The current A-mount (!) version of the Zeiss 24-70mm lens
The image on top shows you the 24-70mm A-mount lens. And many on SAR would like to see a lens like that being made for the new NEX-FF system. And guess what…it’s coming for real! Zeiss will launch a new 24-70mm FE (“F”ull Frame “E”-mount) lens along the first NEX-FF photocamera that is coming in mid October. The very trusted source didn’t share the aperture info. I am not sure yet if it’s f/2.8 or f/4.0 like the new 16-70mm Zeiss.
These are the SR5 ranked NEX-FF lens info: Zeiss 35mm f/2.8, Zeiss 55mm f/1.8 and Zeiss 24-70mm. A nice start!
———
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!
151 Responses
I assume F4 given the size of the a mount
Full frame NEX-VG900 with 24-70mm F2.8 :
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8446/7981180223_00d57077dc_b.jpg
Re-defining compact?
Joe that will not AF in video mode on the VG900. To get AF, you must use the light robbing SLT adapter, then you’re stuck in APC-S mode. Never understood the point of the VG900 and still don’t.
That’s sure to please many here!
E-mount cameras with adapters then, I guess.
Just what I was thinking…
F-ing nice!
How big will it be?
If it’s 2.8 than it will have exactly the same diameter as 27-70 ZA. Might be slightly shorter, but not by much.
This is what I fear. I wouldn’t complain if it was f4, to be honest. OR 2.8 -4/4.5 if it reduces the size.
Anyone for a variable aperture if it reduces the lens size even by 3-5cm?
I really don’t like variable aperture. They could make it shorter though 🙂
Any of you guys own or use this lens? It’s unwieldy on an A900.
You think this is going to be available for NEX? You really have lost your minds.
One issue with variable aperture is that 99% of people would rather have the 2.8 and the long end. For most people, 2.8 at 24mm is not that useful anyways but 2.8 at 70mm would be.
I never understood the benefits of the variable aperture on wide zooms for this reason.
Actually there are some zooms that have the shortest FL and smallest max. aperture when fully extended. I’ve got one old 35-70 3.5-4.8 which works just like that.
I guess there must be some optical limitations with this kind of design though (my lens is a cheap zoom anyways). Otherwise there’s obviously no point in making lenses slower on the long end.
I just got my Metabones Speed Booster for Canon EF-NEX to solve fast zoom for NEX problem. I’m using it with the old Tamron 28-75 F2.8 Canon EF FF which still is the smallest, lightest and most compact F2.8 FF zoom lens out there. There’s also one Sigma in this range but it has mediocre IQ. I wouldn’t trade slightly smaller size for constant F2.8 and lose more light even if there was such an option but there simple isn’t. Even the F2.8-4 FF lens are bigger than my Tamron.
Tamron doesn’t have AF motor, but the adapter won’t support AF for most of the lens anyway and even if it did support AF – it would be painfully slow. Also there’s no stabilization, but neither of FF lens has it, except huge and heavy Tamron 24-70 with USD silent AF motor and there’s no guarantee that the adapter will support its stabilization.
First impressions of Metabones:
the adapter-Tamron combo is only 270g heavier than 18200 E-Mount, and a bit bigger/longer.
F2.8 -> F2.0
28-75mm -> 19-50mm
ISO3200 -> ISO800
-keeps almost FF DOF/FOV
basically you get 1.5-2 f-stops advantage compared to NEX 18-55 Kit, better bokeh, better macro. Tamron at F2 is mostly sharp enough at the center with slightly blurred corners.
-AF doesn’t work, but manual focus with NEX focus peeking does
-manual F ring on Tamron is a bit noisy but you can turn it slowly to be silent
-you can adjust F of the lens in camera and the other settings as usual
-you can change full range of F and other video settings during video in manual mode
– each time you change F during video it closes/opens the shutter causing a blink/whiteout in the video for a second
nexphotog
thanks for the write up!
I’m curious as to why the AF wont work? the canon version clearly has AF motor built in the lens,
and would love to hear further impressions on how this combo functions with peaking?
i find manual focus with zoom lens to be very cumbersome
@frosti7 when you switch Tamron 28-75 to AF the NEX AF selection menu still says “AF is not supported for this lens”. There’s a list of supported lenses on Metabones’ site – AF is disabled for most third-party lens including mine. They say you need Metabones firmware 14+ for AF on Canon 2006+ lens and only one compatible Tamron is listed.
