ok lets talk about the Sony current line up of lenses also thoughts on third party options

[spudhead]

ok so how do you feel about the Sony line up of lenses and third party lenses, Is there a lens you wish Sony would make or anything missing in the line up for your chosen photography interests. So for me I would like Sony to fill the gap between the 200-600 affordable reach lens we have now, and the 400 2.8 and 600 f4, with maybe something more affordable than the 2 fast pricey primes mentioned with similar reach or better option, I guess I can dream!

 

[Brownie]

I'd like to have a long fast prime too, but if I really had my druthers, it'd be a midrange fast zoom. I love my Minolta A-Mount 28-135/4-4.5. The focal range is fantastic, it does so much. Seems like Sony could do that in a 24-135/2-2.8 like Tamron's 35-150, which is a weird focal range with a killer aperture. They do make a f/4 version, but it's for video and designed for 4K production with a power zoom. Make one ins a stills version and it wouldn't need to be so big or expensive.

Edit:
Remake the 24-240 in a GM and f/4.

 

[Landshark99]

100mm f1.4 macro GM lens

 

[Scooter]

I actually have a few third party lenses. The Sony 70-200 f2.8 (genii) is $3,500 CAD. The Tamron 70-180 f2.8 is $1,899 CAD. On top of that., it was on sale for $450 less. I just cannot justify the Sony price, given that the Tamron lens is amazing. This pattern is repeated over and over.

Downside, I know, is the frame rate is reduced on the higher end cameras.

If I made $$ with photography, instead of being a keen hobbyist, then I think my answer would be different. I know from research, that the Sony lenses are just that much better. But it is the law of diminishing returns. Twice the price, equals a 5-10% increase in quality.

 

[AlphaWorld]

I am waiting as fast as I can for two shorter great white prime lenses: a 200mm GM and a 300mm GM. The 300mm would probably be f/2.8; the 200mm might be f/2, but maybe they'll take it to f/1.8.

The other hole in my life is an 85mm f/1.2 GM, ideally the child of the 50mm f/1.2 GM and the 135mm f/1.8 GM, with quad linear motors, dual overhead cams, and a chrome exhaust. Yes, I'm tired - why did you ask?

 

[AlphaWorld]

I actually have a few third party lenses. The Sony 70-200 f2.8 (genii) is $3,500 CAD. The Tamron 70-180 f2.8 is $1,899 CAD. On top of that., it was on sale for $450 less. I just cannot justify the Sony price, given that the Tamron lens is amazing. This pattern is repeated over and over.

Downside, I know, is the frame rate is reduced on the higher end cameras.

If I made $$ with photography, instead of being a keen hobbyist, then I think my answer would be different. I know from research, that the Sony lenses are just that much better. But it is the law of diminishing returns. Twice the price, equals a 5-10% increase in quality.

I don't want to have an excuse for not getting the shot. Photography is pretty much my only passion, and my only hobby. I drive a boring car, and I have few vices (do GM lenses count as a vice?). If I can't get the shot using an A1 and a 70-200 GM II, then it's on me, and spurs me to try harder.

Plus I enjoy using Sony's cameras and lenses, more than I ever enjoyed using Canon. Nikon's D8x0 cameras were fun, but their DSLR lenses didn't make me happy - I ended up using Sigma Art lenses on the Nikons (the one thing I miss from using Nikon was ISO 64 as base ISO - I feel the A7R family should start at ISO 64). But it's Sony's cameras and lenses that has helped me re-discover fun in photography.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I'm happy with what I have and can't really think of anything I'd add. All I want to say though, is how fantastic the Sony camera eco system is. As all of you would too, I bump into people who will tell me that Nikon or Canon take the sharpest photos and that's why they are the best or what not. Now I just have this ideology that in these three brands, the equivalent camera body will be basically the same as one another. But Sony are the best not because they are actually technically the best, but because of the amazing lens range they do have, and even the cheaper options perform absolutely amazing too. You can get a relatively cheap Sony setup which will deliver fantastic results. Going Sony is just a no brainer in the camera world in my opinion.

 

[spudhead]

I'd like to have a long fast prime too, but if I really had my druthers, it'd be a midrange fast zoom. I love my Minolta A-Mount 28-135/4-4.5. The focal range is fantastic, it does so much. Seems like Sony could do that in a 24-135/2-2.8 like Tamron's 35-150, which is a weird focal range with a killer aperture. They do make a f/4 version, but it's for video and designed for 4K production with a power zoom. Make one ins a stills version and it wouldn't need to be so big or expensive.

Edit:
Remake the 24-240 in a GM and f/4.

Good call on that one Tim, no limit on that wish list Tim multiple options are good.

