Kit, the point is that Sony ZA lenses have autofocus and are newer optical designs. If you just wanna mount any Zeiss on Sony, there is a whole range of C/Y Zeiss and Zeiss ZS lenses that are easily adaptable.
abam wrote:
are you kidding? scrape away all the dramatic wording and departures into personal opinion, and that post is four sentences long.
In the contrary I think he analyzed the weaknesses of every camera quite well.
Robb Mann wrote:
Honestly, I can't get past your comment about how lens choices don't matter because you're going 3rd party glass. The Nikon 14-24 f2.8 is a reason to buy into that system, especially if you're a landscape photographer. Also, a glaring weakness in the Sony lineup is the lack of any TS lenses, both Canon and Nikon have excellent wide-angle ones.
As a studio camera the a850 is a compelling choice; especially with the zeiss 24-70. As a landscape camera I'd take anything that could mount the nikon 14-24.
The Nikkor 14-24 by all account should be an exceptional lens. But as I've said in the OP, color rendering is the primary consideration here and 21mm is wide enough for me. YMMV.
@ douglasf13: I had completely forgotten about the AF aspect of the Sony Zeiss lenses; I was commenting on this part of his post:
OK, primes they don't have are wide angle fast primes, but neither does Nikon.
I have owned most of the ZFs and optically they are excellent, but I was not considering the AF aspect. And that really is a big plus for many kinds of work.
The 24-70 weights a kilo; contax c/y 35f2.8 weights 250g. If you need the full zoom range; yea a 24-70 weights less than 3 or 4 primes. If you want a single lens 200-300g rocks. I guess it depends on if your out hiking or in a studio. My old contax kit weighted 1200g; with 700g in my hands. 700g is a lot more comfortable than 2kg.
m_appeal wrote:
I really don't understand why people say Sony have a narrow lineup.
Their lineup includes all the major zooms (16-35, 24-70, 70-200), most of which are as good or better than the competition. Do Nikon or Canon have zooms with the quality of 70-300 and 70-400 at the long end, because I think Sony wins when it comes to those 2.
OK, primes they don't have are wide angle fast primes, but neither does Nikon. And the Zeiss 85 and 135 are again superior to Nikon or Canon in that area.
The only area in which Sony might be lacking is TS lenses or supertelephotos, but there are Minolta lenses which are great optically... So what is this about Sony's limited lens lineup?...Show more →
It's not just "fast" wide angle primes, it's quality wide angle primes of any speed. As Kit points out, the Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, 35mm lens in both ZF and ZE mounts for Nikon and Canon. Nothing comparable is available for Sony. And that is before you get into Canon's own 24L, 35L, the TSE lenses, or Nikon's own offerings in the range.
Sony/Zeiss needs to commit to making more Zeiss wide angle prime lenses for the Sony alpha system. As the Zeiss 135/1.8 might be reason enough to buy into the system -- for some, a Zeiss 24/1.4, as long-rumoured, would be reason enough for others (like me).
m_appeal wrote:
I was talking about fast primes like the Canon 24 1.4 OK, they actually do have 28 1.4 which is absurdly priced...
I agree, Lotus, that wide angle Zeiss primes are a must for Sony. However, we can't forget that the 25, 35, and 50 are available in ZS mount, which works great for Sony. Also, one can use C/Y lenses. So, if you bought the Sony, you could get the ZA primes and zooms, and fill out the wider end primes with ZS and C/Y until the new ZAs come.
I think the lack of t/s lenses is Sony's biggest mistake. Outside of t/s adapters, there are only a few things available, like the Schneiders, C/Y conversions, and the Zeiss/Hartbleis.
Lotusm50 wrote:
It's not just "fast" wide angle primes, it's quality wide angle primes of any speed. As Kit points out, the Zeiss 18, 21, 25, 28, 35mm lens in both ZF and ZE mounts for Nikon and Canon. Nothing comparable is available for Sony. And that is before you get into Canon's own 24L, 35L, the TSE lenses, or Nikon's own offerings in the range.
Sony does have good wideangle primes in its range (Minolta 35mm f2, 28mm f2, and the new Sony 20mm 2.8) comparable to Nikon's lineup of wideangle primes....
