FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login

Sony: step up your LENS game: A-Mount plea

Page  <1234 9>
Author
Photosopher View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Knowledgebase Contributor

Joined: 13 June 2010
Country: United States
Location: St. Louis Mo
Status: Offline
Posts: 4178
Post Options Post Options   Quote Photosopher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 02:07
Goofy looking thing, ready to bite back. I'd gladly take the kindler, gentler DSLR AF version... Of course the whole thing is off without it being Sony manufactured for full AF point coverage. Surely Sony would make this with at least one notable compromise. Oh yeah, double the size for AF... Fine, just include rotating tripod collar.

And I'm unclear if it is APS-C or full frame.

Edited by Photosopher - 21 September 2017 at 02:12
 



Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2534
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 02:16
Yeah, the site I read that spec from was wrong about full-frame. According to Tokina it is Super-35.
Sony A68 A77II A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
sybersitizen View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 04 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: California
Status: Offline
Posts: 14192
Post Options Post Options   Quote sybersitizen Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 02:18
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

Here is a review comparing it to the Super-35 Fujinon T2.9. The Fuji is E mount and not full-frame.

It is on sale for $1,000 off right now, so act quickly!

I'm confused ... but that's okay. I can be comfortable remaining ignorant about the whole thing.
Back to Top
Steve-S View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Sonoma Co. CA
Status: Offline
Posts: 2531
Post Options Post Options   Quote Steve-S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 03:50
Originally posted by Photosopher Photosopher wrote:

...

As I browsed the photos, without knowing what lens shot them, it turned out my favorite draw was virtually always coming from the "old Rokkor"...

Fair 'nuff!

I admire those sites that let you pick "favorites" from among many, blind-testing. Do you like a particular focal length? A particular lens? A particular photographer? Etc.

Originally posted by Photosopher Photosopher wrote:

Originally posted by Steve-S Steve-S wrote:

Originally posted by Photosopher Photosopher wrote:

I would pay any price for a 40-120/2.8.

That seems remarkably similar to the 50-150/2.8 from Sigma. Does the 40-50 range really make it a "pay any price" lens? I mean, sure that's hyperbole, but I honestly don't see that as a terribly-desirable range...


Not hyperbole. When Sony charges $3G for their cine' lenses of similar (but far from same) capability, I'm ready to pay similar, or more, for a lens that will shorten my shoot time. Environment and studio people shots would be well served.


Well, I stand by calling it hyperbole. You may be ready to pay $3G(ish, maybe more), but what if it were really unreasonably priced? Surely there's SOME limit, not genuinely "any" price... $7.5G? $10G?

I mean, it's not like you have infinite money to put down for it. If you did, you could just go somewhere like Zeiss, who IIRC will build 1-off bespoke lens designs...
like this 1700/4   
I think you could get your 40-120/2.8 for a fraction of that cost! A bargain, really...
Alpha: a77+7000; SAL 18135, SAL1870, MinO50/1.7, MinO75-300, Tam90/2.8, Smyg85/1.4, others.
SR(MC/MD): XD-11, XK+AEhead Min50/1.7&1.4, Tam70-150/3.5, Viv35/2.8, Viv2xTC
Back to Top
Photosopher View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Knowledgebase Contributor

Joined: 13 June 2010
Country: United States
Location: St. Louis Mo
Status: Offline
Posts: 4178
Post Options Post Options   Quote Photosopher Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 04:20
If I say I'll pay any price, then Sony is more likely to make it than if I didn't say that.

See... I can always change my mind afterwards and await the refurb fleabay deal.
Back to Top
Miranda F View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 11 January 2014
Country: United Kingdom
Location: Bristol
Status: Offline
Posts: 3347
Post Options Post Options   Quote Miranda F Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 10:43
Originally posted by momech momech wrote:

The other thing I think is needed is a longer macro - 150-180mm. Also heavy but I think they'd sell very well to the serious macro shooters.


Tamron made some of those back in the '70s and '80s. The thing is, that at 150-180mm and macro (insects, etc) f2.8-4 is unusable because the DOF is too small. 90mm f2.8 macro +2x TC gives you 180mm f5.6 and you'd probably be using f8-11. I suspect most of those old 180mm Tamrons got used with a TC for birding.

EDIT: On second thoughts I would agree , that a close-focus macro tele around that Fl would be useful even if not f2.8, but would it be better as a zoom?
Is that even possible?
Tamron claimed back in adaptall days that you couldn't make a real macro zoom because the SA compensation group needed to go in the same place as the zoom group. Dunno if that is still true now you can get away with so many elements and have separate focussing motors.

So maybe a 70-210 macro zoom would be nice - at least 1:2 at all focal lengths, maybe 1:1 at some? F2.8 - 4 would be good enough I think.

