New FE Sony lenses 2016 !!

[Fender]

Sony new GM lens line:
SSM focus, scaled up from smaller lenses for F2.8 glass
Three lenses announced:
24-70mm f/2.8 for $2200
70-200mm f/2.8  ships in may (Price to be determinated)
85mm f/1.4 for $1800 ships in March
Two teleconverters 1.4x, 2x will be available for the 70-200.

 

 

Yesss!! a 70-200 f2.8 finally!!!!
 

[morphf]

the new lenses are nice ! very nice, and also as aspect more heavy

 

i stick to the f4 version for now

[pflapf]

Same size & weight as Canon's 70-200. No advantage of the E-Mount which was claimed to allow smaller and lighter lenses.

Even worse: Canon's offering will be cheaper if Sony follows its current pricing policy.

 

Scnr ;-)

 

 

 

Gesendet von iPhone mit Tapatalk

[mkg3]

I'm disappointed with today's announcement.

 

Yes 2.8/xx-yyy is nice, but most of us have that already (Nikon, Cannon, A mount), 

 

1.4/85 @$1.8K - No thank you.  Batis 1.8/85 @ $1.2K or again, Nikkor/Cannon 85f1.4 (or 1.8) many of us have already.

 

Where are the telephoto primes? (180mm, 200mm, 300mm)?  Long zoom 200mm-400/500mm?

 

The strategy to introduce these lenses assume we are new to photography and do not have legacy high-end lenses.  Aside from Sony Artisans are going to get these to replace existing at $2K~$3K/lens?? (pretty sure most of those guys get their lens from Sony on a permanent "loan" basis anyway....

 

Its sad after all these days, Sony simply just enhance E-mount capability and not enabled new capabilities.

 

 

[andyfowlie]

I am very happy to see these new lenses.

 

Having bought into the FE system, and without a Canon/Nikon history, I welcome any new lenses as a sign of the continued investment that Sony is making to make that system better.

 

Having followed the rumours over the past year there were pretty strong signals that the 24-70 f2.8 would arrive, some signs that there would be a fast 85mm, fewer signs of a 70-200 f2.8 and really no signs whatsoever of the teleconverters. Usually in this situation one of the different rumours turns out to be true... but today we got all and more.

 

Its possible to see from the huge volume of comments on the launch article on this site that here are many people who wanted something different, thats fair enough... I choose to see it as a step forward for the system, strengthening the relative appeal of FE against Canon/Nikon/whoever. In the longer term this is good news for people who are shooting with FE cameras, even if these three lenses are not on their current wishlist. If they launch lenses that I want to buy then thats great. If they launch lenses that I don't currently want to buy then that is ok, I struggle to see how it could be more negative than not launching anything. Having these lenses in the line-up frees Sony developers to move forward closing some of the other gaps.

 

Sony was particularly highlighting the resolving power of these lenses and the attractiveness of the bokeh. It will be interesting to see, from real reviews, what that translates to in terms of performance. If they have not made some noticeable improvements to sharpness then it would be strange that they emphasised that in the launch. I am looking forward for more news from people who have actaully shot with or tested these lenses.

 

The surprise package for me, the tele-converters, is very interesting. My main wish for the FE system is good native lenses with longer focal lengths than the current offering. If the teleconverters are good the new 70-200 f2.8 offers a significant jump in native focal length when combined with those. That would be excellent. It also opens up the interesting (to me at least) possibility to follow up with e.g. a 300mm f2.8, if that worked also with the teleconverters then the native lens collection would top out at an effective 600mm f5.6, which is a huge improvement.

 

Lets see what the rest of the year brings.

[tinplater]

Let's see...you can buy the Canon 28-70 2.8, Canon 70-200 2.8 (amazing lens on my Sony) and an adapter (if you need one) for less than the cost of one of these new "native" lenses.  The Sonies had better be spectacular.  In the next half year be a great time to purchase the original Sony 70-200 F4 which will probably plummet in cost on the used market.

[alastc]

I had kept the Canon 7d mk2, 70-200/F2.8 and 2x converter for sports & wildlife. (I preferred that to the 100-400, and I later saw a Tony Northrup video that agreed.)

 

I will get those in eBay asap, and get the A6300 and sony equivalent lenses.

 

Bit of a risk before seeing the reviews, but having an A7R2 as my main camera, it would be great to have a *smaller* asp-c as backup.

 

Plus for sports the AF looks good, and with native lenses you're getting 105-600 (with converter).

 

I just hope the 70-200 isn't toooo expensive, hopefully $2,200 or less.

