p.5 #2 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
I am of a similar mind in so far as my Bati are concerned. But the convenience of a relatively light 16-35 2.8 is hard to pass up. It's all going to come down to how the 2.8 zoom performs but it doesn't seem to be pulling any punches (at least in terms of marketing speak; whatever that's worth).
As for the 12-24, it's a neat trick. A bit more expensive that I was hoping for for a neat trick though. Honestly at $1000 I'd probably scoop it up to just play around with it. Will probably pass as I don't need to shoot that wide (really ever).
What's amazing is that the 12-24 weighs 565 grams and the 16-35 weighs 680 grams. F mount's small flange back distance for the win!
ecarlino wrote:
the Batis 18 is really something special (as is the Batis 25).
but convenience is a serious temptress.
i'm really surprised at it's weight - i expected it to be a lot heavier.
distortion and field curvature will be keys for me.
p.5 #3 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
AGeoJO wrote:
Even a physical PL filter doesn't remove all and 100% of the reflections. Easier to do that on water than on foliage in PP but yes, it can be done.
p.5 #11 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Justin Stone wrote:
I am of a similar mind in so far as my Bati are concerned. But the convenience of a relatively light 16-35 2.8 is hard to pass up. It's all going to come down to how the 2.8 zoom performs but it doesn't seem to be pulling any punches (at least in terms of marketing speak; whatever that's worth).
Mind you the weight of the Batis 18 + Batis 25 combined is similar to the 16-35. So where you get the benefit (aside for not having to switch lenses) is on the long end. I'd be curious to see more test shots at 35mm. MTF suggests the corners aren't perfect at 35mm but that it gets awesome stopped down.
p.5 #12 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
ecarlino wrote:
the Batis 18 is really something special (as is the Batis 25).
but convenience is a serious temptress.
i'm really surprised at it's weight - i expected it to be a lot heavier.
distortion and field curvature will be keys for me.
I agree on the Batis 18...but you're right about convenience. Then again, if 18mm doesn't work, chances are I'll be fine using my FE 35 2.8, so is switching lenses a big deal? And speaking of convenience, the size/weight of the Zeiss 18 is a nice plus, although I'm with you in assuming the weight of the 16-35 2.8 would have been heavier.
Really like the form factor (size/weight) of the 12-24 f/4. Although like Guy, maybe the nice small CV12 is more logical (or maybe the 10mm), as I can life without AF when shooting at 12mm.
I guess I'll see what IQ says for both lenses and go from there. I could make a solid case for either lens really.
This interview on Imaging Resource with a Sony (senior technology manager) guy is interesting.
One of the most interesting things for me (At minute 21:45) he is asked (from a marketing perspective) why the 12-24 ins't a G-Master lens. The Sony guy swallows hard and hems and haws a bit (artfully though) and my interpretation is that it could have been. Marketing has their hands all over these releases and not always in as coherent a way as it should.
For example. For me I would have liked to have seen more than 7 blades in the aperture of the 12-24. Was that a decision made by marketing to differentiate it from a "G-Master" status, or was that a deliberate design made by engineers?
For my money, these particular releases challenge credulity of the marketers.
p.5 #17 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
I'd assume the lack of GM status is due to the bokeh not being prioritized, such as not having the advanced aspheric lenses with the fancy moulding to avoid the onion ring type bokeh. Probably wasn't necessary in a 12-24 f4, and I'm sure the aperture took a hit as well (as they don't need to round the barely existent bokeh). That's my thoughts anyway
This interview on Imaging Resource with a Sony (senior technology manager) guy is interesting.
One of the most interesting things for me (At minute 21:45) he is asked (from a marketing perspective) why the 12-24 ins't a G-Master lens. The Sony guy swallows hard and hems and haws a bit (artfully though) and my interpretation is that it could have been. Marketing has their hands all over these releases and not always in as coherent a way as it should.
For example. For me I would have liked to have seen more than 7 blades in the aperture of the 12-24. Was that a decision made by marketing to differentiate it from a "G-Master" status, or was that a deliberate design made by engineers?
For my money, these particular releases challenge credulity of the marketers. ...Show more →
If you look at Mark Weir's bio on linkedin and past interviews, he started on the marketing side of the house and likely recently got put into a technology management role or got a title change. At large tech and consumer electronics companies, product marketing is typically responsible for helping define the product specifications based on target customer base, acceptable price points, production costs, current product portfolio and future roadmap. The engineers then work with product management and marketing to make that design a reality.
I haven't had a chance to listen to that but the real answer is probably "we believe there are 5,000,000 potential customers willing to pay $1800 (targeting a 50% profit margin) for a 12-24mm f4 vs. 400,000 potential customers willing to pay $2,600 (targeting a 50% profit margin) for a 14-24mm f2.8 that is twice as big."
For a 10 blade aperture, how much more would you be willing to pay for it and how many customers will they lose from the higher price point. Would you pay another $400 for them to do that assuming it increases lens production costs by $200?
Both of these lenses seem to be excellent choices to fill out the wide end of Sony's FE lens portfolio although I will probably stick with my Loxia 21 and maybe add a UWA prime at some point.
p.5 #19 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
Based on my observation, probably some people will be jumping ships quickly when the 16-35 GM starts shipping, selling their Batis 18 and 25 lenses. After a months or so, the prices will go back to normal because people will realize that Zeiss lenses still have special rendering. Something similar happened when the FE 85mm f1.8 was released, and YouTube reviewer dubbed it as the Batis killer. The Batis 85mm prices dropped by about 100 dollars, but now I see them selling for the average price they used to sell for before the release of the Sony. I think it became clear to many people that Zeiss has an advantage in the color and contrast departments. So if the past is any indication, we might see a similar trend whith the Batis 18 and 25.
As for the Loxia 21mm, I think it will not be affected as much since it appeals mainly to a different group of photographers.
P.S. I don't own any of these lenses now, so I'm not trying to console myself
MrTMan wrote:
So I guess this just destroyed the resale value of my Batis 18 and Batis 25!
I never had much interest in the 16-35/4, but the 2.8 seems very promising. Smaller and lighter than I would have expected it to be.
p.5 #20 · Pre-order Now! Sony FE 16-35/2.8 GM and FE 12-24/4 G
bjornthun wrote:
SAR says it will be smaller than the Sigma 12-24/4. We'll see soon I hope!
Added, paste from SAR: "2) And a 12-24mm f/4.0 FE lens will be announced too (Source: Chiphell.). It will be more “affordable” than the GM. A good news is that I have been told this lens has half the size of the Sigma 12-24mm lens!"
interesting! will this mean
(a) it's worse
(b) the mirrorless advantage at those FLs is that big
(c) some new tech
I'm guessing a mixture of (1) and (2) but who knows...
