Photoclubalpha

I just saw this on the Sony Australia website at S1799.00.

For a comparison I looked at a couple of camera chains internet sites

Nikon 70-200 / 4.0 VR not listed.

Canon 70-200 / 4.0 IS S1499.95. If memory serves me right this is a 2006 release so you would expect it to be selling a little cheaper by now.

This is of course list price against street price but Sony lenses usually take a while to drop below list. I still expect that certain complainers on DPR will start up their " I can't understand it being so heavy and expensive " campaign but such is life.

A quick look at Hong Kong gave both Canon and Nikon at about $1400. Personally I will buy something like a Sigma or Tamron 60mm lens and take the risk of having to return it but at that sort of price I am rather nervous.

PS Don't expect an early report on the lens from me. I have very much blown my 2013 and 2014 budget on the A7r with 24-70 zoom and the RX10. I have benched myself until the 2015 sales start post Photokina.

I think I'll stick to my beercan
I'm not complaining I think it's a little late in the day for such a lens (even if it's on E Mount) Clearly though I do see it as a slap in the face for A mount users, this is the wrong mount for such a lens by a long shot (plenty asked for this long ago on A Mount) I entirely understand the backlash against Sony here (deserved IMO)
I have used the Canon 70-200mm f4 non IS it's pretty good overall (but then so is the Minolta 70-210mm f4)

As for the complainers I don't see why the lens is larger than it's equivalent rivals (after all it's E mount) I wouldn't pay that price for such a lens
I generally advise Canon users to buy the non IS 70-200mm's either the F4 or f2.8, the cost difference for the IS versions is a blatant rip off

I'm glad Tamron responded here with a competitive offering, much needed and a more sensible price for a VC lens like this.
A cruel twist of fate is with E Mount you might be better off buying A Mount lenses Except you don't have IBIS

USA prices are $1,498.00
The IS Canon is $1,349.00 (there is a 150$ rebate now) but not tripod collar. And the old non-IS is less than 800$
The Nikon VR is $1,396.95 + 170 if you want the tripod collar.

I don't find this lens expensive. I saw a non working mockup at ImaginingUSA last January in Phoenix. The lens is quite compact and not really heavy. The Sony guys told me that it is the "same formula" as the new Sony 70-200 f2.8 II G, the weak point I see is the close focus (the Minolta/Sony also has a weak close focus performance). I guess I'll try it at some point -Adorama Rental department is carrying AR7 and lenses, that is a really hot product, I rented the 24-70 a couple of weekends ago, I believe I'll buy one, but I still need to decide if i get the 35 f2.8 also and in what order... Now, if Sony announce a 100 mm e-mount Macro lens, i won't buy the 70-200!

I guess if you have just produced two small full frame cameras then it makes sense to produce a smaller 70-200 to go with them.

I'd have been interested in a full frame 70-200G f4 in A mount which should work with a 1.4x converter.
Simply a matter of packed size and weight when travelling over the f2.8 version when you also carry a 70-400G, wide zoom and 2 bodies.

Mike

Birma wrote:I guess if you have just produced two small full frame cameras then it makes sense to produce a smaller 70-200 to go with them.

Hi Birma,
The A7(R) is a "small" camera if you compare it with DSRL FF cameras. But actually, it is the size of the Minolta x700 or a Nikon FM2. In that regard, this lens is not that big (but if you want to use it on the NEX7 or A6000 it might look oversize.

The 70-200mm's f4 ones are fairly compact (v the rather beefy f2.8 versions)
There isn't a lot of point Sony putting a 70-200mm f4 on the market for £1250 odd

When Canikon sell their versions for £300 less. I know prices come down, but that's a bit steep for an intro price on a lens like this
FE lens prices have been a little on the hefty side so far (relative to lens speed) Sony has to pay attention here if they are serious about bagging other mount users.

bfitzgerald wrote:The 70-200mm's f4 ones are fairly compact (v the rather beefy f2.8 versions)
There isn't a lot of point Sony putting a 70-200mm f4 on the market for £1250 odd

When Canikon sell their versions for £300 less. I know prices come down, but that's a bit steep for an intro price on a lens like this
FE lens prices have been a little on the hefty side so far (relative to lens speed) Sony has to pay attention here if they are serious about bagging other mount users.

Can't but agree. Targeting the retail price is not difficult when there are examples available from both main competitors. Sony's pricing seems to be rather out of sync. I'd have thought there was a good opportunity to undercut Canikon and pull in new users to the system rather than start high and turn them away to the competition. Missing a trick for sure.

