Sony Japan posted the teaser for the new 16-35mm f/4.0 FE lens. The lens will be announced along the 28-135mm Powerzoom. Announcement date could be September 12 (E-mount 4K launch) or the day before Photokina (September 15).
Sony Japan posted the teaser for the new 16-35mm f/4.0 FE lens. The lens will be announced along the 28-135mm Powerzoom. Announcement date could be September 12 (E-mount 4K launch) or the day before Photokina (September 15).
*Please also check your spam folder if you don't get the confirmation mail. And mark the mail as "non-spam" to see the future newsletter.
0 Responses
this is AWESOME dudeee !
But Sony shouldn’t be releasing lenses… This way the “the-a7-doesnt-have-lensee-crowd” will lose their argument and have to go back to their pitiful system instead.
Dude… I’m a Sony FE user and even I’m getting old if this… Just sayin’, there are some things you just gotta let go and this is probably one of them
“What?!? Only one E mount lens??!? We need more lenses !!!”
🙂
This looks like the shadow of the 24-70. I wonder if they are the same dimensions.
Supposedly yes, they are.
Andrea, will there be any new A & E mount cameras at Photokina, or are you still gathering the information?
teaser with the focal lenth and aperture? Why not just announce it.
They already did (leak). Now they do a teaser. Perhaps a preorder announcement next and then the actual unveiling of what looks very similar to the hyped but disappointing 24-70/4.
May be in couple of years Sigma will offer some decent zooms.
This looks so big！noooooo！
I did some very rough measurement and it looks just like FE2470, so it is much smaller than Canikon, which is great, but still… I am greedy. I want a 10-1000mm F0.95 with 100g weight and the price should be 10 dollars, yeah!
This thread needs more hate towards E-Mount. Come on, guys, let’s ramp it up 😀
But seriosly though, it’s only 10 days to Photokina, is there ANYTHING about A-Mount?
Why is there such hate for Sony and E-mount? I’ve never figured it out. This rumor site gets more activity than Canon or Nikon rumors sites combined, mostly jabs at Sony.
Part of the hate seems to be A-mount users not getting any love, other parts are Vivek complaining about every lens that’s not a pancake, and then you have complaining about missing lenses for E-mount, and add just plain trolling and there you go, I think we covered everything there.
”
other parts are Vivek complaining about every lens that’s not a pancake,”
I feel vindicated with the advent of the Loxia primes. 🙂
There are valid reasons that simple lens designs do work while keeping the size to a minimum.
I picked an old OM 35-70/4 zoom which is far far better performer than the Sony 28-70 zoom even though it was designed for film and not for high res digital. If it is tweaked for digital it will be even better.
There is a vocal minority of disgruntled visitors that come to vent here.
Because Sony is completely disregarding its flagship system that we love and chose as our photo system.
Instead, they introduced a completely different system and called it ‘Alpha’. And now there’re many people on this site who want Sony to abandon its professional system altogether and only make E-Mount point-and-shoots.
The lens of my dreams ! Hope that at this price it will be of very high quality !
We all don’t want to wait any longer for this necessary lens and hope for a steller performer beside the stellar A7/r/s. 🙂
In case, you care about size, don’t by the FF but the great A6000 and one of the great UWA’s
This is not a teaser, they put all the information on the picture, it’s just that the key light did not fire 🙂
The Sony flash delay strikes again!
Looks the same as the FE 24-70
if yes, then there will be a lot of compromise in optical performance
Why?
-1
BS
Exactly.
let’s see, I’m planning to buy one if this one has great performance at F8-F11 from 16mm to 35mm. FE 24-70mm disappointing at F8
Indeed, let’s see.
Yup. 🙁
I have taken the image posted, put it in Photoshop, overlayed the image of a FE-24-70 on top and resized it so they where in same scale. They were 99% identical, with the exact same dimensions in width and length. That’s a little odd, I think?
Why?
Compare the ZA 1635 and 2470
The assembling accuracy needs to be improved.
There is absolutely nothing wrong with materials chosen on the 2470FE, and also the lens rings are tight and convenient to operate. So I suspect the optical construction causing the problems with it.
If you take an E-mount lens apart, you’ll see that the optics are in what Sony refers to as a lens block. It’s encased and I don’t see how there could be much variation in the lenses unless the glass itself is off.
Well I tested 3 Zeiss 24mm for APS-C, and only one did perform very well, the other ones had soft corners !!!
It seems there is a big problem. Since they are not assembling in Japan anymore, the Sony-Zeisses are lacking quality. Although the 35 and 55 seem to have no such problems I am sure that it is a QM problem.
