on their own line of products.
E mount APS-C is still going strong. If Sigma isn’t reaping any more from it is because the line has a good amount of lenses. Sony’s commitment is delivering one of the fastest AF mirrorless cameras.
Obviously, A77 II is also a non-committal camera just like the A99 wasn’t.
I believe if they said, like Validator mentions above, that volume is an issue and therefore waiting for it to have enough volume out there is what they are waiting.
Thank you Hendrick .. Well said.. Exactly what I wanted to say
We know that investing in FE is too early for Sigma and other lens manifacturers , but when they said that Sony is reluctant to invest in FE now this is flimsy answer.
What Sigma care about is how many lenses they will sell. They have three primes (with various colors and an art-version with improved casing and probably some optic improvement, either a better coating or maybe even changed a glass to low dispersion glass) for E and micro 4/3. I think that is primarily to have feelers in the market (which they of course hope to earn money on). Maybe they aren’t selling as much as they hoped?
For DSLR they release their lenses for Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Sony and Pentax. That is a big market. Even there they evalute for each lens if they should make the small cost of converting it to all mounts or just release it for Nikon, Canon and Sigma.
For full frame mirrorless there are Sony FE with 18 mm flange distance and Leica M with 27.8 mm flange distance. Quite a big difference, and of course Leica owners are not likely to buy many Sigma-lenses. Are any of the other mirrorless mounts big enough to enter the fullframe market? Can Sony FE realistically get a market size comparable to Canon fullframe SLR or Nikon fullframe SLR? What will the competitors do? Sigma would feel silly if they released an FE lens just before Nikon released a new mirrorless fullframe mount where flange distance or mount width made it impossible for Sigma to make the lens work for that mount. Since Nikon chose such a small sensor for Nikon 1, it isn’t an impossible thought that they will make a third mount for fullframe mirrorless if Sony has a huge success with FE. What will Canon do (or is the Canon mount big enough)? Will Sony flesh out the FE camera line with A9 (with variations like r and s), A5 and maybe even A3?
It is not hard to understand that Sigma want to wait a bit to see where the fullframe mirrorless market is going.
Metabones Smart Adapter.
http://www.metabones.com/products/details/MB-EF-E-BM3
I think Sigma is wasting a wonderful opportunity. Sony has released 3 cameras for FE mount and assured 15 lenses in two years and there has been significant adaptations of A7 series by different mount owners and Sigma should have played a lens gap filling role as this system has great capability and owners looking for high quality optics at affordable decent prices which is the current weakness of the system. They could release one or two lens and find the market response and i believe they can achieve huge success with their exceptional Art series in compact sizes in FE mount. More quality glass brings another level of confidence among existing and potential buyers to the system.
You are right, but I think it’s a simple question of resources, combined with mediocre sales of their existing mirrorless lenses. The only reason we had Sigma primes for e-mount is because of the DP series and that they can be spread over several systems.
That’s wishful thinking. Sony’s market share is small, it’s even smaller when you look at FE mount alone. Why would Sigma take risk on a system (FE mount) that’s not proven yet? Also, until Sony fulfill their promises (15 lens by 2015), it’s just talk.
I think its at least preferable for Sigma to wait rather than release DSLR lenses with FE adapters bolted on (like the samyangs). I would rather they too their time and engineered for the shorter registry distance.
Sony has two very good primes, the 2470Z and the 70200G.
The 1635Z is announced and a G macro is about to be announced soon.
For me that’s far enough for the time being.
If Sigma would make a FE lens, they’d either compete against one of the few existing, or they’d need to come with one size, Sony isn’t about to make for the time being.
With a few hundred (maybe many hundreds) lenses to be sold it is not worth to invest for them.
Sony is the stupid here. They should have been sitting together with the Sigmas and Tamrons and share the field – e.g. Sony for the primes and the standardzoom, Sigma for the wide prime and a macro, Tmaron for another one – and then stick to the commitment and leave everybody the exclusivity.
How is selling your own lenses versus someone else’s stupid?
Got me wrong, Vlad. Of course this wouldn’t be stupid in general, because something like that’s competition as usual.
I related to this particular case with the FE, where the quantities in competition would probably not be sufficient to refund their R&D.
If they could earn money with FE lenses they would design lenses for FE I am certainly sure.
Yep, gotcha 🙂
I could care less. Now can we have some more interesting news?
“couldn’t” care less.
Here, explained eloquently by David Mitchel.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&feature=kp
Classic!!
That is very funny! One of my favourite comics 🙂
So Americans are muppets b/c they can’t speak proper English. LOL Right, ok. Let’s all thank HRH & David for this enlightenment.
I respectfully disagree with the “Sony is at fault” commenters. I think Sigma is the dumb one here—lack of commitment? Really? And BTW, E and FE are the same mount, simply designating different coverages. Just like A mount….
This is a knucleheaded response from Sigma.
Sure, Sony have said 15 FE lens will be available by 2015 but until then, it just talk and no proof of commitment.
That doesn’t make any sense.
Hmmm big deal. I would be more inclined to buy Sony’s lenses anyway…
There appears to be a rather non-sensical line of arguement here.
This statement:
“At the moment it is a very limited line and we are unable to invest in it when the parent company Sony seems reluctant to do so”
…implies that Sigma knows that Sony is reluctant to invest in the a7 line? So, is Sony reluctant to invest in FE mount? Does that mean Sigma just outed a strategy from Sony?
I can hardly believe Sigma would have someone in a managerial position making claims about Sony and its commitment over its own line of products.
Also, what is a full commitment with a full line of products? Sigma outed the 19mm and 30mm lenses when the 5n was in production and the NEX 7 was just announced. That’s just second generation NEX cameras. Was that a full commitment? It appears so, since having the highest MP sensor on the market (a7r), one of the most affordable FF cameras (a7) and the smallest and only FF 4k camera (a7s) is not enough.
