New Sony "high quality" lenses announced

[Bring on the clowns]

This could be good...

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2016/02/03/new-sony-...

[sgrimshaw]

Even before I clicked I knew it was going to be expensive :;

[Bring on the clowns]

I'm already working out what to sell to get the zoom(s)!

[RobDickinson]

wowzers look at those numbers.

$2200 for the 24-70, $400 more than the canon.

$1800 for the 85/1.4. Thats almost as much as the canon 1.2 and likely $800ish more than the sigma art when that comes out.

Sony do realise you can put other lenses on these right?

[StuH]

That 24-70 f2.8 has got my name all over it! The current 24-70 F4 is the weakest in the FE lineup so time to get that on the Bay...........

[RobDickinson]

$2999 for the 70-200..

Bang goes the mirrorless advantage of size and weight :-D

[TheRainMaker]

RobDickinson said:

Bang goes the mirrorless advantage of size and weight :-D

Why?

[Bring on the clowns]

RobDickinson said:

$2999 for the 70-200..

Bang goes the mirrorless advantage of size and weight :-D

You really don't like these, do you?!

[RobDickinson]

Nah, They are probably fine lenses but somewhat disproves the smaller lighter cheaper mantra. I think for the market they are aiming at an slr is still the better tool.

I use both too.

[StuH]

RobDickinson said:

$2999 for the 70-200..

Bang goes the mirrorless advantage of size and weight :-D

Not at all. Having gone from a 5D3 to current A7r2 - The Sony is better for 90% of what I want it for. For sure with the 24-70 f2.8 it's going to be a lot heavier, but still nowhere near the size/weight of equiv DSLR. Plus I can stick on the FE55 or FE35 and I'm back to a tiny discreet setup. Case in point a recent wedding, the candid, low light pics I got with teh A7r/55 were sharper, cleaner and with more pop than the pics taken with uncles 5D3/85 and everyone thought he was the official photographer due to the kit! The A7 is discreet in size and with silent shutter, completely non-intrusive.

I'd expect the new 24-70 to be at least as good as teh Canon 24-70 mk2.

[jayemm89]

These look like interesting glass. I was lucky enough to play with an Otus on an A7 recently, that was nice.

If I ever come back to stills photography I'll probably get a Sony, I've done my DSLR thing. I think people forget though that as long as your sensor is the same size, physics is going to dictate how large a lens of a certain focal length and stop will be - not the manufacturers.

[ukaskew]

RobDickinson said:

$2999 for the 70-200..

Bang goes the mirrorless advantage of size and weight :-D

There was never any stated size/weight advantage from Sony with their FF lineup for long glass, basic physics dictates that fast longer glass will not get significantly smaller for full frame, mirror or not.

The mirrorless mantra of full AF coverage with on-sensor AF (say goodbye to micro adjustments) is still alive and well. Plus, whisper it, the A7/70-200 combo is smaller and lighter than any equivalent DSLR effort.

[Simpo Two]

StuH said:

Case in point a recent wedding, the candid, low light pics I got with teh A7r/55 were sharper, cleaner and with more pop than the pics taken with uncles 5D3/85

How much of that was down to the JPG processing? Things like 'sharp, clean and pop' usually happen after image capture.

[StuH]

Simpo Two said:

How much of that was down to the JPG processing? Things like 'sharp, clean and pop' usually happen after image capture.

Hmmmm, well RAW format is what I always use, through LR and PS.

No amount of processing could get the Canon images as good as the Sony. It wasn't even close to be fair, the sensor in the A7R2 is really special. The Sony shots were cleaner at 6400/100 than the Canon at 3200/200. Only way to remove the noise from the Canon was to smooth, which killed a lot of detail and contrast.

[Simpo Two]

StuH said:

Simpo Two said:

How much of that was down to the JPG processing? Things like 'sharp, clean and pop' usually happen after image capture.

Hmmmm, well RAW format is what I always use, through LR and PS.

But are you actually judging the RAW file? That's just data. I agree that inherent noise is a bit different, but 6400 is a bit crazy anyway IMHO. Turn it up until the pips squeak and then, well, they squeak.

[StuH]

Simpo Two said:

But are you actually judging the RAW file? That's just data. I agree that inherent noise is a bit different, but 6400 is a bit crazy anyway IMHO. Turn it up until the pips squeak and then, well, they squeak.

An IMAGE is just data

6400 is perfectly usable - comparable to 1600 on my 5D3.