There's a big gapping hole in Sony's lens lineup between 200mm and 400mm for F2.8 for sports. Will Sony ever come out with an affordable zoom between 200-400mm that has F2.8 aperture? Sigma is the closes with the 120-300mm F2.8 for Canon but adapting that to the Sony A9 or Alpha 1 would limit you to a max of 10 or 15 fps depending on what mood the MC-11 adapter is in. Trying to get some F2.8 lens greater than 200mm without spending the cost of a car on the Sony 400mm F2.8.
I love the idea but it would be way too big and heavy for me. But maybe eventually they will do it anyway...Sony seems to give no real indication on what they are working on.
chez wrote:
So you think the Sony 400 2.8 is too expensive and you are wondering about a 200-400 2.8 zoom being more reasonably priced. Keep thinking...
Yeah, a 200-400/2.8 GM would likely cost in the $25,000 range and weigh between 14 and 20 lbs. Closest thing that's been made to that is the Sigma 200-500/2.8, which is $26,000 despite being 13 years old, and weighs 34.6 lbs.
Canon's 200-400 f/4 is $12,000 and a stop slower. Usually a doubling of cost per stop in this range, so that $25,000 number is probably spot on, if not slightly low.
If you're simply wanting a 300mm f/2.8 ish lens, the cheapest way is adapting a gen 1 Canon 300/2.8, which will run you between $2,000 and $3,000 depending on condition. That said, I haven't had great success with adapted EF glass for sports at the long end on Sony bodies.
Could always pick up a used FD 300mm f/2.8L and manually focus....a bit of a challenge, but the optical quality on that lens is still stellar, and you can usually get it for under $1,000.
You can wish for a 200-400/4 and a built in TC because you have to keep up with the Jones....
You could maybe wish for a 120-300/2.8
You will never get a 200-400/2.8....at least I would seriously doubt it....of course Sigma did make a 200-500/2.8 with built-in TC and we all know it required a gym membership
Something tells me that Sony will introduce a 300mm f/2.8 GM lens before the Olympic Games this year.... Did anybody else hear about that, too ? And maybe, if we behave, they will also bring out the 200mm f/2.0, which THE lens for indoor gymnastics. That lens on the A1 would be really awesome.
What's the guess in when Sony will make a 300mm F2.8 prime and how much will it cost? Sony really needs to fill this hole because I could buy the old Canon versions of this lens plus a new Canon body and still have lots of money left over to buy an Alpha 1.
TopPixel wrote:
What's the guess in when Sony will make a 300mm F2.8 prime and how much will it cost? Sony really needs to fill this hole because I could buy the old Canon versions of this lens plus a new Canon body and still have lots of money left over to buy an Alpha 1.
Anyone's guess about if and when. As far as price...I'd bet on $7500 USD. Although the Nikon 120-300/2.8 is $9500. It won't go that high if not a zoom but it will be more than the 2011 $6000 Canon MkII.
arbitrage wrote:
You can wish for a 200-400/4 and a built in TC because you have to keep up with the Jones....
You could maybe wish for a 120-300/2.8
You will never get a 200-400/2.8....at least I would seriously doubt it....of course Sigma did make a 200-500/2.8 with built-in TC and we all know it required a gym membership
Imagine going to a popular heavily attended birding spot, everyone would make room for you just to see the museum piece.
149113 wrote:
Yeah, that's not happening and what would be the compelling use case anyway? The 400 f2.8 is everything anyone would ever need for field sports
Have you ever shot at night on a dimly lit football field? F2.8 is barely enough in those situations and you still have to use sky high ISO where the lights are not directly pointing. And forget about doing 1/1600 shutter.
Jman13 wrote:
Yeah, a 200-400/2.8 GM would likely cost in the $25,000 range and weigh between 14 and 20 lbs. Closest thing that's been made to that is the Sigma 200-500/2.8, which is $26,000 despite being 13 years old, and weighs 34.6 lbs.
Canon's 200-400 f/4 is $12,000 and a stop slower. Usually a doubling of cost per stop in this range, so that $25,000 number is probably spot on, if not slightly low.
If you're simply wanting a 300mm f/2.8 ish lens, the cheapest way is adapting a gen 1 Canon 300/2.8, which will run you between $2,000 and $3,000 depending on condition. That said, I haven't had great success with adapted EF glass for sports at the long end on Sony bodies.
Could always pick up a used FD 300mm f/2.8L and manually focus....a bit of a challenge, but the optical quality on that lens is still stellar, and you can usually get it for under $1,000. ...Show more →
There is also Sony's a-mount SAL300mm f2.8 version I and II that I owned at one time and it functioned very well with the LA-EA3. AF was fast and IQ was excellent on the a9 and a7R4. Those can be had on eBay for fractions of what they initially sold for retail
149113 wrote:
There is also Sony's a-mount SAL300mm f2.8 version I and II that I owned at one time and it functioned very well with the LA-EA3. AF was fast and IQ was excellent on the a9 and a7R4. Those can be had on eBay for fractions of what they initially sold for retail
But those A Mount lenses are still limited to 10 fps?
TopPixel wrote:
Have you ever shot at night on a dimly lit football field? F2.8 is barely enough in those situations and you still have to use sky high ISO where the lights are not directly pointing.
I have shot plenty high school football and soccer on fields that were poorly lit going back to film days. The difference between 2.0 and 2.8 is negligible with that use case. It's a made up strawman
149113 wrote:
I have shot plenty high school football and soccer on fields that were poorly lit going back to film days. The difference between 2.0 and 2.8 is negligible with that use case. It's a made up strawman
You're telling me you can't tell the difference between ISO 12800 and ISO 6400? That's the difference the F2 gives over F2.8. the dynamic range and noise hit going above ISO 6400 is very noticeable on the A9 unless all you do is view your photos on your phone.
TopPixel wrote:
But those A Mount lenses are still limited to 10 fps?
Limited? Considering it's an adapted lens and can take advantage of real time tracking on a camera it was never intended to operate on, I'd say that a pretty good accomplishment
? And maybe, if we behave, they will also bring out the 200mm f/2.0, which THE lens for indoor gymnastics. That lens on the A1 would be really awesome.