Lenses!

Discussion of lenses, brand or independent, uses and merits
Forum rules
No more than three images or three external links allowed in any post or reply. Please trim quotations and do not include images in quotes unless essential.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by classiccameras »

The Sony 18-135 is the last Sony lens I bought and unless something comes along which really tempts me, its Minolta glass only, may be a Tammy or Siggy. I use my KM 17-35 f/2.8 D as my standard kit lens and it has not disappointed me. Its a lot better than the standard 18-55 kit lens. The only negative is, in camera adjustment of distortion and other anomalies only work on Sony lenses, however, the picures look good to me and most areas can be photo shopped any way, I have never had much need.

I agree with Barry, Sony are not making the lenses people want. Canon and Nikon got that right from the start, offer a camera system and a comprehensive lens line up, it keeps customers on board.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

Sony's been at this DSLR gig for, what, 8 years? And they had whatever left over from Minolta. If they still can't make what you want, what have you been doing all this time? I figure many people have been using Minolta, Tamron, and Sigma lenses, like I have, but I dunno. Seems like torture to see the lens that you must have in Canikon-land and be denied.

Meanwhile, in E-mount-land, I have all the lenses I could possibly want. Too many, really. But then, my needs are much more modest. I'm an enthusiast with no plans for pro work. For E-mount, I have mostly Sony lenses, and one Sigma. For A-mount, the only Sony lens I have is the kit lens. Go figure! Seriously, I think that Sony does seem to have a limited number of A-mount lenses, but Minolta had such a huge catalog over the years, and combine that with Sigma and Tamron, and you have a lot to choose from, even in A-mount.
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by classiccameras »

Its all down to the individual really, what lens range suits one person doesn't always suit another. I'm quite happy with my little kit which is mostly KM. I think the critisism of the Sony A mount lens range is valid especially when you compare it to other brands, but lets face it, they were never going to compete with Canikon and I suspect they didn't want to any way.

If a manufacturer is going to exist on a small lens range for their brand, they should get the lens sizes right and the price right so those people who bought into the system have a good choice from a limited number of 'affordable' lenses and stay on board. It certainly looks like Sony are pooring more resources into E mount lenses than A mount. I have to give them some credit, the 16-105 and 18-135 A mount are sensible and affordable lenses that have appealed to many Sony users as has the 16-50. The CZ 16-80 started out at a stupid price but can be found on the used market now at more affordable prices, not that I have any desire to own one.

I wanted a ultra wide zoom in A mount but the Sony offerings are limited and pricy especially the CZ wides. Yes, I guess I could use a Sigma or Tamron, I would love to use some of the Tokina wide zooms such as the 12-24 or 12-28 on my A57 but they don't do an A mount.
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bakubo »

classiccameras wrote:I think the critisism of the Sony A mount lens range is valid especially when you compare it to other brands, but lets face it, they were never going to compete with Canikon and I suspect they didn't want to any way.
I recall that Sony said around 2006 or 2007 that they were going to be number 2 soon so, I think, they fully intended to compete.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

classiccameras wrote:Its all down to the individual really, what lens range suits one person doesn't always suit another.
Well, of course. In another thread, I asked what lens, specifically, was missing from the lineup? No response, of course. If everyone listed their idea of what was missing you'd probably have a different lens for each person. Good luck getting everything covered!
I'm quite happy with my little kit which is mostly KM. ...

If a manufacturer is going to exist on a small lens range for their brand, they should get the lens sizes right and the price right so those people who bought into the system have a good choice from a limited number of 'affordable' lenses and stay on board.
So what is missing? What is "right"?

For affordable lenses, the 55-200 variants have been around a while, and the 55-300 is a newer lens that I would have liked to have seen years ago. The newer kit lens is better than the old one.
It certainly looks like Sony are pooring more resources into E mount lenses than A mount. I have to give them some credit, the 16-105 and 18-135 A mount are sensible and affordable lenses that have appealed to many Sony users as has the 16-50. The CZ 16-80 started out at a stupid price but can be found on the used market now at more affordable prices, not that I have any desire to own one.
Hmm, sounds like some choices are available....
I wanted a ultra wide zoom in A mount but the Sony offerings are limited and pricy especially the CZ wides. Yes, I guess I could use a Sigma or Tamron, I would love to use some of the Tokina wide zooms such as the 12-24 or 12-28 on my A57 but they don't do an A mount.
Haven't ultra-wides generally been expensive at least in the past? Looking at Canon's web site, they have a lot of UWA zooms and a couple of primes, but most are really expensive. They only have one "cheap" UWA zoom, but at least it's an option.

