Sony Carl Zeiss 50 f/1.4 SSM on its way

It's the same story why the 24mm is an f2. Zeiss is all about quality. If they made a 50mm f1.2 and it was a tad soft they would get slated. Better to make a 50mm f1.4 that's will keep the good name of zeiss. Plus with high ISO noise these days what's the point.

Carl wrote: Because the main point of making a fast lens is depth of field.

How about getting good images in low light?

mhohner wrote: jenik.nk wrote: mhohner wrote: Missing: 200/2.8 300/4 400/4.5 35/2 24/2.8 135/2.8 24-70/4 or similar (all full frame) Do you really think it's a big problem? Apart from 24-70/4 all the lenses do exist under Minolta brand, are well or highly regarded and available or easily available. And cheaper. Of course it would be nice if we had a brand-new option. (of course, the Minolta 400/4.5 and others like the 200/4 Macro are certainly not easily available) Some people want to buy these lenses new, with up-to-date coating, and possibly SSM, (D) and weather sealing. You won't get that with old Minolta lenses. The point is, there is a demand, and Sony does not want to fulfill it for some reason.

Personally, I have long believed that Sony does not understand the importance of the lens lineup to the overall attractiveness of the camera system. It also seems to have bifurcated it's lenses, with a fairly wide range of consumer/entry level lenses, frequently with overlapping focal lengths, and a smaller number of "pro" level lenses (mostly G and CZ). There are far fewer high quality but "moderately" priced lenses, such as a 24-105/4, 70-200/4, or 16-35/4. Nikon was very slow to move toward such lenses that were pretty popular in the Canon system, but it has now (Nikon had for a long time the 24-120, then did the 16-35/4, and finally just announced a 70-200/4).

On the other hand, the bulk of Sony's user base is more likely at the consumer/entry level, but as time goes on it does have more users who are interested in higher level products (hold-over Minolta shooters, some converts, and those who started at the entry/consumer level who are moving up. But, the numbers still pale in comparison to Canon and Nikon.

While one would think that a more moderately priced, high quality, moderate aperture zoom would sell in greater numbers than the top-level lenses, it may be a matter of Sony not wanting to compete against itself for the higher quality lenses. That is, someone who might buy a 70-200/2.8 may not if there is a high quality 70-200/4, and Sony does not have enough users that it can afford to split sales between two such lenses (i.e., economically it can't justify the cost of having two lenses vs. the sales potential). Thus, I can understand the economic considerations for not having those more moderate priced, high quality zooms.

In the case of some of the fixed focal length lenses, Sony likely believes that it has sufficiently decent quality zooms that cover those ranges, particularly given that most people today do buy zoom lenses rather than fixed focal lengths. But, it does still suggest a lack of understanding about why something like a 300/4 or 400/4.5 could be a successful product (e.g.,the faster aperture, usability with converters, and generally higher optical quality possible). If Sony's user base for higher level products was bigger, it might be more economically justifiable to have such lenses. But given how Sony has, generally speaking, ignored the types of photographers who might best use the telephoto lenses (nature and sports), the lack of potential demand for such lenses is understandable.

On the other side, if you don't build it they will not come. When Nikon came out with its 200-400/4 lens it got a number of Canon converts who saw that lens as a great option for wildlife/sports shooting. Sony has failed to come out with anything particularly unique on the lens front that might attract users. Rather, it has tended to do the standard ranges and types of lenses.

Finally, what most of us lack is detailed information about what lenses do sell well, and what lenses don't in the overall market. One has to believe the Sony has that information and it too factors into the decisions about what lenses Sony makes. But, based on what I see Canon and Nikon shooters frequently using, and the lack of comparable lenses from Sony, it may not be using what market information it has to its best use.

TallPaul wrote: One thing I did notice today was Amazon put the price of the 24-70Z up by £400 from £1400 to £1800 - coincidence, or did Sony change all their lens prices today? Small increases at other retailers for this lens as well.

Looking on camerapricebuster the 24-70 had a slight drop in the cheapest available sometime in the past few days.... Its been at £1400 for 10 months & has dropped to £1369.99.
Amazon is usually all over the shop with their pricing & it can fluctuate WILDLY between best on the market & hugely overpriced at any given moment with seemingly no rhyme or reason!!!
They had the a99 at £2600 or something stupid the other day.... Now it is £2138.99... Nearly £500 difference (only 2 in stock now - only 2 in stock then) for no aparent reason whatsoever!!!!
& who the heck picked that price - £2138.99!!! WTH

I don´t think f/1.2 lenses make much sense on todays sensors. So long as the pixel aperture is slower there is not much if any benefit.

Kind regards,

Jonas

I just converted a Rokkor 58/1.2 (thanks ricardovaste ) to use it on alphamount cameras so I am guilty of cult following myself. However, I am fully aware that my camera is unable to take full advantage of the fastes setting. I just don't see a convincing case of such a high speed lens on today's sensor tech.
It may be a good decision to go for f/1.4 as it will most likely be lighter, focus quicker, suffer from less aperture size dependent focus shift, and most likely generally will be sharper and more contrasty?

They did also not compete with the canikon offerings in th 24mm Zeiss in terms of maximal speed.

Br Jonas

The folks who thinks the Canon 50/1,2 is the holy grail might wanna read up on focus shift...