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
       5              7       8       end
  

Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced
  
 
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #1 · p.4 #1 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
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.


That's a kind of a reach. It only doesn't provide the same telephoto capabilities on the A7r...the A7 it will provide the same (essentially) effective reach, and sharpness I'm sure will be similar (minus the megapixel advantage of the cameras...but that has nothing to do with the lens.) The lens is smaller because it's a 100mm lens instead of a 200mm lens. The whole point is that for those looking for a small, high quality 70-200mm FOV lens, the 35-100/2.8 fits the bill very nicely.


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.


You are confusing the fact that I generally prefer my Fuji kit, which I do for the small increase in image quality and for the controls of the camera and the lenses of the system, as a dismissal of the image quality of m4/3, and it's totally not true. I still think m4/3 is eminently capable of extremely good image quality and is the ultimate if you are after small size while maintaining high image quality. I have a wall of prints I'm staring at right now with images from the GH2, OM-D, X-E1, X-E2 as well as my DSLRs, including some full frame shots. The m4/3 shots do not stand out from the other cameras as being inferior in image quality. There may be subtle tones that I prefer from the Fuji, but it isn't an enormous leap in most circumstances. The main driver was the way the Fuji operates and the lenses, especially at the wider end. I still use m4/3 for macro use (because it's flippin' awesome for that...a 1:1 macro is an 18mm subject on m4/3..equivalent to a 2:1 macro on FF...and it handles so well in that situation as well. I also use m4/3 for long telephoto stuff because I'd much rather carry the tiny (but slow) Oly 75-300mm on my OM-D than a huge 400 or 500m lens on APS-C or a 600mm lens on Full frame.


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.


Of course that was hyperbole, but it was to make a point...and you are moving the goalposts in your response. The camera weight is a negligible part of the system on a mirrorless kit. We were talking about the weight and size of lenses...the 70-200/4 in particular, and how you were saying the 35-100mm doesn't fit the bill for a small 70-200 equivalent. The A7r + 70-200/4 weighs 1314g. The OM-D + 35-100 weighs 790g. To put that in perspective, for the same weight as the A7r+70-200/4, I can carry the OM-D with 9-18mm, 25mm f/1.4, 60mm f/2.8 Macro and 35-100mm f/2.8. That combo weighs 1330g. If you don't shoot macro, sub the 45mm f/1.8 and you're at 1261g.

The OM-D+35-100 combo weighs less than the 70-200 by itself. And it's a full 3 inches shorter, which means a much smaller bag. My point was that just because it has higher image quality (though we don't know if the 70-200 will be as good as the 35-100), doesn't make it automatically 'better' for everyone. For those looking for a small moderate telephoto zoom, the 35-100 may make a lot more sense.

I used the medium format point (and yes, it was tongue in cheek) to point out that everyone's threshold for size and weight (and price) are different....you may hit yours at FF and not want any bigger. I hit mine at APS-C (and even there, it has limits, which is why the f/2.8 Fuji zooms upcoming aren't interesting to me, and the 10-24, while tempting, would only make it into my bag if I were doing specific landscape shooting trips, as I could then replace all my primes in that range when I pack my bag to even out the size.). Some may hit theirs at m4/3. (If the Fuji lenses were much bigger, I'd be at that stage still...the 55-200 is about my limit I think for daily carry). I do have a very large and heavy Canon FD 50-300mm f/4.5L that I will bring out for shallower DOF at long reach from time to time, but it certainly isn't daily carry...I use it about 5 times a year. I use a Rokinon 85mm f/1.4 for shallow DOF portraits, but I generally carry my FD 85/1.8 if I want that length and I'm out carrying a bag because it's much smaller.

Now, I'm not saying anything about this lens if you want the image quality, depth of field and are fine with the size. Go for it. There's nothing wrong with that at all....but for many mirrorless shooters, the point is major size reduction while maintaining quality, and so far, the FE offerings cater to quality (at a large price), though not so much speed (evening out the FF advantage in many cases), while not offering (yet) zooms that are small and high quality. That may change...If it does, I may very well dive in to it. I liked the A7 when I tested it. The RAWs were amazing, the 35/2.8 was a very good lens, and the camera was comfortable in the hand with a great EVF. But right now, it's too big for the quality stuff on the zoom side, and it'll likely be that way with primes too as they get longer (or a bit faster). The leaked 85mm f/1.8 had a 72mm filter size...that's huge for an 85/1.8...it's the same front element size as the 85mm f/1.2L for Canon. Fine if you just want mirrorless cameras for the EVF or a slightly smaller body, but so far, for a high quality kit, it's still meaning pretty big size outside of the moderate wide/normal range.