For E-mount, I can use the 16mm lens plus UWA converter for effective 12mm. I don't think I would have gotten into UWA at all except for this affordable combo. And yet, for years, people have droned on and on about how poor the lens is when it's really been a great feature, I think. Where else are you going to get affordable UWA? Well, there's always the $300 Canon zoom at f4.5-5.6, but for now, you'll have to forgive me if I continue to use the Sony f2.8 solution, soft corners and all.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

It's not that most have a long list of lenses that we expect to be there, but that there are half a dozen quite important lenses that are not in the line up, which should be.

Big problems for Sony are...
- No current up to date UWA zoom lens, it's kinda insulting to buyers to ask £500 for a lens as old as the 11-18mm and full frame needs work too
- No "f1.8" 85mm lens for portraits, you have a choice of erm well the £1000+ f1.4 Zeiss and then the 85mm f2.8 budget job, one is too expensive (for most) the other isn't fast enough (even if it is cheap) Sort of a no mans land, one extreme to the other.
- No affordable 70-200mm f4 or updated beercan, but then if we look at the price of the E mount 70-200mm f4 that's a non starter at that price. Situation made worse by the very high price of the updated 70-200mm f2.8 G (currently £600 more than the Canon IS version which is madness)
- No 28mm prime lens, nothing which is astonishing for a system with a full frame body, no affordable full frame 35mm (say f2) prime
- No FF UWA prime lens (non fisheye)
- No reasonable cost 24mm f2.8 prime, just the saucy £900+ f2 Zeiss
- No normal non f2.8 24- something zoom only the Zeiss offering which is very pricey (evidently a 24-105mm f4 is coming but hold onto your wallet!)
- Tamron re-badges, personally you offer me a re-badged Tamron (like a 28-75mm f2,8 and others I'll buy the Tamron thanks very much!, it's ok to fill a few gaps for a while but I'm not convinced about this strategy (and I wasn't when KM were re-badging Tamron lenses) Don't get me wrong I like Tamron, but hmmm why pay more for a name change or minor differences?
- Missing 300mm f4 lens, f2.8 is massively expensive f4 would be much more affordable yet still fast enough for many

What Sony did right
- Budget primes are affordable and decent optics but cheapo build is a shame, still they needed them (35/50) 85mm was a mistake speed wise
- 55-300mm and 18-135mm both decent lenses for APS-C users and in line with other makers
- Nothing wrong with top tier lenses Zeiss etc but you can't have "only expensive lenses" on some focal lengths it's bad bad strategy
- 70-400mm G isn't cheap but it's competitive with rivals if not a bit better priced
- 16-50mm f2,8 is shockingly cheap (for some reason) not sure on optics but that's a good price for a lens of that type

There are other areas but those are quite obvious it's not all bad news but Sony have a nasty habit of just releasing a top end lens then nothing else that's better priced thus slamming the door on many buyers so it's no shock that people like me go hunting around for bargains. The only 2 Sony lenses I have I didn't pay for, though to be fair I think the 18-135mm is a very good lens but sadly the price has shot up to about £370 which is a bit much. I'm not buying Sony lenses because they don't have what I want simple as that.