Agreed, an entirely bs statement from Sigma.
I believe the A7S is the only true FF 4k camera at the moment. The 1Dc and RED Dragon are both APS-H but yes, their excuse is pretty flimsy. Although it certainly helped I sure, that the 19mm and 30mm lenses were already developed. I think the real issue is Sony. Despite making the basic emount open they are rumored to be keeping newer advancements like PDAF to themselves. I suspect that’s one reason Zeiss is having a fire sale on the Touits.
How can you make a high end lens if it can’t compete with the kit zoom in focusing speed? How can you make a low end lens if the market is still so small? The FE line is interesting but very limited because anything designed for FE will be overbuilt for all the other mirrorless mounts.
I believe the Touits never sold because they didn’t completely offer something special to any mount, X or E. Not AF tech issues. That’s as simple as it got.
I said this before and I say it again…Zeiss may design some of the best lenses in the world, but not every Zeiss is a great lens. The Touits are short-lived because Fuji users didn’t see much in the extra 2mm gained at the wide end from their 14mm and the 32mm Touit didn’t offer Fuji users anything special.
Sony users had a nice zoom for less than the 12mm and one stop light gain was not enough. That, and OSS made the 10-18mm a more compelling choice. Sony’s own 35mm 1.8 also had OSS as an Ace under its sleeve so selling a similar focal length at a premium also didn’t work for the blue badge.
Bad marketing strategy.
The “At the moment” statement is BS, however Sigma is sticking to a very conservative business model and only investing resources into lenses that will appeal to the largest segment of lens buyers. This model seems to be working for them financially and the recent lens designs are generally best in class. If and when the FE mount cameras reach a reasonably high level of market saturation, Sigma will likely design or configure an existing lens design for that mount. Time will tell.
What Market Saturation? Who else but Leica make compact FF mirroless cameras?
I can understand that of all mounts available (including SLR) FE is very low. You cannot say that “market saturation” is needed when there is no direct competition to begin with.
It’s not a matter of who; it’s how many. If the FE mount cameras turn out to be a big seller for Sony and establishes a reasonably large market base, Sigma will likely respond if a reasonable business model can be made.
Anyone with Tamron connections want to petition them to enable VC on their A-mount zooms so FE users can be stabilization with an LAEA4? That’s some low hanging fruit that could pay off well for them.
Told by tamron they are already working on the FE lens
If anyone has an inside track at Sony it is Tamron. This is good to hear.
Is it something serious or the usual superzoom? A 24-50 2.8 oss would be nice…
It’s already damn hot now
I spoke to a Sigma rep at “The Photography Show” (Birmingham, NEC) and he said they will always bring out the Canon & Nikon DSLR lenses first and then the Sony lenses (if there is a demand). It seems to me that they are not committed to Sony at all.
Saying that Sony is not committed to the FE line up is very strange to me.
If Sony is not committed to FF mirrorless why bring out any cameras at all? Instead we have 3 FF mirror less cameras and already 5 lenses & more to come this year. Yes we need more but if they are not committed to it – why waste money on it.
Also why ask for feedback on the cameras? A previous article on SAR said that Sony is asking initial adopters for feedback.
Sigma very strange.
More like Sigma is not very committed to Sony but they can’t say that can they? “Buy a premium 3rd party lens from us! It may not be supported in the future if we don’t sell enough other Sony lenses but hey, it’ll be fun while it lasts!”
Well, they can’t say it, but they also don’t need to blame it on Sony. It’s a cheap shot.
People need to get over this Sigmaphobia. It’s as silly as those silly people who convert all their raw files to DNG and delete the originals because they think they’ll wake up one day and won’t be able to open their proprietary formats.
I don’t know about Sigmaphobia. I owned their lenses in the past and I was happy with a couple. That being said, the statement above is slightly dubious in nature.
Think about the a99 position – sony made af-d a walled garden, so we can hardly blame Sigma for that. Fortunately they’ve backtracked with the a77ii… It’s always going to be the risk of reverse engineering.
I don’t think they’re not committed to Sony – it’s more a case of prioritising releases based on mount market share. I remember a year or so ago there was a rumour that they’d stopped releasing lenses for the a-mount (which fortunately was rubbish).
It is not strange, compared to Canon & Nikon’s market share, Sony’s share of the market is very tiny … Sigma or any third party manufacturer, would not want to be foolish by investing good money in a fledgling new tech without seeing Sony’s commitment in coming out with more FE lenses & market reaction.
WWDC 2014.
4 hours.
Haha, yes!
In case Sigma enters the FE market, it would be AF-Lenses especially designed for E-Mount to take advantage from the short flange distance. For most lenses this requires a complete new lens design, but especially for wide angles, no company can count on Sony’s future develpments like curved sensor or microlenses. I can’t blame Sigma for not taking this risk competing against Leica M picture quality with their usually much more affordable prices. Looks like FE is simply repeating like E-Mount starting as Adapter-Paradise for quite a while…
BTW anything new about the SEL-20F28 remake?
I think there’s a good chance that Sony told Sigma at some point there’d be no FF mirrorless, and they put time into APS-C lens, only to have the goal posts moved, and Zeiss given support that Sigma weren’t. Sony are wonderfully inventive and create some disruptive technologies, but it’s disruptive to third-party suppliers too. They are still putting out some great lenses for A-mount.
(The NEX lenses are good, but style over substance for manual focus)
Isn’t the bottom line the bottom line here? Even if every owner of an FE body buys whatever Sigma makes, you’re looking at a tiny market compared to their traditional Canon/Nikon/Pentax/Sony stomping ground. Unless more brands get involved in the ff mirrorless market, the numbers aren’t going to stack up, especially when they know people can adapt their a-mount lenses anyway.
