Blunty posted that Sony A7 & Sony A7R Hands-on & Tested & Special Launch Event video. There are a couple of interesting info told by the Sony guys:
1) Minute 14:25: Sony makes no secret about it: Nikon D800/E sensor is from Sony 🙂
2) Minute 28:30: Micro lens design talk.
3) Minute 31:30: Nikon D800E vs A7r. Sony rep explains what’s better on the A7r.
4) Minute 43:00: Sony is not going after crazy fast apertures FE lenses. What matters is having to performance and lightweight design.
About point 4: I would like Sony to do both. Compact non überfast primes and larger super fast primes. I know it’s easier to say than to do. Their lens production capability is likely not large enough to make all lenses we want 🙁
—
Specs and Preorders in US and Canada:
Dedicated Sony announcement page at Amazon US (Click here).
Sony A7r body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony A7 body at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit lens at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS. TheCameraStore Canada.
Sony RX10 at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 24-70mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 35mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Zeiss 55mm at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
70-200mm A-mount at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Sony A-Mount to E-Mount Lens Adapter at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
Sony A to E adapter with mirror at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto.
A7/A7r leather case at Amazon, Adorama, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
A7/A7r vertical grip at Amazon, BHphoto, SonystoreUS.
Sony W Series Battery Charger at Amazon, BHphoto.
Sony FA-CS1M Off-Camera Shoe at BHphoto.
Semi-Hard LCD Screen Protector for A7-A7r at Amazon, BHphoto.
Specs and Preorders in Europe:
Sony A7r body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Sony A7 body at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony A7 with 28-70mm kit Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE, Amazon UK, Amazon DE, Amazon FR.
Sony RX10 at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT, WexUK, WexDE.
Zeiss 35mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT,
Zeiss 55mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, CH, AT, SE, FI, NO, PT
Zeiss 24-70mm at Sony DE, UK, FR, IT, ES, NL, BE, SE, PT
Asia:
A7r at Digitalrev.
A7 at Digitalrev, Amazon Cina.
A7 with 28-70mm lens at Digitalrev.
236 Responses
What I don’t understand is why SAMSUNG is the only company with the guts to make a 85mm F1.4 lens for their mirrorless system. And the lens is fantastic. Of course it’s big and heavy. But the results are just incredible. Once you have had that you don’t want to miss it. Reason for me to have a SAMSUNG NX300 as my third mirrorless system in addition to MFT and NEX, and soon FF E-mount …
So you’re asking for a 130mm FF equivalent I take it? Seems like a fairly unpopular focal length for a prime in all honesty. IMHO they’d be better off producing 35, 50 and 85mm 1.8 primes for the E-mount as a starter and then maybe including the 24mm and 200mm down the track if the demand exists.
I’m starting to think Tobias Giesen was being sarcastic. 130mm equiv. would probably be the least versatile lens ever made
135mm in full-frame is not at all unpopular. Zeiss even makes one, the fastest one, for the a-mount…
I would like mid range lenses and a 85mm
And I want a 35mm, 2.0 or faster. But that’s the last lens that is gonna come out, because Sony think they’ve done what they need to do with that focal length.
This is like telling A7/R users to use the FF camera as a crop one. Slow lenses will give the same DOF as crop, no? Say a F2.8 on APS-C vs FF using F4 or F5.6 lenses
It is not that difficult to make a 2.8 zoom or 1.4 prime, it’s more of business strategy to separate “boys from man”, ie. their A mount vs E mount.
An f/1.4 full frame lens could be heavier than the camera, and somewhat defeats the purpose of having a light compact body.
I have two words for you Tim: Leica Summilux – the 35mm weighs in at 326g the 50mm at 335g – both are f 1.4.
Autofocus and OSS
1.The new FE Zeiss don’t have OSS, they’re still very large (specs considered) so you know the problem is Zeiss isn’t even trying to make small. They’re positioning the FE like their SLR lenses instead of their rangefinder lenses.
2.Motors aren’t that large if you actually try to make them small. Fuji does a much better job at size control. If you think their AF is slow because they keep the lens small then that’s obviously not the case, X-E2 boasts much faster AF, so it’s more of a body thing.
The new FE Zeiss is only marginally bigger than the 35mm ZM and much lighter.
Actually – the difference is glass. Leica use more expensive glass with higher refractive indices. That facilitates the size. Sony uses cheaper glass and more is needed to do the same job.
A large fast lens does not defeat the purpose. The purpose of the A7 is not to be pocket sized constantly (see the battery grip), the purpose of a small camera is so that it CAN be small. No one expects an 85mm 1.4 to be small, but when you want the camera to be small you put on the 35, and when you want an 85 1.4, you carry a heavier lens.
Or, you use a small 85 2.8 🙂
EXACTLY!
I puzzles me when I read comments about “defeating the purpose” like after you use a BIG lens, you cant ever remove it and switch to a small one. Is about OPTIONS people!
Well, it will be defeating the purpose if Sony was not releasing those smaller slower lenses, wouldn’t it? The reason you are puzzled is that most commenters don’t really have a problem with faster glass, but with people claiming how slow glass is not pro, hot it is not good quality and how faster glass is absolutely necessary, and are forgetting that Sony might very well release faster lenses, that fast lenses that can be put on this camera already exist in a-mount and what is actually missing are precisely the small ones 🙂 If you want a faster lens, get the Zeiss 85mm and put it on the A7. Done.
It’s actually about Sony making what they feel customers will purchase and they probably feel that there is too smaller market for huge fast 1.4 primes at this point. They’ve made a pretty clear statement that they’re aiming for lightness and portability by bringing out an 70-200 f4 rather than a f2.8, so this should set the tone for any future primes.
I disagree. I find the size of my NexC3 unfathomable when mounted to my 600f4. Just absurd. HOW COULD THEY NOT MAKE A SMALLER CAMERA?!
Lol – let’s really shoot for small. How about an E-mount variant of the QX cameras – just attach to any lens you want. Maybe even 3 variants, with different sensor sizes (or FF sensor scaleable to whatever format you want to shoot). Who needs an actual camera as long as you have the biggest, baddest, fastest lens available 🙂
Amen. +1000
If you don’t mind a larger lens, then you won’t mind adding an LA-EA3 or 4, which then allows you to use plenty of fast A-mount lenses. You have choices.
I agree that this is a problem. It is physically impossible to make a lens for a full frame sensor which is not bigger than for a smaller sensor. If you do, you will have problems in the corners.
So, it seems that Sony has decided to make slower, but smaller and lighter lenses so that you do not lose the benefit of the smaller and lighter camera body. But, this means that if you need a fast lens, you have to compensate with higher ISO. This adds noise and somewhat defeats the purpose of a full frame device. It would seem there is an optimal compromise between, size and weight, sensor size, and image quality. But, I am not sure where it is.
In the past Olympus was one of the first to build a compact full frame film camera with more compact lenses. How would those lenses work on an A7? Are there other compact lenses that would work well. I am not worrying about 35mm or 50mm as those are not too big. But, going wider, or longer, and especially for zooms, this is a big question.
I wonder if a better compromise would not come from an updated Nex7, ie APS-C, with faster focusing and an updated sensor?
But consider this: Voigtländer Nokton 35mm 1.4 is 200 gr and not even three CM long. Mirrorless lenses (without electronics), can be small.
Even with electronics, they CAN BE SMALL.
Sony isn’t even trying.
+1000 for S.YU 🙂
Couldn’t agree more, especially now the AF motor is not the old screw driver type of mechanism & electronics can be really tiny using SMD
It doesn’t have to be like that… if you have a 24 1.4 on APS-C, all you need is a 36mm f/2.1 on FF to match that. The FF lens might have to sit further away because of the focal length, but it’ll have less glass making it lighter and will most definitely produce better image quality because it’ll have fewer aberrations (if made with equal quality glass).
It’s OK for a lens to be bigger and heavier than the camera body.
I have the Nikkon 80-200mm f2.8. It’s a great lens, and weighs 1,275g.
Although I use it on my D700, I’ve seen people use it on their D600. It doesn’t look out of place there. The D600 weighs 850g, making the lens about 1.5x heavier than the body (not to mention some of the lenses sports photographers use!)
It’s nice to have options (using the camera in a small light configuration, or being able to add a grip, flash, and long lens). Why set limits on how people can use their camera?
There are quite a few other considerations, outside DOF.
Eg, like omitting OSS on the 35 & 50mm? Ya, I don’t get that one either.
