The next two A-mount lenses are likely going to be the 70-200mm f/2.8 II and the 400mm f/4.0 lenses. What I dont’ know is the exact announcement date but I hope to be able to share that info soon. But according to a source there is a third lens that could be announced too. The source wrote that the Sony will soon offer the “”VF82MPAM” which is a 82mm Multi-Coated filter. It means a new 82mm filter size lens will be announced too. Sounds a lot like a fast prime lens!!! What else could it be?
—
Message to sources: You can send me more info anonymously by using the contact form you see on the very right of your browser. You can also contact me directly at sonyalpharumors@gmail.com.
For readers: Subscribe the RSS feed (Click here) and Twitter (Click here) stream and the Facebook fan page (Click here) in order to not miss any news!
—
Reminder (SR = Sonyrumor):
SR1=probably fake rumor
SR2=rumor from unknown sources
SR3=50% chance it is correct
SR4=rumor from known sources
SR5=almost certainly correct!
116 Responses
I am very very curious about the 400mm f4 lens. A fast 400mm is on my shopping list for a long time. I almost picked up a decently priced 400mm f4.5 Minolta, but decided to wait for this new lens. I am curious what it will do to the old Minolta price as well. But I expect Sony will sell this for something north of 4000 EUR. Any hints on price Andrea?
My guess is that Minolta prices will remain as they are, like you said, this aint gonna be a cheap lens.
cant the 400mm use a 82mm filter?
No, the 400mm f4,5G used a front filter diameter of 95mm. So a 82mm filter would not fit. The rumored 400 f4 will most likely use an even larger diameter
BTW – The 500mm f8 mirror used a 82mm diameter filter
I suppose the threads on the hood could be 82mm but that’s not where the filters are placed. Filters for that mirror lens slip into a special slot that is behind the optics, near the body of the camera. Sony’s 300mm f/2.8 works the same way and the filters are interchangeable! The neutral density and polarizing filters can be used in both the 500 mirror or the 300mm f/2.8.
Ye but its a F8 Thats slow to get it fast like a F4 you have to make the front element bigger to capture more light
Zeiss 135mm f/1.4 SSM? I can dream 🙂
The Vivitar 135/1.5 was 95mm.
135mm f1.4 +1. Will sell both my 135mm f1.8 and sigma 85mm f1.4 for that. Oh well… I am also dreaming…. 😛
82mm is way to big for a prime.
Canon SLR primes are 72mm.
Nikon, I am not sure.
Last time I used larger than 72mm was for lenses like 17-35mm Contax (95mm) or 77mm for 17-35mm Nikon.
82mm sounds like a Zoom or a fast tele.
Then again…Zeiss is known for its irregular and non standard filter sizes for its lenses.
Negative: Sigma 180 Macro f2.8 has 86mm
I didn’t say anything about Sigma.
Sigma 180 Macro f2.8 has 86mm
Well, you said “82 is way to big for a prime”…. Bla bla bla… Zoom… And I just pointed out that there are primes with the 86mm filter. 🙂
canon 16-35 ii and tse 24ii use 82mm filter
What about firmware for Sony A77?
One assumes that new lenses means lens updates can be expected on the A77. I really wouldn’t get excited about A77 firmware bringing must more than lens data.
Not claiming anything, but my Sigma 100-300 f/4 APO DG HSM has a 82mm filter thread.
An Olympus designed 300mm F4 would get me interested.
Hope you have a fat wallet.
+1
A new 300 f/4 could be possible. Smaller, lighter and cheaper than a 400/f4. Most long tele lenses are too pricey for many amateurs, but a 300 f/4 would be within financial reach for most, and would be compact enough to be okay to handle on a small mirrorless.
82mm filter size can be:
VS 24-70/2.8 II
VS 28-85/4-4.5
28-135/4 G
Distagon 21/2.8
Planar 85/1.2
Sonnar 180/2.3
Sonnar 300/f4
…..
200mm f2.5?
Admin, any chance the new 70-200 will ship this year?
Any ball park on time frame? Before the end of the year, first or second qtr 2014?
Please wake me up when they announce a 24-105mm/4.
