douglasf13 wrote:
It's odd that Sony decided to make a wide angle prime (16/2.8) the first major prime for the NEX system, and now they may not have a wider than 30mm FE prime available for the first couple of years of the new system.
I mean, if Sony were able to just make an initial lineup of something like a 28, 35, 50 and 85 at inception, it would go a LONG way. Sure, it wouldn't make everyone happy, but it would probably cover a lot of bases.
They probably have a load of lenses in the R&D pipeline, and I suppose it was a wise move to release the camera as soon as it was finished. They don't know when or if anyone else would do the same, and with no competition, they could sell A LOT even with a thin lens linup at launch.
Most of the potential buyers do understand that this system will be the benchmark for a long time, like Leica M was (and still is). So it's not a risk at all to invest in just the camera and one or two lenses now, because there will be more, and it will be good. Plus, you can use [insert whatever brand] lenses on it, right away.
---------------
Personally, I'm debating what 35 mm lens I should get. I have the 40/2 Summicron-C, and while I expect it to work, I don't expect it to please me infinitely. The FE would be a no-brainer if it wasn't for the slowish f/2.8 max aperture. F/2 would have been a different story, but if I buy the FE I'll "have to" get something faster as well. And I don't like to have more than one lens in each focal length.
edwardkaraa wrote:
I talked to someone at Sony today, and it seems the next lenses that will be launched next year will be the 85/1.8 and 16-35/4 Zeiss. That makes an interesting line up with the Zeiss 24-70/4, 35/2.8 and 55/1.8 of native AF lenses. Add to that the MF Zeiss lenses by end of 2014.
Cant help wondering why the primes are slowish as they seem high price:ish. The zooms are alright, along the lines of Canon/Nikon with fixed F and all. But 55/1.8 compared to a typical 50/1.4, 35/2.8 vs 2.0 and now 85/1.8 compared to 1.4.
As Sony seem to think people are impressed by 36MP over 24MP, why stop with 1.8 when there's a 1.4 representing something "better"?
Did Sony perhaps realize that 36MP on a F/1.4-lens is too revealing for the average-Joe pixelpeeper? Hope there is a better reasoning available than such a bad thought. Come back Suede!
wfrank wrote:
Cant help wondering why the primes are slowish as they seem high price:ish. The zooms are alright, along the lines of Canon/Nikon with fixed F and all. But 55/1.8 compared to a typical 50/1.4, 35/2.8 vs 2.0 and now 85/1.8 compared to 1.4.
As Sony seem to think people are impressed by 36MP over 24MP, why stop with 1.8 when there's a 1.4 representing something "better"?
my guess is keeping size and price reasonable while maximizing performance. i'd rather have an excellent f/1.8 lens than bigger and only good f/1.4 lens on a small camera. the increase in size per price and decrease in performance per price for going to f/1.4 versus f/1.8 are quite large.
I'm good with the 1.8 if it means a better corrected lens. Imo, the partial stop diff is not quite as critical as what it once was ... given the improvements in ISO and the ability to offset only a partial stop diff without too much penalty if you really needed that partial stop for exposure.
The removal of the mirror affords the ability to design for optical excellence without impedance. I'd like to think (as others have previously alluded to) that this is essentially the Otus design concept toward "no compromise" (although 1.8 and size are a compromise for some) in mirrorless form ... rather than an "let's make it small" or "uber-fast" effort that incurs additional challenges at optical compromises to well corrected.
Of course, you could always just use the Otus instead. I mean ... it is a 55/1.4 designed for a 24x36 area. I doubt that the mirror was the primary factor in to their decisions to design it as large as they did ... I think optics ruled on that one.
"zero interest in A7, who's with me?" And a bunch are with him, but Rbelyel just chimed in:
"ts such a downer reading these threads, and realising how 'unenthusiastic' are camera 'enthusiasts' whenever a new product is released. its always about putting it down, tamping enthusiasm, what it cant do, why its not better than i have now, and how real photgraphers make magic with a pinhole poked through dog poop. whats wrong with enjoying the advances of technology, looking forward to them and embracing them with 'enthusiasm'? maybe the latest isnt right for you, but how about seeing past that to why it might be right for lots of others?!
honestly, this thread should be entitlled 'im sitting in a yurt listening to my walkman and cleaning my behind with a leaf--who's with me'?
i'm tuning this out and instead venturing forth to take pictures with dog poop..."
i'd don't really want AF f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. those apertures are better save for manual focus lenses where the size can be kept more reasonable and focusing will be easier.
i really want to see how the latest noctilux performs on this.
Jeff Kott wrote:
Size? After all, this is supposed to be a more compact system.
Seem not to go for the 55/1.8, it's big. Probably the Zeiss zoom is smaller (and definetly lighter) than e.g. Canon L 24-70. But comparing Canon EF 35/2 to the Sony FE 35/2.8, probably about the same size.
sebboh wrote:
i'd don't really want AF f/1.4 and f/1.2 lenses. those apertures are better save for manual focus lenses where the size can be kept more reasonable and focusing will be easier.
blah blah blah mr frequent poster in the F/1.2 or faster-thread
wfrank wrote:
Seem not to go for the 55/1.8, it's big. Probably the Zeiss zoom is smaller (and definetly lighter) than e.g. Canon L 24-70. But comparing Canon EF 35/2 to the Sony FE 35/2.8, probably about the same size.
Yes but from what has been seen on samples till now...the Zeiss is UBER sharp at F2.8 and very very good rendering.... of course it costs 3x more...
safcraft wrote:
Yes but from what has been seen on samples till now...the Zeiss is UBER sharp at F2.8 and very very good rendering.... of course it costs 3x more...
Right I agree, samples look fine or even very fine. But the Canon EF 2.0 for 2k€ is considered very good optically, and the 5k€ F/2.0 version is equally good and it got IS (!). It's no Zeiss of course and worst of all it's a Canon but the slower Sony/Zeiss is like 7-8k€ I believe.
Not wanting to add to any negativity here, we've already had that, , but I do agree that the 35/2.8 seems overpriced. The speed is fine for me as a compact moderate wide, the handling looks great, the quality looks great. But, $800 for a 35/2.8? Really?
I'll probably buy it anyway, as its the lens I want for that camera, but it really shouldn't cost that much. From a technical standpoint it doesnt seem that building a compact, high quality 35/2.8 should be much of a stretch. Seriously, thats almost the price as sigma's 35/1.4
coffeeshakes wrote:
Not wanting to add to any negativity here, we've already had that, , but I do agree that the 35/2.8 seems overpriced. The speed is fine for me as a compact moderate wide, the handling looks great, the quality looks great. But, $800 for a 35/2.8? Really?
I'll probably buy it anyway, as its the lens I want for that camera, but it really shouldn't cost that much. From a technical standpoint it doesnt seem that building a compact, high quality 35/2.8 should be much of a stretch. Seriously, thats almost the price as sigma's 35/1.4
it's almost the exact same price as zeiss's other 35/2.8, which looks to have very similar iq (and smokes all the other 35/2.8 lenses at f/2.8 that i'm familiar with).
Yes, I know the biogon. And yes, its cheaper than a summarit-m, and yes they had to design and develop it. Still seems overly expensive, to me. (And I shelled out for the summarit in the past) As I said, I'll probably buy it anyway, as its the right lens for the job.
, but I do agree that the 35/2.8 seems overpriced. The speed is fine for me as a compact moderate wide, the handling looks great, the quality looks great. But, $800 for a 35/2.8? Really?