So you have slower lens & no OSS. Logic??
Good point on the Leica 35 & 50mm Summilux. How much is considered heavy to you? To me even if the 35 & 50mm F1.4 with AF & OSS to weigh around 600g, that is still consider light. YMMV obviously
I’m not sure that I’ve ever seen OSS on anything below 100mm in a professional prime before. Why? Because OSS is known to degrade image quality. Just stick to the 1/exposure rule, use a tripod, or a start taking that Parkinsons medication your doctor keeps trying to put you on, Captain Shaky 🙂
ISO performance is so good on most FF cameras today, I have no issue bumping the ISO instead in place of having OSS.
Maybe a different story for videographers though…
Joel, you haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it’s not needed or doesn’t exist. The Canon 17-55mm EFs has IS & it is below 100mm
Just FYI
Tamron has a 24-70 VC
Nikon has an 85mm VR
And I forgot, Canon has the new 35mm 2.0 IS
but you’ll start to see more wide and standard primes with IS cause its a very important feature for vídeo, that’s why Canon’s 24mm, 28mm and 35mm now have IS
It’s a load of rubbish to say that optical image stabilisation reduces image quality. People say that as if making an optically stabilised lens is like adding some extra moving glass to an existing lens. It’s not like that… the entire lens is redesigned and that always means it performs differently. Every now and then there have been cases in history where a lens updated with stabilisation has been slightly worse in IQ than its previous model without stabilisation (e.g. Canon 70-200 2.8 vs. 70-200 2.8 IS Mk I) but we’ve seen the updated stabilised versions performing better too (e.g. Canon 70-200 4 vs. 70-200 4 IS, Canon 70-200 2.8 vs. 70-200 2.8 IS II) 😉
So, pointing fingers at optical stabilisation for every difference is very uninformed and traditional/highschool-dropout photographer-like 🙂
Kajargoogo, have confidence man. You can do it without OSS! Two points that you were confused.
First, you keep bringing RF lenses. Do you know that they don’t have AF? They may be light and small! but had they had AF they would prolly heavier and bigger.
Second, again about your lack of confidence with non OSS lenses, Joel was talking bout PRIME lenses. You mentioned canon zoom. I bet sony zoom lenses FE mount will have OSS.
Ihur, you are mistaken, point 1: I didn’t bring in RF lenses. Point 2: The topics here is about Sony not making fast aperture FE lenses, that means both zoom & prime included.
As Peter above mentioned, both Nikon & Canon have primes with IS, & we will see more of this coming in the future
+ million. Thank you. So obvious now that you wrote it.
Stop production on sony adapters & make not “crazy Fast” but fast primes with oss namely 85 with oss.
Haha. I saw myself in that standing around waiting patiently to get a turn.
How can Sony say they are targeting the ‘PRO’ market if they don’t offer a set of fast aperture lenses?
They will have fast aperture lenses, just not “crazy fast”. I.e. 85mm F1.8 and not F1.4.
Currently the cheapest lens is 800USD. Pro Image quality isn’t just speed, but I would love 24, 35, 50, 85 f1.4
I wouldn’t call 1.4 “crazy fast”, it’s very common among primes. I understand not having a 35/1.4, but for 50s, I think a 1.4 lens is not a lot to ask for.
Yeah, 1.4 isn’t ‘crazy fast’ – it now seems to be the norm for pro 35, 50, and 85 primes.
Why are you equating pro with fast lenses?
Same logic as the guy who said that those who don’t use a flash are not PROs. Because your needs are not his, you are obviously not a PRO. Don’t you get it!?!
Because the majority of professional photographers are in the wedding industry and fast glass is pretty sought after.
You care to explain where you got that data?
Can you find me data that contradicts that? There are 2.3 million weddings each year, which is about 6,200 a day. Say each photographer in the country shoots 18 weddings, that means there are somewhere around 128,000 wedding photographers, which undoubtedly there is most likely a great deal more. If you can find me something that shows that there is any industry comes close or surpasses that amount of photographers, I’ll retract my statement.
Regardless if I’m wrong or if I’m correct, 128,000 people is a large market to ignore. I would be very surprised if you found a wedding photographer who wanted only light lenses that didn’t have faster apertures than f/2.8. Professionals want fast glass. Yes, professional wedding photographers, but professional nonetheless (and a HUGE amount of them).
First, that is at best anecdotal evidence. Example, you are assuming that every wedding is photographed by a professional. If you are claiming something, it is up to you to back it up, not up to me to discredit it. But, because such data simply is not available, as far as I am aware, let’s not play that game and agree that we are using assumptions. My assumption is that landscape, nature, travel and product photographers, as an example, in general do not need fast lenses and are more numerous than wedding ones. And my point still stands, equating pro with fast glass implies that every pro needs fast glass, which simply is not true.
Second, Sony is only ignoring those who need faster lenses in this particular system and quite probably only temporary, as I imagine they just want to deliver the compact lenses first. Not to mention that you can put existing faster lenses on it anyway, some of them made by Sony.
@Swade
128,000 do not represent “128,000” sales of the same lenses and cameras. Not all wedding photographers buy the same gear or use exactly the same lenses, right?
On the other hand, I would like to ask why do manufacturers bother making F1.4 lenses &/or faster (F1.2, 1.1, 1.0, 0.95)? If doing slow lens is the correct or better way to go about photography?
The advantage to shoot in very low light & creating shallow DOF shots are the 2 main purpose. With F1.4 or bigger, you can stop down to restrict more light if needed, but with slow lenses, there’s no option to open up bigger for more light.
The flexibility is there when you need it with the fast lenses.
@Kajargoogoo
Not so common anymore, but there used to be a time when manufacturers would try to design very special lenses just to show they could, regardless of the price.
@Kajargoogoo You are making a strawman argument. Where did I say that manufacturers shouldn’t be making faster lenses? I argue several things, one, pro doesn’t equal fast lenses, two, slow lenses are necessary, would appeal to many and make perfect sense to be released first for a system, which has as one of its primary advantages its size, three, fast lenses are specialized (comparatively speaking).
Imho, manufacturers bother with fast lenses for two reasons, one, as I said above, some specific types of photography and two, because it probably does sel well to gullible users who believe that they need a lot of blur to make a photo. The latter is probably why the Canon 50 1.2 exists 🙂
In short, small slow lenses are the correct way for this particular system and its current stage of development.
Oh com’on Hendrick, F1.4 is still very common in today photography industry. I’m not asking for F1.2 or bigger
@Kajargoogoo You will need to wait for my reply until Admin comes home 🙂
@Swade
Sony wants to offer something but hasn’t got enough balls to do it hard. Minolta had some interesting glass choice (A-mount) but Minolta doesn’t design lenses anymore and A7 is married with Zeiss (E-mount). I would consider Sony A7 for studio work or some other work which allows using manual focus with “third-party” fast lenses. There are many wedding photographers, Sony is pissing on them and this logic choice – it woud be very hard to beat Nikon/ Canon f/1.4 glass choice (24, 35, 50, 85). A7 wants to emulate Leica as much as possible with “being unique” but not in being unique in glass departement. Interesting.
The analysis of the Reuter’s exif data shows that those photographers shoot at f1.4 8.6% of the time (the 3rd most commonly used aperture).
I assume that percentage would be even higher, if you were speaking about shooting with prime lenses only (ie. if you separate the data on primes, from the data on zooms).
Of course, that’s PJ/event type photography.
@Hendrick – I never said it was sales. I said that there are roughly 128,000 wedding photographers, and they prefer fast glass for low-light situations. No, it may not be sales because not everyone can afford them, but these kind of f/1.4, f/1.2 glass is on most peoples wish lists.
And if they are going to make slow glass, OSS would have been nice. Canon has the 35mm f/2 with IS. I would rather not have to crank my ISO or drag my shutter speed.
And yes, I could put A-Mount glass on it for fast glass, but then I have to pay, and use, a $350 one inch thick converter. What’s wrong with wanting FE-Mount fast glass?
You may be having the same thoughts as me in regards to this as I am with wide angle legacy glass. I don’t care if anything below 35mm doesn’t work. I’m astonished there are that many people who care to shoot wider than 35mm with a camera such as this, but to each his own.
And most wedding photographers shoot with F2.8 zooms
There are more portrait photographers than wedding.