That’s good. Fast lenses from all manufacturers shall be reserved for A-Mount.
…because such a restriction would be the last chance for A-Mount to prevail?
What ‘last chance’? FE only got a slight ISO advantage so far and that’s it.
Well, compactness, mirrorless and short flange focal distance to adapt nearly everything are the advantages counting for me. But feel free to prefer something else – I’m not into your restrictive attitude.
Wait. I can see something happening. Petapixel and DPReview come up with this headline:
“SIGMA SAYS THAT SONY IS RELUCTANT TO COMMIT TO FE MOUNT”
And then:
Sigma manager Paul Pizzano had this to say to a SAR reader:
“quote here”
We contacted Sigma to get the full story… etc etc.
Let the journalists find out.
It’s a valid story. It’s only fair that we all learn the truth.
As i said earleir .. That reluctant word is wrong.
That Sigma manager chose an incorrect expression.
I am really happy that Sigma hasn’t given up on high end, DSLR cropped frame lenses for Nikon like Nikon has.
So this Sigma Manager similar to the Kodak CEO -scary over digital camera lol…
booo…. basically Sigma doesn’t wanna spend the R&D and manufacturing costs to produce FE lenses yet until they feel that Sony is fully committed to the FE mount by having more lenses….
Sony….the ball is on your court…..show the world that you committed to the FE mount! lol
minipixels.net | Automotive Photography + Design
More likely they won’t spend the R&D money until they know they can make it back. My understanding is the e-mount isn’t as open as Sony suggests so there’s still a lot of reverse engineering to do…
E mount is open.. Mostly http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201102/11-018E/index.html
I doubt reverse engineering would be cost effective.
Mostly seems to be the problem (and allegedly why we won’t see af Samyangs)
I’d disagree here. Certainly they managed to release three lenses for APS-C e-mount. The main problem is quite surely the amount of sales expected for FF e-mount, as they said themselves some time ago.
People keep forgetting that E-mount cameras can use FE-mount lens. Like how crop sensor A-mount can use the FF A-mount lens.
I don’t think people forget that it’s just that, what’s the point of buying several $1K lenses to use on a $400~700 camera? Or what’s the point of using crop – with not great optics – in the FF A7 line up? You sure can do those things, but let’s say that it’s not the first option you would choose unless you already have both.
So you’re saying that there’s no point of buying all the FF lenses of the A-mount unless you own the a99? And anyone that bought the SEL24F18Z doesn’t know what they are doing?
That’s definetely NOT what I’m saying.
I think Sony should have use the name E-mount for both FF and APSC while adding a E or something at the end of the lens name to distinguish the difference between FF lens and APSC. I’ve seen some review from several photographer that says while the A6000 is a good camera but if you want to get serious in it it’s lacking high quality lenses choice like the SEL50F18 is the only 50mm and there’s not better option for it. But they all forget that they could use the SEL55F18Z. In which they end up saying the Micro 4/3 system is better for there’s an option for high quality prime such as the Panasonic Leica 42.5F1.2 lens. But in reality the E-mount system is more flexible not only that the SEL55F18Z is cheaper then the Panasonic Leica, it’s a full frame and upgrading to FF is possible while panasonic is stuck with micro 4/3.
Actually you are the one making a confusion, the mount is called E-mount for both, it’s just the FF lenses line up name that is FE. It’s just like Nikon has FX and DX but they are both F-mount.
You do have that option but as I said, that’s not really the first and best option – but in this case, the only one you got. FF lenses are bigger than they need to be – and E-mount APS-C lenses are already kind of big.
Sure, the 55mm if cheaper, but the PanaLeica is f/1.2 and it has OIS, a 55mm f/1.2 with Sony’s OSS would be even bigger and more expensive. Nonetheless, Micro4/3 users have options, they can buy a much cheaper 45mm f/1.8 offered by Olympus, it gives you an extra reach, it has the same f/1.8 as the 55mm and it also doesn’t have OIS and it’s WAY, WAY cheaper but still a good glass. OPTIONS!
So, if you really look at the APS-C front, they DO lack lenses. You can, but you shouldn’t HAVE to buy FF lenses because Sony doesn’t give you an proper APS-C lens.
Bottom line, Fuji did in two years what Sony couldn’t do in 4, showed commitment to a system. Fuji’s focal length’s choice and optical quality is simply a dream for any 2 years old system, you have focal length options, fast primes and not just a bunch of zoom to fill the focal length’s gap or a bunch of Zeiss $1K lenses to try to satisfy the high-end consumer, trying to show they care.
Sure, you have a FF option while Micro4/3 doesn’t, but although that’s a plus for E-mount, that’s not a downside for Micro4/3 because you don’t build a system thinking that you can use that in different sizes, that’s an extra, not a requirement.
I don’t have side, I’m not a fanboy of any brand, I don’t care about the brands, I care about the system, and I rather have a single size of sensor with a complete system than the sensor size flexibility and not knowing if I will ever get the lenses I want and/or need. When I bought a E-mount camera, it looked like things were going to go well, after a while Sony came with the 50mm and 35mm but since then, not much.
I didn’t choose yet because Fuji don’t have video and I need a bit of it, if it was just about photo, I would had gone Fuji long ago. Micro4/3 stepped up in IQ in the last year or so, plus, Panasonic’c cameras have great video, so I’ll wait a little bit more before deciding, plus both Fuji and Panasonic will unveil a premium compact with 1″ sensor. I could buy Fuji’s X camera and pair up with a RX100MKIII or Panasonic’s new LX8 for when I need video. Or maybe the opposite, to buy a Micro4/3 for video and a new X30 for other stuff, to have Fuji colors. I don’t have a FF fetish, it doesn’t make me feel better than anybody and nowadays, for my needs, I rather have a smaller system rather than just a bit of extra DR and shallower DOF, the difference in IQ is really not that much and much less that it was some years ago.