But, as I've said...this looks like it'll be a good lens for those who aren't concerned with size and weight, and unlike some of the other lenses in the system, the price is right too. I hope the optics are as good as expected.



Feb 12, 2014 at 01:41 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #2 · p.4 #2 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


The focal length equivalent that gives a 16 MP image on the A7 is 245 mm. I don't Think that is essentially 200 mm. In any case we are talking about optimal combinations here, so I use the A7r. You also use optimal combinations.
It is fine that Micro Four Thirds systems can provide a small and light portable camera / lens combo. But saying that we FF shooters don't care about weight is wrong. The increase in image quality for FF is large (2.25x the resolution, one stop larger equivalent aperture, 4 times as many photons in a saturated base ISO image, and possibility for exchange in 50% more reach) for a moderate increase in size and weight (65 % heavier). The benefits are more than proportional to the sacrifice.



Feb 12, 2014 at 02:18 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #3 · p.4 #3 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


To you. And that's fine. To me, it's not, since my prints look fantastic from smaller formats I very, very rarely print larger than 16x20, so that extra quality results in pretty minor increases in final print quality for what I shoot. I'm not knocking anyone who wants to carry extra weight to get the quality they are after. Shoot what works for you. I'm more than willing to sacrifice a stop of speed in depth of field for a kit that doesn't hurt my back after two hours.


Feb 12, 2014 at 02:24 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #4 · p.4 #4 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Ideally, I would want even more resolution, but look at the sacrifice then with an example:
Pentax 645D with 50 MP CMOS sensor and FA 150-300 mm f/5.6 lens. 1480 + 920 g.

84% increase in weight for 38% increase in resolution and 68% increase in sensor area.

When compared to FF over u43: 65% increase in weight for 125% increase in resolution and 300% increase in sensor area,
it becomes obvious that 35mm Full Frame is kind of a sweet spot for image quality / weight.



Feb 12, 2014 at 02:36 PM
Jman13
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #5 · p.4 #5 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


If you need the image quality. I'm glad FF hits that sweet spot for you. It hits it for a lot of people. It does seem, however, that many FF users seem to not realize that different photographers have different sweet spots. For me, APS-C is a great balance between size and quality. M4/3 is great too. I've shot FF with that big bag of gear. Loved the images, but I could never go back to that because the size made me loathe to actually go out and shoot.

I could go back to FF if there were good, high quality slower and smaller options, but it seems that won't happen, and there is still a limit simply because of the focal lengths required. In any case, I'm glad this meets your needs, but it doesn't meet everyone's.



Feb 12, 2014 at 02:44 PM
douglasf13
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #6 · p.4 #6 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


mawz wrote:
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.


Interesting point, although, it is still the only comparable zoom from 4/3, so I think the comparison is still valid.

The funny thing is, I'd imagine that an f5.6 constant zoom for FE, which would be similar to an f2.8 zoom on m4/3, would be uninteresting to most.



Feb 12, 2014 at 02:56 PM
dennishh
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #7 · p.4 #7 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


I don't know about the rest of you but I've been carrying around my Nikon 70-20 2.8 with the meta-bones adapter and can't wait for this lens to hit the market. It'll be about a third the weight and 3 inches shorter than what I'm using now. I also found an early post with some samples from a the 70-200 SSM G on the A7r and if the f4 is anything like this I will be thrilled. http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/my-first-result-with-a7r_topic102199_post1221899.html#1221899


Feb 12, 2014 at 03:35 PM
sflxn
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #8 · p.4 #8 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Just off topic, but someone on dpreview posted the lens roadmap for future FE lenses taken from Sony Australia. It clearly states the ultra-wide f/4 zoom and large aperture prime coming next month are Zeiss.


Feb 12, 2014 at 04:07 PM
win2kpro
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #9 · p.4 #9 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Is it just me or does it pretty much looks like Canon's EF 70-200mm?


Feb 12, 2014 at 04:18 PM
ken.vs.ryu
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #10 · p.4 #10 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


win2kpro wrote:
Is it just me or does it pretty much looks like Canon's EF 70-200mm?


The dimensions are very close to the F4Lis.