The problems started in 2012/13. For me I sent back 2x the 1670Z, 2x the 1018. For a friend I checked 3! 1670Z and 1 1018 and 3 35/1.8.
At my premium reseller we found 2 FE2470 that sent back.
All have had the same problem – significant decentering.
Finally, a lens to compliment the camera as an ideal travel or hiking combination.
Sony need to get this one right in my opinion – it will seriously damage the system if we get another disappointment similar to the 24-70mm, particularly given the price.
Dear Andrea, the A7R was announced in October last year, do you think that the version 2 could be announced soon ?
Thank you for what you do for your readers !
Likewise very interested in an FE with a quiet shutter, EFCS and the a6000’s af
Wow are you? You must be the first to have said this, why not say something sooner? They will get right onto it now that you’ve mentioned it!
I wonder if the lens has the same size as the 24-70, will it has worse performance?
This my biggest concern regarding this lens.
I don’t mind distortion too much, this is as easy to correct as CAs.
It needs to be tack sharp from f8 onwards at least – sharp borders wide open of course highly appreciated…
Why? For one it is only a 2x zoom and secondly shorter FL’s are just that, shorter.
I don’t know much about lens design and also physics of camera and lens. But, from my little experience, I think it’s very hard to design a great performance UWA lens in compact size.
This isn’t really true, especially with mirrorless. Have a look at the Leica WATE. SLRs are different however.
-1 is leica wate zoom till 35mm?
Plus WATE has no AF and OSS system.
However, I hope what abortabort think is true. Let’s see it soon. 🙂
Point is that small does not = bad IQ in WA.
yes, the WATE does not have AF, OSS and can reach 21mm only
I know and only $6,000.
Besides distortion concerns, smeering and soft corners and WA’s/UWA’s not being very sharp, why would it be hard to design? lol. Yea, this is going to be interesting and I hope this lens is worth the wait but people should manage expectations for wide angle.
EF-M 11-22 is quite small (much smaller than the Sony 10-18) and in terms of pure sharpness quite close to the 16-35 f4 IS on a 6D. Also, it’s cheap. So yes, it’s totally possible on a budget.
The Canon 11-22 is not constant f/4 like the Sony, so a more compact design is possible.
who cares if it’s constant aperture or not? small sharp lens with variable aperture is better than lens which is always big and always blurry.
To be fair, the Sony catches up when stopped down but the CAs remain high. And having to stop down for reasonable performance defeats the purpose of a larger aperture
I didn’t say I or anyone else should care about it not being a constant aperture. I was merely pointing out why it is smaller.
That’s true but do many stills shooters care about 2/3 difference at 18mm (especially if it’s a difference between f4 and f5 anyways)?
Imo the only major advantage of the Sony is the 15mm equiv. But you pay a lot for it. Size, no 35mm equiv long end and (most importantly?) real cash.
I don’t know what 10-18 you are using, but my Sony is really sharp, except somewhat weaker corners at 10mm and F4,which is to be expected. I haven’t tried the 11-22, but it’s difficult to believe it is any better and from the (admittedly few) examples I’ve seen, it is not.
Also, I am all for smaller and lighter gear, but to say that the Canon is “much smaller”, when it weighs 5 grams less, has a diameter of 9mm less and is half a centimetre shorter… The only real advantage of the Canon (and not a small one) is its price.
It doesn’t really work like that. As a point of reference the A-mount 16-35 is the same size as the 24-70.
That teaser pic shows a lens that is certainly not significantly smaller than the FE 24-70.
And? I didn’t say it was smaller, I said that doesn’t mean it is compromised.
You heavily implied it would be shorter due to the shorter focal lengths.
Ah, no, no I didn’t (or at least not my intention). The picture clearly illustrates that it is about the same size – I thought that was pretty clear to anyone who has seen the picture?
It wasn’t implied.
And shorter zoom ranges almost always mean smaller size. Compare 24-50mm f4 and 35-70mm f4 to 24-70mm f4 SLR lenses. Or the 100-200mm f4.5 vs 70-210mm f4 (I know not the same aperture). Finally compare 1x zoom lenses 😉 Not to say that 16-35mm will always be smaller than a lager raging in a completely different range, just that it can be kept relatively small due to small zoom range.
A full frame UWA zoom is much harder to keep small compared to most of those focal lengths.
There are no small 16-35mm lenses on FF.
Well considering there are exactly zero FF mirrorless 16-35mm UWA lenses it’s hard to make direct comparisons.
