Steve Spencer
Offline
Upload & Sell: On
|
 Re: G lenses - FE24 f/2.8, FE40 f/2.5, FE50 f/2.5 | |
bjornthun wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
chiron wrote:
Steve Spencer wrote:
bjornthun wrote:
Olympus OM Zuiko f/2.8 wides are typically 170-180 grams.
I used to own Olympus OM film SLRs, so I hope Sony and Sigma can replicate much of that. I’d like Sony G/Sigma I-series 85/2.8, 135/3.5, 200/4, 300/4.5 as well. 
Yes, I very much agree and that is part of my puzzlement with these lenses. If they would have been an 85 or 90 f/2.8, a 135 f/2.8 or f/3.5, and a 180 f/3.5 or f/4, they would have added something quite new to the system. I would love to see small versions of some of these longer lenses and especially high quality small versions, but alas Sony has given us more lenses in the crowded 24-50mm range.
I do think that what they are going for is small and high quality--otherwise they would not be G-designated and with reduced apertures.
I think one of the complaints that Sony has been hearing is that their lenses/bodies have gotten too large and have gotten Sony away from the compactness and ease of handling that was one of the initial attractions for the Sony NEX cameras, then the Sony APS-C cameras, and then the first A7 bodies.
I don't think Sony wants to or that they should give up or slow down on the big, very high quality lenses, like the 50/1.2 GM or the 12-24/2.8 or the 600/4. They want to be the best pro camera system.
But I do think they want to reclaim compactness and I think that is what these lenses are after. The A7C has been a success for them, probably to be followed by other versions, and I think it illustrates a design strategy for them: You can get best in class image quality (and the A7C has the best image quality sensor that Sony sells, per Bill Claff's measurements) in a compact form IF you are willing to compromise on some other characteristics. Like the EVF in the A7C or like max aperture in this new series of G lenses.
These lens, at least as I am imagining them, are very appealing to me. Yes, I would still want the big, max ap lenses like the 50/1.2. But I would love to have a set of smaller, very high quality primes and zooms (like the 24-70 -- see Fred's review) that are compact and easy to carry, easy to travel with, easy to handle, and that don't make candid subjects feel like you are aiming a bazooka at them.
I hope that what these lenses will be.
I think you missed my point. I am not saying Sony is not going for small high IQ lenses with these new announced lenses, and I am certainly not saying they are turning away from bigger Pro lenses (there recent introductions make it clear that isn't happening), what I am saying is that if they want to support the A7c or compactness for the Sony E mount system, what is really needed is some longer lenses not more shorter focal length lenses. If you want to shoot the A7c for a compact system you have tons of choice lenses between 24 and 50mm, but almost no choices longer than 85mm. IMO, if they want to support the ability to have a small system, then they needed to offer some longer focal length, smaller lenses that were high quality and that adding these lenses to the crowded 24-50mm space does little to advance shooting a compact system.
The current small Sony E-mount lenses are 28/2, 35/1.8, 35/2.8 ZA, 50/1.8 and 55/1.8 ZA. So the 24/2.8 G immefiately adds to the rsnge of small lenses. The 40/2.5 G and 50/2.5 G are not as obvious additions here and now, but they may share a 40.5mm filter size. All of the G lenses may have aperture rings, which improves operation with the A7c, which has fewer wheels/dials than thevordinary A7/s/r models. The only high quality small lenses currently are 35/2.8 ZA and 55/1.8 ZA. The nifty-fifty 50/1.8 extemds while focusing. So, it’s easy to make a case for the 24/2.8 G as an addition of high quality lenses. The case for the 40/2.5 G and 50/2.5 G will likely be one or more of the following; aperture ring, diminutive size with 40.5mm filter and Sony/Minolta as opposed to Zeiss rendering. A small filter thread is a Leica thing, small M-lenses with diminutive 39mm filter diameter, and 40.5mm filter diameters appears just as small. So enough reasons to make another 50mm and 40mm lens. To some 40mm is sufficiently different from both 35mm and 50mm to warrant a purchase, as it is semi-normal.
Let’s also wait and see the price tags of the 40/2.5 and 50/2.5 compare to 35/2.8 ZA and 55/1.8 ZA. My guess is that the 35/2.8 ZA isn’t that competitive against the Samyang 35/2.8 and Tamron 35/2.8.
A line of compact G lenses may see more lenses, hopefully 85/2.8 and 135/3.5 added later.
135mm is not Leica-specific. Each and every manufacturers have made a ton of them, and they were popular before the advent of cheap and good tele-zooms in the 1970s.
Leica 90mm Thambar is a special portrait lens, not a regular 90mm. We could just as well say that Tamron owns the 90mm focal length with their many incarnations of Tamron 90/2.5 and 90/2.8 MF and AF macro lenses.
First, I never said that 90mm and 135mm lenses are Leica specific or that Leica owns these focal lengths. I am not sure where you got that idea. All I said is that 90mm and 135mm lenses were developed for the first Leica rangefinder cameras and have historically been a big part of the Leica rangefinder portfolio of lenses. Leica rangefinder including modern ones even includes frame lines for these specific focal lengths, when they don't for others (like 40mm) so if Sony is trying to emulate a Leica like rangefinder with the A7c and small lenses excluding 85 or 90 mm lenses and 135mm lenses doesn't fit that model. I'm not sure why Sony would really be trying to emulate Leica, however. They should stick to their own goals and priorities and those can and probably should diverge from a Leica like system.
I don't dispute that the 24 f/2.8, 40 f/2.5, and 50 f/2.5 would fit a range of small compact lenses for Sony E mount and an 85 or 90 f/2.8 and a 135 f/2.8 or f/3.5 would supplement these well. What I was questioning was the order that Sony chose to make these lenses. It just seems to me that it would have been wiser to build maybe the 24 f/2.8, which as you point out does provide something new to Sony although not new to the platform, and an 85 or 90 f/2.8, and a 135 f/2.8 or f/3.5 both of which would have provided something new to Sony and the platform. A 180 f/3.5 or f/4 would have also provided something new to Sony and the platform. Keep in mind it isn't just the Sony 35 ZA f/2.8 that is a small 35. Sony also has the 35 f/1.8 that is very small. So they will have a small 35 f/1.8, a small 35 f/2.8 and a small 40 f/2.5. They will also have a small 50 f/1.8, a small 55 f/1.8, a small 50 f/2.5 and a relatively small 50 f/2.8 macro, and this isn't even considering 3rd party lenses. It seems to me Sony could have waited on the 40 and 50 mm lenses and made some of the longer lenses where small lenses are totally missing from the platform.
|