A lens range has to cater for various users at different price points, from high level to more affordable and mid range offerings. People seriously underestimate the lens range and it is one reason Canikon are strong. Situation with Pentax is somewhat different they have range of WR lenses, they have more compact (But slower) limited lenses, many Pentax users beef up the range with Tamron lenses (esp the 17-50mm and 90mm macro and 70-200mm f2,8) S/h range is weak on K mount for AF lenses (lots of MF lenses)

Sony have a lot of work to do to understand how to appeal to buyers
classiccameras
Viceroy
Posts: 1044
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2012 9:33 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by classiccameras »

I said in my last post, Sony were not going to compete with the big boys as they initially said they would, but I suspect they looked at the daunting task and then their market share and just gave the idea up, which was the sensible thing to do. As for Tamron, their 17-50 is a standard to beat and in my view better than the Sony 16-50 in several areas but mostly on price and optics. Pentax are a non player unless you use 3rd party lenses which gets them out the mire.
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Situation remains the same for Sony regardless of A or E Mount, if you don't have a suitable system for people they won't be buying your lenses.
Sony neglected A mount with some obvious problems on pricing too (they've had 8 years to get this done and have a big cheque book)

As a large proportion of profits come from lenses (the margins are good) it's rather silly to not try harder.
They don't even need to have a full line up, but their gaps are too numerous. And looking at their E mount prices I can't see too many buyers willing to pay Sony's premium there. It doesn't matter what mount Sony play around with, they are competing with Canikon and they cannot afford to not have a proper lens system. Otherwise you're relegated to Division 2 never a hope of getting anywhere higher. You don't get into a boxing ring unless you're going to try, you don't make a camera system unless you are prepared to have a real system.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:Situation remains the same for Sony regardless of A or E Mount, if you don't have a suitable system for people they won't be buying your lenses.
Sony neglected A mount with some obvious problems on pricing too (they've had 8 years to get this done and have a big cheque book)
Sony knows how their lenses sell. I think they would make more lenses if they have capacity and think they can sell.
As a large proportion of profits come from lenses (the margins are good) it's rather silly to not try harder.
They don't even need to have a full line up, but their gaps are too numerous. And looking at their E mount prices I can't see too many buyers willing to pay Sony's premium there. It doesn't matter what mount Sony play around with, they are competing with Canikon and they cannot afford to not have a proper lens system. Otherwise you're relegated to Division 2 never a hope of getting anywhere higher. You don't get into a boxing ring unless you're going to try, you don't make a camera system unless you are prepared to have a real system.
How can Canon afford to only come out with a couple of lenses for their mirrorless offering? When I shopped for DSLRs years ago, there were probably fewer lenses from Nikon than Sony, as they removed the screw drive. I looked at that and realized that my options would have been slim and expensive. At least with e-mount, I get a smaller camera that I prefer.


This video has an interesting perspective which kind of mirrors some of my thoughts on mirrorless (pun intended). Canikon are not innovating enough, and the article goes as far to say that Nikon is having trouble. So, sure, have your full system, but will it do you any good if something catastrophic happens? The companies need to stay profitable as well.

http://www.mirrorlessrumors.com/nikon-c ... mirrorless
User avatar
bfitzgerald
Subsuming Vortex of Brilliance
Posts: 3996
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:48 pm

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bfitzgerald »

Couldn't disagree more the camera store guys are nice enough but one's a video guy (his needs are different) and the other is on this quest for "let's change"
An ILC would offer me no advantages over my current set up other than a smaller body, having to buy an adapter to use my current lenses and losing IBIS.

For new users all that legacy glass isn't a turn off, when was the last time people complained they had a great s/h market?
Change for the sake of it isn't on it's own a good idea.
Cameras are not meant to blow people away or excite them, they're tools to use and having a choice of tools is great, but saying we should all use the same one because some people feel it's better limits choices, choice is good..

Even if I had 0 equipment now, honestly I'd not be overly interested in ILC's, Sony's lower bodies lack the functionality of even a budget DSLR (no viewfinder to start with)
Fuji's system is ok but has no real flash system and moving to that would not make much sense right now (not cost incentive either)
I can at least get the micro 4/3 smaller lenses take, but nothing going on there I can't do with APS-C just as well

That's just my take but declining sales are mostly down to over saturation in the market, just doing more ILC's isn't going to help longer term (market will get saturated there too) The camera market is shrinking no bones about it, so the makers will have to put more effort into the system, less frequent body updates it's been happening for a while. Great..lower prices suits me just fine bring it on!

