next Sony FE lenses for A7(R)

Discussion in 'Sony E-Mount (incl. NEX, A7, A7R, A3000) Forum' started by serhan, Feb 18, 2014.

  1. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    Low SR2 rating, but it matches what Sony told before and also summer/fall release dates are not that far. Fast 35mm is nice but I don't know why the repetition eg 25-28mm would have been better but at least the wide angle zoom will cover it.

    (SR2) Are these the next FE lenses? 16-35mm, 35mm f/1.4 and 90mm macro.
    http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sr2-are-these-the-next-fe-lenses-16-35mm-35mm-f1-4-and-90mm-macro/

    1485866_731901596820653_807795231_o_zpsf28fc95a.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    While I'd love a fast 35mm, the timing is suspect. Assuming that the fast 35 is not a honking giant sized and expensive lens, most people who bought the FE35/2.8 (myself included) would feel somewhat duped. I agree that a wide pancake 24-28 prime would have been great. Or 85/1.4 or 85/1.8.

    I'm still perplexed with the 70-200. That doesn't seem like a lens that the average A7/A7r owner would gravitate to.

    And macro?? I guess a 90 macro could also be a portrait lens. Hopefully, it'd have a limiter.
     
  3. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    Yes, 35mm 1.4 is questionable after Sony said they will keep the lenses on the slower side and smaller. But then lots of people complained about the slow aperture of 35mm 2.8 also. RX1 f2 lens is a very good compromise that should have been copied but that is a huge lens compared to 2.8 and the big lens elements resulted in slower af also.

    70-200 f4 is similar size to Canon 70-200 f4 which beats the purpose of mirrorless but then some of the latest mirrorless lens sizes are also close to the full frame lenses. I guess the advantage will be the silent focus and video af, hopefully w/ Zeiss color and contrast. I haven't seen a review yet but I am not interested in that either.

    90mm macro will be nice esp if it will be 2.8 and have a limiter as you say. Otherwise it might be slow af lens. Again a mf lens usually is enough for macro so portrait lens should have been nice. Even nex doesn't have any primes longer then 50mm, so 85 1.8 should be a good lens for both systems.
     
  4. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    A 70-200/4 seems at best like a poor man's wedding lens. But I don't see a wedding photographer choosing to use an A7 or A7r. Plus, 70-200/2.8's aren't much bigger than this upcoming 70-200/4. The AF system on the A7 is definitely not good enough for fast action. So scratch that out for the 70-200/4. Making this honking slowish zoom as one of the early lenses just doesn't make sense to me. I hope Sony doesn't keep pushing out new bodies instead of new lenses like they did with the NEX.
     
  5. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    It looks like they are more concentrated on their imaging section and also on A7/A7R esp w/ lenses. There is not much going on w/ nex or A mount lenses. There are 2 more lenses before the end of the year which might push the delivery early next year as it happened so far w/ US shipments...
     
  6. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    It probably takes a couple more wide primes in the 20-28 range to get me into this system. Way too soon to have two 35mm options (premium and budget where the budget version is $800... yow!). And Sony and Zeiss probably should have coordinated not to have two very similar zooms right off the bat. Looks like I'm going Df for the foreseeable future, at least a few years until this system really matures and then only if I'm not liking the Df gear.

    -Ray
     
  7. christilou

    christilou SC Hall of Famer

    Jul 13, 2010
    Sunny Frimley
    Not very inspiring so far. The A7s are looking more like NEXs in that I would mostly be using third party lenses, mf and little else. I returned my 35mm as I won't be parting with the RX1 any time soon and I find I don't really use the 55 1.8 very often. This leaves me with a rather expensive camera for my Pentax FA77 LTD lens ultimately. Having taken the Leica, the RX1 and A7R to Miami for a week, I found it fairly redundant and enjoyed the M much more than I though I would. Thinking about parting with the A7R and keeping my Fuji XE1 for portraits.
     
  8. flash

    flash SC Veteran

    372
    May 6, 2011
    Gordon
    Well this wedding photographer shot with a Canon 70-200 F4LIS for years and would never consider the 2.8 (which was replaced by the f4). If you're also carrying a 55mm 1.8 and an 85mm 1.2/8 the a F4 zoom is fine. I'm a prime shooter who needs a zoom occasionally. A F4 zoom is ideal. And they're 40% lighter.

    I shot my last two weddings using an A7 and EM1.

    Change the 35 to an 85 and I'll definitely have every lens, including the macro.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  9. Luckypenguin

    Luckypenguin SC Hall of Famer

    Dec 24, 2010
    Brisbane, Australia
    Nic
    Maybe the images of the 70-200mm f4 are a bit deceptive wrt it's size. The Canon 70-200mm f4 lenses are manageable, the f2.8s are tanks!
     