Had Sony launched a A7000, with mic in, possibly weather sealing with all of the A6000’s feats, that could make me wait longer for something from Sony but they only launched the A6000 because this A7000 would be too great of a camera and it would hurt their A7 new FF lline up and I understand that, but this just shows what Sony stance is and I prefer APS-C for it’s size and size of the lenses without giving up IQ, but if Sony shows commitment, I get that it will be for the new FF line up. So unless I could simply live on legacy lenses, there is not much point in keeping a E-mount APS-C and I don’t want to and I can’t simply buy $1K FE lenses to fill the gaps. As much as you want to squeese the options for it, there is not much.
But that’s just me.
I’m not confuse as I clearly know and remember that all the e-mount APSC can use all a7 lens. But most people that is not an owner of Sony e-mount camera would certainly confuse. Sony have done the same as Nikon with their A-mount by adding DT at the back of the lens name and most people knows about it. But with E-mount people keep naming the a7 lenses as FE mount which will confuse people that doesn’t know better.
For me, before I bought the A7r all of my A-mount lenses are FF even thought I only own APSC sensor body. That is because I know there will be a day that I might own a FF body. I would prefer a FF lens then a APSC lens.
By the way the F1.8 in Micro4/3 doesn’t equal to FF or APSC F1.8. I still think that both Sony prime FF e-mount are very cheap considering the performance of the lens.
This strategy works OK for telephotos, somewhat OK but expensive for 35 and 50 mm, but what do you do when you need an ultra wide?
You buy and APS-C one, then you sell it.
That’s what I do. This was in reply to the OP who stated that one should only buy FE lenses in case you ever decide to buy a FF camera.
I didn’t say anything about not being able to use APS-C lenses on the A7, I just said it’s not called “FE-mount” like you are saying, it’s “FE lenses” on E-mount, just like FX and DX from Nikon are used on the same F-mount. That’s what you are confusing, “FE-mount” doesn’t exist.
Don’t start this. f/1.8 is f/1.8, you are probably talking about DOF, which is something else and it has nothing to do with FOV, which is the equivalency of focal length. You will never be able to match everything when there are two different size of sensors.
There is the Voigtlander 42.5mm f/0.95 for Micro4/3, which is equivalent to a APS-C 55mm, it will have a shallower DOF than the FE 55mm f/1.8 on a APS-C sensor and it will have 4x the light gathering capability. Putting everything in FF equivalency so it’s easier. The Voigtlander in FF is a 85mm equivalent in focal length and the DOF of a FF f/1.9, the 55mm mounted on a APS-C would be also a 85mm but with a DOF of a FF f/2.7, in another words, more than 1-stop more of DOF, plus the 4x more light.
So, it’s not like you can’t match or even surpass that with the Micro4/3 but with the E-mount you can’t because there is no such option.
And the issue remains, even with no new lens from Sony, A-mount has more options than E-mount and that allows you to choose FF without having to pay $1k on each lens. And again, it may work for you, but you can’t imply that everybody else should do the same, that’s not really the best first option, you gain size and weight over a proper APS-C lens. Nobody launches a camera line up – except Sony – asking you to use lenses from other sensor sizes and to rely on legacy lenses and adapters.
Everybody CAN do that and I do have legacy lenses and adapters, but that doesn’t hide the fact that the system lack lens option and focal length variety.
If it’s cheap or not for its performance it’s kind of subjective and it’s really irrelevant to the point I’m making. The fact that you don’t have options, be it if you want or need such performance or not, you HAVE to buy that because it’s the only option. If I prefer a little bit less of optical performance but a cheaper lens, I can’t have that, because it doesn’t exist. That may work fine for you and for anybody willing to expend that kind of money, not counting that you are a A7R user and not a APS-C user. FF is receiving support from Sony, APS-C is not, I don’t want a FF and see no reason to stay on a system that will not have support.
As I said, you understand Sony’s posture as soon as they launched a A6000 and no A7000 or even word about it and the lens roadmap. They want their high-end users to go FF or look for something else, they may re-commit to APS-C users, but it won’t be so soon and not before the FF cameras are consolidated. At the time, I chose E-mount because it had a better balance between photo and video IQ since Micro4/3 was still lagging behind on the photo side and there was no Fuji yet. But it was a temporary thing anyway, Sony was better to resell where I live than Micro4/3 and I wanted to see how both system would mature.
But now, there are more options and you know where each system is going.
“Everybody CAN do that and I do have legacy lenses and adapters, but that doesn’t hide the fact that the system lack lens option and focal length variety.”
Yet you are citing Voigtlander which are third party options with no AF and rather big and heavy. Is it that big of a difference to use an adapter then? I’d say it isn’t.
I don’t understand what you are saying. What Cheng Hoo Sew is trying to convey is that there are options for APS-C, because you can use both APS-C and FF lenses and on top of that you have an upgrade path. Makes perfect sense to me and I don’t think that an FF lens is ‘wasted’ on a smaller sensor. Is there a rule where you can’t use a camera cheaper than your lenses?
