New versions of lens releases are like old movie remakes. Totally unnecessary and designed to take your money. Discuss.

[Brownie]

Sony announces new 50/1.4. Sigma announces new 50/1.4

Why? What's wrong with the old versions? Is it even necessary to have a 1.2, 1.4, and 1.8?

If Sony had never released a new 70-200, would anyone have even known the difference? Isn't the old one a great lens already? This same thing applies to every new release of a previous version lens. Is it better? Yeah, probably, but is the difference worth it, especially considering if it were never released, no one would ever be the wiser?

True Grit was a great movie. So was the Magnificent Seven. Both remakes were fun, but neither one was necessary, and had they never been released everyone would've been happy just to enjoy the original versions.

Why do we have GAS? This is why. The never-ending quest to get you to spend your money on the next best thing. I guess they gotta' stay in business, but for Pete's sake, come up with a NEW idea, not the same old thing.

Having said that, I'm as guilty as everyone else. These two new 50 releases just put a really fine point on it.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Literally no need in most cases I agree, certainly with lenses made in the last decade. Maybe some of the coatings on older versions are inferior, and certainly AF Motors have come on a good way, so I can see the need or reasoning if you haven't upgraded in a good while, but, as they say "if it ain't broke, don't fix it".
I can't see I will ever need another zoom, and I don't think I'll ever buy a 600 f4, unless I am suddenly rich.

Bodies are a different kettle of fish of course...

 

[Brownie]

Bodies are a different kettle of fish of course...

We each have our weaknesses, don't we!

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

We each have our weaknesses, don't we!

Yeah, my body is completely knackered, and I don't mean the camera. I wish I could replace this one

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

You know where they get you sometimes? They pick up on a very niche feature and make you believe you need the new unit because it features <fill in the blank> which is improved over the old version. For example when new lenses have improvements in focus breathing... 95% of users wouldn't have noticed unless it was called out by marketing department!

Heck I haven't even made a video in 2 yrs but I already know the next APSC lens I want to acquire because of its video features. Those features are a nice to have but not a must have, AND I already have a lens which covers the same focal length.

GAS could also be considered thinly-veiled greed... but as I'm VERY guilty of it, I am not judging any of my fellow forum mates

 

[liggy]

Partially agreed. I wouldn’t have bought the V1 70-200 but the V2 - so much lighter and with improved af. If they didn’t launch the V2 I would have stayed with the Tamron 70-180.

Agree on the 50s. More tele primes first, please.

 

[Brownie]

Partially agreed. I wouldn’t have bought the V1 70-200 but the V2 - so much lighter and with improved af. If they didn’t launch the V2 I would have stayed with the Tamron 70-180.

Agree on the 50s. More tele primes first, please.

Ok, but the point is, if they'd never introduced the II, you would've been happy staying what you had.

I handled the VII at a launch party at my local store, and yeah, it was amazing. The difference in weight alone was huge. Not a FL I use much so it doesn't lure me, I shoot the Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO HS G for the few times I need one.

 

[liggy]

Ok, but the point is, if they'd never introduced the II, you would've been happy staying what you had.

I handled the VII at a launch party at my local store, and yeah, it was amazing. The difference in weight alone was huge. Not a FL I use much so it doesn't lure me, I shoot the Minolta 80-200/2.8 APO HS G for the few times I need one.

Yep - priorities. That is a common focal length for me. Dogs, events, motorsports - even portraits if needed so V2 - yeah baby! The V2 is great with the 1.4 TC which the Tamron is incompatible with so I'm very glad the V2 is a thing.

The Tamron is a great lens but the V2 - even better.

 

[Brownie]

Too short for my use. One body with the 24-105, second body with 100-400. I resort to the 80-200 when it gets dark and I have no choice. I did use it once to shoot my grandson's karate tournament and it performed flawlessly, but the 100-400 is a far more important FL for me.

 

[liggy]

Too short for my use. One body with the 24-105, second body with 100-400. I resort to the 80-200 when it gets dark and I have no choice. I did use it once to shoot my grandson's karate tournament and it performed flawlessly, but the 100-400 is a far more important FL for me.

Understandable. I either add the TC to the 70-200 or go to the 200-600 for reach and have skipped the 100-400.