And the Nex has no E mount 2.8 zooms
A-mount zooms have no OSS
The reason they shoot with 2.8 zooms is because there’s nothing faster. Sigma just gave them a stop and a half with their 1.8. Watch how fast they jump on that. Wedding shooters will take the fastest glass they can. They shoot zoom for speed and coverage.
The best wedding outfits have multiple shooters with different setups. A guy with the old 2.8 zoom. Someone on 35, someone on 85 etc. There only ignore the fast primes if they have to because ultimately zooms will get more shots for single shooters.
Just use an SLT adapter & you have instantly converted your Mirrorless camera into a SLT. You will have access to all the A Mount lenses: Pro, Fast, Slow, Cheap, 3rd Party… All of them. What part of this is so hard to understand? I just don’t get it.
Image Stabilization is the only gripe & its a shame no IBIS exists in E Mount. But that’s about it.
+1
Because pros don’t need crazy shallow DOF to take good photos.
Saying that, there are some so-called pros that take really bad photos, so it doesn’t matter what lens they are using.
Sometimes they do, for example to isolate a person from the background. It’s not even crazy shallow but for full body shots with isolated, you really need something like 85mm F1.4 or 200mm F2.8. Which is what Sony is not going to give us natively.
This sounds more like obliterating the background, not isolating the subject.
Ok watch Sony FAIL. Sony will not gain traction if they share you’re attitude.
I think I’ll wait to spend my 10-15k on a Fuji FF. THEY GET IT.
That was more of a joke, but I’ll take the challenge and I will watch 🙂
Meanwhile, do spend your money on Fuji who knows how to redevelop a sensor for no reason and release beta versions.
I think you misunderstand the importance of confidence. If a photographer does not have confidence that a vendor will deliver what they want, they won’t invest. Sony is going to miss out and frankly fail fail fail. Sony got my attention with the RX1, but it seems it was a blip. Now I know Sony has no intention of serving the masses of discerning photographers with plenty of dough to spend that don’t want second rate. Seriously I doubt many will actually invest in FF + slow ass glass. Might was well get a Fuji and some faster lenses and save a few bucks. I’ll be removing SAR from my bookmarks. Bye bye Sony. See you in administration along with Kodak after you find a way to clutch success from the jaws of victory. Seriously whoever is in charge at Sony need a slap across the face and a good shake.
You talk about confidence and you are investing in Fuji? Yes, maybe I don’t get it 🙂
And how did you come to the conclusion that Sony has no intention of releasing fast lenses? Because the first lenses released are slow? That’s it? And who are these “discerning” photographers who think that slower lenses are “second rate”? That is preposterous!
“Sony: We are not going after crazy fast aperture FE lenses. What matters is quality and lightweight design.”
Doesn’t sound to me like Sony has it’s priorities right. Fast expensive (and bigger) high-end lenses first. Let everyone with deep pockets rave about them. Pro DSLR owners will begin to switch camps, these are the customers that Sony SHOULD be targeting. Why? Because they are willing to spend big bucks AND THEY ARE HIGH VOLUME = High Volume + High Margin = High Profit. Turn the system into something highly desirable that people lust after, then release the ‘mainstream’ slower glass. Sony has a head start and it’s about to let it go to waste.
@Rhys Yep, you are making a good point. I still think that it makes more sense to go with the slow ones first in this particular case, though. Time will tell, I guess.
Someone wanting fast glass doesn’t mean they want shallow DOF. Maybe people want f/1.4 for the three extra stops of light so when they are shooting at a distance they don’t have to crank their ISO or drag their shutter.
I personally have it preordered and will us it for weddings, and I would like fast glass on it.
If your’re talking about low light performance, optical stabilization is much of a factor. A f1.8 with oss is going to allow much lower shutter speeds than a lens without at 1.4. Don’t get me wrong, a 1.4 is nice, but its more of a nice to have. You cant make the statement if they makema 1.8 version of a lens it’s miles away from a 1.4 in DOF or low light abilities.
But the two primes Sony is coming out with don’t have it… so it’s irrelevant.
To be fair OSS only cover camera movement not subject movement. Depending on the situation that may be more important–or at least as important. I think the biggest reason for not going faster are diminishing returns. To go much faster mean much heavier, bigger, and more expensive lenses. Meanwhile studies have shown that digital sensors become less effective at light gathering below f/2.8. So a stop in the aperture is not going to give you a full stop in ISO or shutter speed and maintain the same exposure.
All lens design is about compromise. I agree ultra-fast lenses have a certain appeal and native options would be nice (there are plenty adaptable options) but I think Sony is wisely balancing a lot of different factors on this one. The difference between f/1.8 and f/1.4 is not great as far a light gathering or bokeh is concerned. I suspect the hold-up over the fabled 85mm FE lens is about size and weight. The f/2.0 rangefinder lenses in that focal length are monsters compared to their slower brethren.
So much talk about weddings here on SAR?? OK people marry 2,3 4 times nowadays 🙂
maybe ’cause they not liking their wedding photo’s lol On first look they’re like “Gross that’s us?”
Be honest- How many actually watched this in its entirety?
I did…
Yup, I did…If I’m about to drop £2k+ on a camera system then I think I can spare 45 minutes to make sure I’m making an informed purchse!
Same here. Plus the overall cost is even higher if I transition from my existing Nikon system (I’ll use both in parallel initially).
The new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 is one of the sharpest lenses I’ve ever used. And it’s not too big.
If “lowly” Sigma can do it, then why can’t Sony?
This Sigma 35/1.4 is an excellent lens, so why not just buy it? Sony makes excellent cameras and lenses and is relentlessly building their stronghold in the market. N & C had over 50 years to do that and be assured that Sony will eventually get their share. Until then, get what they already offer and complete your system with the very good offerings from third parties!
+ 1. What’s the point of Sony making a lens, which already exists for their mount and is excellent.
Hah! Well said.
Couldn’t agree more – it’s about as close to perfection on my a77 as I can get (so much so that I’m barely using my 16-50)
The point is Sony needs to make the money. Why let others get a share of what you are already very capable of doing?
And I as a user would want it to be 100% compatible with the body, regardless of any firmware changes on the body or future more advance bodies.
Why would you even want to ask such a qn puzzled me
And how are they going to make money precisely? They need to make it as good and cheaper, crappier and significantly cheaper, better and at the same price or much better and more expensive. Which would you choose? Just take a look at what Canikon are offering as a 35 1.4. Do you think they are selling well to those who are aware of the qualities of the Sigma and its price?
The Canikon 35 F1.4 are indeed selling very well, so are the Sigmas.
Different markets here. There are many people who are cost conscious & there are many who wants better build quality, service support & higher resale value. YMMV & not everyone has your type of needs
I seriously doubt that the Canikon 35 F1.4 are selling very well and I don’t see how they are in a different market compared to the Sigma. It is perfectly well built, I don’t see why service should be worse and resale value is a mitigated issue when you are buying a product that is significantly cheaper. Let’s be honest here, the Sigma is simply the better lens for cheaper.
Vlad, like I said, not everyone sees like how you see. You may find the Sigma as the holy grail but not everyone.
As to the service quality, you need to direct this qn to Sigma. If you understand why there exist a pro service & common service among Canikon, you wouldn’t be saying what you said
Starwman argument. Of course not everybody sees things the same as me. But the point still stands, that the Sigma is too good of an option and you simply can’t defend the Canikon options reliably, even from your perspective. The positives are simply too few.
FYI Vlad, I’m one of those who doesn’t like the Sigma. I find Sigma lenses have a yellowish cast, all of them. Tamron lenses have muted colours. Tokina is by far the better 3rd party maker, but they do mainly for Nikon.
Many Canon users like the 35L, and from a personal experience, all L lenses have better tonal rendition.
Many Nikon users like the 35mm (from AIS onwards). Nikkors have great punchy colours & contrast as well, even if the lens is not up there with sharpness. Eg, the 12-24 DX lens
Again your needs is different
Yes, I gathered you are not a fan 🙂 I personally like Zeiss lenses. My point is the following, this Sigma certainly affects Canikon sales to an extent, simply based on its price/performance ratio. How big of an extent is anyone’s guess, but I doubt it’s a small one. So, Sony, who already has a smaller user base to begin with, has to develop a lens for one of its systems (e-mount), which makes the user base even smaller and on top of that has to contend with the Sigma. That doesn’t strike me as a huge opportunity to make money, that’s all.