The AF will be painfully slow (5-10 sec), similar to LA-EA1 because NEX body doesn’t have PDAF on chip, it tries to control FF lens designed for PDAF by approx. CDAF algorithms and fails miserably. You might as well wait for a NEX body with dual AF/PDAF chip (not hybrid AF). See reviews of Olympus OMD E-M1 for more info on how this combo might work with FF lens.
I believe my Tamron is screw-driven, so the adapter must contain AF motor to drive the AF anyway (NEX body doesn’t have an AF motor), and such an adapter-motor combo exists only in LA-EA2. Also, screw-driven AF will be unbearably loud.
Focus peaking works fine with this lens in manual focus mode.
Fixed aperture is far preferable for video.
This is true.
Then again, Sony’s video offering within the A and E mount (except FS cameras) always seems short of great thanks to the poor codec offering. It makes the whole lot of other benefits (EVF, tiltable screen, ibis, silent dial) just short of daft.
Cry, Sony, and let slip the codecs of war!
The FS cameras use the same codec (currently). Although to be fair the FS100 does a better job at it then my NEX-5N–exact same codec though.
>If it’s 2.8 than it will have exactly the same diameter as 27-70 ZA.
doesn’t have to be. max entrace pupil is 70mm/2.8 = 25 mm. so it CAN have smaller diameter
f4 please, f2.8 will be gigantic.
F2.0 please, even it is gigantic 🙂
1,8 like Sigma now to doo it
I also prefer f4, smaller size as a walk around lens. If I need larger aperture, I stay with primes.
Im interested in primes only. f4 will tie my hands behind their backs and it puts excessive limits on my creative photo shooting.
There are many ways to be creative without ultra-shallow DOF.
yeah right. No one need to buy expensive lens. If they did, they are stupid.
Any news on the FF mirrorless A mount cameras?
nope.
So what would you recommend for someone who wants to invest in Sony products? I’m using a BMCC I can’t adapt E-mount, do you think A-mount will only be supported via adapters?
I can suggest to keep your BMCC and sit tight until the new gen of Sony cameras comes out.
The outlook appears to be like this:
-RX Cybershot are premium unique offerings with non-interchangeable lenses.
-NEX is morphing into SLR shaped as well as the compact shape cameras using E mount. What E mount means is broader, though (FS high end video, NEX compact, SLR-shape)
-A mount will evolve into SLR shape mirrorless cameras aimed (I imagine) primarily at photographers who want video functionality but can make do with poor codec.
Because you have the BMCC now, I would sit tight and wait. The problem with Sony vs Canon, especially, in their high end (A or E mount) offerings is the video codec given. Stills are sorted but video is lacking.
So far, then, for you, the FS series are still the only offering worth looking at if codec is important.
Greetings,
I bet f/3.5 🙂 It sound logic, i would like f/2.8 – even it is gigantic.
Best regards, WZ.
But F/3.5 should come with a macro mode!
even if it’s gigantic? Better buy A-mount version with adapter then…
Should i still keep my A mount lens..
Wonder if they are coming with A mount compact camera.
they already had A mount compact – A33, A55 etc. no one bought them. They stopped making them. Just like all A mount will soon be dead and buried.
I am not sure about the a33 but nobody purchased the A55????
Pretty sure the A55 was incredibly popular.
Just like the A57…
nm wrote:
“they already had A mount compact – A33, A55 etc. no one bought them.”
No one? Why are you making statements like you know the statistics? You must be aware that you don’t no sh-t, right?
In reality, the A55 with EVF sold more than 10 times the number of A580 with OVF.
“They stopped making them.”
Yes. Because the A55 was replaced by newer models.
“Just like all A mount will soon be dead and buried.”
This statement has the same creability as all your other statements – zero.
.
any good lenses are expected at all?
No, only bad ones.
HAHAHA!
^ This is true. Sony recently announced their plans to ‘develop exceedingly poor quality lenses’. New lenses are anticipated to have dirt, rock, and insect part inclusions in the unpolished optical glass.
You would think they’d give it a faster aperture than the 16-70’s f/4. Otherwise, what’s to distinguish it? It would be too much overlap.
The 16-70 is an APS-C lens.
Well for a start, f/4 on FF has shallower DOF than on APS-C at equivalent focal lengths.
