Home · Register · Search · View Winners · Software · Hosting · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username   Password

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end
  

Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced
  
 
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #1 · p.3 #1 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Spyro P. wrote:
I know, we should try and extend the discussion in as many threads as possible


I am sorry if you feel that we do this too much. Regarding when I do it, it always starts with that I want to answer a question, or if someone mentions equivalence and says it is valid only for DOF and not for shutter speed. Then I think it is warranted to bring facts supporting that equivalence is valdi also for shutter speed.



Feb 12, 2014 at 08:40 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #2 · p.3 #2 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


snapsy wrote:
Every format has its compromises but a lens that is simply too heavy to take and use throws equivalence out the window.


Exactly. If I want more than 16 MP or higher SNR than 36 dB at 16 MP, it throws u43 out of the window altogether.



Feb 12, 2014 at 08:41 AM
snapsy
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #3 · p.3 #3 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
Exactly. If I want more than 16 MP or higher SNR than 36 dB at 16 MP, it throws u43 out of the window altogether.


Human tolerance for weight burden and discomfort doesn't comport with signal theory or optical formulas. Equipment that is too heavy to use simply sits at home and produces 0MP and a SNR of 0:0.



Feb 12, 2014 at 08:54 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #4 · p.3 #4 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


snapsy wrote:
Human tolerance for weight burden and discomfort doesn't comport with signal theory or optical formulas. Equipment that is too heavy to use simply sits at home and produces 0MP and a SNR of 0:0.


A sony A7r with the 55-210 OSS E-mount lens weighs exactly the same as an EM-5 with the 35-100 2.8. It covers a wider zoom range and can be used with a crop factor at about 1.2. Under some circumstances, it gives higher image quality, but it also has other compromises.




Feb 12, 2014 at 09:04 AM
Spyro P.
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #5 · p.3 #5 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
I am sorry if you feel that we do this too much. Regarding when I do it, it always starts with that I want to answer a question, or if someone mentions equivalence and says it is valid only for DOF and not for shutter speed. Then I think it is warranted to bring facts supporting that equivalence is valdi also for shutter speed.

no it's cool
but lets not make it a privilege of APSC and m4:3 lens discussions only, lets spread the love.



Feb 12, 2014 at 09:23 AM
Matt Grum
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #6 · p.3 #6 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


sge998 wrote:
This really defeats the purpose having a "lightweight, pocketable, and small full-frame" camera doesn't it?


Taylor Sherman wrote:
So I should buy an a99 just to use with lenses like this?


mjm6 wrote:
This is an FE mount, so it won't fit on the a99...

Only for E and FE mount cameras.


Taylor said lenses like the FE 70-200, there are lenses like the FE 70-200 that will fit on the a99. The point is people are saying:

"What's the point of having a big heavy lens for a mirrorless camera" as if carrying an extra full size camera body just to use with a telephoto lens somehow makes more sense!

The point of this lens is that if you already own the A7/A7R and you want some extra reach, this lens is an option that is lighter than a DSLR mount 70-200 + adaptor.



Feb 12, 2014 at 09:34 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #7 · p.3 #7 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


snapsy wrote:
MFT is where it's at for size/weight/IQ balance for longer focal lengths. I can't see any other format competing with the 35-100mm.


I guess these are the competitors, all featuring image stabilisation and native AF:

14 MP 2.7x crop: Nikon J3 + 30-110 VR : 201g + 183 g = 384 g
16 MP 2.0x crop: PEN E-PL5 + Pana 35-100 OIS: 325 g + 360 g = 685 g
24 MP 1.5x crop: Sony A6000 + 55-210 OSS 344g + 345g = 689 g
36 MP 1.0x crop: Sony A7r + 70-200 G OSS: 465 g + 840g = 1305 g

IMO all these are compelling alternatives depending on how you weigh the properties. And if 685 g is too heavy to carry, only the Nikon 1 will produce image quality above 0MP and 0dB SNR


N1 wins over all the others on weight.
MFT wins over N1 and APS-C on equivalent lens speed and lens quality.
APS-C wins over MFT and N1 on ideal conditions image quality, and over MFT and FF on reach.
FF wins over all the others on equivalent lens speed and image quality.


Edited on Feb 12, 2014 at 11:15 AM · View previous versions



Feb 12, 2014 at 10:42 AM
kroyston
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #8 · p.3 #8 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


I'm a little surprised this is larger than my old EF 70-200 F/4 IS (760g, 76x172mm and 67mm thread) to Sony's (840g 80x175 and 72mm thread). It's more the weight as they've been good about keeping weight down on the E/FE lenses more so than size. I wonder if the 840 includes the collar, and if so how much it contributes.