Sony ZA 16-35 dimensions (DxL):
Approx. 3.27 x 4.49″ (8.31 x 11.40 cm)
Sony ZA 24-70 dimensions (DxL): Approx. 3.27 x 4.37″ (8.31 x 11.10 cm)
If it performs as well as the FE 24-70, it will be a great addition to the system.
It depends on the personal view and individual definiton of well…..i find the 24-70 very, very disappointing not that much better as the fe kit zoom of the sony a7….especially considering its high price tag….big bummer particularly its the standard zoom, the so called bread & butter lens (most used lens if zooms preferred) of fe users….
It didt cast a positive light on sony and zeiss enginering, dvelopment…..its a big surprise and exception as a bad sample…. maybe one of the few worse (worst) releases of zeiss/sony lens in the history….
I bought and sold it immediately after testing several samples (variation) but every was not satisfying and sufficiently performing (esp. corners wide open, CAs )…the 70-200 f4 is much much better the best native fe lens beside the 55 1.8 both excellent..the 35 2.8 is for me too slow shoudl have had at least 2.0….better 1.8….and is still good…but not excellent….
Hopefully the 16-35 f4 is as good as the 55 and 70-200….;) cross fingers…
Have you ever noticed any problems with OSS of 70-200 with a7r? I’ve heard that OSS and a7r is not a good connection..
Sorry never heard anything about it (only with old e mount lens, not the new native fe lens) or noticed it but i have fo say i am using “only” the A7 so….i cannot help…..
Dear admin, is there a new FE camera on the way?
Not until 2 new ones in Feb 2015.
f4 seems to be about as fast as they want to go on these expensive zooms. The e mount lens lineup flat out sucks, in large part because most of the lenses are terrible value (Sony loves to charge an outrageous premium for slapping the Zeiss name on them), but also because the lenses themselves are just not that appealing. Fuji has a far more interesting lineup. Even Samsung has a better lineup. Just a truly pathetic effort by Sony. Awesome cameras crippled by the worst lens lineup imaginable. And they’ve had years to improve upon it. Garbage.
Joe,
You are so right with your comment and Sony is feeling it right away in their sales. The Fuji and Samsung cameras are so much better selling.
Oh wait, they are not! look at Amazon, 6 Sony cameras in the top 10, with the Nex 6 on #1 and the A6000 on #2, #4 and #10. There are 2 Samsung cameras in the top 10 (at # 5&8) and one fuji at #7.
And you know what camera is @ #3? the mirrorless with by far the worst lens lens lineup: the Canon EOS-m.
Maybe you want zooms with f2.8, but not everybody wants them (look at the prices for good f2.8 zoom lenses from Olympus or Fuji.Not funny!
If you bought your camera based on sales (which is an odd criteria) why not buy Canon instead of Sony? As good as the Sony e mount cameras are, I think most e mount users would be better served by a high end compact with a fast lens- except for the ones who feel money is no object and have bought into the hype about their “Zeiss” lenses. And if you’re a serious photographer who still cares about value look at the Fuji or upcoming Samsung NX1, which should be very impressive. And the Olympus 12-40 weatherproof f2.8 (which has received stellar reviews) can often be had for $800 when on sale. Too bad Sony doesn’t have an e mount version of that lens- then again, they’d slap a Zeiss name on it, make it f4, and charge at least double the price. I think the Sony lens lineup absolutely sucks (especially when compared to Fuji and even Samsung, and definitely when compared to m43). It’s almost unbelievable to me how bad it is. But if people like it and don’t feel ripped off good for you.
You mean they make an $800 24-80mm f5.6 lens? it bloody well better get good reviews for the price. Pity that on the best sensor they’ve got it won’t resolve as well as a cheap kit zoom that costs $300 or less because it is tied to a piddly little sensor. I can buy a $200 170g 85mm f2.8 that is half the size of the 42.5mm and 1/8th the price and it will still produce more resolving power. The only idiots being ripped off are people who buy into the idea thatm43’s is ‘nearly as good’ and have ‘smaller’ lenses and because they are ‘fast’ they are worth the money. Sad.
True, but a lot of people dont know that. And companies like Olympus, Panasonic and Fuji are feasting on their ignorance.
True. A lot of people look at the f-ratio of the actual FL and go ‘wow’… but there are people that get it.
You never shot micro 4/3, have you? My wife does – and they are great little cameras. If you want crisp, even performance across the frame with reasonable prices – there’s no reason not to go that route. Her cheap, plastic kit lens destroys my Zeiss 24-70mm at the short end. Sometimes it’s hard to say which one of us was the idiot.