Vlad, I can’t agree with your argument here. So you are saying if 3rd party has a lens covering a FL, the co. shouldn’t be making one? Look around the other camps, Tamron, Sigma & Tokina duplicates the same or close FL of the original. And the original makers are still making the same FL with upgraded ver2 or 3. So I don’t see why Sony shouldn’t make a 35 F1.4 FE lens just becos’ Sigma has already made one of similar FL.
Another point I can’t agree. Sony already has a smaller user base, they do need fast lenses & with OSS for the FE to expand this user base. Contrary to your argument here, having fast FE lenses will only expand & not contract Sony users.
@Kajargoogoo Oh, my initial statement is too strong, I agree. They should probably make one, but it would be tough, given the Sigma and some other lenses. Yes, many 3rd parties are making the same FL, but generally with the idea to offer a cheaper option, with some trade-offs. Sometimes, like Zeiss, to offer a high-end one. But, now that we have a lens that is not only cheaper, but also has an impressive performance, this changes things. The reason I mentioned the Canikon offerings was simply to show the price difference for a brand lens. It is 40% in Canon’s case and even more for Nikon. Not negligible.
As to the user base, maybe I did not clarify my point. I meant this as regarding the price. They sell to less people, hence the price of the lens will go even higher than Canikon’s offerings. This, in turn, would make it even more difficult to compete with something with the Sigma, as an example. In the long run though, they probably will release something.
Otherwise, I am all for having fast lenses, I just don’t see what’s the big issue with Sony releasing first slow ones. There are plenty of big cameras and big lenses and people can use the SIgma or the Sony 35mm via the adapter, for the moment, if they care so much about fast lenses. Meanwhile, there is not much for users like me, who would prefer a smaller package. That is basically what I am arguing most of the time 🙂
@Kajargoogoo Mate, you’ll need to wait for my comment again. I clarified some things 🙂
… if AF speed is guaranteed. But is it guaranteed? Third party lenses are designed “backwards” (so called “reverse engineering”) so You never know. Do adaptors (from A-mount into E-mount) work flawlessly? Fuji can design lenses themselves, Sony can not (it has to be designed either by Minolta or Zeiss).
The Sony is half the size and half the weight…
If sony announced an E-mount prime that big people would flip. The sigma is over 60% longer and a lot heavier. Compared to a bulky traditional DSLR it may not look huge but it is a monster. Great lens just large.
As you hinted – Sigma are far from lowly. They make all their glass in Japan. More than can be said for Sony.
WHY dos PRO always mean hi speed lenses???
I like the A7R.
I’ll buy a A7R.
I only photograph nature and landscape.
I don’t need fast lenses.
I would prefer lightweight lenses with top optical quality like the new 2,8/35 ZEISS.
I would love when the expected ZEISS wide angle zoom would be a 4/16-24, or someting like this.
So, not everybody needs fast lenses on the A7R 😉
True. You only need fast apertures for some types of photography. Doesn’t have anything to do with Pro or not Pro.
Not sure ‘need’ is the operative word here. Traditionally all manufacturers offered fast lenses to cope with the limits of available film speeds.
Historically, fast lenses were essential to simply get images on film in certain circumstances. The artistic effects (shallow DOF) of large aperture lenses were utilised to good effect by others. These demands are still required in the digital realm – perhaps not by yourself, but by others.
Simply put, the hallmark of a pro camera and lens range is often gauged by ‘exotic’ lenses … Fast lenses certainly aren’t essential – but are desired by many pros.
Sony may be being either very brave – or foolhardy – to ignore the concept. Time will tell.
The DOF at f/2.8 for a 3′ x2′ FOV is about 4″ when shooting FX, and about 16″ for a 6′ x 4′ FOV. Not sure how much more subject isolation you’d need. F/2 and f/1.4 are more helpful to avoid bumping ISO than they are for subject isolation, and that is not as important anymore with modern sensors. So I think Sony is on the right track here. Quality and light weight for dedicated FE lenses trump f/2 and f/1.4, at least for me. I can always attach my Sigma 35 f/1.4 if I need to.
Of course not everybody needs fast lenses. This is simply the idea that the average user has – big and expensive means pro. And this is compounded by things such as background blur, where some users can’t be bothered to realize that there are aspects like composition and light, and think that by simply applying that effect, there photos will look pro.
Sure, some pro photographers do need faster lenses, but plenty don’t.
*their, not there
Vlad….I’ve been following this post and read comment after comment of yours on how fast glass is not needed, or it doesn’t mean pro, or how people are just hung up on shallow DOF. OK…we get it…you don’t see the need for fast glass….you don’t speak for the rest of us!
Personally I think Sony is making a mistake if they are sticking to slow lenses but hey, I guess I just won’t buy the camera…or if I do I’ll use 3rd party lenses. If you don’t get the benefit of fast glass then so be it, but don’t sit there trying to smugly tell the rest of us that we don’t know what we are doing or that it ‘isn’t needed’.
Clint, judging by your comment, you haven’t followed anything.
LOL…Vlad you’re priceless…for someone who has used the term, ‘straw man argument’ countless times in the same thread….your response to mine is comical.
Clint, you call my response comical, but here is the problem with what you are saying. First, I never said that fast glass is not needed, I said that it is not needed for everyone or for every situation. Second, I never said that fast glass doesn’t mean pro, I said pro doesn’t necessarily mean fast glass, as there are plenty of pros who simply don’t need it, fact. Third, I also do believe that a part of those buying fast glass are indeed “hung up on shallow DOF”, but I certainly don’t think that’s everyone. Fourth, I hardly am trying to speak for the “the rest of you”, I am writing an opinion and using some assumptions, same like everyone here. And fifth, my whole argument is that, in my opinion, “small slow lenses are the correct way for this particular system and its current stage of development”.
So, it really does look like you haven’t read my comments at all.
Need for speed is important for some. Sony’s take it charge a lot for “slow lenses” it won’t work. Nothing small about the lenses so far so scrub that comment!
Please understand that fast lenses for FF are going to be big. It’s an optical physics truth! Too large lenses on a small body like the A7/7R are just not logical, I applaud Sony’s approach in developing a 70-200 f4 ( instead of the venerable A-mount 70-200 f2.8 ). For large lenses I prefer an A99!
I can hardly wait for mirrorless A-mount with Z-shift OSPDAF and IBIS.
The Holy Grail
Hope you’re joking… asking for a mirrorless A mount is like asking for an electric car with a fuel tank. It’s ridiculous use lenses made to accommodate the mirror, when better lenses can be designed when the mirror is removed.
Your problem can be simply solved by Sony making heavier and larger E mount bodies with IBIS and on-sensor PDAF. When you need to use A mount lenses an adapter can be used. There’s no sense to keep the A mount bodies going if they do that.
When you see something like the Voigtlander 35mm f1.4, you realise that they don’t always have to be big – but adding autofocus motors and stabilisation isn’t helping with the size for the Sony lenses.
So if small fast lenses are what you want, they probably need to be manual focus anyway and there are already hundreds of such options available. I’m thoroughly looking forward to using a few 🙂
I saw review after review criticising Sony for how big the lenses were on the NEX, and then criticising the pancakes they did offer for being poor quality.
So hardly surprising that Sony haven’t made even bigger lenses for the a7/a7R, but concentrated on the middle ground.
And Sony’s marketing always lists the a-mount lenses as being part of the e-mount system anyway instead of just being an add-on – so they’d argue all the fast lenses are there already.
That’s exactly what I would do. Use small, fast rangefinder lenses like the Voigtländer 35mm f1.4, 50mm f1.5 and 75mm f2.5 Color Heliar or the 75mm f 1.8.
Voigtlander 35 1.4, 50 1.5 and 75 1.8 for me too 🙂
and Rokkor 28mm f2, 50mm 1.2, 58mm 1.2 and 85mm f1.7 as options when size/weight doesn’t really matter.
I may get the native 35mm or 55mm, but my own tests said I already preferred the Voigtlander 50mm over the APS-C native 50mm f1.8
An autofocus stabilised 85/100/135mm would be tempting though
Think you are missing something. The pancake lens can be made optically better even at F2.8, its the quality of the elements & coating. If the current 16mm E lens gets an upgrade optically, even for double the price, its consider cheap in my books. YMMV
Also arguable are the fast lenses from the A mount camp. You need an additional bulk of the adaptor to make it work. So more bulk & more weight. The fast lenses need to be native E mount to take advantage of the overall system
That’s true… to a certain degree. If you look at the Voigtlander 35/1.4 and the Leica 35/1.4, they are TINY. Even the Voigtlander 35/1.2 is decently sized compared to the FE 55/1.8. Of course adding autofocusing doesn’t help, but the size still doesn’t have to be huge. They’ll figure out how to cram that motor in there, just give it time I guess.