They’re really different lenses for different sensors, though. Unless the FE 24-70mm wipes the floor optically with the 16-70mm (or it is f/2.8), you wouldn’t buy the 24-70mm for an APS-C e-mount camera.
What happened to the rumor that Sony would release and E-mount 70-400mm? That would complete the rumored lens line-up:
1. 35mm f/2.8
2. 55mm f/1.8
3. 24-70mm f/???
4. 70-400mm f/4-5.6
(5. possibly an 85/90mm f/2.8?)
That would also jive with the rumor that the primes were slow and the zooms were huge–although I’m in the camp that says f/2.8 for 35mm and 85mm if they are are super-sharp wide open, is fast enough and a good balance of speed to size.
It would also give the most complete system with the fewest number of new & difficult lens designs.
Thanks for bringing this up. No Lens roadmap published for 2014 lenses ..just rumors..which sometimes are not true.
Sony is busy…and confused with different form factor of the camera…No time for lenses. In 3.5 yrs…still people waiting for essential e mount lenses.
Full frame E mount camera buyers…will take another 7 years to wait for all lenses….and that too …all the lenses will be $1000+ each.
I have been waiting…and need to wait many more years for 300mm+ cheap(<$500) lenses for E mount.
I think only way to solve my birding quest..using a light-weight format is…Use Nikon 1 v2 with Ft1 adopter…and Nikon 300+mm lenses…for all birding with fantastic shutter speed of 1/16000 limit and 60+FPS.
Use my existing Sony APSC Emount + lenses for all portrait, Landscape scenario.
Will evaluate…..if I can do all in good quality with just one system (Nikon)…then will discard the other one. Anyway who wants to carry dead weight… 2 camera system.
Wish Sony could have brought some long telephoto for e-mount….that would have saved my experimentation with other system.
In fact so far Sony produced wonderful cameras but few (and poor) lenses.
Nikon produce blah cameras, but quite a few of nice and useful zooms.
Maybe if they join forces they manage to create a decent system?
😉
I don’t know. That would be too brilliant of a line up for a company like Sony to hit. They’ve got to throw some oddball lens in there to stay true to the Sony heritage.
I wonder why Leica can make lens in compact size but other japanese company can’t???
Here we go again.
lol
No zoom, no AF… and Leica is still German…
ah Leica and Zeiss these two famous japanese companies…
You made my day 😀
In short:
AF lens design (needs small elements for the AF Drive to move)
MF lens design is not restricted to using small elements
Af motor (it needs space, doesnt it?)
Read here for more details
http://www.seriouscompacts.com/showthread.php?t=19561&highlight=af+lens+design+size+element+small
rogerc explains.
2 different issues:
1. Take a look at the zoom on the “mini M”. Not at all small.
2. Design compromises are possible with Leica M lenses since the sensor is specifically designed to accommodate those ( a shame that the the largest sensor manufacturer in the world would only churn out run of the mill sensors!). This combined with innovative design, expensive materials, lack of auto focus (it is not just lack of auto focus as many keep chirping) makes the compactness possible.
AnnoyingHendrick is back. That’s not me, again, because point 2 is deceiving.
There is no compromise in Leica M lenses because manual focus lenses don’t need compromises.
The compromise only comes with AF lenses because you cannot use elements of any size for any formula given that there must be one element moved by the AF motor and these elements are small.
Find the summicron or summarit formulas and see that not one of those would be compact if you were to fit an AF motor powerful enough to move the focusing element.
To the nasty and ill informed: Get yourself to the 21 century and look at the current Leica (M) lens designs. Internal focusing, rear focusing and such are there along with many other aspects.
Also, if you can, try and use a Leica M lens on a NEX (run of the mill sensor) vs a Leica M or a Ricoh M module(with special off set micro lens array)to see the difference, numbnut.
The GXR-M module doesn’t use offset-microlenses – that’s the M9. And the M240 also dispensed with offset microlenses in favor of non-spherical ones.
There’s actually not a lot of difference in M lens performance between the GXR-M and a 5n although the original 5 and 7 are perform very badly.
If we would get sensor-shift-AF, would it then not be reasonable to design lenses that do not have _any_ moving elements? You could design a more perfect and more compact fixed-focus lens and still retain AF and IBIS.
Is there any flaw in this assumption?
@Maverick There isn’t a big difference (and it is actually a small one), but there definitely is one.