Edited by Miranda F - 21 September 2017 at 10:55
Miranda F & Sensorex, Sony A58, Nex-6, Dynax 4, 5, 60, 500si/600si/700si/800si, various Sony & Minolta lenses, several Tamrons, lots of MF primes and *far* too many old film cameras . . .
 



Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Online
Posts: 9649
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 13:00
Originally posted by Miranda F Miranda F wrote:

Tamron made some of those back in the '70s and '80s. The thing is, that at 150-180mm and macro (insects, etc) f2.8-4 is unusable because the DOF is too small. 90mm f2.8 macro +2x TC gives you 180mm f5.6 and you'd probably be using f8-11. I suspect most of those old 180mm Tamrons got used with a TC for birding.
Tamron and Sigma still have long Macro's in their line-up. Minolta had the almost legendary 200/4 Macro.

Using a TC will always result in artefacts, no matter how good the lens or the TC is So, all things equal, a 180/200mm macro is better then a 90/100mm with TC. (if the artefacts are problem is of course a completely different matter all together)
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
momech View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 27 August 2006
Country: United States
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 2872
Post Options Post Options   Quote momech Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 13:26
I agree no need for a 180/2.8 macro. 3.5 or 4 would be fine, still be shooting at f11 or so.

I've tried my 100/2.8 macro with my Kenko Pro300 1.4 TC and it does suffer some IQ loss. That's another reason for new TCS. Of course, they'd have to design the lens to accept them.
It's never too late to have a happy childhood.
Back to Top
QuietOC View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 28 February 2015
Country: United States
Location: Michigan
Status: Offline
Posts: 2534
Post Options Post Options   Quote QuietOC Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 13:41
I have a Vivitar 135mm F2.8 1:2 that doesn't breathe--just a simple unit focus lens, and it is pretty large cranked out to 1:2. The focus ring turns 540 degrees! I don't think any of the long 1:1 macros get to 135mm at 1:1. I found one reference to the MAF 200/4 only being 125 mm at 1:1.

I just returned a huge 70-220/3.5 that did 1:2 but only at 70 mm.

Edited by QuietOC - 21 September 2017 at 14:24
Sony A68 A77II A6000 A7II LA-EA3 LA-EA4 MC-11
Minolta Maxxum 600si
Pentax Q7 5-15 15-45/2.8
Back to Top
pegelli View Drop Down
Admin Group
Admin Group
Dyxum Administrator

Joined: 02 June 2007
Country: Belgium
Location: Schilde
Status: Online
Posts: 26756
Post Options Post Options   Quote pegelli Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 14:18
Originally posted by QuietOC QuietOC wrote:

I have a Vivitar 135mm F2.8 1:2 that doesn't breathe--just a simple unit focus lens, and it is pretty large cranked out to 1:2. The focus ring turns 540 degrees! I don't think any of the long 1:1 macros get to 135mm at 1:1. I found one reference to the MAF 200/4 only being 125 mm at 1:1.

I just returned a huge 70-200/3.5 that did 1:2 but only at 70 mm.


You are right the Sigma, Tamron and Minolta long macro's (180 & 200 mm) are somewhere in the range of 120 mm focal length at 1:1.

However what might be a more useful measure for practical use in the field is the distance between the front lens and the subject at 1:1, where these lenses are 240-260 mm, so probably not so far off what it is with your Vivitar 135 mm macro lens.

I also agree we don't need a Sony 180 mm macro lens, both the Tamron and Sigma offereings there are absolutely great lenses and can be bought new at very reasonable prices. A Sony would likely be way more expensive and therefore probably not sell very much. I agree with others in this thread that if we want more A-mount lenses the best chance for reasonable sales would be types that you can't find in other brands.
Mind the bandwidth of others, don't link pictures larger then 1024 wide or 960 pix high, see here
Back to Top
overeema View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 07 September 2008
Country: Netherlands
Status: Offline
Posts: 309
Post Options Post Options   Quote overeema Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 14:37
Originally posted by Steve-S Steve-S wrote:

In another thread, I was noting that Sony really needs more new-lens action in A-Mount to reassure the faithful; not just "v.2" lenses with new coatings and SSM-II upgrades but new optical designs. The current bodies are REALLY nice, and nice to have, and don't really show "lackof attention" or "time for a new model"...

But the lack of new lenses makes it look (to some) like A-Mount is being sunset'ed... or at least like it may be being sunset'ed.

I pointed out that Sony's lens-design team has really needed to build-out the E-Mount designs before back-filling the (relatively-few) signifigant holes in the S-Mount line-up; but they really shouldn't let the A-mount lens lineup languish the way they have.

Since (by my own admission) Sony didn't have a lot of "needed" lenses (gaps in the A-mount lineup), I launched into a plea for Sony to produce INNOVATIVE (vs. me-too-spec) lenses... then realized how OT it was for that thread.