Given the Sony rip off strategy, I'm surprised the Canikon offerings haven't crept up in cost to increase margin. They're probably too focused on fighting each other to see the opportunity.

I have been happy to buy other types of Sony products at a premium, when I have felt they were better products. I don't know if they can change there basic concept of "Sony is a premium product". I don't think it works in the still camera business, and even old stalwart areas like TVs have changed. They do surprise you sometimes (like the range of SAM affordable lenses) but the FE stuff is all a bit eye-watering.

I doubt Canikon see E mount as much of a threat (at least right now)
I'm sure they will do exactly what works and has worked, simply price Sony off the market.

It's worked wonders so far with A Mount, Sony are having a real hard time trying to get people to buy their dated range of bodies, and the A99 was a huge missed opportunity from Sony too. Lens wise I'd wager an awful lot of A Mount users are using quite a bit of legacy Minolta glass, or beefing up the other areas with Tamron and Sigma offerings. I've not bought a Sony lens to date (I have 2 but I didn't pay for them) that speaks volumes about Sony's range of A mount lenses, and their prices.

They seem to be failing on both fronts, bodies and lenses. I see no reason to expect much difference on the E mount push
I'm sure I'm not alone but the ONLY reason I'm here is not because I think Sony make awesome stuff (it's by no means bad but not class leading) But because I've built up a system where all my lenses are stabilised, AND I paid a very fair price for all of it. I certainly don't see Sony as a very appealing option if you were only buying Sony glass (some of the budget stuff is ok price and decent optics) but outside that there is no advantage at all price wise v other makers. In many cases a price disadvantage

bfitzgerald wrote:...
I'm sure I'm not alone but the ONLY reason I'm here is not because I think Sony make awesome stuff (it's by no means bad but not class leading) But because I've built up a system where all my lenses are stabilised, AND I paid a very fair price for all of it.

Put me there as well. When I went digital I almost went for Nikon. But I liked the IBIS and had a brother and sister with Alpha mount lenses (albeit for film) that I could always borrow from. I had also had a long Minolta legacy, having bought my first XGM in 1979 or '80.

Dusty

Lenstip, said the Sony 16-50 F/2.8 was a great lens although it wasn't faultless and was over priced, and the standard 18-55 SAM was almost as good optically.
Photozone thought the Tamron 17-50 F/2.8 Non VC version was a better option for a fast standard zoom lens. Neither thought the CZ 16-80 although excellent was not out standing, especially the build quality. They also said the Sony 18-55 SAM represented a 'killer' deal. Ironically the other cheap kit lens often sold as a bundle was the 55-200 SAM and this also gets high praise.

Can't stop my GAS and bought one. Wonderful piece of small lens which does everything my Minolta beercan does without an adapter.

Like dusty I almost went Nikon back then. D50 was pretty good..but it was not nearly as good as the Km5d was and having tried both I opted for the Minolta. Though things have been a bit hit and miss since, it was the right choice (esp since I later tried Nikon and their trashy AF cough..)

The new 70-200mm f4 looks nice, but it would be even nicer to see what it's capable of optics wise.
You can buy quite a lot of beercans though for the asking price.

Mark K wrote:Can't stop my GAS and bought one. Wonderful piece of small lens which does everything my Minolta beercan does without an adapter.

The beecan is good at some points. Compared to the Minolta/Sony 70-200 f2.8, it close focus "better" (less distortion, a little bit closer, the beercan has a "macro" range) with similar magnification. But Bokeh (important for some), overall sharpness, SSM and a much better control of fringing makes the f2.8 a much better lens. Then, it is up to you if yo want to pay the extra money for it...

The beercan was not really an expensive lens at introduction (250 $ of 1986, about 500 $ in today's money) it I believe it was not meant to become a legend in the Minolta world if it was not a cheap good performer. But specially cheap. 20% cheaper than a Canon similar lens in 1986...

The new Sony 70-200 OSS f4 is probably a better lens than the Sony 70-200 f2.8 GII. Sony is working with a different technology now, I think there is little Minolta DNA on the new designs (but probably Minolta could follow the same path Sony is taking) and there is A) a big demand on this lens and/or B) production is low due to special request in producing and assembling parts.

I own a Tamron 70-200 f2.8 macro and I'm quite happy. I thought about buying the new Sony F4 but I'm not sure yet. Not because the price since I believe it worth it, but because I'm not sure I want to have one of this lenses for each system I own... Too much money invested while the LAEA4 works quite well (but the Tamron is bigger and slower AF)

in any case, even if the beercan is a fine lens, I sold it the day I compare it against the Tamron, that sport a moderns design and focus closer and better. We all know it is a good lens. But it is popular because is cheap.