I hope they expand the long glass options and not make the umpteenth 50mm lens but oh well….

 

[Brownie]

Understandable. I either add the TC to the 70-200 or go to the 200-600 for reach and have skipped the 100-400.

I hope they expand the long glass options and not make the umpteenth 50mm lens but oh well….

The 200-600 is too much when I have a couple cameras strapped on 10-12 hours a day, and the FL is too long for most of the shots anyway. The 100-400 is a better size overall. I shoot through the range so stopping to add a TC isn't an option.

I thought the Tamron 35-150 2/2.8 was a great idea. A little too narrow on the short end for my use, if not for that it would've been a no-brainer. 24 or 28 on the short end with the same aperture, or even a third-stop loss would be fantastic and would replace both my 24-105 and 80-200. Even a reasonably sized 28-135 would be great. One of my favorite walk-around lenses in M-4/3 was the 12-60, so either of those would be perfect to fill that slot.

The new 20-70 is a nice addition to the line and shows some thinking. If they'd made it a 2.8 lens I'd be looking at it. f/4 doesn't entice me.

 

[Clix Pix]

Well, from my perspective the announcement of a new version of an old lens could well be valuable to someone who doesn't have the older version and who deliberately did not purchase the older version because of mixed reviews, etc. Case in point: the new 24-70mm GM II. When I was first buying lenses at the time I had purchased my A7R IV, my first Sony FF body, I thought about what I needed and of course also knew what I'd used most frequently back in my Nikon days. The 24-70mm is a good range for the kind of shooting I like to do, and my Nikon 24-70mm was one of my favorites. It seemed to be a no-brainer to buy the Sony 24-70mm GM I.....until I read the reviews and found them to be distinctly mixed, and "meh" in some cases. Since I had a lot of other lenses on my list anyway, I decided to forgo the 24-70 GM I and that was that.

I was overjoyed when I heard that Sony was releasing a new version of that lens, the 24-70 GM II. I read reviews after it was released and began planning to eventually buy one for myself. Did so back in December and have been more than happy with this new lens. It was worth the wait!

All that said, sure, I probably would not be thrilled if suddenly there were an announcement that Sony was bringing out a new version of the 90mm f/2.8 macro. I love mine and can't imagine what kind of genuinely amazing improvements they could develop that would make it worthwhile to go to the expense of trading in the older lens for the new version. Ditto for my second favorite lens, the 100-400mm GM. But, yes, if a new version of either lens were to be announced, I know I'd probably be tempted and would wind up trading the older lenses in for the newer versions.....

 

[AlphaWorld]

So far Sony has only released two official mark II lenses (haven’t they?), and both replaced lenses that weren’t quite GM. If they replace the 85 GM, that will be the last of the first batch.

When I was shooting Canon I lost track of how many EF 70-200 lenses they made - pretty sure there were at least 5, possibly more (I only bought one). I owned one Nikkor 70-200, but I think it was the VR2 or VR3 (and there were versions pre-VR, weren’t there?). So it’s not just Sony, that’s for certain.

I didn’t buy the Sony 70-200/2.8 mark one, but the mark two is good for me - light enough for me, for a start, and seriously sharp and fast.

I don’t use 24-70 focal range, so I haven’t been caught up in the 24-70 matk II and 20-70, etc. I did own a Canon EF 24-70 once, which I think replaced a 28-70.

I admit I will probably buy an 85 / 1.2 GM if it comes, but that is partly because I’m already a bit dissatisfied with the current 85 GM, and partly because I like f/1.2

Apart from that, I’m waiting as fast as I can for longer lenses rather than shorter ones.

 

[AlphaWorld]

On the subject of movie remakes, in my opinion, most of them are unnecessary.

The Magnificent Seven did not need a remake (and the remake was not as good), but do you realise the original was a remake? Admittedly it was turning Akira Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai into a Western (and it did do very well).

One remake chain that amused me was Kurosawa’s Yojimbo (Toshiro Mifune) becoming A Fistful of Dollars (Clint Eastwood) becoming Last Man Standing (Bruce Willis) - samurai -> Wild West -> 20s gangsters.

I could go on at length, but this is not the place