That lens would be too big and no benefits compared to 28-75. Whenever I need extra reach (24 mm wide or from 85 mm tele) I choose primes with good IQ over zoom lenses.
Too big? The Canon 24-105mm f/4 is hardly too big.
It is very big, I would not buy it for that reason.
Bah! 24-105L is tiny!
That’s what you may do for something wider than 28mm, but the fact is that the 24-105/4 has been a very popular lens for Canon and is a great focal length range for general purpose and travel photography. The Nikon 24-120/4 is Nikon’s popular version of such a lens, and the lack of a lens in that range is a gaping hole in Sony’s line-up. Other than the focal length flexibility, such a lens likely would be less expensive than the CZ 24-70/2.8, and I suspect would be a very popular “kit” lens for future FF cameras.
Overall, Sony needs to get on the ball with its lens system if it hopes to improve its market position. It still needs to fill long-existing holes in the line-up (e.g., high quality f:4 zoom lenses that are smaller, lighter, and less expensive than the f:2.8 zooms), but it also should be thinking outside the box, coming up with new lenses that could attract customers. A 400/4 might do that to a limited extent for nature/wildlife photographers depending on its price (and quality). Lenses are investments that will last through several generations of camera bodies. Sony has been very slow in bringing out quality lenses for its camera systems (both A-mount and NEX), which has hurt its sales potential.
No, that doesn’t make any sense. If you want a Canon camera, buy a Canon. I don’t like their lens line-up, that is why I chose Sony.
I don’t mean to be disparaging, but your response doesn’t make any sense. That you have no particular use for a 24-105/4 is fine, for you. But, that doesn’t mean it is not a very popular lens among Canon shooters, or that the similar Nikon 24-120/4 is not a very popular lens among Nikon shooters. Simply because you don’t see a particular need for a particular lens does not mean it would not be a good lens for Sony to make.
Many people who are Sony (or Minolta) shooters would like a lens in the 24-105 or 24-120 range. First, it’s a flexible focal length range, from wide angle to short telephoto (and for many 105/120 is more useful than stopping at 70/75mm). Second, a fixed f:4 zoom lens is less costly than the faster aperture counterparts (i.e., 24-70/2.8; the Sony/Tamron 28-75/2.8 is smaller and lighter than the 24-105, but there’s a significant difference on the wide end between 28mm and 24mm).
I don’t particularly want a Canon camera (though the 5D MkIII is quite nice). I have a huge investment in my Sony cameras and Sony/CZ/Minolta lenses. I am not about to get a Canon camera just to be able to get a 24-105/4 lens (or a Nikon camera to get a 24-120/4 lens). But, if Sony made such a lens I would certainly consider getting it, as I suspect would many others. Popular Photography magazine (U.S. publication) just had a story about the usefulness and popularity of zoom lenses with a fixed f:4 maximum aperture. Sony was the only one not mentioned in the article, because it doesn’t have any such lenses. With the ever increasing capabilities of cameras at higher ISO’s, there is (for some or many) less need to have “fast” f:2.8 zoom lenses and many are looking to f:4 zoom lenses as a more cost effective and useful alternative. But Sony has nothing to offer in this regard. It should.
Actually it does make a lot of sense. I know several FF Sony shooters who left for Canikon FF due to lack of a quality 24-xxx for travel use.
In fact Sony had in their range for a while a zoom lens with very similar specification: 24-105 F3.5-4.5. Very nice and compact – just 400 grams. Sony inherited that lens from Minolta business and went to the trouble of repackaging it into the standard Sony casing. Then they discontinued it in 2008 without providing a replacement.
Here is a good review of the lens by Kurt Munger:
http://kurtmunger.com/sony_24_105mm_f_3_5_4_5_reviewid179.html
+1
24-105 f/4 with my a99 or a900, yeah, added flexibility a must, especially if G, weather sealed and SSM.
24mm tilt shift……yes I am dreaming!
I wonder if Sony will release a cheap 50mm FF prime for the rumored FF NEX
relative soon. Something like the “old” Sony 50mm F1.4 prime.
Very interested in a FF NEX, I hope for EVF, tilt LCD, and touch screen would
be nice for setting focus. And hope Sigma etc will soon make some FF primes
for the system.
I like this kind of rumors!