[andyfowlie]

Let's see...you can buy the Canon 28-70 2.8, Canon 70-200 2.8 (amazing lens on my Sony) and an adapter (if you need one) for less than the cost of one of these new "native" lenses.  The Sonies had better be spectacular.  In the next half year be a great time to purchase the original Sony 70-200 F4 which will probably plummet in cost on the used market.

 

Anyone who prefers to buy the Canon ones and use with an adaptor can just do so... some features wont work (e.g. Eye AF), but if you dont want to use those features or if you already have the Canon lenses then that can be a great option... but now Sony also has an option that they can point to in their own line-up and can more justifiably say that their system has a good overall offering (with the weakness still in sports/wildlife due to lack of long tele lenses). If the Sony lenses are worse than the Canon/Nikon ones then they probably wont sell so much. If they are better then that's great.

 

Either way Sony users have options, which is good, and Sony is now more free to develop something else without the "you dont have any 2.8 zooms" hanging over them. I like the trend towards eliminating or reducing the weaknesses that people see in the system. Within 12 months we have had the 28mm + 2 wide converters, 90mm macro, 25 and 85 Batis from Zeiss and now these three new ones + two teleconverters. Thats quite a development.

[mkg3]

..................Its possible to see from the huge volume of comments on the launch article on this site that here are many people who wanted something different, thats fair enough... I choose to see it as a step forward for the system, strengthening the relative appeal of FE against Canon/Nikon/whoever. In the longer term this is good news for people who are shooting with FE cameras, even if these three lenses are not on their current wishlist. If they launch lenses that I want to buy then thats great. If they launch lenses that I don't currently want to buy then that is ok, I struggle to see how it could be more negative than not launching anything......

 

Lets see what the rest of the year brings.

 

 

That's just it isn't it.  No one is saying better to do nothing.  Its clear that they need to do something.  If one accepts that premise, then the question is what is that something. It is not about what lens I would buy; rather, how to fill the gaps in the product line.

 

Sony, no different than any other company, has to allocate resources to introduce new products.  So why did they focus onto enhancing products rather than enabling products to address gaping holes.

 

Lets see what the rest of the year brings but at the rate shown historically by Sony, maybe another lens or two at the most.  So maybe Zeiss will fill the gap by introducing Batis 135mm or 18mm.

[mkg3]

I had kept the Canon 7d mk2, 70-200/F2.8 and 2x converter for sports & wildlife. (I preferred that to the 100-400, and I later saw a Tony Northrup video that agreed.)

 

I will get those in eBay asap, and get the A6300 and sony equivalent lenses.

 

Bit of a risk before seeing the reviews, but having an A7R2 as my main camera, it would be great to have a *smaller* asp-c as backup.

 

Plus for sports the AF looks good, and with native lenses you're getting 105-600 (with converter).

 

I just hope the 70-200 isn't toooo expensive, hopefully $2,200 or less.

 

 

The 100-400 is a nice lens.  Wish Sony intro'd something like it for native FE.

 

As for 2.8/70-200, don't get your hopes up.  The A-Mount version is $3K and has less technology.  The non-GM version of 2.8/24-70mm A-mouont is $2.1K, and the new FE is $2.2K so my guess is the new 70200/2.8GM is at least $3K and probably $3.2K.  Plus the telecenter is good for another $300~$600 for 1.4x and 2.0x respectively....

[joshinthecity]

I have a VERY good feeling about that 85mm...

[addicted2light]

Jeez, they did it again. Sony keep squandering their competitive advantage of having small and light mirrorless bodies releasing what are basically DSLR lenses instead of designing something from the ground up (like the Loxia) to take advantage of the short flange distance.

 

Just check on Camerasize the comparison with the equivalent lenses for the A900 and you can see that something is definitely not right. The FE versions are actually way BIGGER than their A mount counterparts!

 

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[pilsburypie]

Excited and disappointed. The lenses claim to be amazing, I'm sure they are. Exactly what I was after, particularly the 24-70 f2.8. The price however is very steep. 24-70 is a bang on focal range for my needs and I held off buying the f4 version due to mixed reviews in anticipation of the new version. The f4 version is now much more appealing!

 

Will the f4 versions drop in price? I doubt it. 2 clear lines that are well separated. A pro line and a consumer line.

 

Time to sell a kidney.

[addicted2light]

 

Time to sell a kidney.

...or time to get a LA-EA4 and the A-mount version, that's most likely at this point what I'll end up doing

[Batis]

I would love to try the 70-200/2.8 with my a7rII and see if AF is good enough for high school football at night. 