I have, I had a few m43’s (still have one) and some.of their ‘top’ glass (at the time at least). IQ doesn’t remotely compare.
wait, so you mean FE55, FE35, E24, E16-70 are garbage? The FE24-70, hmm, not quite
E24 is good but still a terrible value for what you get. And 16-70 is very good – but of no use to A7/r users. FE35 is nice – but in perspective it’s an f/2.8 lens with *Okay* bokeh for $800. The 24-70 is usable and solid with a ton of caveats and exceptions for $1,200. The 70-200 is wonderful without exception.
So, here’s a system with no hope for a top tier normal zoom. No fast wide. No macro and even the consumer-grade stuff is $800 or more.
It’s not a travesty, but I really don’t think anyone should be really EXCITED about the lineup that Sony has given us.
FE 55 is awesome, you gotta give Sony credit there.
I think you’re being a bit unfair; FE is still very much in its infancy. If Sony had released a top tier fast zoom then everyone would be complaining that it was impractical for the system.
If you convert Fuji’s offerings to full frame look they’re unexciting… 21/4, 35/2, 52/2, 85/1.8, 90/3.5, 15-36/6, 27-82/4-6 and 82-300/5-7. Better thought out than apsc e-mount, arguably, but FE will inevitably cover the gaps in the near future.
Why do people still insist on doing that??? A 1.4 is a 1.4 on any system who the hell multiples that??
…and every excellent or high value Sony / Minolta a-mount lens can work without loss of functionality on a7 bodies.
“Without loss of functionality” is a stretch. Look, I mount them too and enjoy it – but it instantly takes away the primary benefit of the mirrorless system. Even the Sigma 35mm is a little unblanaced and unweildy. Not to mention the significant mechanical pay in the LA-E4 adapter.
The Sony adapters give full AF and communication. On an a7s all AF modes except AF-d worked. As for the mirrorless benefit, I suppose you are referring to compactness and yes it eats into the compactness of the camera but when using the longer, faster a-mount the added size is fairly insignificant.
Ultimately, It’s a good option to have. Does it make sense to use it 100% of the time? No, then an a-mount body is the way to go but when the situation calls for a faster lens or longer focal length beyond 200mm or a high quality portrait lens (either 135mm) an adapter is cheaper than an a99.
Well the Sigma is a rather large and heavy lens. The Sony 35mm G is considerably smaller and lighter (but not as sharp). But there are plenty of good and small A-Mounts that don’t supposedly defeat the purpose of small size (however for me that isn’t the primary benefit).
I haven’t noticed ‘significant mechanical play’ with either of mine on either A7 or A7S, but must admit it feels more secure on the A7S.
Not to mention that POS lens hood on the FE35 that was barley even glued on.
Fuji are just about to launch a larger, heavier, more expensive equivalent to the FE70-200mm.
Fuji don’t have anything to compete with the about to be launched 16-35mm. They have a 24-70mm equivalent on their roadmap, but not out yet (even after a couple years) and no IS. Also will be bigger and heavier.
Samsung have two interesting lenses, the 16-50mm f2-2.8 and the 85mm f1.4, which is heavier than the A-Mount Zeiss and that’s full frame.
Fuji have an overpriced 85mm f1.8 equivalent. The rest is much the same.
Wake me up when either of them have a system worth talking about.
Ok, dude. Ready? WAKE THE FRAG UP!
Fuji has a complete system with a number of affordable entries. This includes a killer macro (90mm equiv), a truly stunning 56 f1.2, a far more versatile kit lens, a sub-$1000 ultrawide (10-24mm), and a solid trinity of 28, 35 and 50mm equiv. primes.
In the zoom range, there’s actually a nice selection of upper and consumer tier offerings. All solid.
You can’t possibly be so much of a rabid, blinded fanboy to say that the XF lineup isn’t really good – and likely more attractive than the outlook for E mount users.
If it suits your needs then great. Yes Fuji have an ok lineup and while more attractive than the crop E-Mount lenses (or at least some of them), I wouldn’t consider for a moment changing FE for overrated APS-C X-Trans and there is not a single lens that makes them more interesting.
Look, I don’t shoot X or Fuji. They just have a better ecosystem. Of course I wouldn’t trade the A7/r for that stuff. I use the lenses I love, in all their full frame glory and also tolerate the FE lenses when I’m lazy.