Looking for a 70-200 for my next lens. Any reason to wait for the new version? What weakness in the existing model are being fixed?
the old version should be cheaper after the new one had arrived.
Do you have any idea of the date for the new 70-200mm f/2,8 ?
Nope. But I will soon!
Geez, what about quality single focal wide angle lens for APS-C? Sony is all about camera bodies and less about lens.
Sony 24 mm is very good. 16 mm is also good, there’s an ultra-wide-angle converter (12 mm), same high quality. There’s Zeiss 12mm, excellent lens. That answers your question.
I think he meant Alpha mount. And the 16mm for NEX is hardly good.
I am hoping these lenses will have good close focusing say 1/2 magnification or 1/3 magnification.
82mm filter – I’m going to guess at a replacement for the DT 11-18mm, which has never been a particularly impressive lens. Maybe it will be something in the vein of the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 (which has an 82mm thread), but with SSM. Give it weather sealing too and I’ll be a first day buyer.
Why not just go for the Tokina 11-16 or the Sigma 8-16? These two beat everything I’ve seen from Sony, Nikon and Canon.
Vlad, those two are Aps-C only, unfortunately!
82mm might be a size for a 70-200 2.8 — as I recall my Nikon used 77mm, so 5mm larger is not out of the question.
Don’t know if a 400mm f4 could be made that small, but it might be possible.
400mm/4 = 100mm.
Not possible.
TELEPHOTO uses a negative first element to make the actual length sorter than a normal lens of the same focal length.
Therefore a smaller filter thread is quite possible.
Claiming something is impossible is ALWAYS a foolish statement!
Barry, resident genius, a 400mm lens at f/4 has an aperture opening of 100mm. Please tell me how you are going to bend the light in order to avoid an 82mm filter getting in the way.
I already explained it 4xis but my answers are all sitting in moderation.
Telephoto lenses use a negative first element.
Telephoto lenses use a minus first element.
They are therfore shorter than a normal lend.
Therfore 82mm filter is very possible.
Barry, please show me a telephoto lens in existence that uses a front filter that is smaller than its aperture.
Not at all, animalsbybarry!
Gato is wondering if it would be possible to use such a small filterdiam as 82 mm for a 400/4,0 lens, and The Lotus Eater answers: “Not possible”.
You wrote: “Claiming something is impossible is ALWAYS a foolish statement!” Which means you are claiming that exactly anything thinkable is possible to do in real life – i.e. there can be no laws of nature. I would say that it is YOUR claim that is a foolish statement…
The theoretically minimal filter diameter which a 400/4,0 lens would be able to use without any vignetting is 100 mm. To claim, as you do, that it is foolish to say that it is Not possible to break well know laws of optics and accordingly instead use smaller filters, such as an 82 mm filter (or a 22 mm filter for that matter…) for such a lens – well, THAT is a foolish statement, don’t you think? 🙂
I assume that you are aware of the basic formula for thin lenses:
Aperture = Aperturediam : Focal length
Hence, you can’t design an 1:4,0 lens with 400 mm focal length with less front lens diameter than 100 mm (in practise even more, of course).
Of course no one is saying that it would not be possible to mount an 82 mm filter on a 400/4,0 lens by means of a series of step-down rings, but just that it would not be possible to do something such without massive vignetting.
.
That formula is based on actual length which in a telephoto is shorter than thoretical length.
Admin please fix this modetation filter so i can answer these peaple in real time.
A 400mm f4 normal lens has an aperture of 100mm.
A 400mm f4 telephoto lens with the same ohysical length as a 300mm normal lens would only have a 75mm aperture.
animalsbybarry wrote:
“A 400mm f4 normal lens has an aperture of 100mm.
A 400mm f4 telephoto lens with the same ohysical length as a 300mm normal lens would only have a 75mm aperture.”
No. Once again, in order to make a telephoto lens and to not have absolutely awful image quality, you need to have a number of lenses. This combined “thick” lens will offset your calculus.
As we know, according to rumours there will come a 400/4,0 telephoto lens for the Alpha system. I will bet such a lens on that it will NOT have a filter diam as small as 75 mm… 🙂
.