Why not compare to the Voigtlander 50mm F1.5?
Sure, probably makes more sense too. I am pretty happy with the speed on the 55 though. Couldn’t say the same for the 35 unfortunately.
I wrote that somewhere above, I think there is a place for both a 35 2.8 and a 35 1.4. But with Sony creating a camera, which obviously wants to differentiate itself on size, it only makes sense to release the former first, not to mention that a bigger 35 1.4 from A-mount can be used. People should have more patience 🙂
50mm f1.4/f1.7 not that big to me 😉
I don’t think the gain of one and a half stop on a lens for a system that is supposed to be portable is a big gain. Especially if the lenses are going to be weather sealed and have OSS.
I, personally, wouldn’t want to carry a much bigger/heavier lens that might even not be sharp across the entire frame. I have to say that even the FE 55 1.8 is already on the biggish territory.
But everyone wants different things. I just think that they would be better suited with an Alpha mount instead of FE.
The strategy is understandable. It eases the designs of the lenses and guarantees edge-to-edge consistency on lenses. This will play well for many markets. Most markets do not “need” f1.4 or even f2 sometimes. Many professionals I know work easily with f4 and f2.8 zooms.
I do not think f2 to be “crazy” fast, however. So I would love yo see an f2 in the future but I understand why Sony is not in a rush.
f1.4 and f2 were lenses classically developed to compensate for film speeds that could not be pushed beyond a certain point. Today, shooting ISO 1600 and 3200 is easy with these noise/grain speeds signature being less detrimental to image quality today than their film counterparts yesterday. Therefore, the ‘need’ for f2 and faster has been less today than it has yesterday. However, I work without flash (which by the wisdom of a SAR reader is a sign of being not-PRO) and often find myself in the f2, ISO 3200, 1/30 territory so for me, I need the speed. If I did not have an RX1, I would consider any lens that would have a good performance with the A7/r that would be f2 or faster (including M, FD, C/Y) regardless of size because it is a need, not a “want”.
In any case, for the most that use these cameras, f2.8 is all they may ever need. And if they do need a faster lens, they can very well adapt almost any lens ever made by man. Good for them, no?
There will be faster lenses in the future of’course. And 1.8 lenses of the high quality of Zeiss will be perfect.
I had an Nikon 84mm 1.4 and rarely could use it indoors due to the shallow dof. Traded it in for the Nikon 85mm 1.8G and am very happy. The lens is very sharp and 1.8 is all I need, now that we have cameras that do well on high iso.
Have ordered the A7r + the 35. A 35mm 2.0 would be nice, but I’m fine with the 35mm 2.8 as well.
There is a lot of discussions about too little lenses to choose from and at a too high price. This goes for all new systems, Fuji, M4/3, Sony etc.
I have great faith that Sony will develop a great system starting with the A7(r). 2 years from now it will probably have taken many of Canon and Nikon’s customers. My D800 will be kept until netx year, but then it probably will be the last of Nikon for me.
it puzzles me thay didn’t make a 35mm f2. Those can be made acceptably small, it could be a little bigger than the rx1 lens and nobody would complain, and with that, they would have passed the limit of what can be achieved in terms of DOF with an aps-c camera. The 2.8 on the a7 is just like the 24 1.8 with the nex 7. You get a little bit extra image quality, indeed, but still – the nex 7 seems like a great camera, it’s smaller and it poduces professional image quality. All that extra money – for what? High ISO? It doesn’t make sense. I guess la ea4 is for me.
I’m pretty sure the real reason not to make a 35/2 was simply to avoid cannibalizing RX1 sales as much as possible (they still did, but maybe not as much)
1.4 isn’t crazy fast. It’s a hint!
That being said, I’ll be happy with a 35/2 and 85/1.8 😀
Exactly! a 35/2 is not a lot to ask for! This whole talk about pros not needing fast primes is just stupid.
I will take a quiet shutter and well constructed camera over anything that features WiFi and NFC and such doodahs, anytime and every time.
The big selling point of e mount is that it can use non sony lenses.
This relieves sony of the burden of having to make every concievable type of lens themselve.
Sony does not sell sufficient volume to profitably make as many lenses as other manufacturers.
The fact is that every type of lens in every level of quality and every price point is available in a mount, but not all of them are made by sony.
In e mount even more choices are availably because other mount can also be used (of course idis would be extremely desirable)
Those who keep shouting that Sony should make more and more and more lenses are wrong.
Sony is makin the e mount lenses that they visualize as the best match for thier cameras and encouraging users to buy other lenses from other manufacturers and/or use what they already own.
This makes good sense to me
I never thought this day would come, but I am 100% with Barry on this one. Sony is bang on with their FE lens philosophy right now (small+light+good IQ). Yes, I will be shooting a lot with fast lenses too with my A7R, but mostly in very poor light, and in those circumstances, manual focus is much to be preferred anyway. And there are tons of fast manual focus lenses that will shine on the A7/A7R. From modern Samyang to vintage Zeiss, Takumar, Hexanon etc etc. Just pick your poison.
Sorry Barry, but you so, so wrong.
“The fact is that every type of lens in every level of quality and every price point is available in a mount, but not all of them are made by sony.”
You absolutely do not have every level of quality. As soon as you adapt a lens, you lose quite a bit of AF quality. It becomes slower and less accurate. And as seen with legacy glass so far, vignetting and color shifts are real problems.
Sony should absolutely make fast glass themselves. There are many people I know, just like me, who shoot D800 and the like who want that quality in something that isn’t so obtrusive and heavy. We also don’t want to sacrifice so much on AF or lose it all together.
What you ask is not practical. Sony cannot make every possible lens for every need.
The sales volume for sony is too small.
If you want something sony does not make there are 3rd party providers and adapters.
Life is an endless series of compromises.
color shift is a problem ONLY with certain range finder lenses. and those can be used with NO other full frame camera except for Leica. soon there will be 15 lenses in the fe system. apart from them you get full speed dpaf with another decent line af lenses, namely the Minolta/a-mount line, which has a great selection of legacy glass on it’s own. the mirrorless alphas offer manual af compatibility with nearly every lens ever made, plus full af support with two very different lines of lenses.
+1 Agree completely!
are going to give the voucher to redeem free adapter only in Australia???????
I don’t think it is necessary for us to hold our collective breath for Sony to re-invent itself into a sensible system – rather, the market should sort this out. Voigtländer, Zeiss, Sigma, Samyang etc. are making good to excellent FF lenses at a variety of price points. They will not miss the opportunity to fine tune various of their offerings to these cameras in native E-mount. Zeiss and Samyang have already announced MF lines for next year – AF is sure to follow.
Many people including me are frustrated that sony is unwilling to put ibis in e mount.
Many lenses incorperate a pair of moving lens elements to provide stabilization in the lens.
Sony should incorporate this concept into thier adapter that currently has an slt mirror.
The new adapter would add both stabilization and slt focus speed to a mount lenses.
I usually turn all in-camera noise reduction off. Will have to give it a try on the new Sony’s.
The US market better get that free adapter!
I’m going to buy FE55, and my wishlist for 2nd lens :
– ZA 2/24, low-CA and beautiful bokeh like Distagon 2/25.
– or ZA 2.8/21, like ZF/ZE version.
– or FE 24-70, if it has low CA too.
Luckily, Leica doesn’t mind going for these “crazy fast aperture” lenses… we only need an adapter!
yeah except they are way over priced. Leica lenses should be around 1k like its competitions. 4k for a Summillux? GTFO we are men here not women buying LV bags.
It is improper to compare Kodachrome dynamic range to DxO results, they are in different metrics. Now if one takes a look at http://www.kodak.com/global/en/consumer/products/pdf/e88.pdf the “DR” of Kodachrome is close to 8 stops, not 5, as SONY rep says.
These guys are poorly educated, long on fables and short on substance. If anyone takes them seriously, it is their own fault.