They are not Zeiss, but I'm only assuming Zeiss will eventually make some more AF lenses for Sony ... didn't they just renew their agreement?
m_appeal wrote:
Sony does have good wideangle primes in its range (Minolta 35mm f2, 28mm f2, and the new Sony 20mm 2.8) comparable to Nikon's lineup of wideangle primes....
They are not Zeiss, but I'm only assuming Zeiss will eventually make some more AF lenses for Sony ... didn't they just renew their agreement?
The first two of those lenses are not in Sony's lineup but rather are out of production Minolta lenses. The 20/2.8 is comparable (but twice the size of) Nikon's offering, but both lenses are merely competent and do not perform as well as zooms in that range. Sony lacks the 14/2.8, 18/2.8 and 24/2.8 that Nikon also offers along with Nikon's world-class 24/3.5 PC-E.
m_appeal wrote:
Sony does have good wideangle primes in its range (Minolta 35mm f2, 28mm f2, and the new Sony 20mm 2.8) comparable to Nikon's lineup of wideangle primes....
Sorry. Not good enough. Perfectly ordinary. Little real appeal to anyone. Big yawn. No one is running out to buy into the Sony system so they can use a old Minolta lens (or a warmed over one). I should switch from Nikon of Canon where I can use Zeiss ZF/ZE 21mm Distagon, to Sony where I only have the Sony (nee Minolta) 20/2.8 (and incur the hassle and cost of switching)?? Sorry, but it ain't happening. People need more to move.
m_appeal wrote:
They are not Zeiss, but I'm only assuming Zeiss will eventually make some more AF lenses for Sony ... didn't they just renew their agreement?
No they are not Zeiss -- to say the least. Yes, Zeiss and Sony renewed their agreement as few months ago, but STILL no info on new lenses. Zeiss is moving out new ZF/ZE lenses at a faster rate than the ZA lenses. It's been over a year since the last ZA lens, and no real promise of anything to come -- in spite of vocal, and increasingly disappointed, chorus clamoring for more. The least they could do would be to re-assure people that their patience will be rewarded.
mawz wrote:
The first two of those lenses are not in Sony's lineup but rather are out of production Minolta lenses. The 20/2.8 is comparable (but twice the size of) Nikon's offering, but both lenses are merely competent and do not perform as well as zooms in that range. Sony lacks the 14/2.8, 18/2.8 and 24/2.8 that Nikon also offers along with Nikon's world-class 24/3.5 PC-E.
Well, the 35 1.4 G is in production... and both it and the 35 f2 RS lenses are actually outstanding... probably better than the Nikon 35 f2, although admittedly I haven't tried them myself.
And what zooms are you talking about? I doubt the 20 2.8 performs much worse than 16-35.. I've seen some very good results out of it on A900.
And, yes, some of the primes are out of production, but they can be found on the used market. The 24 2.8 is not that great, but again on par with Nikon's offerings, which are not that great in that range apart from the 14-24 zoom.
Lotusm50 wrote:
Sorry. Not good enough. Perfectly ordinary. Little real appeal to anyone. Big yawn. No one is running out to buy into the Sony system so they can use a old Minolta lens (or a warmed over one). I should switch from Nikon of Canon where I can use Zeiss ZF/ZE 21mm Distagon, to Sony where I only have the Sony (nee Minolta) 20/2.8 (and incur the hassle and cost of switching)??
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.
Some of my 5D2 and D700 users had been migrated to A850/A900 due to image quality factors.
From the first time looking from A850/A900 viewfinders, we will amaze with the clarity and big size of our sight. And the most important thing are image quality which gives us more detail (very critical on landscape or even for big printing)
You won't dissappointed once having testing the 24 MP FF glory !
Lotusm50, are you saying that the C/Y 21mm on Sony is not a suitable alternative to the ZE 21mm? Besides, more Zeiss is not a reason to switch to Sony. Stabilization on all lenses, a better VF, robust build, AF Zeiss, and a red channel is for some.
I think the lack of t/s lenses is Sony's biggest mistake.
I agree. But no Live View in the Sonys is a bigger drawback for TS lenses, I feel.