I’m the same and as such Fuji don’t interest me. I only need a couple of FE lenses to make the system worthwhile in that when I need a big system it is one, when I want it to be small it is that too. I shot Fuji for a while before FE’s came out, but the idea of plunking down $1k each on their more interesting lenses for a crippled sensor / format did not excite me at all. The 18-55mm was ‘ok’ for a kit lens, the 35mm was rubbish and near completely pointless. 18mm was pretty average and the 60mm was a bit slow for a crop lens (but is a macro which partly makes up for it). The more interesting lenses in their lineup since the first are all overpriced. While they look good on paper with fast apertures, they simply can’t compete with even cheap primes on FF.
Sony’s FE system has less lenses, but by the end of this year they will have close to a similar lineup. By the end of next year Sony will have more.
Of the 5 released thus far, only one is contentious as to whether it is good or not. Unfortunately most people judge a systems ability on pixel peeping, rather than the whole output. As an example, the Zeiss ZA 85mm f1.4 on the ‘basic’ 24MP FF sensor resolves more real resolution wide open than the Fuji 56mm does at f5.6-8. That’s not really a reflection on the Fuji lens (it resolves the sensor about the same as the Zeiss) but on the system as a whole.
I’m going to have to jump I. A defend fuji here. I’m a sony and zeiss fan. I own 2 sony FF cameras and 3 zeiss lenses. I also own two fuji cameras and 2 fuji non lenses.
I actually sold my zeiss 85mm 1.4 when I bought the fujinon 56mm 1.2
It’s a great lens
I’m sure it’s very nice, but i’ll stick with the Zeiss especially being that I don’t have to use, stock and maintain 2 different systems as I used to (DSLR and mirrorless) as I can have both in the one system.
I only employ my CSC in circumstances where it is better suited than my FF-SLT. They’re great for those specific uses, but they are no SLT replacement, but I do see why Nikon,and Canon users really enjoy them.
Speaking as an a-mount owner looking to upgrade to full frame, Fuji’s xf falls short in 1 key area…
You wake up dude, they are APS-C lenses. Even a FF zoom may have a better MTF50 chart than your 56 f1.2.
Fuji is destined to lose the mirrorless war since the moment they decided no to support FF sensors with their XF mount.
Fuji lost the mirrorless war (if there is such a thing) the day the went with Xtrans and APS-C sensors. Worse than Bayer. Smaller than FF. Game over.
You lost all potential credibility with “killer macro”.
XF 60mm probably has the highest amount of distortion among all contemporary macro lenses. Quite an achievement considering that most macro lenses have almost zero distortion these days. Or even in the past.
Let’s not get too crazy talking about distortion. Bring these FE lens images into editing with the distortion correction off and you’ll see why that’s one area where Sony won’t want to throw stones.
If you’re going to criticize a company, at least have your facts straight. You’re way off on what Fuji has available…
Hahaha is what I mentioned not true? I know exactly what lenses Fuji have thanks.
And it’s not really an 85, don’t even get that compression!
I assume you are talking about the 56mm Fuji and not the Samsung 85mm? Compression will be more or less the same, what you won’t get is the roll off to OOF areas that you get with a longer FL. People break out their DoF calculators and go ‘look it’s the same’ but the way they draw an image is completely different. DoF is of little importance when comparing systems, it is only useful for actually taking a photo with what you happen to be using.
There is an excellent comparison here to illustrate the point, DOF is the same, but the 85mm rolls off quite differently to the 56mm:
http://andrewvanbeek.com/fuji-vs-canon-lenses/
Yes they have the same distance in ‘acceptable sharpness’, but the actual results are quite different indeed (look down at the second lot of shots that better demonstrate rolloff).
Really? And Fuji’s answer to the 55/1.8 would be…
LOL
OK, what full frame lenses does Fuji have?
I hope its not as soft as the FE 24-70. I was so bummed, sold mine 30 days later and took a $400 loss. This is landscape focal lengths so it needs to be sharp.
Why would you do that? Buy it from one of the online vendors (links are usually provided by SAR) that comes with 30 day return for full refund privileges.
because he just has to bash a lens which only shows some weakness at 24mm in the extreme corners. I think the 24-70 is highly underrated. It’s maybe not the perfect landscapers lens, but that’s the only downside
I think the problem is people expect the same quality as the 24-70/2.8 / a bag full of primes. In a 425g package.
No, not at all. This zoom is not good for the A7r. I bought one and returned for full refund (thanks to Amaxon).
I will not be shocked if there is version II soon as many seem to be returning the lens. The coin will drop when people vote with their wallets.
they compromised aperture, which is supposed to help with making it sharper.
