I think giving the older lenses a modern 'G' update would be great - 28/2, 35/1.8, 50/1.8, 85/1.8. Though I suspect they would come with an optics update, I'd even be happy just to see a a rehousing with an aperture ring.
the 70-300G definitely could use an update as well.
But the anodization filter isn't adjustable, which is my entire point.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I think the 100STF is proof that AF works just fine, so I don't think it needs to go back to being MF. Starting with a fast 85/1.2 would make it a more useful lens - that would mean a T stop of around f/2.4.
I'd love to see a wide STF...start with the 35/1.4?
TheEmrys wrote:
But the anodization filter isn't adjustable, which is my entire point.
I had the Minolta 135 STF - I have no memory of the apodization filter being adjustable. You could manually control the T stop (aperture), but you can on the 100STF as well. The old 135 had two apertures blades, but they were for M or A mode. Nikon and Canon have made lenses with control over spherical aberration, but that's a very different thing.
With cameras like the A7C ii/CR around, I would just like small compact lenses updated. I would absolutely love for the 35mm 2.8 za updated with a reduction in size. A new Sony 14mm,16mm and 20mm 2.8 in the G line to go with the 24/40/50 would be cool but unnecessary. I'm just into small compact primes for everyday shooting.
QuietOC wrote:
Good news: the 35mm F1.8 already has a linear motor. It never had any other motor. The 28/2, 35/2.8ZA, 55/1.8 ZA, and 85/1.8 also have linear motors.
I have no idea how I missed that! Time to sell my 35GM and re-buy the 1.8 (which I had back in 2021 but sold as part of getting rid of my Sony gear).
I am new to photography and trying to find my niche of what I like to capture. I have noticed I prefer macro, nature, wildlife, and landscape. I am looking at the tamron 28-200mm. I am still not sure what lens is good for macro, but I'll keep researching to see.
old-gregg wrote:
Completely agree with @jaygould@ and @mudlake@: the 28mm focal length is a weak spot in the Sony's lineup of primes. To be fair, Nikon and Canon aren't any better. I suppose their historical sales data says that 24 and 35 are more popular.
I'm a small-shoulder-bag-two-lens kind of person and IMHO the 28+50 combo is a bit more versatile than 24+35.
mudlake wrote:
The only two lenses I would be interested in would be (1) a 24-120/4 with as good or better quality than the Nikon version, and (2) a 28/1.4 GM as small and as light as they could make it.
Dave Sanders wrote:
I had the Minolta 135 STF - I have no memory of the apodization filter being adjustable. You could manually control the T stop (aperture), but you can on the 100STF as well. The old 135 had two apertures blades, but they were for M or A mode. Nikon and Canon have made lenses with control over spherical aberration, but that's a very different thing.
I owned it as well. And it was completely adjustable. That was the T# adjustment ring. The f/# was still adjustable through the camera body.
Douglas L wrote:
Not really an update, I wish Sony would make a light/compact 500mm F4 with a built-in 1.7X teleconvertor.
40Driggs wrote:
A 500 f/4 with the tech of the 300 f/2.8 and a built in TC would be amazing.
If you want to prioritize light/compact then it shouldn't have a built in TC.
A lens with a built in TC will be heavier than a lens without a built in TC.
But I do agree that a 500 f4 made in the same vein as the 300 2.8 would be amazing, but please leave the TC out of it.
Let us add the TC later if we want.
TheEmrys wrote:
I owned it as well. And it was completely adjustable. That was the T# adjustment ring. The f/# was still adjustable through the camera body.
Well, that's just adjusting the aperture. Given the fixed nature of the apodization filter, that adjusted the strength of the effect, but it was still just adjusting the aperture, not the filter. By that standard the 100STF is adjustable as well.
EDIT: I realize now I think you're confused by the dual aperture nature of the lens. The manual ring controlled the stepless and very circular 10 bladed aperture, the other 9 bladed and less circular aperture was controlled by the body. When you set the manual ring to 'A', the 10 bladed aperture was wide open, and the 9 bladed aperture controlled by the body was in use. When you moved the manual ring off 'A', the 9 bladed aperture was wide open, and aperture was controlled by the ring.
