With all the comments about sony FF sensor (some other forever thread) the question I keep asking is what lenses does sony offer?
Anyways the 135f1.8 and 85f1.4 have been around for a bit now - does anyone know how they compare to other zeiss lenses ? (I keep hearing different things -from they are sony designs with zeiss blessing to they meet the usual expectation you would expect from zeiss).
There was one mtf posting for the 24-70 which seemed to be indicate it might have above average performance (then again I vaguely remember hearing that nikon's new 24-70 was a bit on the decent side). Hum... how long till someone makes a digital mamiya 7 ?
sony 20 2.8
sony 50 1.4
zeiss 85 1.4
zeiss 70-200 2.8
zeiss 24-70 2.8
the 24-70 (non internal zoom which may be a good thing after all) appears to deliver high quality on a cropped sensor but only Sony knows how good it is on a FF sensor.
considering that all the lenses will benefit from the 1-2 stops stabilization and also from the reports we see mainly by the alpha users I believe that Sony is already pretty much ready in the (quality) lens department.
right now a combination of alpha 700 and alpha 900 and the lenses I mentioned do look pretty good to me (of course for the photography I do).
the prices are more or less in line with nikon and canon considering the higher quality many of the lenses may provide and if the 900 will confirm the expectations we'll see a serious competitor (on the high end segment)
let's face it: the entire offer is changing targets right now: the 1Ds not longer serves the studio needs (there are the backs for that) and considering the higher resolution of the 900 the wedding photographers will have a better offer from Sony.
I'm just surprise that I've seen very few comments on the sony/zeiss 85f1.4 and 135f1.8. Given how long these lenses have been available -if they were 'special' I would think more people would be mentioning them...
You could also use ZS lenses with the m42 adapter and hopefully one day we will see a contax/minolta adapter.
As for the 85 and 135 I guess there are just not that many people who are ready to invest the money as long sony users can only buy aps cameras.
Compared to the Contax N 85mm this lens weights less and is a completly different design
I hesitate to mention this again - as I have already done elsewhere - but there is all the "back catalogue" of Minolta glass some of which was not entirely useless !
In fact the 85 1.4G is regarded by some as better than similar others .
And of course many of these were designed for 'full frame' - now Yes they are getting a bit long in the tooth but so are some of the Zeiss and Leica designs that we love on this board - not to mention some of the Canon designs.
I really don't want to cheerlead for Sony but let us not dismiss them completely - they may surprise - and the competition can only help all of us whatever we choose to use.
35 1.4G
135 STF
17-35 G
85mm 1.4 G Limited
300mm 2.8 G
Those are the stars of the minolta lineup. Time tested, best in class.
There are not many reviews of the new Sony lenses because frankly, many minolta users have broken ranks and changed systems and the stalwarts have not purchased new lenses. The 135mm f/1.8 is a professional grade lens and probably more expensive than an average A100 user would spend when they can get a flexible zoom. The 85mm f/1.4 Sony/zeiss has been reviewed and compares favorably with the 85mm f/1.4 G (although not tested against the limited which is slightly sharper and has better bokeh than the non-limited). It has a colder color signature and similar bokeh rendering, a touch less pleasant/more pleasant than the G depending on who you ask.
Also, not many minolta users on FM, most are at dyxum and dpreview. The STF on a full frame will be a fascinating lens. It's extremely sharp wide open and has amazing bokeh superior to every lens on the market. Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Pentax. Nothing has bokeh like the STF. Ethereal.
markle wrote:
hi Krug,
you're right but I don't know much about minolta glass...
I'll look closer to the 85 1.4 now
There are a few other stars in the Minolta stable. For one many consider the 35/2.0 to be even better than the heralded 35/1.4. The one I had was just plain awesome.
The reason I went to Canon had little to do with the lenses as I was quite happy with my stable of Minolta primes. I had a first version of the 85/1.4 and cannot say anything bad about that lenses either.
