m_appeal wrote:
My only point here is that Sony's lineup of "their own" lenses is no worse than Nikon's line up of the lenses they make. I'm not referring to manual focus lenses... although if you want to shoot Zeiss MF, Sony does offer some. Yes, there is a little more choice right now with Nikon, but again, each Sony and Nikon has some lenses the other doesn't have. I don't see it as "wow Sony has no good lenses to shoot with" drama as it is somehow being portrayed.
And 35 1.4 G / 35 f2 are not a big yawn.
The only lens in Sony's line at the wide end that Nikon lacks is the 35/1.4 (and Nikon still offers a manual focus one if you can live without AF) On the other side Sony lacks a 35/2. 24/2.8, 24/3.5 PC-E, 18/2.8 and 14/2.8. And Nikon has a second full line of Zeiss wides from 18-35mm available.
I for one, did switch to Sony from Canon, my last camera having been a 1Ds2.
The reason for the switch is that I got bored with adapters and manual stop down (I had 13 Contax lenses and nothing else) and wanted to upgrade my lenses to ZE versions gradually. Two below par ZE lenses out of two made me have some doubts about Cosina manufacturing QC and I got lured by the 4 ZA FF lenses and the promise that more are coming, and coming fast. There were talks about 2 more lenses coming as early as in 2009, 24/1.4 and 200 macro, and that was (dishonestly) suggested by Sony's own mock ups. We had the impression it was going to rain Zeiss lenses.
I do not regret the switch though. The A900 has the best IQ at low ISO and the files need almost no PP. I could have moved for that alone. Build quality and viewfinder and several other features that look like designed by photographers complete the package. I have (imo) the best 85 and 135 primes available, and 2 zooms that can compete with any zoom out there and outperform many primes.
Of course, I still need much more than that, but the Sony A900 is worth keeping for only these 4 lenses.
I am not married to Sony, and nothing would stop me from adding another system specifically for wide ZE/ZF primes in the future when my patience with Sony runs out (very soon).
mawz wrote:
The only lens in Sony's line at the wide end that Nikon lacks is the 35/1.4 (and Nikon still offers a manual focus one if you can live without AF) On the other side Sony lacks a 35/2. 24/2.8, 24/3.5 PC-E, 18/2.8 and 14/2.8. And Nikon has a second full line of Zeiss wides from 18-35mm available.
Sony users can use Minolta 35 f2 and 24 2.8... And, I'm sorry but nobody is buying Nikon because they want to use their 24 2.8 prime. Yes, it's there, but same for Sony.
No, Sony doesn't have TS or 18 2.8 / 14. 2.8, but I'm not sure these 2 lenses are entirely necessary. Of course Nikon has more options... they do... but seriously, it's not like you have no options to shoot with if you are going Sony.
As I see it, the lens market is becoming increasingly important to the DSLR manufacturers. We see bodies becoming ever cheaper, while the prices of lenses go up. Which leads to the unexpected situation that some DSLRs are now cheaper than some compact cameras. Why is this? Because manufacturers expect to make money on the accessories, principally extra lenses while competingfor market share on bodies. Therefore, letting "others" like Zeiss, Sigma, Tamron, etc... make that extra money is probably increasingly unpopular with Canon, Nikon and Sony. When I asked Zeiss why they didn't offer a 50mm prime for the Sony system, they answered "because they don't let us, they want to sell their own"...
m_appeal wrote:
Sony users can use Minolta 35 f2 and 24 2.8... And, I'm sorry but nobody is buying Nikon because they want to use their 24 2.8 prime. Yes, it's there, but same for Sony.
No, Sony doesn't have TS or 18 2.8 / 14. 2.8, but I'm not sure these 2 lenses are entirely necessary. Of course Nikon has more options... they do... but seriously, it's not like you have no options to shoot with if you are going Sony.
A camera system must meet the needs of the shooter. Sony, Canon, and Nikon perform for those who use the systems; and, if not, the user has options. I'm not sure what all this lens bickering accomplishes. I know people who have left Nikon because of Canon's lens line-up. I'm sure that the short comings in Sony's lens line-up could cause some to switch. There are reasons justifying every decision. Interestingly, you dismiss 2 lens that Sony doesn't have with "...these 2 lenses are not entirely necessary." Not a convincing argument.
If Sony doesn't want Zeiss to make a few more excellent lenses for them they are shooting themselves in the foot. They are underestimating the powerful seduction of brand names in the photographic market.
At the moment I am quite happy with the Sony offerings and should they add some specialty lenses like wide angle T/S or high speed wide angles I am sincerely hoping they don't attempt it on their own or go through Tamron/Sigma and rebrand it as their own.
Cutting edge is cutting edge and if they think the proof of the pudding isn't in the eating they will be up to their necks in left over pudding.
I've said it before; I don't like Sony as a company, but I am happy with the camera, the Zeiss lenses and the better Minolta designs. If they truly want to make an impact on the high end dSLR market they will have to have Zeiss produce a few more superb lenses to complete the line up.
If they churn out some new coke bottles of their own design that isn't up to par I am no stranger to do exactly what Ed wrote; complete the set up with another camera with the lenses I want/need if Sony does not provide. It could of course lead to dumping Sony in the long run, but hey - if they want my hard earned $$$ they better deliver the goods.
James R wrote:
A camera system must meet the needs of the shooter. Sony, Canon, and Nikon perform for those who use the systems; and, if not, the user has options. I'm not sure what all this lens bickering accomplishes. I know people who have left Nikon because of Canon's lens line-up. I'm sure that the short comings in Sony's lens line-up could cause some to switch. There are reasons justifying every decision. Interestingly, you dismiss 2 lens that Sony doesn't have with "...these 2 lenses are not entirely necessary." Not a convincing argument.