Only one aperture was in use at a time, and both only adjusted aperture, not filter effect. The filter is a permanent lens element, basically graduated ND, and it's strength was related to the aperture used. The 100STF functions this way as well, just without two apertures.
Anyways, it was an odd design choice, and I always felt that the manual 10 bladed aperture should have been the only one. I guess they felt users wanted the option of an automatic aperture controlled from the body.
Like others, I’d like new G versions with aperture rings of:
35 f/1.8. Fix the rendering…
85 f/1.8. Make it a bit smaller / lighter and give us an MFD that allows 0.25 magnification
I am surprised no one has asked for a GM version of the Tamron 35-150.
Key asks:
aperture ring
TC compatibility
~1lb / 400g lighter
And for goodness sakes, make it in **black**
Do all that and I’ll drop up to 3K USD on that.
The 50-150GM is silly in its whiteness and starting at 50mm. It simply cannot work as an event lens due to the 50mm starting focal length.
Dave Sanders wrote:
Well, that's just adjusting the aperture. Given the fixed nature of the apodization filter, that adjusted the strength of the effect, but it was still just adjusting the aperture, not the filter. By that standard the 100STF is adjustable as well.
EDIT: I realize now I think you're confused by the dual aperture nature of the lens. The manual ring controlled the stepless and very circular 10 bladed aperture, the other 9 bladed and less circular aperture was controlled by the body. When you set the manual ring to 'A', the 10 bladed aperture was wide open, and the 9 bladed aperture controlled by the body was in use. When you moved the manual ring off 'A', the 9 bladed aperture was wide open, and aperture was controlled by the ring.
Only one aperture was in use at a time, and both only adjusted aperture, not filter effect. The filter is a permanent lens element, basically graduated ND, and it's strength was related to the aperture used. The 100STF functions this way as well, just without two apertures.
Anyways, it was an odd design choice, and I always felt that the manual 10 bladed aperture should have been the only one. I guess they felt users wanted the option of an automatic aperture controlled from the body. ...Show more →
I am not confused at all. I am well aware of the dual aperture, but I think this is some weirdness in that we are nearly saying essentially the same thing. The aperture controlled by the camera affects f/# only. We can agree there. The t/# aperture only effects the effects of the apodization lens which affectis the transmission level (t/#). That aperture has no effect whatsoever on DOF. It is purely there to stop down the aperture for the apodization lens at varying levels, changing the effects of the bokeh and reducing the t/#. Shooting wide open at f/2.8, identical shots at t/4.5, t/5.6, and t/6.2 will have very different bokeh.
I wish 135stf.net were still around, they had great still images that demonstrate this. Well, there is a video that shows this on YouTube: " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here
Got to 2:22 and you will see the three exampbles of the change in bokeh.
TheEmrys wrote:
I am not confused at all. I am well aware of the dual aperture, but I think this is some weirdness in that we are nearly saying essentially the same thing. The aperture controlled by the camera affects f/# only. We can agree there. The t/# aperture only effects the effects of the apodization lens which affectis the transmission level (t/#). That aperture has no effect whatsoever on DOF. It is purely there to stop down the aperture for the apodization lens at varying levels, changing the effects of the bokeh and reducing the t/#. Shooting wide open at f/2.8, identical shots at t/4.5, t/5.6, and t/6.2 will have very different bokeh.
I wish 135stf.net were still around, they had great still images that demonstrate this. Well, there is a video that shows this on YouTube: " target="_blank" rel="nofollow">here
Got to 2:22 and you will see the three exampbles of the change in bokeh....Show more →
That is not correct. It functions how I stated - both apertures affect DOF, and only one is in use at a time. Think about what you're saying - 'purely there to stop down the aperture for the apodization lens'.
Right. It's stopping down the aperture. That's how it's varying the effect, by using less of the lens element.. That's the only way that you can control the amount of apodization. It's acting exactly like any other aperture, including the one on the new 100 STF.
