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