James, I agree almost to the letter with what you wrote.
I do think it is fair though - on a completely subjective basis - to dismiss a few lenses in a line up as "unnecessary" as with the 14/2.8. A gap in a lens line up only occurs for me when I need that particular lens they cannot provide. There are a few lenses I have never been interested in so I am perhaps more lenient in my idea of a "complete" lens line up.
A complete lens line up in my book starts at around 18-20mm, has at least one really wide T/S lens, some nice wide angle primes a few good 2.8 zooms, a variety of macro lenses, at least two portrait lenses and fast telephoto lenses up to 600/4 and TC's to match. I have honestly not been going through Sonys offerings but if you boil it all down I think they cover a lot of it where as Nikon and Canon has an awful lot of "duplicate" lenses in the line up.
The interesting summary in a comparison for me is:
Does Nikon/Canon offer something I really need that Sony cannot offer? If so, are they working on it or am I left out in the cold. If Sony leaves me out in the cold I will look at something else. A lens line up of 70 lenses is not impressive to me. A lens line up of twenty awesome lenses does cause squeaking sounds from my wallet.
As it stands today, Sony offers most of what is necessary but they do have a few gaps to fill and if they do fill them instead of making similar lenses to what they already offer I will applaud them for that. If their solutions turn out to be mediocre I will look at other options.
What options do I have for a 35mm 2.0-ish lens for the A850? The Sony 35mm 1.4 is just (way) too expensive. The Minolta seems very hard to find. I'm perfectly fine with adapter and manual focus.
EDIT: Just read that Samyang may release some 35mm lenses in not too long. I may just wait and see.
I'm thinking of an A850 as a backup/complement for the M9, once I'm crazy and rich enough to take the big plunge. I'd have the M9 with just 2 or 3 fast primes, and the Sony with two zooms and maybe the Zeiss 135. I basically think that each system would thus be able to do what the other can't. This way, for exemple, I wouldn't need a fast 35mm on the SOny. My gripes with Canon also mainly evolve around color, this alone, plus in-body IS, DR and large viewfinder make the Sony attractive to me.
mortyb wrote:
What options do I have for a 35mm 2.0-ish lens for the A850? The Sony 35mm 1.4 is just (way) too expensive. The Minolta seems very hard to find. I'm perfectly fine with adapter and manual focus.
EDIT: Just read that Samyang may release some 35mm lenses in not too long. I may just wait and see.
The zs 35/2 is a good option and easily adaptable but focuses the wrong way. The za 24-70 is an absolutely stellar performer at 35mm, corner to corner. It is a bit pricey for a 35mm but it does give you 4 extra fl
belsha wrote:
I'm thinking of an A850 as a backup/complement for the M9, once I'm crazy and rich enough to take the big plunge. I'd have the M9 with just 2 or 3 fast primes, and the Sony with two zooms and maybe the Zeiss 135. I basically think that each system would thus be able to do what the other can't. This way, for exemple, I wouldn't need a fast 35mm on the SOny. My gripes with Canon also mainly evolve around color, this alone, plus in-body IS, DR and large viewfinder make the Sony attractive to me.
Funny that you would mention that. I was thinking along the same lines. The M9 would be a great companion to the A900. The colors are equally nice, no AA filter, small body and lenses. The only other alternative would be a D3X, not cheap either. No more Canon for me thanks. The colors suck big time and still do even with the newest models.
An M9 with 3 Zeiss lenses to cover the 21-50 range, sounds like a good idea. And the ZM in this range are actually cheaper than the ZF.2 (and they focus the right way )
I am out of the M9 purchase as they won't be able to deliver one before I head off on next trip. But I will keep an eye out for used M9's in the future - at least used ones that don't exceed the list price for a new one.
My kit would be:
28/50 (75) for the M9, with the option of a 21mm.
28/60/135 for A900 with the option of a 20-ish ultrawide, a 24 or wider T/S and a fast telephoto lens around 300-500mm range. They would definitely complement each other well.
douglasf13 wrote:
Mawz, which 20 2.8 have you used? Mine is very good in the corners stopped down.
Sony version on A900 (not mine) and Nikon 20/2.8 AF on a multitude of cameras. Corners got good when stopped down enough, but ran 1-2 stops behind a modern UW zoom and never got truly sharp. Overall I blame the play in the helical on the AF primes as the optically identical Nikon 20/2.8 AI-S definitely outperforms the AF version and the Sony/Minolta 20/2.8 has similar design compromises in the focusing helical design (a little loose to prevent binding in AF).
m_appeal wrote:
Sony users can use Minolta 35 f2 and 24 2.8... And, I'm sorry but nobody is buying Nikon because they want to use their 24 2.8 prime. Yes, it's there, but same for Sony.
Nikon users can walk into any Nikon Dealer and buy those lenses. Sony users need to track down used copies, which are somewhat rare. Very different situation.
No, Sony doesn't have TS or 18 2.8 / 14. 2.8, but I'm not sure these 2 lenses are entirely necessary. Of course Nikon has more options... they do... but seriously, it's not like you have no options to shoot with if you are going Sony.
But you do have very limited options unless you want to go searching for moderately to extremely rare used lenses it's a lot easier to find those exotic Nikon lenses used than the pedestrian 35/2 or 24/2.8 Minolta's. The only common Minolta wide prime on the used market is the mediocre 28/2.8 which is also available new from Sony. I'll note that KEH doesn't even have a single 35/2 in stock for Minolta right now.
Interestingly, you dismiss 2 lens that Sony doesn't have with "...these 2 lenses are not entirely necessary." Not a convincing argument. 
)