A few makers will have to lose their shirts, it's up to Sony to ensure they're not one of them. The market cannot sustain the number of camera makers out there something is going to have to give.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:It's not that most have a long list of lenses that we expect to be there, but that there are half a dozen quite important lenses that are not in the line up, which should be.

Big problems for Sony are...
- No current up to date UWA zoom lens, it's kinda insulting to buyers to ask £500 for a lens as old as the 11-18mm and full frame needs work too
Well, old as it is... does it work well? At least there's an option.
- No "f1.8" 85mm lens for portraits, you have a choice of erm well the £1000+ f1.4 Zeiss and then the 85mm f2.8 budget job, one is too expensive (for most) the other isn't fast enough (even if it is cheap) Sort of a no mans land, one extreme to the other.
Who's going to buy this middle product? I'll say, three people, max. ;-) This isn't the Goldilocks story. If you're a pro, you can come up with the cash for the high-end lens. For everyone else, you still have options. If you're low on cash, you shouldn't have a FF camera, in which case you can use a 50mm lens.

Sony has some advantage with their 135mm STF. Not going to find that in other systems.
- No affordable 70-200mm f4 or updated beercan, but then if we look at the price of the E mount 70-200mm f4 that's a non starter at that price. Situation made worse by the very high price of the updated 70-200mm f2.8 G (currently £600 more than the Canon IS version which is madness)
Updated beercan? By all appearances, the 55-200 replaces it nicely. Although, Sony does seem to be making a number of f4 zoom lenses for e-mount.

At any rate, the Sony/Tamron 55-200 is f4 and f4.5 through much of its range, and is a nice lens, even though it's also cheap. It's really impressive.

As for Sony pricing, I don't see why you just don't go over to Canon since the grass is greener? For the price difference, you could just buy a new camera body to go with your new lens, use the Sony as a backup.
- No 28mm prime lens, nothing which is astonishing for a system with a full frame body, no affordable full frame 35mm (say f2) prime
I have the Minolta 28mm, and it's nothing to get excited about. But Sony has a 30mm and 24mm. Is there something special about 28mm that I'm missing?

As for FF, I think this is a case where you have to pay to play. If you're going to cough up the extra money for FF, you're going to pay extra for lenses, or choose from the large list of legacy lenses.
- No FF UWA prime lens (non fisheye)
The 20mm isn't wide enough for FF? I guess you're right. If you want lots of UWA options, best to not go with Sony.
- No reasonable cost 24mm f2.8 prime, just the saucy £900+ f2 Zeiss
OK. It is available though?
- No normal non f2.8 24- something zoom only the Zeiss offering which is very pricey (evidently a 24-105mm f4 is coming but hold onto your wallet!)
I think you're just going to have to jump brands if the pricing doesn't work out. It sounds more and more like Sony has options, they are just expensive options. It's not the affordable plenty that drove Minolta out of business. ;-)
- Tamron re-badges, personally you offer me a re-badged Tamron (like a 28-75mm f2,8 and others I'll buy the Tamron thanks very much!, it's ok to fill a few gaps for a while but I'm not convinced about this strategy (and I wasn't when KM were re-badging Tamron lenses) Don't get me wrong I like Tamron, but hmmm why pay more for a name change or minor differences?
As I recall, the 55-200 added rounder aperture blades and an internal focus motor instead of screw drive. So, those might be significant differences right there that one could choose between. It's nice to have options.
- Missing 300mm f4 lens, f2.8 is massively expensive f4 would be much more affordable yet still fast enough for many
A 300mm prime has to be a very niche product. Who would buy it unless they were hard-core? And if you're that hard-core, you probably will come up with the money. ;-)

What Sony did right
- Budget primes are affordable and decent optics but cheapo build is a shame, still they needed them (35/50) 85mm was a mistake speed wise
- 55-300mm and 18-135mm both decent lenses for APS-C users and in line with other makers
Yeah, it seems like these were nice additions.
- Nothing wrong with top tier lenses Zeiss etc but you can't have "only expensive lenses" on some focal lengths it's bad bad strategy
Yeah, Sony did that with the 24mm CZ on e-mount, but then they came out with the 20mm pancake, so I forgive them. Between the 20mm and 30mm, I can probably live without 24mm. *shrug*
- 70-400mm G isn't cheap but it's competitive with rivals if not a bit better priced
- 16-50mm f2,8 is shockingly cheap (for some reason) not sure on optics but that's a good price for a lens of that type