This whole talk about fast primes and pros is just senseless. Yes, pros don’t equal to fast primes, but that’s not an excuse for Sony to skip those lenses. Shallow DOF is needed for some types of photography like portraits, it’s a shame to not have them in your lens lineup. Also a 35/2 is in by no means “crazy fast”. Sony isn’t making such a lens is because they don’t wanna cannibalize the sales of the RX1, not because they think speed isn’t important.
why should they bother? People buying A7 +lens spend the same money and will easily spend more on other lenses. RX1 will maybe be gone in 1-2 years without a replacement imho, in case it won’t sell now…
which means there ought to be a faster 35mm later on. if Sony won’t make it, sigma should.
What is the point of going ff as opposed to aps-c? For speed but we hated the weight. A7 solved only one problem so far. If just for weight, there are tons of quality lenses in the apsc line up, and weights even less than the A7. If my fuji 24mm 1.4 is faster than the zeiss 35mm 2.8….why am I upgrading? The alternative is cheaper and faster. As of right now the A7 is only appealing due to the use of legacy/leica lenses.
The main reason to go FF is for low light(speed) performance and SDOF. So for all of you who say, I don’t need SDOF, I don’t shoot low light, well, why the hell do you need FF? Lets see those fast primes SONY! Look at the contax g. Don’t tell me it is not possible. Worst case scenario, at least give us fast manual focus primes.
Can anybody answer this question?
Won’t using the Metabones adapter for Canon/Nikon/Leica project an APS-C sized image on the full-frame sensor? Isn’t that what the Metabones adapter does? So wouldn’t that be counterproductive on a full-frame?
There are Metabones Adapters with and also without SpeedBooster glass inside and those without you’re getting similar from other manufacturers too, simply connecting (mostly Canon) Lenses to be used like ones from Sony with the standard camera user interface.
Good decision, beside that fast FE 55mm ƒ/1.8 Sony should only consider a fast FE 24mm, while fast telephoto lenses will be mostly bought as A-Mount or Canon EF used with Adapters like the Metabones one anyway.
The problem with releasing a fast 24mm is that people will buy that instead of the good, but pricey and flawed SEL24mm even for the APS-C e-mount. The FE Zeiss lenses are not cheap but they look that way compared to their APS-C brethren.
Do you think Sony will produce prime lenses on their own? I love the A7 and consider to boy one but Zeiss lenses are a little too expensice for me and kit lens is a little too slow for me.
I like the way he suggests that people sell all their Hasselblad shares (owing to poorer DR compared to RX1)!!!
I’m sure Hasselblad will be thrilled to hear their ‘partner’ saying that!!!
LOL
One of the strengths of full frame is subject isolation. I’ll want to mount an 85mm f1.2 or a 135mm f2. Beyond 135mmm, I’ll shoot with an m4/3 system.
Sony better plan for fast FE lenses or the “A” series full-frame system will not do well in the future.
They’re coming——and sooner than you think.
The difference between FF and mFT is like the difference between mFT and point and shoot with a 2/3″ sensor. If you just want narrow field of view in a small package and you don’t care about the image quality then just go for an ultra-zoom type camera that shoots raw.
Waiting for Zeiss to create a small, fast manual lens for E mount.
Last time I checked they already have 21 manual focus small lenses for E mount 🙂
I say we stop using the “pro” and “amateur” distinction, because it has a different meaning to everybody.
One either needs or wants “super-fast” lenses, or one does not.
FE is a hybrid. I agree that its main virtue is lens flexibility, and that Sony screwed up royally by failing to include IBIS–however, there is currently no equally-flexible option in the market. People wanting that capability will buy the A7/R even without IBIS, although I get the sense that every one of them would prefer inclusion of IBIS.
A7/R IS NOT POCKETABLE, EVEN WITH THE SMALLEST LENS, UNLESS YOU HAVE BIG POCKETS.
So who cares, it is not a system that you can literally slip into your pocket and forget about, like an iPhone.
And of all the irony, it might be possible to make an equivalently-specified AF A-mount lens smaller than an FE lens, if the A-mount is equipped with screw-drive, although I may be wrong on this.
Regarding “pro” vs “amateur”:
I think the only meaningful distinction here is that “pro” make their living off photography.
That doesn’t mean that their photographic requirements will all be the same, or that they will use and treat their equipment similarly.
While a lot of so-called “wedding photography” is crap IMO, they are certainly “pro” in the sense that their equipment sees a lot of use (hopefully), and in the sense that it is used in an environment that can be destructive of equipment, and in the sense that they need either their equipment to not fail, or they need redundancy in the case of failure.
These things have absolutely nothing to do with “lens speed”.
+1 for a mount. Sony has to provide some kind of logic for the lack of super fast lenses. Real reason is it conflicts with the goal of providing these mirrorless camera systems in a small form factor package.
Question is- should it still be considered pro? Without any technical jargon I think so. I mean, I don’t think pro’s go around shooting wide open all the time. High ISO ability only adds fuel to the mirrorless arguement. It still helps to distinguish a mount as a fast lens performer, but out of pure necessity I see no major drawback to these “slower” lenses for the professional. One word with any new technology- tradeoffs, get use to it.
I think Sony might see things a little differently to all of us and that e-mount cameras take both e and a-mount lenses!
Read the brochure for the a7/a7R and it clearly lists the adaptor and all the a-mount lenses as being part of the system.
So maybe from their perspective, to some degree, we already have fast lenses available.
Wonder how AF performs with adaptor.
same AF module as the A99 so pretty similar.
When he says they will send you a metabones adapter of your choice, does that mean at no additional cost?
So would you prefer a sharp wide open, small and lightweight lens but slow (f/2,8) lens or a only sharp once stepped down, larger and heavier but fast (f/1,4). Take note that Sony still have to make the price around USD 1k as more will get ppl complaining it’s too expensive and has to make it compatible to 36mp and beyond.
No F1.4 primes means I’m not buying into this system. If Sony stays on this path it will FAIL. Right now I will be sticking to my D800E & Primes. I will wait for Fuji to release a FF system. I already know I can safely invest in Fuji, because I know THEY GET IT. They WILL release fast SEXY primes, just look at their X system. With the X-E2 even the APSC is very tempting.
I thought Sony understood if they wanted to succeed they needed to be appreciably BETTER than their competition. I guess they haven’t worked out who their competition is.
I keep hearing about this fuji FF. I’m interested. I mean, I wouldn’t want to use my zeiss glass on these mirrorless. I’d be looking into new glass for a mirrorless camera anyway. Maybe Fuli it is.
As someone who takes a lot of pictures at concerts and events such apertures as offered by the FE A7 cameras are simpy a no go.
Try getting decent images with an F4 lens in dimly lit situations where the subject is moving. This is one reason why I won’t be buying an A7 or A7R unless better AF primes (85mm F1.4, 135MM F1.8) become available
I don’t understand it –
Just about every other big camera company (Canon, Nikon, Leica, etc…) makes multiple speed lenses in any given focal length for YOUR choice of speed, size, and price.
Who wants to be limited by what someone else decides what I want.
Give the consumer a choice.
I’m not going to choose a camera line where I can only get, let’s say a 35mm f/2.8, when from other companies I can choose 2.8, 2, 1.4 depending on MY needs and budget.
WTF Sony – wake up
I agree with forcing the limitation with native lenses. I see the EVF the same way. Why force consumers who might want the option of an OVF? Why not a hybrid- it’s been done before.
Sorry but we don’t need the whole EVF debate again here. Decent fast lenses have far more of an impact on photos than the type of viewfinder. I find focus peaking that EVF offers invaluable.
But however compact a mirrorless FF camera no fast lenses means I won’t be buying this camera especially as the slower lenses will be sold by Sony at a premium price similar to the prices which faster lenses are available for for the a-mount or from other manufacturers. Smaller (less materials used( and slower lenses should mean lower cost – but you can bet Sony see this differently
It’s not a debate. Fuji plans on doing an EVF/OVF in their upcoming FF mirrorless. I’ts a matter of market survival.
WTF Richard! Why are you here!
I would have agreed with Sony if the lens+camera combo was pocketable.
But as it won’t enter a pocket anyway, why not make fast lenses even if bigger,
because a 35mm f2.8 on FF has the same result approximatively as the Zeiss 1.8 on classic NEX…
It might not be ‘pocketable’ but I think their goal is for it to be (waist) ‘pouchable’.
That said… I agree with you. Sony should offer BOTH small (albeit slower) lenses, and larger, faster lenses.
Both will sell.
That’s why the Rx1 is still a win despite it’s lens limitation.