Say what? When has that EVER been the case?
No, but when comparing against the Canon 24-70/f4 the sony is worse and more expensive. I won’t say at 24mm it’s useless, but depending upon the distance to whatever’s in the corners or edges, they can get blasted and stretched to oblivion. The lens is not worth $1200, IMO. I’m hoping that the 16-35 is better…
Not every place has that luxury.
Because he’s lying, It’s a made up troll story.
24-70 for landscapes? That’s an odd choice.
When was it announced? May? June? When will it be available? Why does Sony create so many new cameras but so few lenses? Sony is crazy?
You’ve got to hand it to Sony for being so clever in whetting our appetite!
Who would have thought of such a brilliant teasing idea of hiding what this lens really looks like by keeping it in the dark?
Just a subtle hint to Sony: I’M DAMN SURE IT WILL LOOK EXACTLY LIKE EVERY OTHER W/A ZOOM LENS YOU SELL!!!
For heavens sake grow up, will you!
Haha. It’s okay – they have shown enough. The weathersealing is clearly missing from the back, and there’s no indication of a proper focus ring.
Lol, we A7 owners know too good to even trust the weathersealed claim…
…oh sorry, it was changed to ‘moisture resistant’ halfway around right?
It was always advertised as dust and moisture resistant, never weather-sealed.
rumors draw us to this page – knowing just enough to discuss about it with space for interpretation, fantasy and hope. there is no need to get angry about sony now 😀
This is obviously the fe 24-70. The image is a darkened version of an official sony picture easily found when googling. Same reflections in the lens, same shape of the lens element in front, same text etc.. They are still hiding the real lens..
The FA 16-35 and FA 24-70 are pretty much identical too (when the latter lens is not extended).
the different is jus FA 16-35 had internal zoom rotation, FA 24-40 doesn’t and little heavy
Now we are talking ! All eyes will of course be on the wide angle performance of this zoom. I am personally looking forward to the FE 16-35. I own all the Sony/Zeiss FE lenses which I am also happy with to include the FE 24-70 ( although I had to go through a few copies before I found a good FE 24-70). The FE 16-35 will fill the Full Frame ultra wide gap in my system which seems to be coming along very nicely in the last 10 months with the: FE 16-35, 35 , 55, 24-70 and 70-200, not too bad in just under a year.
How many times have they annonced this lens now? Just get it out!
Nobody gets it out until they’re done screaming “I’m coming I’m coming”.
Yawn.
Yawn +1
I hope this 16-35 is better corrected than the 24-70. Somehow, I doubt it.
I complete faith in Sony lens correction technology, cause i think this lens is gonna need it.
If its crap like the 24-70mm I’m done with the A7. Fuji’s mirror-less offerings look more appealing anyways.
Yes, the Sony/Zeiss F4 zooms are rather disappointing (for quality control issues, too). But with primes and legacy lenses the Sony sensor is amazing. With X-Trans, on the other hand, I have never seen a comparably sharp and detailed full size jpg or raw image. There is always a blur or a softness to it, especially in green. It is great for portraits and sharp eyelashes, but not so good for landscape. If only we could have their lenses, though…
I’d rather have an oiled up D600 with native lenses, and a real flash than, an A7 with a stupid adapter.
Well, I was sorry to let go of my Nikon. That sensor was fantastic and you can get very sharp and reasonably priced native lenses (especially at 1.8 aperture). However:
The cheapo shutter mechanism that scraped dirt on the sensor was a let down, especially for the first brand new Nikon I could afford to buy.
The replacement shutter seemed to have fixed it but introduced massive shutter shock. Shutter recoil, rather. It was very difficult to get sharp pictures below 1/125. On the A6000 I get away with 1/15 handheld (with some care and still subjects)
Manual focus legacy lenses were impossible to focus properly on the D600 (and the new Df which also is not friendly to legacy glass). But, hey, I can focus well enough those same Nikon lenses on my Sony!
The A7 cameras are about the size of my all time favorite nikon, the FM2n. And, with auto-ISO you can shoot in manual mode pretty fast.
Yes, the cameras are far from perfect and Nikon makes and has made great gear, but no, an oiled up D600 (made obsolete by an identical camera, the D610) is not worth it.
Do Sony hire marketing people? I propose to make announcement of the same stuff every month XDD
Who cares…. IM sure Soccer moms will love it. Where is the A99II?
I’d be willing to bet more paid photographers have used or owned a A7 series camera, than the A99. Seems like Sony does too.