So I cut it there, and now I paste it here:

Ideally, I'd like Sony to take some pages from the Sigma/Tokina playbooks, and produce new IDEAS instead of "me-too" lenses already seen in the CaNikon stable (I'm looking at things like the 18-35/1.8, 50-150/2.8, 11-16/2.8, 8-16/4.5-5.6, 120-300/2.8, 300-800/5.6, etc). These are USEFUL lenses & lens-specs (one guy I've seen calls the 18-35/1.8 his "moneymaker") that IMHO could/should (and eventually maybe some will) be much more mainstream & every-maker.

What else could Sony do? Something not "me-too" even vs. the 3rd-party lensmakers? How about matching the FF f/2.8 "pro trio" with a DT f/2 trio: 11-24 + 16-55 + 35-135 (all at F/2, all at least of "G" caliber) would be a REALLY close match to the FF trio of 16-35 + 24-70 + 70-200 (all at F/2.8). Bring them out with the a77mkIII (or whatever it's called); noting that "fast" is only part of that equation -- DOF/bokeh is also addressed! Note that I intentionally overlapped the 35mm-48mm range: I don't think it's a design challenge, and getting a bit more versatility as you cross the Normal-vs-ShortTele barrier seems like a no-brainer (I note that the 24-35 range is overlapped in ALL makers' FF/2.8 trilogies).

Look also at old Minolta -- they had the only STF lens for DECADES (now Fuji (& Laowa iirc) make them too), the only AF'ing catadioptric EVER... (Canon's 135 Soft came 5-10 years before MinO's 100 Soft, but it shows MinO was in the game!). Sony inherited the 135TF (and even went one better with the AF'ing 100STF (!))... but they discontinued the cat, and afaik never brought the 100Soft out of retirement.

So on the innovative-vs-conventional lens-scoreboard, Sony scores pretty poorly. That 100STF is IMHO their closest approach to a "headliner," but merely evolutionary (unlike the original which was quite visionary).

The "Easy Choice" lenses (headlined IMHO by the 85/2.8) were a GREAT move, innovative not technically but on the value/marketing front. Sony seems to have dropped that lable, however (so I'm guessing the market didn't agree with me)... Still, it is at least SOME form of "innovative."


- Steve S.

+1

Edited by overeema - 21 September 2017 at 21:07
minolta owner since 1969; A350-SAL1680Z-SAL70300G-Tamron60F2-Minolta100F2-Minolta35105-Minolta28135-Minolta50F1.7; NEX6-SELP1650-SELP18105G (and some minolta MC/MD glass )
Back to Top
Jocelynne View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 17 June 2009
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Posts: 2819
Post Options Post Options   Quote Jocelynne Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 18:13
THANK YOU AND INFINITE PRAISES TO ***ALL*** THE CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS THREAD!

Is Sony listening?

Respectfully to Contributors and to Sony

JL
Maxxum 450si, Sony A300, A700, A900 and a cubic meter of Alpha lenses
Back to Top
addy landzaat View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 22 April 2006
Country: Netherlands
Location: Netherlands
Status: Online
Posts: 9649
Post Options Post Options   Quote addy landzaat Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 18:38
Originally posted by Jocelynne Jocelynne wrote:

Is Sony listening?
When everybody complained about the old 50/1.4 Sony listened and released the Zeiss 50/1.4 - while they should've released a 35/1.4

May I suggest a 20-60/4 lens? I think it will cover most of my needs.
Why not follow me on Instagram? @Addy_101
Back to Top
Steve-S View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member

Joined: 20 July 2006
Country: United States
Location: Sonoma Co. CA
Status: Offline
Posts: 2531
Post Options Post Options   Quote Steve-S Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 September 2017 at 19:13
Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Tamron and Sigma still have long Macro's in their line-up.
I used their 180 for a day at one of Tamron's field-trip / workshop events. I was very impressed with it.

Originally posted by addy landzaat addy landzaat wrote:

Minolta had the almost legendary 200/4 Macro.

Indeed; and if Sony would just slap modern coatings and SSM-II onto the MinO 200/4Macro optical design, it would be a great thing for the A-Mount line!

It wouldn't be an "innovation" the way I OP'ed, but it WOULD show some degree of "see, we ARE keeping A-Mount alive!" that could reassure the faithfull, stave off the critics...
Alpha: a77+7000; SAL 18135, SAL1870, MinO50/1.7, MinO75-300, Tam90/2.8, Smyg85/1.4, others.
SR(MC/MD): XD-11, XK+AEhead Min50/1.7&1.4, Tam70-150/3.5, Viv35/2.8, Viv2xTC
Back to Top
Dyxum main page >  Forum Home > Equipment forums > Lens Talk Page  <1234 9>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down



This page was generated in 0.063 seconds.

Monitor calibration strip

Dyxum.com - Home of the alpha system photographer

In memory of Cameron Hill - brettania

Feel free to contact us if needed.