I'm confident the EF will hold up well to higher MP sensors too.



Feb 12, 2014 at 11:11 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #9 · p.3 #9 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


kroyston wrote:
I'm a little surprised this is larger than my old EF 70-200 F/4 IS (760g, 76x172mm and 67mm thread) to Sony's (840g 80x175 and 72mm thread). It's more the weight as they've been good about keeping weight down on the E/FE lenses more so than size. I wonder if the 840 includes the collar, and if so how much it contributes.

I'm confident the EF will hold up well to higher MP sensors too.


It is partly because the focal length and lens design requires the same distance from the elements to the sensor, so this lens need som extra empty tube near the mount. This would be filled by the adapter using other 70-200 lenses.



Feb 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #10 · p.3 #10 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


itai195 wrote:
How does the size of the Oly 40-150/2.8 compare? It also looks fairly large. The Fuji 50-140/2.8 also looks nearly this large.


Yup. And it's why I won't be buying those lenses. I'm glad that there are smaller but still very high quality zooms in that range for both cameras. Sony should also release an f4-5.6 zoom in this range...but unlike most variable aperture telezooms, make it just as good optically as the f/4.

I'm not begrudging people this lens. If you want shallow depth if field in your zooms there's no way around physics. But I also know camera manufacturers and for full frame, high image quality usually means huge lenses, and this is a case in point. There are small primes, and that's great...but even those will be large as they get longer. It's just my preference. There are times the Fuji lenses are a little big for my taste, but they've done a good job keeping weight down, so I'm generally good, and the zooms are faster than normal, very high quality, but not so fast that they are giant. That's a strategy that resonates with me. The upcoming Fuji f/2.8 zooms just look way too big to me too, but there are smaller options for me if I'm willing to sacrifice a stop for weight, without sacrificing image quality.

Likewise with m4/3....I give up some sensor performance and depth of field for size, but not sharpness, quality if bokeh or color. It's a good trade for my needs. Other people have different needs and love carrying the heavy crap so they can get one eyelash in focus and that's fine too. I just don't feel the need for everything to be Full frame since I've been there and done that and my enjoyment of photography was less when I was carrying around that amount of weight. It's also why equivalence talk is so annoying. I'm using smaller formats and sacrificing depth of field intentionally for size. I don't need to hear that it doesn't have equivalent depth of field to a different full frame lens that I have no desire to use because of its size.

I think it's great options like this lens exist for users who want it....just seems that there may not be the good smaller versions to complement them. The 28-70 is pretty poor and still pretty large. In the topic of this lens, it looks very well built, it's probably good optically, and I think they priced it right where it should be.


Edited on Feb 12, 2014 at 12:02 PM · View previous versions



Feb 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



carrg1954
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #11 · p.3 #11 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


fwiw my 70-200 f4 is canon with hood, but without its tripod collar weighs 815gm,
we are looking at minor difference in dia and length.
The important part is when its released, will it perform like the canon. It needs to, along with AF. Let's hope is better than the recently released zeiss zoom that should have been better stopped down. Sony needs native lenses to convince some of us that their new FF are worth the trouble. I'm waiting to find that out.



Feb 12, 2014 at 11:38 AM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #12 · p.3 #12 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


carstenw wrote:
?

Panasonic 35-100/2.8 should fit the bill, or?


Remember that when used on the A7r, the image can be cropped to 16 MP APS-C size with a FOV equivalent of 300mm. That is still higher quality than an uncropped u43 image.

So, IMHO, the 35-100/2.8 does not fit the bill. The 70-200 has 50% more effective reach when used with the A7r.


Edited on Feb 12, 2014 at 11:57 AM · View previous versions



Feb 12, 2014 at 11:56 AM
kroyston
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #13 · p.3 #13 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


With this system though Sony has showed quite a willingness to correct vignetting and distortion via software. So the diameter is a little surprising, especially as the diameter of the glass is a more important driver of weight than is the length of the tube. Likewise, Sony could have foregone the internal zoom in favor of a more compact solution.


Feb 12, 2014 at 11:56 AM
AhamB
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #14 · p.3 #14 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


kroyston wrote:
Likewise, Sony could have foregone the internal zoom in favor of a more compact solution.


An extending barrel probably makes it a lot harder to make it weather-sealed, which this lens is.