Doubtful. The majority of professionals using Alpha products stick to the A850, and A900. The A99 wasn’t enough of an upgrade to peak anyone interest, and the A7 is a consumer quality camera with a big sensor, and nothing more.
We call them cry-baby converts.
I mean the A7 users that came over from Nikon, and Canon.
Ouch, that’s harsh. Now I’ll have to put my A7 on eBay and try to get back my D600… Buuuaaahaaaa 🙂
This is very true. The second hand price of an A900 is climbing daily, while the value for a second hand A99s, and A7s are dropping like a rock.
a900 second hand is not climbing. They’re just frequenting ebay less, but the going price is still around 1-1100.00 dollars- less on sites like KEH and Adorama when they have them. The a99 hasn’t dropped like a rock either. In fact, during this time of year most gear goes up as more people are unloaded prior to the end of the year and buying. A99 average prices are around 1750 which it’s been for about 6 months. Before Sony made a price drop on it used prices where around 1800-1900. Hardly dropping like a rock.
I have A850, and i would have never changed it to A99. It has the best sensor sony ever made.
I cannot judge your statement regarding pros, but I doubt that all “your” pros do not or did not need the advantages of the A99 over the A900.
Don’t get me wrong, I loved and still love my old A900.
But LV, the EVF, quicker AF and better noise handling where reason enough to change to an A99 as my main camera. And I have two guys earning their bread and butter with photography (guess you title such guys as pros) as friends, who went for the same reasons to the A99.
Didn’t have had an A7 in my hands until now, but for the A7R and the A7S your “consumer quality” statement is BS.
I hope the price is a teaser too.
Yesturday afternoon I have snap on A7r my new Zeiss 24-70 and simply this lens is awesome!
When Zeiss 16-35 shows up in B&H no question I will place order.
I have no idea what all these kibitz are mumbling about quality of Zeiss optics. Get life folks and take a pictures …
The 24-70 is not awesome, but merely decent. And definitely not awesome for the current price. It’s a $950 lens, at best. The distortion is what really does it in for me.
LOL … You’re Hilarious … Let me tell you I was and I am working in my life with finest equipment money can buy making images as large as 9 x 42 feet … These lenses from Zeiss are very, very good.
But. If you are like rest of those Zeiss critics I am sure, that nothing will be good enough for you … Regardless if it’s Leica, Zeiss or Rodenstock for that matter …
Whatever, fanboy. FWIW, I’m a fan of Zeiss, I have a few in m-mount and have used their canon mount primes. But the 24-70 isn’t worth $1200-1300. Its decent enough, but the distortion is brutal. So if you enjoy overpaying for a relatively mediocre lens, then by all means please do.
Sure, good for you never less no need for insults.
Welcome to Sonyalpharumors…Full of people that do nothing but complain…
I was simply responding to your condescending response to me.
then just take a photo and make some art, whatever FE lens can make a great photo anyway. if you have money buy it, if don’t just leave it and take another lens can afford you. it’s very simple
You should read some object review sites–it’s a dud for what it is. I owned 3 copies before I just gave up and realized it wasn’t the quality of the a-mount zeiss, or the 55 1.8. Check photo zone, slr gear, etc. The sharpness, speed, price and distortion are all poor. I am very satisfied with some lenses, the 24-70 was a real disappointment.
I do not read reviews nor I am interested in pixel-peeping science. I make my judgement on physical results and reaction from ad agencies and clients which do pay the bill.
Those are hard facts which support quality of product in this instance Zeiss optinc.
I got involved in this forum because I know where Sony is going with their business and it looks to me very funny to read all these premature judgements about Sony and in this case Zeiss as well.
The lens is not from Zeiss, but from Sony. And it doesn’t matter actually who designed and made it, if it’s garbage. The 24-70 f/4 should cost $100 more than the 28-70 f/3.5-5.6, that’s all it worth. If you paid for it more – you got ripped off. 15MPx resolving power on a 36MPx sensor and huge vignetting @ 24mm do not sound like impressive specs… You don’t need to pixel peep, simply open your eyes.
Cool, so the Fuji 16-50mm f2.8 (no IS) will resolve better? Yeah didn’t think so. Garbage is a very strong term, does it perform as well as people expected? No, not really. Is it worth it to you? Apparently not (not me either, I went the kit lens instead, just for the OSS and the Zeiss certainly wasn’t worth 4x the price).
Photography as any other type of art is very subjective, and I agree that garbage for one could be a treasure for another. Some people don’t care about the sharpness at all, but really, it’s not fair to charge $1200 for a lens that underperform. I bet Andreas Gursky could take Rhein III with it and sell the picture for $5M at least.