John:
The GXR does have offset microlenses in addition to lacking an AA filter pack. I have compared the GXR with the Epson RD1 – both use Sony fabricated sensors.
None of the NEX cams (including the 5N and 6) compare favorably with that of the GXR.
I’ve decided to change my name seeing that annoyinghendrick’s views are not mine and his apparent attraction to use my name can be damaging to my own opinions.
@Hendrick the Younger,
Yes the GXR/M is a Sony sensor without an AA filter. But, I’ve never seen any Ricoh product literature or company blogs etc indicating the use of offset-microlenses. I’d be interested if you had a ref.
Maverick, No last names for me!
” Taking into account the use of lenses such as the symmetrical wide-angle lenses of the film era, this sensor optimizes on-chip micro-lens performance and suppresses peripheral light falloff and color balance changes.”
From: http://www.ricoh.com/r_dc/gxr/unit5.html
Enjoy! 🙂
@Hendrick
Thanks. Yes, it says they are ‘optimized’ – but there’s no mention of ‘offset’ which is a Kodak developed technology developed for Leica.
F4 isn’t bad at all for an ff zoom… It’s still not going to be particularly small or light, but I can’t think of a single ff zoom that is. I just wonder how many people will buy a zoom for an ff nex – it’s screaming out for a bag of primes…
Is full frame E lens gonna to work in crop ?
You mean APS-C E-mount lenses will work in crop on FF? Yes they will.
Yes you can use their FF NEX lenses on existing NEX cameras.
F4 good enough for me. But for small size I look for primes.
Really all I need for a start is 24mm, 35mm and 85mm.
F2.8 or F4.0 ok for me.
if it’s going to follow ‘speed’ of 35mm lens then my guess would be f/4 which brings me to the question which is bothering me:
who is Sony targeting with $3000 FF body and slow lenses?
Leica owners with fast lenses looking for an alt platform?
Valid point although not the one shared by Sony. I don’t know, it all just looks, at least from rumours, like Sony’s a bit lost. If I was to release a new FF body and had a chance to design lenses for it, i’d do following:
primes:
24mm or 27mm f/2 or f/2.8
35mm f/1.4 or f/2
50mm f/1.4
85mm or 90mm f/1.4 or f/2
a true macro (1:1)
zooms (semi standard and pro):
14-24mm f/2.8 and f/4
24-70mm f/2.8 and f/4
70-200mm f/2.8 and f/4
These are the lenses you would make from your perspective as a photographer. Sony is facing several challenges. It must make lenses for an expensive high-end camera, so they can’t be crap. Fast lenses with autofocus will result in expensive products, that they would need to sell to an audience, which would be well aware of the abundance of excellent manual lenses (not to mention Sony cameras are probably the most MF friendly). They also would benefit from making a product that is clearly different than competing ones. Making the package significantly smaller is a good way of doing it.
For me, that 35mm 2.8 makes a lot of sense, considering my own assumptions (obviously). I also find it very useful as user too. It is good to have “slower” primes, why only zooms?
What a waste of space…
because fast zooms are much more expensive than slow ones, compare f/2.8 zooms with f/4 ones
Same goes for primes, no?
Good points, and I suspect compactness is the most important one here. They could certainly make an f/2.8 zoom, but it would negate the whole promise of a compact system. I haven’t seen an f/2.8 zoom that would be a reasonable fit for a NEX body. After all, if you don’t care about compactness, you can always use the A-mount f/2.8 zoom with an adapter.
Who are you Vlad by the way? Are you some funny guy or some funny guy working for Sony? Or you are too young to work?
Beating Leica at their own game by making a camera smaller and ligher than the M line, is an especially interesting move from Sony. If the FF NEX can also retrofit those lenses with good performance it will garner a lot of attention.
+1, i’d much prefer a compact camera with a small lens and AF at first, making a 35mm f1.4 AF at $2000 and a FF NEX at $3000 leaves a lot of people out, and those would be the same people who wish they had a leica but are not willing to pay the exclusive premiums for it.
much rather see a f2.8 at say $500 at first, then 2 years later expand with a f1.4 at $2000, much more customers to sell the lens to because they have already invested in the body and $5000 over 2 years sounds better than $5000 in a week.
don’t run before you can walk.
most people who say dumb s**t like “f2.8 is too slow, give me a f1.4!!” are not the people who will make a huge loss if the FF NEX system flops. There is always more demand for the lower cost lenses than the higher up ones.