Telephoto lenses utilize a negative first element and are shorter than a normal lens if the same focal lenghth. Therefore 82mm filter is very possible.
No animalsbybarry, you are forgetting that this simple lens formual applies to one single thin lens only. As you know, in practice you need a number of lenses to correct for the lens aberrations, and some more for tele- or wideangle designs. This will offset your thinking – you are not taking all factors in consideration. E.g. it will not be possible to make a telelens design with a single lens – only a long focal length lens…
You can’t find ONE SINGLE TELE LENS in the Minolta AF or Sony Alpha lens lineup that supports your claim. Their filter diameters are all wider than what you would get by the single thin lens formula.
.
If that is the case i stand corrected.
It was not my intention to post all these multiple responses i was having trouble with the moderation filter.
No problems, animalsbybarry. We all understand the trouble you have with the WordPress Comment system. Sometimes I have had reason to curse it myself. 🙂 And Andrea is not too happy for it either, I understand. Hope he will get something better working as soon as possible.
But now we are mainly back on track again, I hope. And now when I read my own comments again, they seem to have come out a bit more strong than I had intended. This almost never happens for me in real life, but for some reason it may sometimes happen on the net, unfortunately. Probably for all of us sometimes… 🙂
.
Only if we assume it is a front filter. But insert filter is usually smaller than 82 though.
This is a telephoto lens therefore your formula is not accurate.
“This is a telephoto lens therefore your formula is not accurate.”
What?! The f-stop is a ratio of the focal length! 400mm/4 is 100mm. A smaller front mounted filter will cause vignetting.
Admin.
My answers to lotus eater keep going to modetation but my other stuff doesnt why?
Lotus Eater
Be patient my answer to you is awaiting moderation again.
Admin
I tried explaining myself 4x but one of my words is triggering the moderation filter.
Your username should trigger the moderation filter.
Hahahaha…lol
Admin
This is only a test
Focus
Did that trigger the moderation filter.
The ACTUAL length of a telephoto len is shorter than the thoretical length because the first element is negative.
Your formula is based on ACTUAL distance not theoretical distance.
Therfore a 400mm tellens lens with an actual length similar to a 300mm non telephoto lens would have an F4 aperture of only 75mm.
Minolta AF/Sony Alpha 70-200/2,8 G use 77 mm filter diam too. 🙂
.
24-70mm f2.8
Tamron 24-70 f/2.8
Tokina 17-35 f/4
TELEPHOTO lenses utilize a negatize first element and sre therefore shorter than a normal lens if the same focal length.
Therefore 82mm filter threads are very possibly.
I vote for 85mm f1.2 SSM. Time to beat Canon 🙂
Neg 1st element
i smell CZ 50mm/1.2 SSM
jokes on all of us the 400F4 is not FF with the sony thought that you need a 500 or 300 ff for high $ A99 combo but could sell a budget 400f4 for crop
the smaler filter size could then be worked out 🙂
jsut looked and the minolta 300f4 is 82mm so maybe a bit of miss info and its 300mm f4 not 400 and coudl be a real cost friendly lens. 300f4 updated has been asked for on a few forums
That would actually be a very interesting thing. An APS-C only 400mm f4 lens. See what Sigma is doing with some of their high quality APS-C lenses they are currently releasing. Why would Sony not do same? Actually a 300mm f4 lens would be excelent for an APS-C if it reduces the cost of the lens signifficantly.
cool, some of us really need 400/4 lens , if it gets 82mm filter thread , it would be really promising.
Both tamron and sigma make an inexpensive 70-300mmcamera f4-5.6 “macro”
Not a true macro but focuses to 1/2 at 300mm.
These are very compact usefull lenses.
I particularly find the close focusing ability usefull.
A higher qualiity version of this lens,perhaps f4 would be very usefull.
I would actually not mind if it were 120-300 if that would improve the quality as i seldom use the shorter length.
I do however find the close focusing essential for my needs.
The new canon 24-70 II is 82mm, up from the 77mm of the original.
Admin, Any specs on the new 70-200 II? is it weather seal?
CZ 85 F1.4 II seems more likely.
A 200-400mm f4 would be a much better idea. Something along the lines of the Canon of the same range. Look at the industry buzz that created.
