The 135/1.8 prime is 1030g and my experience is that it has to be switched frequently for a 50/65/85mm or something, In some situations its exceedingly hard to use 135, especially if the subject is uncooperative (kids / dogs running around).
50-150 is 1340g (300g more than the 135/1.8) and the lens switching can be avoided completely for this kind of subject
To me the closest lens is the 70-200GMii (1045g) . f/2 means one stop better low light auto focus, and an extra 300g for one stop is often worth paying. This is the weight difference between a 35/1.8 and 35/1.4
The downside is that video is going to be better on the 70-200 because of OSS, and the extra weight means getting tired faster. For more distant subjects having 200/2.8 is somewhat better than cropping from 150.
The biggest issue is the cost imo... I don't think it costs much more to make than the 70-200GMii, it would be better if priced more similarly.
Even if I get this lens I'm not selling Sigma 105/1.4. But honestly, I'd rather get 85/1.2 with defocusing. I recently looked through archives and was actually amazed by the Nikon 135/2 DC rendering (from my Nikon days). What a lens!
I bought this lens because I usually use primes and love the idea of a one lens solution. So, for an event last weekend, I only used the 50-150. You can see the results here: https://www.nickmorganphotos.com/2025DamYeti
All images (except three with a 24mm GM) are shot with the 50-150 and almost all of them wide open.
Overall, I was really impressed with this lens' versatility. In my opinion, the rendering at 100-150 is really really good. I definitely prefer it to the 135mm GM. I sold my 200mm f2 when I bought this to help cover the cost, and I think that while it's not quite at 200 f2 levels of buttery background, at 150mm f2, it's very close to that look. The focusing is fast and accurate. Zero complaints there. It does feel heavy after two long days of shooting, but it's not the worst. The fact that I would feel confident taking just that one lens makes up for it being a little bigger and heavier than a 70-200. With the hood flipped, it fits in a peak sling bag just barely, which is awesome for portability. I was carrying this on a bike for much of the weekend. I didn't use it for this since I didn't do any video or slow motion blur shots, but I also picked up a polar pro VND filter. That 95mm filter thread makes that an expensive proposition, so plan on at least $200+ for a good one if that's something you will use.
In very low light, f2 still wasn't fast enough as I usually would have had a couple of 1.2 lenses in the bag. There were a few times I would have liked to have a fast 50mm or 85mm option, but lens choice is always about making some compromises. I think this 50-150 lens makes very few while gaining a lot of benefits. I feel confident I can use a one lens solution, but now a more rounded-out sony kit would be the 24mm GM, 50mm 1.2, and 50-150mm. That would all fit very easily with a flash in a basic backpack and still be a light setup.
aCuria wrote:
The biggest issue is the cost imo... I don't think it costs much more to make than the 70-200GMii, it would be better if priced more similarly.
In Canada
24-70 GM II - 3000
28-70 GM - 4000
33% more for constant F2
70200 GM II - 3500
50150 GM - 5500
57% more for constant F2
50150 is double the price of a used GM II.
Had Sony stuck to 33% markup, This lens would be 850 CAD / 600 USD Cheaper.
A remarkable unique lens, but Sony got it wrong this time when it comes to pricing.
Another gushing review, although the illustrations don’t fully illustrate what the author sees, presumably because of web compression and he does torture the lens.
Ps: the reviewer says he spends 60-80 hours a week on his site. Given the structured way that he writes his reviews and the fact that he does actually go out and take shots, he should be able to get AI to do 75% of the writing for him. I only say this as I find the ads on his site intrusive.
Had Sony stuck to 33% markup, This lens would be 850 CAD / 600 USD Cheaper.
A remarkable unique lens, but Sony got it wrong this time when it comes to pricing.
I tend to agree. I just bought the 28-70 f2 and while the images are nice I find outside of burst speed my Tamron 28-75 2.8 V2 compared to the Sony are pretty darn close and good too. Huge price difference in price between the two. I have the 35mm GM, 50mm 1.2 GM and 85mm GM MK2 and I may just return the 28-70 F2. I was thinking about the 50-150mm GM but already have the 70-200mm 2.8 Mk2 so as beautifull as the above images are I think I will just let this gas pass.
I have the 50-150 on the way to me. Should have it by Monday. I sold some audio equipment and my 135 GM for it. I'm keeping my 85 GM II for now.
While it's expensive and doesn't necessarily justify its cost when compared to the F2.8 zooms, I think folks need to understand that it's a unicorn of a lens. There is no comparison. Sony knows this and has priced it accordingly. I think it's fair for each person to weigh the cost:benefit ratio, but I don't think it's fair to say that Sony priced it too high. I don't think it's intended to replace the F2.8 GM II zooms. Those are smaller/lighter/cheaper and serve a wider purpose, IMO.
Also to note, the tariffs probably has raised the price of this lens from USD 3500 to USD 3800. Maybe it'll go down eventually.
The lens is clearly targeted at indoor sports pros. I don’t know how the industry works (are such pros self employed and need to buy their own gear or are they employed by agencies or teams ho will buy or rent the gear to them). Either way such pros would clearly get value out of this lens.
Then there is the well heeled amateur market, which I assume predominates. But in this case, a bulky white lens is not an ideal walk about.
All that said, I misjudged the 28-70mm, thinking it far too bulky and lacking 2mm at the bottom. But the quality of the images makes the pain worth the gain, so I stick with it.
After using this lens for two more events, I can't say enough good things about it. The versatility of a zoom is nice, but it's worth anything to me if it doesn't render well. Sony really nailed it with this lens. The rendering is IMO really really great. I realize that can be a really subjective thing, but it's super smooth transitioning and very painterly bokeh in the background. Nothing crazy busy, nervous, or swirly going on. Even at the wide end, the images look great with nice contrast. Obviously, it's on the expensive end, but this is a lens that is going to get some serious use and is without a doubt going to become my most used lens.
First shot from the lens. Haven't had a chance to go out with it extensively. Will try to do that this weekend. Primary use case will be for indoor sports (fencing), but those events don't grow on trees for me. Next one will be in July.
ILCE-9M3FE 50-150mm F2 GM lens150mmf/2.01/400s250 ISO0.0 EV
I'm sold. I put my 70-200 GM (original I bought with the a7iii, never upgraded, sort of glad I got the mileage out of it that I did) up for sale, had a quick buyer, and got the go ahead from my wife (formality but nice for us married folk, amirite?) and am purchasing this lens. It looks like a lens I will happily shoot with for another 7-8 years...
...