IMHO, no finder (even one as excellent as the Sony's) is good enough to know with certainty that (for example) that one degree of tilt you just adjusted in has the entire image sharp front to back. You just can't see that in the finder. Live View is what I use 100% of the time with TS lenses, for this reason, and the magnification goes to sub-pixel level, and all parts of what the sensor sees are visible (D3, D700).
douglasf13 wrote:
Lotusm50, are you saying that the C/Y 21mm on Sony is not a suitable alternative to the ZE 21mm? Besides, more Zeiss is not a reason to switch to Sony. Stabilization on all lenses, a better VF, robust build, AF Zeiss, and a red channel is for some.
For the great majority of users -- not necessarily you or I -- adapted lens that have to be used totally manually are not an acceptable option. So no, being able to use a c/y 21mm is not a suitable option for the majority of users.
More Zeiss, and good Zeiss coverage of prime focal lengths that you use is indeed a reason to switch to Sony. It is the prime reason for many. Quite frankly, merely having a competitive camera isn't going to get all those Canon and Nikon users to switch -- the time and financial costs of switching are large, and slight differences in IQ (whether subjectively better or not) out of the body isn't going to do it. There is a small survey (of mainly pros) on Rangefinder magazine's website -- if you are going to buy a camera in the next 6 months what brand would it be? 46% say Canon, 43% say Nikon, 8% say Pentax, almost 3% say Olympus. 0% say Sony. I don't expect it to stay at 0% as the pool grows. But it is clear that Sony does need something to get more pro's to switch.
Sony's ace in the whole, is the quality and brand recognition they get from Zeiss. It gives them desirability, but right now Sony is doing little to exploit that desirability, the relationship seems half-hearted. There are just 4 full frame Zeiss lenses for Sony. We need more of a reason to switch. Personally, I want to switch but there is not enough reason yet to make me want to go through the hassle and cost of switching. We are waiting for this to be complete Sony/Zeiss system and unfortunately there is no substantive indication at all that it is coming.
Lotusm50 wrote:
For the great majority of users -- not necessarily you or I -- adapted lens that have to be used totally manually are not an acceptable option. So no, being able to use a c/y 21mm is not a suitable option for the majority of users.
+1. If it were not for the alt lenses that I already have, I for one would not switch to Sony. A good lens lineup to me is one that can satisfy many, many customers, and not just a few. Imagine what hell we'll be in if say 10.000 people switch to Sony today and half of them want to savour the alt lenses. That is unless you want to sell out.
m_appeal wrote:
Well, the 35 1.4 G is in production... and both it and the 35 f2 RS lenses are actually outstanding... probably better than the Nikon 35 f2, although admittedly I haven't tried them myself.
Actually the 35G is not really a notable performer. It's average stopped down and has serious edge sharpness issues wide open. It's a character lens for PJ work and street photography, not a landscape lens. The 35/2 RS is very good and filled the landscape lens role that the 35G can't, but is no longer in production.
And what zooms are you talking about? I doubt the 20 2.8 performs much worse than 16-35.. I've seen some very good results out of it on A900.
Nikkor 14-24 & 17-35, the ZA 16-35 (which severely outperforms the 20/2.8 for edge performance), even the updated Canon 16-35L II are noticeably better performers from first parties. Both the Nikon and Soy/Minolta 20/2.8's are good lenses but neither qualify as excellent by todays standards and both are showing the age of their designs (The Nikon dates to teh early 80's, the Sony's a few years newer being nothing more than a Minolta 20/2.8 with D circuitry added).
And, yes, some of the primes are out of production, but they can be found on the used market. The 24 2.8 is not that great, but again on par with Nikon's offerings, which are not that great in that range apart from the 14-24 zoom.
You might not have noticed, but getting ones hands on the better Minolta wide primes (especially the 28/2, but also the 35/2 in particular) is not all that easy as supplies on the used market are low. I'd probably have completed the switch I attempted if I could have got my mitts on the glass I wanted without serious hassle.
As to the Nikon 24/2.8, it's actually a pretty good lens, not up to the 14-24, but better than the 20/2.8. And Nikon has an absolutely world-class 24 available in the 24/3.5 PC-E.