I really like the looks of the new interface (though I’m very annoyed that Sony doesn’t seem to be interested in improving the UI on NEX cameras to bring it up to the same level) and the new lenses look great. I, for one, am happy that they are making intelligent compromises regarding aperture and size/weight. Especially when you consider that the sharpness needs to be up to the resolving power of the 36 MP sensor, asking for compact AND f/1.4 is just not realistic (have you seen the Otus?)
Yup, the Otus is the prime example of what it takes to make a sharp wide open 1.4. Lens makers could make a smaller 1.4 but it means that it’ll only be sharp once stopped down. Of course many people will cry “foul!” when that happens.
I really hope “crazy fast” in Sony’s mind means f0.95. There are plenty of people willing to give up a little bit of size and weight for a fast lens and there are plenty of people that want the smallest size possible. The solution is to provide multiple lens for the same focal length. Sony shouldn’t automatically exclude the speed seeking customers if their plan is to attack Canikon.
.95? That’s crazy talk and crazy money. 1.4 will do.
My current zoom setup: Nikon D7000 + Nikkor 17-55mm f/2.8 ==> 1500 grams
Sony offering: A7 + 24-70mm f/4 ==> 900 grams
and they throw in image stabilization?
Ehhh I’m switching…
And they throw it in? The A7 + 24-70 f/4 combo is going to run you quite a bit more money as it is, you aren’t just getting OSS for free.
Sure, fast lenses are nice, but I’m waiting for a wide angle zoom (hope its 4/16-35 OSS or something similar) and a macro lens (4/150 OSS would be great but I would also take 2.8/100). I think the Sony strategy is fine as long as they also offer good mid range lenses and not just low end and high end like with the A-mount. The current Zeiss lens prices aren’t outrageous, but they are a bit on the high side.
I’m also interested in the 1.8/55, 4/24-70 and 4/70-200, but I won’t be getting anything before Sony gets around to releasing the aforementioned lenses. Till then, it’s NEX-6 with 16-50PZ and 1.8/35 for me.
Still no information about focusing manual lenses. Is there provision for some type of rangefinder type focus?
Sony offers at the fastest a f/1.8 lens for the E-mount. The E-50mm, FE-55mm, E-24mm, and E-35mm are all f/1.8. Two are Sony/Zeiss and two are Sony, add to this is the Zeiss Touit 32mm f/1.8. To me this implies Sony and Zeiss have little interest in making a faster than f/1.8 lens for E-mount. Sony has 15 FF lenses on the road map between now and the end of 2015, 5 we know. 28-70mm f/3.5-5.6 kit zoom, 24-70mm f/4 Zeiss zoom, 35mm f/2.8 Zeiss, 55mm f/1.8 Zeiss, and the 70-200mm f/4 G. So among the next 10 lenses from Sony, possibly some non FE lenses as well as third party lenses from Zeiss and Sigma being possible, it may be someone makes a faster than f/1.8 prime and faster than f/4 (constant) zoom but I find it unlikely. The possible exception being a manual focus lens from Rokinon (and co-brands).
The next lens that would make a lot of sense to be fast now that the 35mm and 55mm have been released would be an 85mm, but i expect it will end up being a f/1.8 as well. I think we would have already seen this lens if the FF body had not been built. It is probably being reformulated to be a FE lens from a prototype E lens.
With Sony declaring their intent so clearly, surely that provides ample room for Sigma to come in with a couple of fast lenses knowing they’ll have no (AF) competition if they go in?
That’s what I was thinking, but if I were Sigma, I would wait until I saw how sales figures for the A7/R evolve over time.
But isn’t that not using the advantages of a FF camera?
Quick comparison:
A7 with the 35mm f/2.8 vs X-E2 with the 23mm f/1.4
The X-E1 has a DOF of f/2.1, almost a full stop more “blurry”, plus it has 2 full stops of light advantage and that lens has top notch IQ.
Yes, but the Fuji lens and body are both bigger (except for height ?%$& viewfinder hump) plus the Sony is sharper wide-open. So like all things photo it is a compromise. The Fuji system is great. The Fuji body is a little cheaper but that lens is more expensive than the Sony.
A faster 35mm is very possible for the Sony system in the future (not to mention adapted lenses you can use now since it seems size and weight are not top concerns for you). A faster ~24mm (AKA 35mm equivalent) for the Fuji is very unlikely.
The 23mm is pretty sharp wide open and the difference in price is basically neglectable and it’s a f/1.4 vs f/2.8. The X-E2 and the A7 have a $700 GAP, that’s much more significant, it’s not just a bit cheaper. Being one 35mm f/2.8, the Sony/Zeiss is kind of overpriced. Of course Sony can make a faster high quality 35mm but how much would that cost? If you think about pros and cons, you should also take the fact that the Fuji system is much more developed. But that’s not the point.
I’m just saying that it’s a bit of an excuse from Sony, it’s a way to duck the fact that they could have done better, I hope that deep down Sony is not simply expecting people to rely on adapters for this system like they did with the APS-C cameras.
And I’m saying it isn’t as cut and dry as that. Yes, $800 for 35mm f/2.8 is pricey compared to DSLR equivalents and if Sony wants these to be mainstream that is what it will be competing with. The price is actually not that high compared to other premium band lenses of the same speed and quality like the ZM 35mm or Summarit 35mm.
Also I never meant to imply that the 23mm is bad lens; however, the Sony is sharper wide open. And it is significantly smaller. These two things are pretty incontrovertible. It is the lens the SEL16mm should have been (albeit not as cheap).
Yes, the Sony is more expensive but it is also a full-frame sensor. You may not care about that–and that is fine–but it is priced very competitively for a full-frame camera. If full-frame isn’t worth the premium to you, don’t sweat it. We’ve all heard the pros and cons ad nauseum. However the advantage (for me) that it brings in FOV:focal length and DoF applies to all the lenses I put on it. Only in the case of the 23mm vs the 35mm does the Fuji show any clear advantage in the area of DoF.
Fuji at this point is a bit more developed but they were not any better at launch than where Sony is now with the FE lenses–in fact depending on whether you like primes or zooms the Sony will offer a better selection. Two standard zooms, two primes (capable of resolving the 36mp sensor), and one telephoto zoom. Fuji had three (albeit good, well thought out) primes at launch. Plus with the LAE4 the Sony system was much more flexibility at the cost of size and 1/3 stop of light.
I am NOT saying your choice of Fuji is a bad one, I’m just saying there are good reasons to chose this system instead.
Also Sony’s APS-C lineup certainly bests Fuji’s for breadth so I don’t know what you mean with “simply expecting people to rely on adapters”. I’ll give Fuji the edge overall for lens quality but complaints about the APS-C e-mount lens lineup is so last year’s meme.
Don’t use poor logical for compare everything, Please.
Question for admin:
Understandably you are now focusing on the new A7 cameras, and they look beautiful, but I have no interest in owing one. Price is no object. I have owned more expensive gear than that–lots of it as I have been in photography for 50 years.
It is this: I love the size of my NEX-7, like the size of the lenses, and find myself happy with the IQ. In addition, my interests are not on the wide-angle side of life, so APS-C works just fine for me.
Do you have anything to share about a possible NEX-7 successor?
Just taking up for A-mount:
Question for admin:
Understandably you are now focusing on the new A7 cameras, and they look beautiful, but I have no interest in owing one. Price is no object. I have owned more expensive gear than that–lots of it as I have been in photography for 25 years.
It is this: I love the size of my A-850, like the size of the lenses, and find myself happy with the IQ. In addition, my interests are on the wide-angle side of life, so FF works just fine for me.
Do you have anything to share about a possible A99 successor?
I already thought Sony was doing this. ie – High quality lenses that can bring the A7r sensor to justice, and faster MF smaller lenses for the hardcore. Look at the D800, you cant get away with bad lenses on that. Meanwhile, the 35/55 FE lenses are super light and there has been nothing but amazement at their IQ.
Slow apertures lenses and not crowd pleasers. People much prefer to see gorgeous rendering over pixel level sharpness. When I shoot someones portrait on a D800E + 85 1.4g, I let them see the back of the LCD. Their response is holy **** that’s an amazing camera. Shoot the same shot stopped down to F5.6 and you won’t get nowhere near the same reaction.
Also the Sony fans here defending Sony for not releasing fast lenses are ironically the ones doing the most harm to Sony.
They are reacting to the blur, not the actual quality of your photo’s.
They are reacting to the rendering, which IS ALSO the quality of the photo. Seriously do you really not understand the importance of how a lens renders a scene or are you a troll?