As to options, Olympus might have a 45mm 1.8, but then there is a stabilized 50mm 1.8 in e-mount, which is actually cheaper. The 45mm isn’t even stabilized on half of the bodies. As to e-mount lenses being big, some of them are, some not. I have a 10-18, which features stabilization and isn’t any heavier or bigger than the Panasonic equivalent, which is also more expensive. There are more than 20 e-mount lenses from Sony alone right now, which stacks pretty nicely to the roughly 40 lenses from m43, which is supported by two companies and is 3 years older. Also, Fuji didn’t do what you are saying they did. They did better than Sony in terms of IQ for sure, as well as a more consistent lineup, but then Sony does have cheaper lenses and these also have a market. Also, their system is hardly a dream for everyone, it certainly isn’t for me until they change that sensor. And if you are unwilling to buy FE lenses because of their pricing, how do you justify Fuji’s prices?
You are trying to have your cake and eat it, the usual way that people are putting down Sony. On one side you explain how m43 gives options, on the other how Fuji has “not just a bunch of zoom to fill the focal length’s gap or a bunch of Zeiss $1K lenses to try to satisfy the high-end consumers”. Yet m43 has plenty of redundant zooms and very pricey lenses too.
“Sure, you have a FF option while Micro4/3 doesn’t, but although that’s a plus for E-mount, that’s not a downside for Micro4/3 because you don’t build a system thinking that you can use that in different sizes, that’s an extra, not a requirement.”
You are playing with semantics here. It’s a plus for Sony, end of story. And having a boatload of lenses also isn’t a requirement. And having faster lenses isn’t a requirement. It’s all dependent on the audience.
“When I bought a E-mount camera, it looked like things were going to go well, after a while Sony came with the 50mm and 35mm but since then, not much.”
It doesn’t suit you and it actually doesn’t suit me at this point, but for others there are enough options. Certainly, in terms of cheaper options it beats Fuji entirely and is on par with m43.
“I don’t have a FF fetish, it doesn’t make me feel better than anybody and nowadays, for my needs, I rather have a smaller system rather than just a bit of extra DR and shallower DOF, the difference in IQ is really not that much and much less that it was some years ago.”
Seems to me that people using smaller sensors have some real issue to deal with. There is a tangible difference in IQ when going from APS-C to FF. If it doesn’t matter to you, fair enough. But let’s not call it ‘fetish’. Otherwise, why not call your desire for faster or better lenses a fetish too?
It’s not a waste but as I said, it’s not the best first option. People can do whatever they want but usually you don’t buy 3 or 4 $1K lenses for a $400~700 body, right? Usually you make a compatible price for your camera line up. It was way more justifiable to have more $1k lenses if you actually had a high-end A7000 type of body. For Fuji, their main cameras are the XE, XT and XPRO and I think that the price of the lenses are correctly aimed at the owners of those bodies while for Sony the focus in on the A3000, A5000 and A6000 and in a way the bunch of zoom and chepaer lenses are correctly aimed at their users and I get that, I’m just saying that they abandoned the high-end APS-C user base, you are forced to either get a FF or go look for another system and I find that quite disrespectul towards any consumer that supported their system.
Sony does have quantity on lenses but a bunch of low quality optics pancakes and a bunch of zoom. Have you ever listed the focal length of the primes for Sony and Fuji? Do it and you will understand the difference between quantity and options. If I remember well there is the 16/20/30/35/50 for Sony while Fuji has 14/18/23/27/35/56/60, except for two f/2.8, the rest is faster. Plus, there is a 90mm on the horizon for Fuji. For Sony you have 5 lenses piled up between 16~50mm, that without saying that, soon, the announced weather sealed constant f/2.8 duo will be launched for Fuji and Sony has yet to even talk about anything like that. For Micro4/3, they pretty much have it all and now they are exploring more high-end glass and longer tele.
For Fuji you have a lot of nice lenses and focal length options in the sub-$1k range between $450~700, which includes a 35mm f/1.4, a 60mm Macro, the nice 18~55mm f/2.8~4 zoom and so on. For Sony you can find some constant f/4 zoom lenses in that range. The 35mm and 50mm are really nice and affordable but as I said, that’s about that.
It’s not about quantity! NOT. It may be similar in quantity to Micro4/3, but if you start looking at the focal lens options and fast zoom, there is no such a thing for Sony. How having a complete set of lenses options is not a requirement for a system? Are you kidding me? It’s not like people have not been asking for the lenses, so it’s not depend on the audience. For how long have you seen users asking for more lenses? How is that not the audience wanting more lenses? If it’s ok for you, that’s ok, but don’t ignore the fact that a lot of people want more lenses, it’s certainly not just me.
Again, it’s fine if that works for you, but please, don’t act like a fanboy that can’t acknowledge tha flaws of the system and instead look at that as something ok. I understand that Fuji is not for everybody, they are going at enthusiasts or above, there will be cheaper options in the future, but right now it’s about focal length options and optical quality. Look at what Sony has been doing for the past years, dating some years back. Look at Sony’s support towards A-mount and E-mount. For anybody that was able to follow it like I do, you can clearly see how Sony change their mind all the time.
There was a year that Sony came swinging with the A-mount and SLT tech, they launched a bunch of bodies, it probably didn’t sell as well as they wanted and Canikon kept doing their stuff. Sony basically abandoned their APS-C A-mount users. They tried the FF A99, but with empty promises of a true hybrid, with a video that was worse than Canon’s old tech, I don’t know how that ended but it’s been a while since we hear about A-mount lenses. Same happened to APS-C E-mount, they brought NEX-7, NEX-6, the 50mm f/1.8, 35mm f/1.8 and it looked like things were going well but since then, not a single roadmap for the lenses. It’s like they are doing a bunch of market experiments at consumers’ cost, if it doesn’t work as they wish or if they have a new idea, they simply abandon it and move on.
I didn’t say that everybody that needs FF has a fetish but it’s well known that there is a prejudice from some so called PROs that anything less than FF is crap and I’m addressing that and that alone. I’m not bashing who needs FF just because I don’t, it’s just about those empty people that think that the size of the sensor speaks volumes for their work instead of their work speaking for them. And I hardly believe that wanting more options for lenses could be put in the same category. The tangible difference occur in a few situations, not most situations, if you do a blind test that covers most situation you would be surprised by how little the difference actually is, even more if you match both DOF and FOV.