[pflapf]

Following the link to Brian Smith ( http://briansmith.com/field-test-sony-g-master-24-70-f2-8-85-f1-4-lenses/ ), there're plenty sample images of the 24-70. One contains bigger oof highlights: http://briansmith.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/New-Orleans-3752.jpg. Though the background is noisy at ISO 6400 the highlights don't seem as homogeneous as Sony's marketing video suggests. They're nice but... spectacular? Maybe like my Batis.

The 85mm bokeh and highlights instead are very smooth, just 2 images above.

[Cojo]

People always have something to complain about hey. 

You wanted more lenses... sony comes through and brings some great high demand lenses and people complain. 

Im interested to see what the price of the 70-200 is. 

[pflapf]

Actually I'm really happy to see more FE lenses. :-)

 

But if Sony promises the hell of a lens, particularly in sharpness and bokeh it's disappointing if first sample images already question the marketing stuff.

[pilsburypie]

People always have something to complain about hey. 

 

You wanted more lenses... sony comes through and brings some great high demand lenses and people complain. 

 

Im interested to see what the price of the 70-200 is. 

I think it's simply that sony can't please everyone - in fact it is impossible to make that lens. My only gripe is the price. I doubt Sony could make me happy by making a great lens for $499! The lenses are great, more options, no complaints from me......except the price!

[Kami_sn]

In general Sony is not a cheap brand comparing to other manufacturers, if you compare their TVs, laptops etc. if you look at their production line up, they always had somewhat more expensive side of the market and delivered quality at the same time! To me it's like comparison between luxury brand like Audi and comparing it to Lexus they both are great product but if you want that extra touch of detailed engineering you have to pay for it.

 

But going back to camera business, for me couple of hundred dollars more expensive than lower line of lenses like G or Sony/Zeiss is not an issue, the issue is I switched to mirrorless to downsize in physical dimensions and weigh of the package. If the combination of lens and body goes over 1200grams then I most likely pass, but that's just me who I am looking for a compact system with hi quality. At the same time I am only a hobbyist, I am sure this is different if you are pro and do this for living.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kami_sn]

In general Sony is not a cheap brand comparing to other manufacturers, if you compare their TVs, laptops etc. if you look at their production line up, they always had somewhat more expensive side of the market and delivered quality at the same time! To me it's like comparison between luxury brand like Audi and comparing it to Lexus they both are great product but if you want that extra touch of detailed engineering you have to pay for it.

 

But going back to camera business, for me couple of hundred dollars more expensive than lower line of lenses like G or Sony/Zeiss is not an issue, the issue is I switched to mirrorless to downsize in physical dimensions and weigh of the package. If the combination of lens and body goes over 1200grams then I most likely pass, but that's just me who I am looking for a compact system with hi quality. At the same time I am only a hobbyist, I am sure this is different if you are pro and do this for living.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Kami_sn]

In general Sony is not a cheap brand comparing to other manufacturers, if you compare their TVs, laptops etc. if you look at their production line up, they always had somewhat more expensive side of the market and delivered quality at the same time! To me it's like comparison between luxury brand like Audi and comparing it to Lexus they both are great product but if you want that extra touch of detailed engineering you have to pay for it.

 

But going back to camera business, for me couple of hundred dollars more expensive than lower line of lenses like G or Sony/Zeiss is not an issue, the issue is I switched to mirrorless to downsize in physical dimensions and weigh of the package. If the combination of lens and body goes over 1200grams then I most likely pass, but that's just me who I am looking for a compact system with hi quality. At the same time I am only a hobbyist, I am sure this is different if you are pro and do this for living.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[alastc]

Digitalrev posted $3000 for the 70-200.

 

I guess that would be £2,500 Inc vat.

[Fender]

Its not time of 300mm or 400mm. Its time for these three lenses. But, the price is out of control.

A 70-200 2.8 never must be more expensive than the best camera ( Sony A7RII) .

 

These Canon/Nikon versions are a 1/4 cost of the D5 or the 1DXII. It was a wrong decision at all.

 

Now is time finally to go with de Canon 24-70 and 70-200 with the Metabones. Bye Sony G lenses.

[JimmyD]

I totally agree that there is no reason for Sony to be charging more than Canon or Nikon for comparable glass. However, with all due respect, choosing to adapt Canon or Nikon glass over native Sony glass makes little sense unless you already own that glass. Even if Sony's claims of highe resolution and better bokeh prove false (I doubt they will) having the benefits of the native glass--like better match to sensor, faster more precise autofocus, eye focus, etc.) are certainly worth the extra dollars IMHO.