That's really not good.
Where are the updates to lenses that need it like 24-105/4, 100-400/5.6, 200-600/6.3, 600/4 (needs a TC), 400/2.8 (needs a TC).
Why hasn't anyone made a 35-150 f/5 or f/4 macro? It could be cheap, small and would work for events. If it could take teleconverters and had a 2x magnification at 150 when bare, that could be an excellent and versatile lens.
But while I see the logic in a 28 f/1.8, I don't understand why Sony doesn't sell a 35G, 50G and 85G siblings to the 20G. Many people (myself included) would buy the whole set on day 1. Well - OK - I don't like shooting 50 so I would only buy the 35G and 85G day 1.
Newenglandrocks wrote:
Why hasn't anyone made a 35-150 f/5 or f/4 macro? It could be cheap, small and would work for events. If it could take teleconverters and had a 2x magnification at 150 when bare, that could be an excellent and versatile lens.
A 35-150 by itself isn’t good for events. It’s not wide enough
For a 2 lens setup the 20-70/4 + 70-200/4Gii macro serves this niche.
aCuria wrote:
A 35-150 by itself isn’t good for events. It’s not wide enough
For a 2 lens setup the 20-70/4 + 70-200/4Gii macro serves this niche.
Or perhaps the Tamron 25-200mm f/2.8-5.6
I suppose it depends on what types of events you are shooting. I have now done a few with the Tamron 35-150 and have found it to be wide enough for the people shots I am doing, even indoors in relatively tight spaces.
The 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 sound like Nikon-envy rumors to me, but they would stop people from pointing at Nikon's PF lenses every time they want to highlight Sony's perceived deficiencies for birders.
At least for the teles this indicates, if accurate, that they are going for cheaper models for higher sale numbers. Not a dumb thing to do in a contracting market. For the highest end supertele primes, they are probably confident that their superior cameras mean they can afford to wait a little longer there.
freaklikeme wrote:
The 400/4.5 and 600/6.3 sound like Nikon-envy rumors to me, but they would stop people from pointing at Nikon's PF lenses every time they want to highlight Sony's perceived deficiencies for birders.
What is weird is that Sony now has a zoom that at the long end is 400 f/4.5 and a different zoom which is at the long end 600 f/6.3, and what they don't have is an 800 f/6.3 and that is where Nikon clearly has a lens clearly unlike anything from Sony. The Sony 400-800 is two thirds of a stop slower and therefore not really competitive with the Nikon. I would like Nikon envy would suggest an 800 f/6.3.
I think if Sony made a 400 now that we have the 100-400 f/4.5, that they would make something like a 400 f/3.5 to give the lens an aperture advantage over the zoom, and if we are going to get a longer lens it might be something like a 500 f/5 that could have more reach but still be pretty light.
For a set of primes 300 f/2.8 GM, 400 f/2.8 GM, 400 f/3.5 GM, 500 f/5 GM, 600 f/4 GM, and 800 f/6.3 GM would make an awesome set of lenses.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What is weird is that Sony now has a zoom that at the long end is 400 f/4.5 and a different zoom which is at the long end 600 f/6.3, and what they don't have is an 800 f/6.3 and that is where Nikon clearly has a lens clearly unlike anything from Sony. The Sony 400-800 is two thirds of a stop slower and therefore not really competitive with the Nikon. I would like Nikon envy would suggest an 800 f/6.3.
I think if Sony made a 400 now that we have the 100-400 f/4.5, that they would make something like a 400 f/3.5 to give the lens an aperture advantage over the zoom, and if we are going to get a longer lens it might be something like a 500 f/5 that could have more reach but still be pretty light.
For a set of primes 300 f/2.8 GM, 400 f/2.8 GM, 400 f/3.5 GM, 500 f/5 GM, 600 f/4 GM, and 800 f/6.3 GM would make an awesome set of lenses. ...Show more →
I don't disagree with you, and a 500 actually seems like the most likely next tele prime. However, as unique and fun as Nikon's 800 is, it's not the one I see and hear people pointing to when they talk about e-mount wants. I thought the 300/2.8 (plus now the 100-400/4.5) and extenders would kill people's enthusiasm for the 400 and 600, but they still get mentioned.
I am a little surprised Sony hasn't come out with a "cheap, fast, and out of control" lens like Nikon's 35/1.4 or Canon's 40/1.2. The Canon in particular gets mentioned quite a bit around the office.
Steve Spencer wrote:
What is weird is that Sony now has a zoom that at the long end is 400 f/4.5 and a different zoom which is at the long end 600 f/6.3, and what they don't have is an 800 f/6.3 and that is where Nikon clearly has a lens clearly unlike anything from Sony. The Sony 400-800 is two thirds of a stop slower and therefore not really competitive with the Nikon. I would like Nikon envy would suggest an 800 f/6.3.
I think if Sony made a 400 now that we have the 100-400 f/4.5, that they would make something like a 400 f/3.5 to give the lens an aperture advantage over the zoom, and if we are going to get a longer lens it might be something like a 500 f/5 that could have more reach but still be pretty light.
For a set of primes 300 f/2.8 GM, 400 f/2.8 GM, 400 f/3.5 GM, 500 f/5 GM, 600 f/4 GM, and 800 f/6.3 GM would make an awesome set of lenses. ...Show more →
I feel that 400/2.8 and 400/3.5 are to close, to make sense. Unlesss the 400/3.5 is the budget „G“ (non GM) lens addressed at a more affordable market segment.