Feb 12, 2014 at 12:04 PM
kroyston
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #15 · p.3 #15 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


AhamB wrote:
An extending barrel probably makes it a lot harder to make it weather-sealed, which this lens is.


If you mean "dust and moisture resistant", it does make it more difficult. But that didn't stop them from using an extending zoom on the 28-70 or the 24-70.



Feb 12, 2014 at 12:11 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.3 #16 · p.3 #16 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
Remember that when used on the A7r, the image can be cropped to 16 MP APS-C size with a FOV equivalent of 300mm. That is still higher quality than an uncropped u43 image.

So, IMHO, the 35-100/2.8 does not fit the bill. The 70-200 has 50% more effective reach when used with the A7r.


It depends entirely on your photographic needs. The A7r + 70-200/4 will almost certainly have higher image quality than the m4/3 + 35-100 combo. It should. It's also $1700 more expensive and weighs twice as much. If you want a small lightweight high quality 70-200 solution, the m4/3 kit fits my needs better. If you want shallower depth of field and the ability to print beautiful 40" prints instead of 24" prints, then the A7r kit is going to fit your needs better. But the percentage of photographers who truly need the image quality jump for the A7r kit are actually pretty darn small. 16 MP m4/3 makes gorgeous prints up to 24" and pretty darn nice prints up to 30". I've printed larger than that exactly twice, and once was a stitch of 18 images from an E-P1 (60" canvas) and that thing is gorgeous....If you are one of those people, then yes, you should go for the A7r + 70-200 combo.

Or, why not go medium format digital...that's better than the A7r, right? Sure it's bigger, heavier and more expensive, but we're talking about image quality, and the A7r just doesn't stack up to a high end MF digital back at low ISO, so it's obviously worthless, right?




Feb 12, 2014 at 12:24 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #17 · p.3 #17 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Jman13 wrote:
It depends entirely on your photographic needs. The A7r + 70-200/4 will almost certainly have higher image quality than the m4/3 + 35-100 combo. It should. It's also $1700 more expensive and weighs twice as much. If you want a small lightweight high quality 70-200 solution, the m4/3 kit fits my needs better. If you want shallower depth of field and the ability to print beautiful 40" prints instead of 24" prints, then the A7r kit is going to fit your needs better.


I don't think you addressed the point in my post. The 35-100 / 2.8 is smaller because it does not provide the same telephoto capabilities at equal image quality.



Feb 12, 2014 at 12:31 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #18 · p.3 #18 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Jman13 wrote:
Or, why not go medium format digital...that's better than the A7r, right? Sure it's bigger, heavier and more expensive, but we're talking about image quality, and the A7r just doesn't stack up to a high end MF digital back at low ISO, so it's obviously worthless, right?



Don't be ridiculous. The A7r is comparable to the E-M5 in size and weight, and the cost is a fraction of a DMF camera.



Feb 12, 2014 at 12:34 PM
alundeb
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #19 · p.3 #19 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Jman13 wrote:
It depends entirely on your photographic needs. The A7r + 70-200/4 will almost certainly have higher image quality than the m4/3 + 35-100 combo. It should. It's also $1700 more expensive and weighs twice as much. If you want a small lightweight high quality 70-200 solution, the m4/3 kit fits my needs better. If you want shallower depth of field and the ability to print beautiful 40" prints instead of 24" prints, then the A7r kit is going to fit your needs better. But the percentage of photographers who truly need the image quality jump for the A7r kit are
...Show more

You are building a Fuji APS-C kit because you were not entierly happy with the image quality of u43, mostly tonality. I can't find the quote, but you said it here recently. Your defense of u43 image quality then seems a little strange.



Feb 12, 2014 at 12:41 PM
mawz
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.3 #20 · p.3 #20 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


douglasf13 wrote:
I know you're just making a joke, but "slow" and "fast" is absolutely dependent on sensor size. The equivalent 4/3 lens to this would be the Olympus 35-100 f2, which is larger, twice the weight, and $2500.

For those that like to calculate their depth of field and use it artistically, knowing the speed equivalences between different formats is important.


Before making that comparison, recall that the Oly 35-100/2 is in fact a 35-100/1.4 which has been limited to f2 in firmware (it stops down to f2 on power-up). It is in fact a 35mm FF 70-200/2.8 design with an integrated 0.5x Telecompressor (speedbooster). So yes, it is huge, but there's a valid reason it's so big.



Feb 12, 2014 at 12:48 PM
1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end




FM Forums | Alternative Gear & Lenses | Join Upload & Sell

1       2      
3
       4              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password