Home · Register · Join Upload & Sell

  

  Previous versions of Jman13's message #12131268 « Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced »

  

Jman13
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


itai195 wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
johnctharp wrote:
sge998 wrote:
This really defeats the purpose having a \"lightweight, pocketable, and small full-frame\" camera doesn\'t it?


Sensor size and maximum aperture will dictate lens size, especially as focal lengths increase...


Which is exactly why I\'m not on the FF bandwagon for mirrorless. I went mirrorless because the lenses for my DSLR were huge. I have no desire to go back to that. The lens looks good, though and the price is fine....more competitive than I\'d have expected given the prices for the primes.


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 thee and done that and my enjoyment of photography was less when I was carrying around that small 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.



Feb 12, 2014 at 07:00 AM
Jman13
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


itai195 wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
johnctharp wrote:
sge998 wrote:
This really defeats the purpose having a \"lightweight, pocketable, and small full-frame\" camera doesn\'t it?


Sensor size and maximum aperture will dictate lens size, especially as focal lengths increase...


Which is exactly why I\'m not on the FF bandwagon for mirrorless. I went mirrorless because the lenses for my DSLR were huge. I have no desire to go back to that. The lens looks good, though and the price is fine....more competitive than I\'d have expected given the prices for the primes.


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.

In hot 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 thee and done that and my enjoyment of photography was less when I was carrying around that small 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.



Feb 12, 2014 at 06:59 AM
Jman13
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced


itai195 wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
johnctharp wrote:
sge998 wrote:
This really defeats the purpose having a \"lightweight, pocketable, and small full-frame\" camera doesn\'t it?


Sensor size and maximum aperture will dictate lens size, especially as focal lengths increase...


Which is exactly why I\'m not on the FF bandwagon for mirrorless. I went mirrorless because the lenses for my DSLR were huge. I have no desire to go back to that. The lens looks good, though and the price is fine....more competitive than I\'d have expected given the prices for the primes.


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.

In hot 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 thee and done that and my enjoyment of photography was less when I was carrying around that small amount of weight.

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.



Feb 12, 2014 at 06:53 AM
Jman13
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced



itai195 wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
johnctharp wrote:
sge998 wrote:
This really defeats the purpose having a \"lightweight, pocketable, and small full-frame\" camera doesn\'t it?


Sensor size and maximum aperture will dictate lens size, especially as focal lengths increase...


Which is exactly why I\'m not on the FF bandwagon for mirrorless. I went mirrorless because the lenses for my DSLR were huge. I have no desire to go back to that. The lens looks good, though and the price is fine....more competitive than I\'d have expected given the prices for the primes.


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.



Feb 12, 2014 at 06:38 AM
Jman13
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
Re: Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced




itai195 wrote:
Jman13 wrote:
johnctharp wrote:
sge998 wrote:
This really defeats the purpose having a \"lightweight, pocketable, and small full-frame\" camera doesn\'t it?


Sensor size and maximum aperture will dictate lens size, especially as focal lengths increase...


Which is exactly why I\'m not on the FF bandwagon for mirrorless. I went mirrorless because the lenses for my DSLR were huge. I have no desire to go back to that. The lens looks good, though and the price is fine....more competitive than I\'d have expected given the prices for the primes.


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.
/quote]

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.



Feb 12, 2014 at 06:38 AM





  Previous versions of Jman13's message #12131268 « Sony FE 70-200mm f/4.0 G OSS Lens announced »

 




This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.