A 200-400 along the lines of the Canon (or Nikon) lens would be nice, but also look at the prices: the Canon is about $11,800 and the Nikon (without a built-in 1.4x converter) is about $6,800 (B&H prices). One of Sony’s problems with respect to lenses, other than overall very slow product introductions, leaving big holes in the line-up, is that it is not really coming up with anything unique or different, that also is more useful or practical. That’s one reason the Nikon 200-400/4 was such a bit hit when introduced (and got a number of wildlife photographers to switch systems, along with AF issues in Canon’s 1D series cameras). Canon was slow to respond with its own 200-400, but when it did it did something out-of-the-box with the built-in 1.4x converter. The lens is getting rave reviews, except for the price. A Sony 400/4 would be a bit different than anything the others have, depending on its price (Canon has a 400/4 DO lens that is expensive), and for APS-C format shooters would provide the equivalent of a 600/4 on a FF body, presumably for a lot less cash. Personally, if Sony was going to make a high-end, super-telephoto zoom, I would like to have seen a 300-500/4.5 (instead of the 500/4, assuming a similar price). But that is never going to happen. If Sony does do a 400/4 I would not expect to see a 200-400/4 anytime soon, if ever.
The problem is that they are always a day late and dollar short on the innovations. I agree that they will probably never do it but from a marketing standpoint it makes 100x more sense than that 500mm they put out last year that sold for 13k and wasn’t even a blip on anyone’s radar. The only shot they have at stealing Canikon customers is to put out lenses like that 200-400mm and get an entire class of photographers looking at it and considering a switch.
And if Sigma is paying attention that 200-400 F4 (1.4x) is a huge opportunity to sell some glass because they will no doubt be able to beat Canon and Nikon in price by 40-50% and the quality will be very close if they chose to develop it.
I don’t know what I’d rather have 70-200 2.8 II or updated Zeiss 135mm SSM. Most used zoom vs. super sharp super amazing fast lens.
Then again I can grab a 2.8 135mm minolta lens for $300. Do you think the minolta 135mm prime is sharper than the 70-200 at 135mm. I would assume yes.
In which case I just talked myself into a cheaper lens that’s been available for 20 years LOL.
I would get both. The only con on the 135 is it desperately needs SSM. We have heard about the updated 70-200 but I have never heard anything about an updated 135 SSM. Did you here something I didn’t.
200mm f2 please. Not for the 82mm filter – I just want one! 🙂
You can’t have a 200mm F2.0 lens with 82 mm. The diameter of the largest optical element is more than 100 mm.
If you seriously want one then switch to Canon and buy theirs. And it is cheap by big white lens Canon standards – it only costs $6,000, but it comes with its own trunk.
No, I know, I said NOT with the 82mm filter. It’s just a general comment. I want the 200mm f2 with the A99, not the other bodies – I don’t want to switch system! I would almost consider buying a canon body just for this lens – not that I can afford that…
14-400/f1.2 ZA SSM? 🙂
No, i think an 8-500 F0.95 ZA SSM would be more likely
I’ll take one!
I think this could be a 400 F4 APSC only .I read a statment that Crops are mainly used for Wildlife and sports add a A78 with 14 FPS and super fast PD 32mp and you would have one hell of a package at the right price .If its a FF F4 its going to one of them lenses you only buy if you want to go to the zoo and look like a real tool bag .
and with converters woudl be 600 f5.6 or 800mm f8
no mirror for full light focus peaking and micro AF ajust since there is no mirror woudl be killer
but coudl they keep it under 2k$
i want a birding prime and this woudl work better for me then the 70-400 or the 200-500 tamron and likly be sharper then both at 400mm
A 400/4 APS-C only lens would not be the best thing to do as it would eliminate full frame shooters from getting this lens, and those are more than likely some of the folks who might be interested in such a lens. While a 400/4 for APS-C only could be a bit smaller and lighter as it would not have to cover as large an image circle, you don’t see manufacturers making APS-C only telephoto lenses. It’s not the same thing as with wide-angle lenses, where there is a significant difference between APS-C and FF format lenses. While the majority of cameras sold may be APS-C format, the higher ticket cameras are full framers, and those consumers are just as, or more likely, to be interested in such a lens.