Zeiss lenses are such a rip off- I wish Sigma would make some lenses for this camera. Better value. Zeiss tend to be niced but there’s a huge premium involved simply because of the name.
Is the Sony Zeiss 24-70mm (a-mount) a rip-off compared to Canon’s 24-70?
not compared to LII but compared to Nikon, yes 😉
How so?
The Sony 24-70 is less expensive than the Nikon 24-70 (source: Amazon).
Nikon: http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-nikon-24-70mm-f2-8-g-af-s-ed-lens/p1023051
Sony Zeiss: http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-sony-24-70mm-f2-8-za-ssm-carl-zeiss-vario-sonnar-t-zoom-lens-/p1025375
£200 diference -> source WexPhotographic
Amazon UK price difference is 114 pounds.
In North America, it can be purchased new for less than the Nikon. Suffice to say, it is not a rip-off compared to Nikon or Canon equivalents.
DF said:”Zeiss tend to be niced but there’s a huge premium involved simply because of the name.”
In my experience (I own the SZ 16-35 & 24-70), the premium is for the build quality. I owned a Canon 24-70 2.8 (mk I) and I continue to use Canon mk1 lenses for event shoots. The Sony Zeiss 24-70 is built better (the color rendition & sharpness are superior too). The Sony Zeiss 16-35 is built leaps and bounds better than the Canon 16-35. Unfortunately, Canon has pushed lens prices up in the last 6 years and Sony has happily followed suit.
OK, maybe I can go on ebay and find them at the same price.
All in all, price aside, the best 24-70s are:
1) Canon 24-70 L II
2) Nikon 24-70
3) Sony Zeiss 24-70
Sadly enough, CZ 24-70 for Sony is a design that has started showing its age already. It needs a re-design (hopefully the new E mount version would be a new design and not just an adapted version of the old lens) and it needs weather sealing (ala 50mm 1.4 CZ) to really have features to compete with the other two lenses.
Canon’s common 24-70 L is not a great lens. It just happens to be more affordable than the pricey L II so they keep on making it.
I forgot to add that the 24-70s (Canon II, Nikon and Sony) all are very good in the centre of the image. However, it is on the edges where Sony will disappoint compared to the others.
So, if you shoot a lot focused on the centre, you can’t go wrong with either.
Internal zoom would be nice. Unscientifically, I feel like large zoom lenses that extend are more prone to getting dust inside the lens.
One big advantage the SZ 24-70 has over the Canon & Nikon versions – image stabilization (thanks to the camera body). It was a big reason I switched from Canon. I was pissed when Canon released the 24-70 mmII for double the price without IS. Thanks to the IBIS I can get more useable/sellable event shots.
If this e-mount 24-70 is an f2.8 Zeiss with a new (or enhanced) optical formula then I would imagine Sony may not plan on ever releasing an updated a-mount 24-70.
no one is forcing you to buy zeiss!
Admin, do you know if it is the same optical formula / lens as the a-mount version (simply with a different mount) or have the internals been updated?
No way. Only Samyang has done that. Also the 24-70 2.8 for A mount needs more than just a simple bayonet replacement.
But I’m skeptical about this rumour. A 24-70/4 is more likely.
Are you saying that it is not technically possible for Sony to re-release their a-mount lenses with an e-mount?
Of course it’s possible, but if Sony kept the same optical formula as the A-mount 24-70mm, they would have to compensate for A-mount’s larger flange distance by extending the length of the lens. The 24-70mm is already big, so nobody would want that.
naaw, of course there will be a very small number of DoFwhores on the internet who’d buy it!! they don’t care how big the lens is or how hard it is to carry as long as its the biggest aperture they have for it! and then they’d sell it instantly for a lens which is twice as expensive for a 1/3 of a stop improvement! 😀
If Samyang could do it, why do you think Sony can’t? 🙂
The Nex series compacts have always been about portability. Sony will always redesign lenses for the E mount to make use of its short-flange to make the lenses smaller and perhaps simpler.
Samyang has been selling a lot of their SLR lenses as E mount lenses with an “integrated adapter” because they’re all about economical alternatives (although they make fine lenses themselves). Guess they haven’t bothered redoing them for E mount because people have been happy just using their SLR lenses with adapters.
i guess it’s a F4 setup.