Feb 12, 2014 at 04:31 PM
 

Search in Used Dept. 



snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #11 · p.4 #11 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
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.



The 55-210 was my first choice but the two copies I tried were coke bottles at infinity and also horribly decentered. I didn't want to use MFT for my 70-200 but my testing indicated there was no alternative if I wanted to stay light. I use my NEX for UWA though - the 10-18mm compares well against the 7-14mm.



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:13 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #12 · p.4 #12 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


snapsy wrote:
The 55-210 was my first choice but the two copies I tried were coke bottles at infinity and also horribly decentered. I didn't want to use MFT for my 70-200 but my testing indicated there was no alternative if I wanted to stay light. I use my NEX for UWA though - the 10-18mm compares well against the 7-14mm.


Sorry to hear that, my copy of the 55-210 is almost as good at infinity as my Canon 70-200 F4 IS at 180mm:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234844/1#11749732



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:17 PM
Beni
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #13 · p.4 #13 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


I had the Canon f4 and f4IS lenses, they were big enough. Couldn't imagine trying to hang one off my A7r. It was a while ago but I seem to remember them being considerably cheaper too?


Feb 12, 2014 at 05:21 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #14 · p.4 #14 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
Sorry to hear that, my copy of the 55-210 is almost as good at infinity as my Canon 70-200 F4 IS at 180mm:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1234844/1#11749732


To my eyes the 55-210 looks noticeably softer vs the 70-200 in that comp.



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:22 PM
itai195
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #15 · p.4 #15 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


Beni wrote:
I had the Canon f4 and f4IS lenses, they were big enough. Couldn't imagine trying to hang one off my A7r. It was a while ago but I seem to remember them being considerably cheaper too?


The IS version is about $200 cheaper than this Sony. It's also been around for years, so hopefully the Sony will be a better performer... though there's not much to complain about with the Canon.

I remember waiting several years for Nikon to make a lens like this. Sony did it within the A7's first year. Pretty pleased with that. I'd like to see something like a lower specced but still competent, smaller, 70-300 variable aperture zoom at some point too.



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:30 PM
edwardkaraa
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #16 · p.4 #16 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


sflxn wrote:
Just off topic, but someone on dpreview posted the lens roadmap for future FE lenses taken from Sony Australia. It clearly states the ultra-wide f/4 zoom and large aperture prime coming next month are Zeiss.


And by all accounts so far, they will be the 16-35/4 and 85/1.8.



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:34 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #17 · p.4 #17 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


snapsy wrote:
To my eyes the 55-210 looks noticeably softer vs the 70-200 in that comp.


There is some glow, but the resolution is there. Some very very mild USM with a few pixels radius cleans up most of it. Of course the lens it not in the same league as the 35-100 2.8. But again, that lens does not provide nearly the same telephoto reach.



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:36 PM
snapsy
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #18 · p.4 #18 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


alundeb wrote:
There is some glow, but the resolution is there. Some very very mild USM with a few pixels radius cleans up most of it. Of course the lens it not in the same league as the 35-100 2.8. But again, that lens does not provide nearly the same telephoto reach.


Btw, here's an image from one of my 55-210mm samples @ 55mm, compared to the NEX kit 18-55mm. Notice the left 20% of the frame.

55-210mm @ 55mm f/5.6
18-55mm @ 55mm f/5.6



Feb 12, 2014 at 05:49 PM
alundeb
Online
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.4 #19 · p.4 #19 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


douglasf13 wrote:
The funny thing is, I'd imagine that an f5.6 constant zoom for FE, which would be similar to an f2.8 zoom on m4/3, would be uninteresting to most.


Most people would prefer a variable aperture zoom up to f5.6
Canon makes a 28-135 f/3.5 - 5.6 IS. It would have been interesting if it was sharper wide open.



Feb 12, 2014 at 06:08 PM
Steve Spencer
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.4 #20 · p.4 #20 · Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


douglasf13 wrote:
The funny thing is, I'd imagine that an f5.6 constant zoom for FE, which would be similar to an f2.8 zoom on m4/3, would be uninteresting to most.


But lots of Canon and Nikon shooters are very happy with an f/4 70-200 zoom on the APS-C cameras, which is a quite similar lens. Many people look at the f number and don't really realize what they are getting.



Feb 12, 2014 at 06:12 PM
1       2       3      
4
       5              7       8       end




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

1       2       3      
4
       5              7       8       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username   Password    Reset password