What lens would you like Sony to make next?

[shuttersight]

It's no secret that Sony's lens lineup is deficient in general and especially so in the aps-c line. What two lenses would you like to see them make next for aps-c?

 

I switched over from Pentax's aps-c cameras and I miss their 16-50 f2.8. I also wish they'd make a 70-300mm lens as well. I'm ok with it being a variable aperture as long as the image quality otherwise good.

 

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

[nebulight]

it looks like APS-C lenses from sony aren' going to happen. I think they want you to use their APS-c bodies with FE lenses. I've love to see some high quality affordable lenses to match the high quality affordable a6000 but I don't think that's going to happen.

[BAzz]

I don't think we'll see much for APS-C either. 

 

I *really* hoped for a f2.8 16-35 update. 

[Touko]

For APS-C, I'd like a

35mm Pancake to walk about (Samsung managed to make one for their APS-C cameras, why can't Sony?)

 

85mm Zeiss OSS

And well, if Sony makes some FE OSS lenses, I'd use those with the IBIS-lacking a6300

 

 

I think Sony shot itself in the foot not putting IBIS into the a6300:

- All they're doing is curtailing sales of their higher priced full frame glass.

- Sony also misses out on the additional excuse of an FE glass owner to eventually upgrade to a full frame body.

[PierreP]

A metal-body version of the 85f2.8, small and useful (with 1.4 magnification), a better version of the 16mm (14pmp). Those are the only two lenses I'd buy

[JonathanStewart]

Well, I think the FE lineup is rounding out nicely with the latest additions, and even more so with the Zeiss-branded glass. They have the major focal lengths covered for full-frame, and the APS-C lineup is not shabby either, if a bit dated. 

 

What I'd really like is: 

 

1.  135mm f/1.8 or f/2.0 - either Zeiss Batis or GM

2.  300mm f/2.8, compatible with teleconverter

3.  15mm circular fisheye without adapter. 

[that1guyy]

I'd like to see a 150-600 f5.6 - 6.3 

[joshinthecity]

A fast (1.2-1.4) G-Master 50 would be good..

[wedge]

Yeah, a 50 1.4 with OSS would be badass.  Such a lens is notoriously missing from the current e-mount lineup.  Especially for APS-C where the extra speed is so important.

 

Now that the 70-200 2.8 exists, the next priority is some longer zooms and long fast primes.  anything like 300, 400, 500, either 2.8 or 4.0.  Or something like a 200-500+ zoom.

[Golem]

I'd like a pancake, FL equal to format diagonal,

with OSS. I realize OSS is a conflict concerning

pancake size, but diameter can grow as long as

the length stays pancaked. The lens barrel can

be other shape than perfectly round if that is a

way to fit the OSS machinery and gyros inside.

 

Should be internal focus. Unit focus pancakes

that I've encountered strike me as being a bit

on the fragile side. Plus IF moves really fast

and is usually free of backlash, for consistent

AF results.

 

I know that it's too much to ask for a focusing

scale, but since they'll never build this anyway,

I might as well ask ! And again, since it will

never be built, let's keep it under $250 :-)

[Gag21]

a 16-(50,60,70) oss GM f2.8 walkaround lens not much bigger than 18-105

[Phil Kirk]

+1 for pancake - around 30mm so it's useful on both FE and apsc, at least f2.8 but ideally f2. Not really concerned about the corner sharpness below f5.6, but fast and small would be great.

 

Affordable 85mm 1.8, ideally with oss- the batis looks great but I can't afford it

 

20mm f2 - a useful focal length on both FE and apsc, would be great for astro

 

70-300 would also be nice

[Chevil]

What is really missing is a decent standard zoom; the SEL 1855 and the 1650PZ are sharp and even very sharp in the center but the edges are weak (not to mention the corners). The 1670 is a lottery and there is very few wining tickets. On top of that it is way overpriced. IMO FE lens are too big to be used on A6000 bodies; one of the reasons to use mirror-less vs DSLR is that they are less intrusive and this is specially true for Sony bodies so adding an FE lens defeats the purpose.

Personally I would be satisfied with either:

- a version II of the SEL 1855 with an improved sharpness on the edges an may be f2.8-4 if the size and cost would not suffer too much

- an E mount version of the SAL 1650 f2.8 HSS

- a LA EA 1/3 which would bring decent AF speed (PDAF when the sensor is capable CDAF otherwise) with SAL 1650.

These would be modest R&D efforts from Sony but given their implicit strategy ( professional grade FE lens) I doubt that we will see it happening in the near future and I may have to switch to another brand.

[z00]

I want High End relatively compact standard Zeiss zoom

24-70/4 FE is dark and has bad 24mm, 24-70/2.8 GM is to big and has more minolta-canon image, adapted 24-70/2.8 ZA is to big and havy

 

So my dream is Vario-Sonnar 24-55/2.8 FE with quality of 24-70/2.8 ZA and size of 24-70/4 FE.

[Bibis]

Something (zoom) that has angle of view around 30-40 deg at the short end and 6-8 deg at the long end on FF-sensor would be nice. OSS and preferably 1 kg or less. Could be variable aperture as long as it is sharp all the way.

[Austerror]

I don't need any new lenses.  For what I do, the current lens line up is more than good enough.

 

The three lenses that I use are the Zeiss 24mm, the 55-210 zoom and the 10-18 ultra wide zoom.  It covers everything I use my Nex-7 for.

 

Has anyone used the updated kit lens 18-50mm zoom?  Not to be confused with the 16-50PZ or the 18-55mm original kit lens.

[dwclapp]

A reasonably priced Macro lens that in the 60mm range to give a 90mm equivalence when used on an APS-C body.  Needs to have OSS and 1:1 magnification as well.  

[cadibob]

I'd love a light and small 24/120mm f4.

[PierreP]

I agree with dwclapp : a 60f2.8 Macro OSS for APS-C (around $450) would be really nice, even though I now have the FE90, which is awesome but quite big and expensive.

 

I'd also like to see a better version of the 16f2.8, let's say on par with the 50 in IQ. I don't need it to be pancake, but I really need it to be sharp in the corners at f5.6 (no OSS needed, and I would pay around $400 for that).

 

And of course, I still wish there could be something like a 85f2.8 (around $350 with OSS) or a 85f2 OSS (around $500) for APS-C.

[Bindegal]

My wish for now is along the lines of other replies:

An APS-C "standard zoom" that doesen´t suck. Ideally something like my good ol´ Canon 17-55.

F/2.8 (or even 3.5 if it´s super light/short) with IS now that Sony doesen´t grace us with an APS-C body w/IBIS.

 

About to throw the A6000 kit lens in the bin as I sooo hate the pictures from it now.

 

/Allan

[1950n]

Bindegal, what are the things that irritate you most about the kitlens ?

 

 

Verzonden vanaf mijn iPhone met Tapatalk

[Bindegal]

Kit lens: Very soft pictures. Excessive flaring. Slow aperture. Uninspiring, flat pictures although I have a hard time pinpointing exactly what makes them so.

The only saving grace is the physical size of it. Problem is (first world problem!) that the flat, boring almost smartphone-like pictures now renders my A6000 useless for its intended purpose: Taking a good camera where I´d normally not want to take the risk and/or weight.

 

I´m sure that for what it is, it´s probably good and fine. But if the pictures are about as uninspiring (to me) as those from smartphone cameras, that just makes my A6000 a dead weight in the bag.

 

About to get the SEL35F18 hoping it helps.

 

As for the original topic, of course having an inexpensive, bright zoom with a wide range of focal range is an impossible unicorn. Still I think Sony can do better than what we have now.

 

/Allan