So if we were to use this lens on our current nex, what would be the resulting focal length? Would it be 1.5x of the stated fl through the whole range?
Also how would that affect the speed of the lens? Would a f4 fe lens result in f3.5 on Nex?
The focal length is converted (1.5x for the aps-c equivalent). The aperture remains the same.
The speed booster converter will give an extra stop of light (but does not affect depth of field).
Correct, on APS-C it would be 36-105mm FF eq. field of view.
I wouldn’t buy such an expensive lens for my APS-C camera. For that the 16-70/4 is just about perfect.
The only reason I would get this over the 16-70 is so that if I do upgrade to FF in the future, I will already have glass that can be used for it (not have to use the old E-mounts in crop mode)
this lens might come as a bundle option as a kit lens with the FF NEX body though, and if it does you’ll probably save money buying the kit rather than the lens alone 🙂
I DO appreciate the 2.8 at the longer end – it can produce some useful results (the first image got the model a very substantial modeling offer).
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33560503
http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/33669252
I hope it is alot smaller than the present 24-70mm zeiss, that is the hole point of FF e mount.
I would bet on f4.
Since there seems to be a pattern here 35mm f2.8 55mm f1.8…
All a stop slower than what people desire.
But I guess they decided that DOF is not a priority since it is FF and low light performance is more than enough so they chose to make them stop slower and reduce the size and the price.
That is a smart thing to do f thy want to show the NEX FF system as more compact tan DSLR.
It is a gamble and those lenses better be VERY sharp at their starting aperture.
They are killing off the A mount for sure !
Very unlikely. Sony UK’s head of digital imaging, Frederik Lange,
says they are not. http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/photo-news/539967/sony-a3000-launch-does-not-spell-end-of-a-mount
I still have a bad feeling. Lets hope for the best!
To be honest, the best, for Sony and us, is that they find a way to seemlessly integrate both E and A mount into one camera…so there is no dedicated E or A mount line of cameras, but just lenses.
i think in the long run when they finally make a cheap, simple adapter from A to E then they might kill it off, i can’t wait since it means sony can focus more on developing better stuff on e mount 😀
I would love to see how they do this even though I don’t like zoom lenses. I had the 24-70 and it was huge and heavy and on my nex-6 it was crazy. I really do miss it…..
I would love to see how they do this too. My 24-70 was also heavy on my NEX-6.
If FF nex only has compact but slow lenses, then it simply will have similar overall image quality and dof as the apsc nex or fujifilm x series with their f1.4 lenses. One of the main reasons why people go FF instead of apsc is to get even less dof and better low light. Pairing it with slow lenses would not make sense. A 24-70 f4 lens would be the same dof as 16-50 f2.8 on apsc. Then what’s the point of going FF?
– Wider field of view
– True focal lengths, no magnification factor
– As you said, equal DoF achievable at one stop down
There is a vast amount of very fast glass useable on the NEX – from all of the Sony / Minolta A-mount AF lenses to Canon, Nikon, m42 and more. If this lens is f4, there is a Sony Zeiss 24-70 2.8 full frame lens available now.
“- True focal lengths” – what is true focal length? there’s no such a thing, it’s all about angle of view which varies depending on the capture area (film/sensor) -> my 80mm Planar on Hasselblad gives similar angle of view as my 50mm Planar on Leica M6 and similar angle of view as my 35mm lens on Fuji X-Pro1 => roughly.
True as in you are getting what is marked on the barrel of the lens, 50mm = 50mm. Don’t be pedantic.
OK 😀
“One of the main reasons why people go FF instead of apsc is to get even less dof and better low light.”
That may be true for DSLRs and the battle Canon and Nikon are fighting, but I don’t think that’s what Sony are aiming for. I think they are hoping for better resolution and lens sharpness.
and small package compared to 5d/d800 etc 😀
I’m just looking forward to the Nex fanboy crew complaining when the camera comes out and it’s $3400.
Why are you looking forward to it? And why do you call those who like the Nex “fanboys”? Everyone knows the connotation of this word…
Why not buy whatever you want to buy and get on with your life?
Clean skies at low iso… one more reason
55/1.8? Wasn’t that a 85/1.8 until recently?
No, they are completely different lenses.
I just want to know how big it will be！
Big. It’ll be the same size as it’s respective DSLR Canon/Nikon equivalent.