Bottom line for me is that you sure have the option to use FE lenses but let’s not act as if the system is as somplete as Micro4/3 or even Fuji, it’s not. Sony has shown by their decision of saying that the A6000 will substitute both NEX-6 and NEX-7 that if you want a high-end APS-C E-mount support now, you got to look somewhere else or go FF. It’s pretty simple actually.
“I’m just saying that they abandoned the high-end APS-C”
I can certainly agree with that, but that wasn’t the point you were making in your previous comment. Although, I don’t find this disrespectful, as there was never any promise of a high-end system to begin with.
“Sony does have quantity on lenses but a bunch of low quality optics pancakes and a bunch of zoom.”
Yep, that is what I said. And there is a market for those too. Not everybody is like us. And I don’t need to list the focal lengths to know that Fuji doesn’t have an affordable 18-200 zoom. And yet again you complain about Sony piling up lenses between 16-50, but somehow disregard the fact that m43 is even worse in that sense. That is what I meant by having your cake and eating it. You compare Sony’s system only to the strengths of two other systems, Fuji and m43. Not very fair.
“How having a complete set of lenses options is not a requirement for a system? Are you kidding me? (…) For how long have you seen users asking for more lenses? How is that not the audience wanting more lenses? If it’s ok for you, that’s ok, but don’t ignore the fact that a lot of people want more lenses, it’s certainly not just me.”
I am not kidding you. Go at some Fuji website and see for how long people have been asking for a FF option. How is a FF option not a requirement for a system? See? That is precisely what I am saying, it’s all subjective. You gloss over Sony’s advantage and point out only the disadvantages compared to other systems. That is what I disagree with. Not everybody needs plenty of lenses or fast lenses, same as not everybody needs an FF option. But for the right people, they can all be advantages.
“Again, it’s fine if that works for you, but please, don’t act like a fanboy that can’t acknowledge tha flaws of the system and instead look at that as something ok.”
Where did I not acknowledge it? [Fuji] “did better than Sony in terms of IQ for sure, as well as a more consistent lineup, but then Sony does have cheaper lenses and these also have a market”. I believe I presented you with arguments, yet you feel the need to call me a fanboy. It means nothing. Keep it to the discussion and leave ‘fetish’ and ‘fanboy’ out of it.
“I understand that Fuji is not for everybody, they are going at enthusiasts or above, there will be cheaper options in the future, but right now it’s about focal length options and optical quality.”
Let’s leave the future aside. In the future Sony might very well have a better system than Fuji for all we know.
“For anybody that was able to follow it like I do, you can clearly see how Sony change their mind all the time.”
Agreed, it is a problem.
“And I hardly believe that wanting more options for lenses could be put in the same category.”
Not options, I said speed and quality. Same as that difference in IQ between an FF sensor and an APS-C sensor, which won’t appear in every situation, a faster lens won’t be useful in every situation. Or a better lens. The diminishing returns are valid for bought sensor and lenses. Anyway, I was merely addressing the ‘fetish” thing, as there wasn’t the clarification that it is not for everyone.
“Bottom line for me is that you sure have the option to use FE lenses but let’s not act as if the system is as complete as Micro4/3 or even Fuji”
I never said it was.
I can’t agree with that. Once Sony made the NEX-7 AND NEX-6 and those camera sold well, they made Zeiss glass, that’s enough indicative that you got high-end support and if you don’t support back, that’s disrespectful. No manufacturer will come and literally say what they are supporting, you do that with the products you sell. There is no other way around this, Sony made the high-end step but after a year, they released the RX1 and it was well received, they made FF E-mount plans and didn’t support high-end APS-C users anymore, period.
It’s not a disregard. I don’t really care if any camera manufaturer piles 10 lenses of the exactly same focal length, that’s not my problem. My issue, as I even used capital letter on it, is the lack of other options – not simple quality or aperture, OPTIONS! I don’t care if Micro4/3 have a lot of lenses in that same focal length, it happens that you can get other focal length if you so want and with Sony, you can’t. And it’s not that the others have an upper hand in this matter like you said, as if I’m being unfair because that’s their strength. It’s not their strength, it’s just that Sony is weak on this, it’s really different.
You may insist in the quality and aperture part but my whole point
is about OPTIONS. That’s why I didn’t even get that you were being so
specific. As I said, I can’t see how wanting the options can be put in
the same category as those guys that think that having a FF is what make
them PRO. I don’t really care of having a less optically great or fast
pancake, sometimes that’s pretty handy, but I do care about having
options, lenses options, focal length options, aperture options. As I’ve
been trying to point out, it’s about OPTIONS. You can’t pile up a very
narrow range of focal length with tons of lenses and not having options
ouside that and you don’t have that with either Micro4/3 or Fuji and
that’s my point. I can’t see how that’s unfair or how that’s not true.
I’m not comparing two classes of fighters, I’m comparing one that trains hard and the other that doesn’t. I won’t lower the bar just because one doesn’t make the effort to release more lenses as they should whereas the others are just doing what they are SUPPOSED to do. Plus, your idea of how it’s the market demanding more lenses or not makes little sense because you simply take away Sony’s responsibility from the equation. First because there is demand and other because you attract consumers also by the way you position yourself. Sony made the high-end step, but didn’t back it up, and by doing that, they drove them away. You can’t blame not having enough high-end consumers or enthusiasts that want lenses as the reason why you don’t make lenses and that’s what you are doing.