 

[spudhead]

I'm happy with what I have and can't really think of anything I'd add. All I want to say though, is how fantastic the Sony camera eco system is. As all of you would too, I bump into people who will tell me that Nikon or Canon take the sharpest photos and that's why they are the best or what not. Now I just have this ideology that in these three brands, the equivalent camera body will be basically the same as one another. But Sony are the best not because they are actually technically the best, but because of the amazing lens range they do have, and even the cheaper options perform absolutely amazing too. You can get a relatively cheap Sony setup which will deliver fantastic results. Going Sony is just a no brainer in the camera world in my opinion.

Clint wow no wish list? I was going to ask if people thought Canikon users had better options

 

[spudhead]

I am waiting as fast as I can for two shorter great white prime lenses: a 200mm GM and a 300mm GM. The 300mm would probably be f/2.8; the 200mm might be f/2, but maybe they'll take it to f/1.8.

The other hole in my life is an 85mm f/1.2 GM, ideally the child of the 50mm f/1.2 GM and the 135mm f/1.8 GM, with quad linear motors, dual overhead cams, and a chrome exhaust. Yes, I'm tired - why did you ask?

yep the 200 and 300 2.8 primes would be nice but I think once again too pricey for most of us, we can dream

 

[Doug Herr]

... I would like Sony to fill the gap between the 200-600 affordable reach lens we have now, and the 400 2.8 and 600 f4, with maybe something more affordable than the 2 fast pricey primes mentioned with similar reach or better option, I guess I can dream!

This is what I'd like to see too. There's a vast canyon between the relatively affordable and portable zooms (100-400, 200-600) and the big 400mm f/2.8 and 600mm f/4 prime lenses. A lightweight 400mm f/4 or f/5.6, or 600mm f/5.6 would help fill the gap. Another portable long lens like a 300mm f/4 would be good too.

 

[Brownie]

Third party? The Tamron 17-28/2.8 spanks the Sony 16-35/4 and hangs right with the 2.8 version. The Sigma 100-400 hangs right with the Sony 100-400. I can buy both of these for about the same price as one of the Sony offerings. In semi-third party the Minolta 80-200/2.8 doesn't take a back seat to Sony's in IQ.

If someone wants to buy all Sony that's fine. Others (like me) prefer to be thriftier in their purchases, and some people simply cannot afford to spend that kind of money. Any choice is fine, when it comes right down to it it's not the gear anyway.

Kodak 612 Zoom, uncropped:

tail_01net by telecast, on Flickr

 

[iain clyne]

A 400mm f4 or 500mm f5.6 like the Nikon Z series has. This would give a prime IQ but lighter weight.

 

[spudhead]

A 400mm f4 or 500mm f5.6 like the Nikon Z series has. This would give a prime IQ but lighter weight.

Iain I am not aware of these lenses do they get good reviews what is the pricing like on them?

 

[spudhead]

Third party? The Tamron 17-28/2.8 spanks the Sony 16-35/4 and hangs right with the 2.8 version. The Sigma 100-400 hangs right with the Sony 100-400. I can buy both of these for about the same price as one of the Sony offerings. In semi-third party the Minolta 80-200/2.8 doesn't take a back seat to Sony's in IQ.

If someone wants to buy all Sony that's fine. Others (like me) prefer to be thriftier in their purchases, and some people simply cannot afford to spend that kind of money. Any choice is fine, when it comes right down to it it's not the gear anyway.

Kodak 612 Zoom, uncropped:

tail_01net by telecast, on Flickr

Tim I have not bought any of the newer Sigma or Tamron lenses, so have no idea how they compare to Sonys offerings, I am suprised you say the sigma 100-400 is a match for the now dated Sony 100-400 lens, I never considered the sigma when I bought the 100-400 Sony recently. Although I have not seen that many images on here from Sigma 100-400

 

[Brownie]

Tim I have not bought any of the newer Sigma or Tamron lenses, so have no idea how they compare to Sonys offerings, I am suprised you say the sigma 100-400 is a match for the now dated Sony 100-400 lens, I never considered the sigma when I bought the 100-400 Sony recently. Although I have not seen that many images on here from Sigma 100-400

It's lighter, smaller, half the price. The only downside is the 1/3 stop.

Sure you've seen them, you just haven't realized it.

DSC07035 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00343 by telecast, on Flickr

DSC02336 by telecast, on Flickr

DSC02618 by telecast, on Flickr

 

[Brownie]

Tamron 17-28
DSC00581 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00678 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00740 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

 

[spudhead]

Tamron 17-28
DSC00581 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00678 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00740 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

Well these are all good Tim I had not realised they were the sigma 100-400 as you say, often your metadata does not show so I have missed it, any how I bought used again in mint condition from my mates shop at less than 2/3 of uk retail so I guess its not so bad, in fact I have only ever bought 2 lenses new, the rest have been well looked after used

 

[Brownie]

Well these are all good Tim I had not realised they were the sigma 100-400 as you say, often your metadata does not show so I have missed it, any how I bought used again in mint condition from my mates shop at less than 2/3 of uk retail so I guess its not so bad, in fact I have only ever bought 2 lenses new, the rest have been well looked after used

I rarely upload to the site, preferring to use Flickr. This is the only forum I've ever visited that doesn't display exif from Flickr when posted. No idea why, probably something to do with the settings.