The A-Mount isn’t going anywhere. Its probable that Sony will slap an E-Mount on some of its most popular/highest margin lenses for the FF-NEX cameras, but I wouldn’t expect a full transition.
The A-Mount will continue to drive interchangeable lens sales for Sony and will continue to do so. The only thing I see about to change is the sensor size. All A-Mount cameras will likely be full frame in the near future. APS-C will likely be reserved for the cheaper NEX cameras.
You have failed to consider the most recent economic theories.
what a waste of resources…
where does it say that every mount needs to have the same set of lenses?
they should leave the big, heavy, expensive zooms to A-mount and play to the strength of E-mount which are portable primes..
you can’t make everyone happy…. lots of people have complained and said that there is not enough native lenses for NEX, esp since its FF
Could not agree more. Are people so f*cking stupid they are going to buy bof bulky zoom lenses for a camera that has only one reason to exist; BIG SENSOR IN A SMALL BODY!
Cant believe that people complain about the 2.8 aperture of the new 35mm Zeiss either.. I would rather go f4 on FF than 1.4 on aps-c. The difference in image quality is that big.
It depends what conditions you are shooting in. If you like to shoot in really low light, f1.4 on APS-C is going to be much MUCH better that f4 on FF. That’s a 3 stop difference.
While I agree that a f/4 prime would be pretty limiting, you shouldn’t think of the a FF-Nex as the ultimate camera system that everyone would have. People will have bigger cameras for times when they need to use bulky lenses and fast AF.
I couldn’t care less about the size of the FE 24-70… it’s still a zoom to me 🙂
+1! though i’d much rather just come to a compromise and use my f1.4 on a FF! hahaha
my money would be on f4 also, “if people don’t care about size/price they can get the adapter and use the zeiss 24-70 f2.8!” is what i can imagine sony staff saying
If not 24-70 than 28-75/2.8 can be a sharp and compact prototype lens fo FE.
24-70 vs 28-75
I´d rather finally see a picture of the FF NEX cameras.
I wonder what takes sources so long to finally share a damn picture.
These things must be in production already, no?
confidentiality and non-disclosure agreements? theres quite a few review sites who seems to have signed it with recent cameras (e.g. 5T and A3000) to state that they can not release reviews on the camera until a certain date. don’t worry, sneak peak photos of FF NEX isn’t going to make it come out any faster 😛
Now way its a f2.8
The Zeiss 24-70 f2.8 es gigantic!
Not to mention the 35mm prime at only f2.8
if the fastest zoom for this thing is F4 I will probably not buy it. I can deal with the limitations of F4 for my $500 zooms, but i’m not interested in paying $5000 for a zoom and camera where the fastest option(without adapters) is only F4. My main reason for wanting FF is low light capabilities and i’m really not gaining much if I trade my 2.8 zooms for higher ISO and F4.
I will be in for this if they can make a smallish 17-35 F2.8 or 24-50 2.8… or any 2.8 zoom that includes 24mm.
Any chance of this(in something smaller than the Zeiss/Canikon version)?
does the FE full frame lens will be compatible with normal nex cameras??????????
This is the route I went with lens wise given I was planning on getting the “NEX FF high MP camera” when it was released.
I purchased the Sony 16-70mm f/4 over the FE 24-70mm based on:
1. Smaller and lighter all around/travel lens.
2. Slightly more FL on the long end.
3. Most likely better dynamic range, cleaner high iso than the NEX 7 I currently use.
4. For some a bonus, 15 MP since it will be in crop mode.
When I need the full resolution and shallow dof I will use my Leica Summilux lenses. This will cover a broad range, is extremely small and everything can fit in a Billingham Hadley Pro easily. The only lens missing would be the telephoto zoom which Sony makes for the NEX.
The only other route (option 2) I thought about was purchasing the OM-D EM-1 and the 12-40mm f/2.8 and upcoming 40-150mm f/2.8. There are pros/cons to the above.
Some Pros
1. Can have the zoom on the EM-1 and the Leica on the A7R
2. 1 stop better ISO and increased DOF compared to the Zeiss zoom
3. Possible faster AF and IBIS
Some Cons
1. Price and space for extra body / accessories
2. Less dynamic range and image quality compared to even current Sony FF sensors
3. Getting used to both camera system menu’s
Did I make the right call by not going with option 2?
Josh