Well, let’s keep our fingers crossed the 16-35 will be a decent one!
I read some rather mediocre reviews of this zoom before buying and was pleasantly surprised by its performance. Yes there is some epic distortion but this is normal for a mirrorless lens in order to reduce size especially as it can be corrected in the EVF and in post. What I particularly like about the lens is the almost total absence of C/A. I agree it is priced for perfection but the budget conscious do have a kit lens option. I am really hoping the 16-35 is C/A free too.
I also couldn’t be happier with my 24-70. Compact size and beautiful rendering. When focused properly it seems to out resolve my A7 at all focal lengths.
I’m not interested in the 16-35 though because I don’t like ultra wides.
should’ve been f/2.8
At 2x the size and no IS? You can use the ZA 16-35/2.8 and an adapter anytime.
People get the wide they are looking for and all their are is complaints. Typical sar.
Can we mount the teaser on our A7 to take photo?
Of the complaints very few of them are that it isn’t available yet. Every single one of them is that it won’t be any good, is overpriced hype and is too slow… I remember the same comments about the 55mm at launch.
Please, Sony, give me a couple more FE primes, 135mm/f2.8 & 24mm/f2.8…
An 85mm f/2.8 also would be nice!
u meant 135/1.8, right? ;D
ok ok… lets meet at 2.0
In the officially japanese A7 brochure (roadmap page 13) there are 3! more FE lenses to come this year. Where is the rest?
http://www.sony.jp/products/catalog/ichigan-e7series.pdf
This could be a very much same case with 16-35mm lens :::
After using the Zeiss zoom for four months I came to form a different opinion than most reviewers. Let’s address each of the concerns stated above.
1) f4 is way too slow!
2nd opinion: The zoom lens will of course never give you the beautiful bokeh of the prime nor quite as quick exposure times, but when it comes to low light capabilities the optical steady shot can actually compensate for the slower aperture, making the zoom in brightness equivalent to a 24-70mm f1.8 lens!
2) The corners are blurry!
2nd opinion: The corners are not blurry because this lens simply is not sharp outside of the center but because it has field curvature. This means the focal plane is not entirely flat but slightly curved, resulting in out-of-focus corners when shooting something completely flat like a wall while focusing in the center. This can be a problem when you’re shooting paintings in a museum with poor lighting at 24mm. In most other situations you will probably not have problems. And yes, you will always get sharp corners with this lens as long as you remember to focus in the corners.
3) The distortion is heavy!
2nd opinion: Yes, I was shocked about this too when I opened the first RAW-files. The lens correction profile for Camera Raw was not yet available when the lens was released, which was a big mistake by Sony. But now you can auto-correct these distortions without much loss of image quality. If this is the prize they had to pay for a compacter lens, then they were right by doing so.
4) Too big, too heavy and to expensive!
2nd opinion: It’s true, the FE 35mm f2.8, the FE 55mm f1.8 and the FE 28-70mm f3.5-5.6 are all smaller, lighter and cheaper (although they Zeiss lenses are all quite expensive). But if you don’t like to buy three different lenses that you have to carry around and change all the time, the FE 24-70mm can basically cover for all of them, making this option actually the cheapest, smallest, fastest and option.
So why were the reviews so bad?
If you test a zoom against a prime in the lab, the prime will always be the winner, because the lab is a home game for the prime: There’s no time pressure and there’s no baggage to carry around for hours. What’s more, the zoom lens only gets compared at the same focal length as the prime in question, which means not taking into consideration the best advantage of a zoom: You don’t have to use this focal length.
To give a zoom lens a fair chance of winning you would have to activate the digital zoom with the prime and test them against each other at different “zooming” positions. But we already know what comes out when an optical zoom competes against a prime with digital zoom: all of a sudden people say the zoom is “excellent” while the prime is “disappointing”.
My conclusion?
In my 2nd opinion the FE 24-70mm is as fine a lens as the other Sony Zeiss FE lenses (but also as overpriced). It’s far from being some ideal dream lens, but then again, all lenses are. In reality lenses are always compromises, and in this case I believe the designers have made all (or at least mostly) the right compromises. The bad reputation seems to have a lot to do with the lab-bias. This happens when we rely more on lab tests then on actual photography. I’m glad the lens designers chose to make a lens that’s good in the field instead of designing a lens for the lab. For me and for what I do it’s the best lens I ever had.
i hope this one had intrenal zoom