What are you talking about? That’s apples and oranges. You are comparing creating a whole new system that has little to do with the other with giving a proper lens support? You are really kidding me.
First because although some may want Fuji to go FF, a lot of them don’t as well. Go to Fuji Rumors, they made a poll about it, a lot of people didn’t want them going FF when the rumor of a FF XPRO2 popped up. Secondly because Fuji would need to create a new mount for a FF Fuji system, how that is a requirement for a different mount? It makes no sense whatsoever. How is that even comparable with Sony lack of lenses options? There is not much to argue here, you are showing yourself quite a fanboy and by definition, pretty delusional. You say you are not but it’s pretty hard to say otherwise when you try to justify the injustifiable. You compare a simple fact like having lenses options for a ILC system to another manufacturer having to create a whole new mount as a requirement for a different mount. It’s like saying that creating an E-mount was a requirement for having A-mount. You don’t create a new mount as a requirement for a different system.
FF Fuji would be a different system with a different mount, X-mount CAN’T support FF and since the beginning Fuji said that they chose APS-C size because of the IQ and size balance. Sony chose APS-C with FF in mind and they made compromises in optical quality for APS-C in order to do that. It’s not a coincidence that Sony has trouble getting optical performance out of the APS-C lenses – even with the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 – but not so much with the FF lenses. The system seems to be designed better for FF, compromising APS-C performance on the way.
At the time Sony said they didn’t expect NEX cameras to sell like it did, in a way, they may had never intended to make it directed towards enthusiasts and pros. They did so because there was demand and because they saw an opportunity to test the market for these consumers. But for whatever reason you did, once you do and get support, you got to support back. Fuji made it for APS-C since day one, these different situations are not comparable.
Releasing lenses and giving the system support IS a requirement for building a system, it’s what you are supposed to do, no matter how you slice it, it simply is, there is not a contract about this, it’s simply a common sense for any camera manufacturer, there is no getting away from this as you are trying to. And this can’t be comparable with Fuji having to create a new system, this conversation will not be productive anymore if you really want to insist in denfending these points.
Some of the counter points you made were pointless because I wasn’t
saying you said the contrary, I was just making my point, not
necessarily countering everything you said. But anyway, I think this is it about this dicussion, I don’t really see this adding much to wat we already discussed.
Well, the respect part is entirely subjective, so I completely understand your disagreement, I just voiced my own subjective opinion on the matter. I am not super happy about the situation either, I just consider it somewhat normal in today’s world, maybe I am becoming cynical.
“I don’t really care if any camera manufaturer piles 10 lenses of the exactly same focal length, that’s not my problem. My issue, as I even used capital letter on it, is the lack of other options – not simple quality or aperture, OPTIONS! I don’t care if Micro4/3 have a lot of lenses in that same focal length”
Well, you do care about Sony piling up on the same focal length and comparing it to Fuji in terms of years, so I think it is only fair to compare to m43 in the same way (note here, I consider from my very own point of view your comparison to be unfair, but certainly not untrue). For example, what are the options in m43 for a quality normal zoom? There are two lenses, 12-35 and 12-40, one of which can be considered redundant by your logic. And that’s it. After that you have seven times the same thing 14-42/45. In wide angle zooms they have two, that’s it. In tele zooms, they have a bunch of redundant ones, only one of which can be considered high quality. Up until here I don’t see much of an advantage compared to Sony (there is one, but hardly a big deal). In terms of primes they have a 12mm, 14mm, two not so great 17mm, 20mm, two redundant 25mm, two 45mm and 75mm. And the two macros. With the exception of one of the macros, the 12mm, the super expensive 42.5 and the 75mm there are (rough) very equivalents to everything in the Sony lineup. Granted, it is a rough equivalence and it is a rather big exception, 4 lenses and probably a couple more I missed, but that doesn’t strike me as great for a system 3 years older and supported by two companies. So, the options you are talking about is access to 5-6 more lenses and a bunch of redundant ones.
As to Fuji, they have 14mm, 18mm, 23mm, 27mm, 35mm, 56mm, 60mm macro and zooms 10-24, 18-55 and 16-50, 55-200 and 50-230 ( I think I am not missing anything). Sony has 16mm, 20mm, 24mm, 30mm macro, 35mm, 50mm and zooms 10-18, 18-55 and 16-50 and 16-70, 55-210, 18-105, 18-200. And if we add the FF lenses it gets even better. So, if you are saying that it is not about quality or aperture, then I have no idea what lack of options you are talking about as I see plenty. In reality there are only 3 really redundant zooms in the whole lineup at this point. So, while Fuji has better IQ lenses overall, in terms of options and especially cheaper ones, it does nothing better than Sony.
I am certainly not taking away blame from Sony, I actually don’t care that much about them, I simply buy their cameras nowadays as they fit my needs. If you wish to look at the situation as Sony backing out of the high-end, fair enough. But they didn’t do it just to spite us, they did it precisely to address a different audience. That is all I am saying – some people will prefer their lineup. I certainly haven’t switched from my NEX-7, even though I do share your concerns about the system.
Also, you are speaking about some proper lens support, which means nothing to me. What is it exactly? Having zooms and primes in every possible FL? Having every possible aperture? TS lenses? Fisheyes? There isn’t a standard or anything like that. For example, a system featuring 5 primes ranging from 24mm to 135mm, one of them macro is proper lens support for me. But I am sure that’s hardly the case for everyone. Another example, do you consider Leica as giving proper lens support? Or Canon? Entirely different lineups. Yet their respective users quite surely consider those proper lens support.
“How is that even comparable with Sony lack of lenses options? There is not much to argue here, you are showing yourself quite a fanboy and by definition, pretty delusional. You say you are not but it’s pretty hard to say otherwise when you try to justify the injustifiable. You compare a simple fact like having lenses options for a ILC system to another manufacturer having to create a whole new mount as a requirement for a different mount.”