Actually, the post you linked to are the Tamron 17-28.

 

[iain clyne]

Iain I am not aware of these lenses do they get good reviews what is the pricing like on them?

They are light but not cheap, around £3000 new.

 

[Brownie]

They are light but not cheap, around £3000 new.

Considering the IQ of the 200-600, I wonder if a 500/5.6 would be worth another $3k?

 

[iain clyne]

Considering the IQ of the 200-600, I wonder if a 500/5.6 would be worth another $3k?

I would say no. My friend has the Nikon 500 f5.6 and looking at the same image taken at the same time and place I can’t see any difference. Anyway I prefer the versatility of the zoom.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I think the Sony 200-600mm is ridiculously good value. It's a brilliant lens that handles so well for it's size.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

Clint wow no wish list? I was going to ask if people thought Canikon users had better options

Not really, I recently got the tiny 40mm G f2.5. Such a handy little thing and it makes the camera so small, it's a dream to run around the city with, and I've found around there to be the focal length I use the most. When I first started out I'd always think wide wide wide, but now I've settled in I've worked it out. So this was the hole I needed to fill in my collection. Very happy.

 

[Brownie]

I would say no. My friend has the Nikon 500 f5.6 and looking at the same image taken at the same time and place I can’t see any difference. Anyway I prefer the versatility of the zoom.

Agreed. Maybe if they could get it to f/4, but then maybe size would be an issue. I keep looking at some of the old Minolta primes like Spud has, since I already have the adapters those would likely be my best bet.

Then again, I think about the situations. I already have the 200-600. The other day I was shooting in bad light @ISO 8000, wide open, with shutter speeds from 400-640. I overexposed and pulled them back some in post, they turned out well. So if I were to spend a couple thousand dollars on a used prime, say a 400/4, I'm gaining ISO to 3200 or adding shutter speed. The thing is the shots at ISO 8000 looked great. So, do I need to spend that kind of money to do the same thing? Probably not. I suppose if I were shooting BIF or some fast action it'd be worth it to add shutter speed, but other than that it's a lot of money for little advantage.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

You get the same thing in all circles, the crowd that truly believe a certain brand is better than others. And the funniest thing in almost every single one of these scenarios, the ones with this ideology are actually completely crap at whatever it is. Canon and Nikon radicals, I don't care you still can't make photos for sh*t. Same as the guys who think that KTM are the best motocross bikes, none of them can ride for sh*t. It wouldn't even matter if these people were using cheap crap, their results would still be the same...

 

[spudhead]

I think the Sony 200-600mm is ridiculously good value. It's a brilliant lens that handles so well for it's size.

For sure Clint the 200-600 is a gift that keeps giving and price point is great, its so good through out its entire focal length

 

[iain clyne]

Agreed. Maybe if they could get it to f/4, but then maybe size would be an issue. I keep looking at some of the old Minolta primes like Spud has, since I already have the adapters those would likely be my best bet.

Then again, I think about the situations. I already have the 200-600. The other day I was shooting in bad light @ISO 8000, wide open, with shutter speeds from 400-640. I overexposed and pulled them back some in post, they turned out well. So if I were to spend a couple thousand dollars on a used prime, say a 400/4, I'm gaining ISO to 3200 or adding shutter speed. The thing is the shots at ISO 8000 looked great. So, do I need to spend that kind of money to do the same thing? Probably not. I suppose if I were shooting BIF or some fast action it'd be worth it to add shutter speed, but other than that it's a lot of money for little advantage.

I did sports photography for a living for 25+ years. When I changed from Nikon to Sony and the 200-600 I had my reservations coming from using a 300mm F2.8 for the sport.
I am still the photographer for a local rugby club and the 200-600 and A9ii work fine. Ive used 12800 iso under flood lights and got results that are spot on.

 

[Geo C]

I changed from Nikon to Sony a couple of years ago as Nikon were too slow rolling out their mirrorless lenses and the cameras (pre Z9) didn't focus very well!! I've been using the Sony 200-600 (which Nikon have still to make) but I am now jealous because Nikon have an 800 f6.3 lens.

It would be good if Sony could match, or better this!

 

[AlphaWorld]

Tamron 17-28
DSC00581 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00678 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

DSC00740 by Shotglass Photo, on Flickr

I'm curious, Tim - do you have a name for car shows in building with thousands of separate lights that give your car images specular measles? That must be really annoying! Or do you just not notice any more? (awesome shots, I must say!)

The one time I've photographed cars like these (well, aspiring to be like these!) they were outside in bright sunshine, which looked good on all but one (the owner must have had last choice of position, and the light was hitting his car at a bad angle when I was there).