The rendering? Nope, not buying it. I think you need to go back and check how lenses work. I stand by my comment.
Tom I’m not sure what you are buying or not buying perhaps you think I’m imply a lens renders like a CPU/GPU or perhaps you are new to photography or something?
Regardless of what you seem to want to argue about, my PAYING customers pay me MORE than most other photographers who are shooting narrow apertures. They like my composition and style, and much of my style is a direct result of how my primes render a scene.
You are saying that people are impressed by the lens rendering on a 3″ screen?
what he’s saying is that average Joe who knows nothing about photo pay well for thin dof. and I believe him. buttery bokeh is the most obvious difference between uncle Bobbys aps-c-kit lens-bouncing flash attempts and the professionals well made but often cheesy offerings. question: what’s wrong with the la ea4?
@ Vlad
Yes that’s my experience.
@OSC
Not just average Joes, but people who know a bit about photography say the same.
I really like the look of the a7r, but the lack of native F1.4 lenses mean I could never invest in Sony until Sony ‘get their mind right’ and throw all their chips on the table. It’s frustrating because if anyone has the potential to dominate the market, it’s Sony. Personally I think their relationship with Zeiss is holding them back. It also put’s them at a disadvantage as Zeiss need to take a profit out the market, not just Sony.
Sony should buy out this lens maker, and remake the entire lens portfolio to be compatible with the FE mount, and add AF. Ditch Zeiss altogether.
http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2011/12/02/voigtlander-nokton-35-1-2-aspherical-ii-lens-review-on-the-leica-m9/
Zeiss isn’t holding Sony back… Zeiss works for Sony and they rely on Sony for business. How many people have you seen having ZM/ZF/ZE lenses vs. the number of people with Sony products with Zeiss labels? It’s like free money for Zeiss because all they need to do is approve Sony’s designs and supposedly keep an eye on the manufacturing process. Zeiss doesn’t need to do any marketing and no buyer sends these cameras/lenses back to Zeiss when they need repairs… Sony does all that.
Also as far as we can tell, Sony pockets most of the premiums people pay for Sony/Zeiss products. In fact, I bet Zeiss would be happy to give their name to Sony for free because Sony’s marketing them as high quality stuff. Every kid gets to know about Zeiss from seeing that name on a high-end Sony P&S or a camcorder… just imagine how difficult it would be for Zeiss to create that kind of presence if they had to do it all through its niche market ZM/ZF/ZE lenses alone?
So there will be faster MF lenses for that kind of work.
I guaranteed if you turn up with a A7r with a 35mm f0.01 that weighs 1g and is 1cm long with perfect IQ lens to a pro job they will scoff at you for not lugging around a big gigantic Pro SLR.
I dont see the A7/r as a Pro camera job tool. AF wont be wedding worthy, i see it as an extremist hobbyist tool.
Its first iteration. Its priced amazingly competitively and ticks nearly all the right boxes. Most people jumping on now know it is the future, even with the limited lens range.
time will take care of the “size matters for pros” problem. pros all over the world are migrating to mirrorless right now. average Joe will get used to it.
@sony: go all in please, now. the pedal to the metal, please, now. Standard, fast, and crazy fast lenses – i want them. Show up now, make some announcements and deliver fast. Light weight top sharp is cool, good start, i take them all for my new a7r. Now please let me decide myself, if i want to carry 70-200 f2.8 at 1.6 kg or 70-200 f4 at 0,85 kg. Make a real change and i will believe. Read the comments here and elsewhere, your market is waiting for you.
The announcement of no interest in native fast lenses only creates an inroad for companies like Fuji. Go ahead and don’t make them, your competion will. No OVF/EVF hybrid? No problem, look behind you…here come the other players.
Suddenly 85/1.4, 35/1.4, 50/1.2 and the like available 40 years ago are “crazy fast”. Yeah, good for you, Sony.
Hmm, I guess if you guys kept pestering Sony about it, eventually they’ll listen since they are now “listening” to their customers, people wanted an ILC of the RX1 and they did exactly that. So if the same crowd kept asking for 1.4 lenses, perhaps they will create fast primes in the near future.
As for me, I’ll just get manual 1.4 lenses as it’s small and have more unique renderings then modern day AF lenses.
Admin, could you add a poll as to whether people think Sony’s lack of interest with ‘crazy fast’ lenses and strong preference for smaller/slower lenses is good or bad for the user/sony.
Perhaps you could then maybe send the outcome over to someone at Sony.
I think there is a mirrorless renaissance just around the corner that is about to decimate the DSLR market. I also think if Sony underestimate the importance of a decent set of F1.4 primes, they may as well step aside as others will give the market what it wants and Sony will be left out in the cold like it’s DSLR line.
+1
Mirrorless renaissance is definitely around the corner and Sony needs to play their cards right.
“Mirrorless” renaissance is actually a very fun concept, as so far mirrorless has never been a strong market.
However, if we happen to witness a market growth, I will be watching with interest how that happened and who started the trend. IMHO, as good as it could be for us photographers, a 2.000-3.000 dollars camera system (camera + basic lens) is not going to change the market as we know it.
This “renaissance” has to start cheaper, and in some different way, to be meaningful from a market (= profits for Sony) point of view. Besides: I feel these Japanese camera companies miss in their board people even remotely comparable to Brunelleschi, Leonardo or Michelangelo. Even Steve Jobs would be enough. But, alas, they are all dead (and anyhow gaijin enough not to have had any voice in Japanese corporate strategies)
You are right, Sony need a Steve Jobs. Someone with brains, heart and more importantly balls…
“We are not going after crazy fast aperture FE lenses. What matters is quality and lightweight design.”
Is there any reason to switch from my m43 kit then?
Good Point there James. Anyone who wants good quality & light weight should just go m43
😀 Brilliant!!
FT/mFT people are in a reality of their own which is very different from ours.
According them, they have 17.5mm f/1.4 lenses that match the IQ of the FE 35 2.8…
And 28mm f/0.9 lenses that match the IQ of the FE 55 1.8…
And 12-35mm f/2 lenses that match the IQ of the 24-70/4 OSS…
And 35-100mm f/2 lenses that match the IQ of the 70-200/4 OSS…
That’s without even considering 24/36MP from a FF sensor. The difference between FF and a mFT sensor is like the difference between a mFT sensor and a 2/3″ sensor in a point and shoot camera. Just like mFT users wouldn’t take the latter seriously, FF users can’t take mFT/FT cameras seriously when they’re used to things that are so much better.
Yeh but the OMD has awesome IBIS, and the system is way cheaper.
Obviously, there are small differences and the price certainly speaks on that behalf.
But quite simply, the advantages of full frame boils down -very- simplistically.. bigger surface area => more light.
Full frame sensors aren’t inherently better.. they’re just larger.. no voodoo magic happening here. The ability to suck in globs of light gives the photographer the versatility to produce beautiful IQ in a variety of lighting conditions. You know what else has gives that effect? larger apertures.
By limiting their lens lineup to slow lenses… they’re fundamentally taking away a good chunk from that main appeal.
I’m not saying that the FE-mount system doesn’t have potential.. it has amazing potential. I would absolutely LOVE for it to evolve into a competitive system and i was ready to sell my m43 kit for it. It just seems like they’re crippling it’s potential by focusing their main efforts on marketing ‘exclusivity and premium’ (or pixel peeping snobbery) with a blue badge for dessert.
Affordable 35/f2, 50/1.4, 85/1.8 – These are the prime lenses that appeal to the masses of photographers. These lenses don’t necessarily have to be large and can still produce beautiful IQ despite not having razor-sharpness in the extreme corners.
People should stop freaking out at the “Sony is not going after crazy fast apertures FE lenses” comment. First of all, those words are the admin’s. The presenter said something “we’re not going for the most sexy gee whiz aperture”… yeah, words right out of the mouths of Sony engineers and execs 😀 These marketing people have very little understanding of things and they just regurgitate what they’ve been brainwashed to tell.
Sony actually has no choice but to come up with fast lenses given the demand. So they will. Even if it takes a while, Zeiss is already talking about making FE Touit lenses.
So take a chill pill… sure, the wait is long even though it’s just a few more days for most of us… anyone cared to improve their technique in the meantime to get the most out of your soon to be new toys?
I’d argue that a 23mm 1.4 on an X-E2 is in many ways more “full frame-ish” than an a7 with a 35mm 2.8.