If reducing the field of view to apsc only would make a sharper lighter or less expensive lens then a 400mm c only lens would make sense.
At 400mm 36mm full frame is already an extremely narrow field of view.
It is therefore unlikely reducing it to a c only lens would have much if any advantage.
It would also limit the potential customers.
Therefore it seems more probable this will be a full frame lens.
as if another 6000+$ would not limit buyers (im sure that the 500f4 is selling like mad:) )
there are pros that are not shooting FF and sony only has 3 FF bodys. now i know its 6 in one hand half a dozen in the other kind of thing.
a crop sensor buyer (and sony is selling many more of those then FF) has no real choice but to spend 3k$ or more on a great long lens (used) many woudl be happy with a 300F4 so they coudl use 1.4x or maybe even 2x converter and still be happy with the shots (that gets then about the range of the 70-400 but maybe better at 300mm about the same at 450f5.6 and OK for them shots at 600f8 )
a 400f4.5 in the 2-2.5k$ range might be a big hit to the A77 user who cant spend 10k on a A99and 300f2.8
Personally, I think a 400/4.5 makes a lot of sense if Sony is going to do a 400 lens, depending on just what the 400/4 is and costs, if and when it becomes a reality. A 400/4.5 loses only 1/3 stop at maximum aperture but still will autofocus with a 1.4x converter (neither an f:4 or f:4.5 lens will AF with the 2x). The slightly slower maximum aperture means the lens can be a bit smaller and lighter, and less expensive (though how much of a price difference it would make we can’t really know). The Minolta 400/4.5 was well-regarded. Years ago I ran into a Swiss professional wildlife photographer in Denali NP in Alaska who was shooting with a Maxxum 9 and the 400/4.5; I had my Maxxum 9 and 600/4, so we had something in common. He raved about the lens and preferred its smaller size and weight over something like the 600 for his uses. While still expensive, the Minolta 400/4.5 was much more “affordable” than the 300/2.8 or 600/4 (and about 1/3 the price of Canon’s 400/4 DO lens). And, as some have noted, the 400mm focal length on an APS-C body provides a 600mm field of view (FF equivalent). On the other hand, given the existence of the 70-400/4-5.6, a 400/4.5 would not gain quite as much over the zoom as would a 400/4 in terms of maximum aperture. Either way, a fixed 400 could be an attraction to nature and wildlife photographers looking for a high quality but more cost effective alternative to the 30/2.8 and 500/4. We shall see what happens.
You missed my point.
If making the 400mm lens for a crop sensor would reduce the cost or improve the quality I would totally agree with you and i would want it.
Because this is a long lens and already has a very narrow angle of view I believe further reducind the angle to a crop sensor lens would make little if any difference in the cost or quality of the lens.
it could reduce the cost but not necessarily make the IQ any better (really it stands to make it worse) after all, all lens are better in the center then they are in teh corners. crop bodys take adavantage of the center “cut” of the FF glass
a ground up build for a crop body woudl have not jsut the center of the FF lens to shoot throught but woudl have a wholey new formula (likly and as a cost saver to skimp on some glass)
as to the benafit of the prime 400f4.5 vs 70-400G I or II im thinkning that many like me will have the 16-80z or 16-502.8 and then a longer lens (i have a 70-200f2.8) that covers nearly all my normal shooting and the overlat on the 70-400 is unneeded (i know when i am going wildlife hunting and will want a long lens )
sadly right now i go hiking with a my 16-80z and my 70-200 + 2x converter for “birding” i woudl much rather leave the 70-200 at home and keep the 400mm on body for the hike and the 16-80z in my pack. thought is that wildlife can run off but i can setup for wide angle landscape on tripod and sorta take my time
Would be cool if the filter was for a 70-300 f4 lens. Ha
I own a Sigma 24-70 and a 20mm 1.8 prime that both use an 82mm so there is probably no way of using that as a guess on what lens may be coming out, only that its probably going to be something fast!
Maybe a Sony version of the rumored Sigma 24-70 f2 lens…
admin do u know which date they will announce 70-200mm f/2.8 II ?
it has been 3 weeks since this rummer and still no news 🙁
btw do u think they will announce the new lens on the 4th of September ?