Well, if you are continuing with the harsh talk, then I will start too. You are really being obtuse or you don’t know what comparison means. I am not justifying anything in the way you seem to understand it. I am merely saying that it is quite subjective. As I mentioned before, a proper lens lineup means nothing by itself. It is subjective. Options can be defined in many ways, again subjective. If you want the cheapest setup, then Sony blows Fuji out of the water. And consequently, having an FF upgrade option is subjective. I am comparing these things to show you that they are subjective. My comparison is limited to that single aspect, that is how comparisons work. On top of that I just made your comparison by FL lens as you asked before and your arguments went down the drain. Plenty of options in Sony’s lineup and only 3 redundant zooms. Hardly the picture you are trying to paint. Now, if that lineup doesn’t suit you, fair enough. But, as I said before, it will suit plenty of people.
“It’s not a coincidence that Sony has trouble getting optical performance out of the APS-C lenses – even with the Zeiss 24mm f/1.8 – but not so much with the FF lenses.”
I have no issue whatsoever with my three lenses, none of which is the 24mm. Excellent results.
“Releasing lenses and giving the system support IS a requirement for building a system, it’s what you are supposed to do, no matter how you slice it, it simply is, there is not a contract about this, it’s simply a common sense for any camera manufacturer, there is no getting away from this as you are trying to.”
Agreed. Except there are lenses for this system and your comparisons to Fuji and m43 are flawed.
LoL, funny and true!
This is basically what I said about last week or so when there was another post about Sigma, if Sony can’t show their commitment, why would anyone else spend money doing that for them? Plus, as a 3rd party manufacturer, you need a big user’s base to get some profit on it. FE is still in very early days and although Sony has shown that they are really going to commit to it, it’s just too early.
With the E-mount APS-C Sony already showed that they don’t really care or know what to do, if they do too much, it will end up hurting their A7 FF line up but at the same time they don’t think it’s worth even lanching a roadmap for the APS-C line up, so they throw some expensive $1K Zeiss for those that bought their high-end “NEX” to say they have good glass to work with and a lot of zoom lenses and that’s it.
Sigma could go and fill the gaps, like a very good landscape wide or a portrait with big aperture, but if Sony is not lanching these lenses, it may make Sigma wonder why. Why Sony itself has not launched these lenses? Don’t the users want? Don’t the users buy lenses? So, waiting for Sony’s move is really the way to go for Sigma.
Check out our A77II high ISO photos here: http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/a77ii-images-iso-1000-3200_topic107152_page1.html
Sony has done a FANTASTIC job with noise processing/reduction/jpg engine. It makes the image quality no comparison to A77M1. It is stellar! In Jpg mode, clean ISO up to 3200. 6400 is a little bit noisy. And then gets difficult to clean up from there. No smearing of detail and very little resolution loss.
Also cleans up really really well up to ISO 6400 in DxO. No high ISO purple shift either as was case with A77M1!
It is really really good!
20% higher sensitivity/better performance from new sensor
+
better processor and better noise reduction
+
much better jpg engine
Yes, very nice. All indications point to fact that A77II image quality is nothing short of incredible. I would love to see a comparison to D7100 and A99 just for kicks. I would not be surprised if it was on par with A99 and better than D7100.
Yes very good results! On page 2 there is an Iso6400 sample that had been run through DXO. It looks very good too.
Boinz X baby.. Thanks for posting the samples
Looking great – I used to do a good bit of shooting at 1600 – 3200 for work (night time football games in the middle of winter). Im very impressed with these results compared to the A77. For street photography I’d have no problems shooting at 1600.
Holy cow that looks good.
Sony is being modest about the image quality improvements!
ADMIN – post these samples so everyone can see!
I seem confuse how to define a ‘low light’ test? I saw many reviews but mostly the light conditions are so different in those review, some are ‘quite’ low light, some not feel consider as low light condition in the test.
Meanwhile, my converted A-mount sigma 35mm f/1.4 ART crapped out completely while I was away in Antigua last week. Maybe it’s best that Sigma doesn’t spend on developing FE lenses and works on quality control. (PS. In my life, I had 3 equipment failures. A cheapy eBay RF trigger, and two Sigma lenses).
SOMEBODY PLEASE……gahhhhhnagbuasogioasdgh
I just want one worthwhile AF lens to rely. Just one.
Minolta has a few
This is quite interesting that a manager at Sigma somehow knows Sony’s commitment level. I also read another post on SAR about the CEO of Sigma mentioning that they’d like to do lenses for the FE mount as well as an interview from Imaging Resource again with the CEO of Sigma mentioning that they have been getting a lot of requests for FE lenses. While that doesn’t mean they will do something they have mentioned that they’d liked to do so and they have gotten a lot of requests. Hopefully that will mean they will be looking hard into it…
Carl Zeiss ‘already’ make lenses for Emount; Then why not Sigma? That is already a big commitment right? furthermore, 3 FF camera just in a year, that is not enough for Sigma?
Zeiss is a Sony partner, their lenses are designed by Zeiss but produced and manufactured by Sony itself, Sigma is a 3rd party manufacurer, totally different position from Zeiss which is a 2nd party and it could even be considered 1st party. If you cross R&D cost for developing lenses for a new and early system with the amount of consumer base, as a 3rd party, the math doesn’t add up. It’s unnecerrarily risky, to profit you would basically need almost every A7/R/S user to buy their lenses and the lens attachment ratio is far from being 1:1 or even 1:2 for a 3rd party manufacturer. So Sigma will wait until the system is solid, from a business stand point it’s just a normal thing to do for any 3rd part manufacturer, not just Sigma.