  10. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    Shows how much I know about wedding photography! :)

    I do find most churches that I go to a bit dark for f4. But then, I've never used flash in my life (other than fill), and I do see most wedding photographers use big flashes.

    So Gordon, you picking up that big thing? And the 24-70 too?
     
  11. krugorg

    krugorg SC All-Pro

    Sep 26, 2011
    Minnesota USA
    Kyle Krug
    I was thinking the large aperture would be a ~85mm, but would love to see something wide.

    The f4 wide zoom would be interesting, if decent.
     
  12. flash

    flash SC Veteran

    372
    May 6, 2011
    Gordon
    Yep and Yep. Would love the fast prime to be an 85 or 135. Even considering a 70-400 alpha lens for a long.

    In chapels I tend to use primes. Even 2.8 is too slow. That's one of the significany advantages ofthe EM1. More DOF with IBIS andd the 75mm. Yummy. Haven't decied if tthe Sony can replace that.

    Gordon
     
  13. Ray Sachs

    Ray Sachs SC Legend

    Sep 21, 2010
    Not too far from Philly
    you should be able to figure it out...
    I've found the same thing (not in chapels, but dimly lit rooms shooting friends and family) - the 75mm at f1.8 gets a lot of shots that the 35-100 at f2.8 won't. But that's just with m43. I'd have thought that with a newer full frame sensor, which is generally at least a stop better than m43 and with some sensors closer to 2 stops, an f2.8 zoom would be fine for most low light people shooting. So, yeah with the EM1, but with the A7 also?

    -Ray
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    In the last wedding I attended, I used the Zeiss FE35/2.8 and the Sony 85/2.8 with the LAE4 adapter. I was at ISO 6400 all the time with the 85mm. 6400 on the A7 does not look as good as 6400 on the RX1, in my opinion.

    Gordon, you may to check out the Sony/Zeiss 85/1.4 and 135/1.8 in A mount, if you don't mind using the extra bulky adapter. I tested the 85 on a Sony A55 ages ago, and the 85 is amazingly good. Butt load expensive though!
     
    • Like Like x 1
  15. flash

    flash SC Veteran

    372
    May 6, 2011
    Gordon
    The A7 isn't bad by any means. But the EM1 is better. I think the IBIS is worth more than two stops. And the Olympus is still a better and more confident focuser in low light. At the last wedding I did some stuff with the A7 and a 135APO Leica. Worked fine. Just not what I'm getting more easily from the EM1.

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  16. flash

    flash SC Veteran

    372
    May 6, 2011
    Gordon
    You have no idea how bad I already want these two. You're not helping me resist at all.......

    :smile:

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    If and when you do get them, post lots of pics!

    I tried the 85/2.8 and the Zeiss 24/2 on my A7 using the LAEA4 adapter. The AF points are all bunched up on the middle making off center subjects slightly more difficult to ensure in-focus subject. I imagine that focus and recompose on 135/1.8 would be near hellish when shooting at f/1.8.

    The focus accuracy when using the Zeiss 24/2 also appeared to be slightly off with the LAEA4 adapter.
     
  18. serhan

    serhan SC All-Pro

    May 7, 2011
    NYC
    They say it is same as A99. Canon 5D was similar and I didn't have any problems w/ recomposing Canon 135mm f2 L. Other then pro models, ff af sensors are usually lumped in the middle, not like apsc dslrs. Also you can/need to adjust the phase detection af for front/back focus depending on the lens. It is not like contrast focus.

     
  19. Armanius

    Armanius Bring Jack back!

    Jan 11, 2011
    Houston, Texas
    Jack
    Yeah, the A99 AF was lacking in my opinion. I played with it for about 20 minutes in a Sony store, and really didn't think it merited the price. The D800's AF points are primarily in the middle as well, but it's much wider than the A99.
     
  20. flash

    flash SC Veteran

    372
    May 6, 2011
    Gordon
    picked up a 24-70 f4 AND a 70-400 GII (couldn't help myself). If I get a 35, which I will, eventually, I'll have the set.

    So far (after two hours) I'm very impressed with both. Had to micro adjust the 70-400 on both my a7 and a7r. Now it's spot on with both cameras. Nothing but indoor tests but so far the 24-70 seems to have that Zeiss thing going on, and I like it.

    Also here is a video, in Japanese, showing the FE 70-200 f4 OSS on an A7. About a third of the way in.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb149AMZdSw

    Gordon
     
    • Like Like x 2