Are not all of these lens out of production and most very rare on the used market ?
pookipichu wrote:
35 1.4G
135 STF
17-35 G
85mm 1.4 G Limited
300mm 2.8 G
Those are the stars of the minolta lineup. Time tested, best in class.
There are not many reviews of the new Sony lenses because frankly, many minolta users have broken ranks and changed systems and the stalwarts have not purchased new lenses. The 135mm f/1.8 is a professional grade lens and probably more expensive than an average A100 user would spend when they can get a flexible zoom. The 85mm f/1.4 Sony/zeiss has been reviewed and compares favorably with the 85mm f/1.4 G (although not tested against the limited which is slightly sharper and has better bokeh than the non-limited). It has a colder color signature and similar bokeh rendering, a touch less pleasant/more pleasant than the G depending on who you ask.
Also, not many minolta users on FM, most are at dyxum and dpreview. The STF on a full frame will be a fascinating lens. It's extremely sharp wide open and has amazing bokeh superior to every lens on the market. Leica, Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Pentax. Nothing has bokeh like the STF. Ethereal.
You ask which might be worthwhile Minolta lenses for a FF future with Sony.
Well I sold much of my minolta glass when I went to Canon but it might be a hint to tell you what I did not sell !
16mm fisheye - "The Leitz version is identical to the Minolta version and is (also) built in Japan" Erwin Puts
n.b. there was a later Leica 15mm - but for a fun lens the 16 is very good indeed.
85/1.4G I find it difficult to separate this from my Canon 85/1.2 (admittedly a Mk1) after making allowance for the camera not being a 5D or 1Ds3 so that says quite a lot for the potential of the lens on the right body.
28-70/2.8G is excellent and quite as good, in my opinion, as the Canon version.
80-200/2.8G although an old lens which can't compete with my much used and valued Canon 70-200 2.8L for
speed of focus and suchlike I just have a recurrent suspicion(like every time I use it) that the IQ of the
Minolta is something very special - it makes the term 'buttery' when applied to a lens sound less
silly than it often does.
300/4 G as shown by jamesdak above this is a v.g. lens.
400/4,5G another keeper - and of course with in-camera stabilisation the 400 is fast, small
and stabilised - as of course are all the above.
- all plus points for decrepid old curmudgeons like me.
However I would not willingly give up my Canon 135/2, 90 TSE, MPE65, 125 APO Lanthar or Zeiss/Leica compatibility via adapters - and as for Sony FF performance compared to 5D or 1s3 well we will have to wait and then test carefully.
But, as I said before, I cannot see the extra competition to be anything but good for all of us - and those that are
dismissing Sony for no high end SLR track record or for no high performance lenses are merely showing the foolishness of all who judge too early and in ignorance of hard evidence.
We will see quite soon one way or the other - but somehow I don't believe that Sony bought the Minolta technical
heritage and staffing for fun but rather, at the very least, to produce items which gain sufficient prestige to give their bread and butter products a significant 'halo glow' for marketing purposes.
krug wrote:
However I would not willingly give up my Canon 135/2, 90 TSE, MPE65, 125 APO Lanthar or Zeiss/Leica compatibility via adapters - and as for Sony FF performance compared to 5D or 1s3 well we will have to wait and then test carefully.
But, as I said before, I cannot see the extra competition to be anything but good for all of us - and those that are
dismissing Sony for no high end SLR track record or for no high performance lenses are merely showing the foolishness of all who judge too early and in ignorance of hard evidence.
Krug - I agree with your thoughts. I'm finding the performance of my Zeiss/Leicas to be exceptional and can't see giving up that capability. Plus I actually had to sell off my AF gear to finance my move over to Canon. Still have a good bit of Minolta MF gear though. But I find using the alternate lense for wide, standard, and short telephoto combined with Canon telephoto's to be a wonderful system. But, the competition from Sony is more than welcomed.