There are other areas but those are quite obvious it's not all bad news but Sony have a nasty habit of just releasing a top end lens then nothing else that's better priced thus slamming the door on many buyers so it's no shock that people like me go hunting around for bargains. The only 2 Sony lenses I have I didn't pay for, though to be fair I think the 18-135mm is a very good lens but sadly the price has shot up to about £370 which is a bit much. I'm not buying Sony lenses because they don't have what I want simple as that.
I never did buy a Sony a-mount lens. How do they make money that way? I bought Tamron and even one Sigma and some old Minolta lenses.

Still, it doesn't make me want Canikon either.
A lens range has to cater for various users at different price points, from high level to more affordable and mid range offerings. People seriously underestimate the lens range and it is one reason Canikon are strong. Situation with Pentax is somewhat different they have range of WR lenses, they have more compact (But slower) limited lenses, many Pentax users beef up the range with Tamron lenses (esp the 17-50mm and 90mm macro and 70-200mm f2,8) S/h range is weak on K mount for AF lenses (lots of MF lenses)

Sony have a lot of work to do to understand how to appeal to buyers
You already mentioned the 16-50/2.8 being a good deal -- the Tamron 17-50/2.8 is even a better deal. There are some affordable options for the typical lenses normal people want. 55-200, 55-300, combined with a good normal lens, would do the vast majority of what most people need. Most of the time, I could carry the 17-50 and 55-200 and maybe a 50/1.7. Only for certain events did I need a 300mm, so I ended up shopping for that; for most people, this is probably going to be a zoom that goes out to at least 300mm, not a 300mm prime like you mention above. There are advanced enthusiasts like yourself that can see the need for this or that, but I contend that that's a small market, and some lenses are just not worth Sony's bother. And it works, as you still stick with a-mount!
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

bfitzgerald wrote:Couldn't disagree more the camera store guys are nice enough but one's a video guy (his needs are different) and the other is on this quest for "let's change"
An ILC would offer me no advantages over my current set up other than a smaller body, having to buy an adapter to use my current lenses and losing IBIS.
If there's no advantage why do it? Others see an advantage. As someone who used small film cameras, I don't really want the DSLR form-factor.
For new users all that legacy glass isn't a turn off, when was the last time people complained they had a great s/h market?
I agree. I think that's a great advantage of a-mount.
Change for the sake of it isn't on it's own a good idea.
Sounds like political commentary. ;-)
Cameras are not meant to blow people away or excite them, they're tools to use and having a choice of tools is great, but saying we should all use the same one because some people feel it's better limits choices, choice is good..
Choice is good but people purposefully limit their choices to Canikon. Most people, anyway. I've had a couple of family members go out and buy Canon DSLRs and not even ask me for an opinion. How does Sony fight that kind of brand recognition? Yikes.

I don't mind getting excited about a camera. ;-)
Even if I had 0 equipment now, honestly I'd not be overly interested in ILC's, Sony's lower bodies lack the functionality of even a budget DSLR (no viewfinder to start with)
Except for the original Nex-5, all of the 5-series cameras had an EVF option. That might be over now with the newer cameras. But there's a market for a low-end camera without an EVF. Even so, Sony can price the A3000, with an EVF, lower than any DSLR. (They did that by going with low res EVF and LCD, and yet, maintaining a high-quality sensor. It's the output that counts and they rightly don't sacrifice there even in a massively budget system.)
Fuji's system is ok but has no real flash system and moving to that would not make much sense right now (not cost incentive either)
Fuji seems really expensive. I would be interested only if I really liked the retro feel, the controls, the film-like color. There's certainly a place for it, and some will pay for it.
I can at least get the micro 4/3 smaller lenses take, but nothing going on there I can't do with APS-C just as well
Not a bad option, but what strikes me about m43 is that there's not much of a cost difference. Might as well get a larger sensor.
That's just my take but declining sales are mostly down to over saturation in the market, just doing more ILC's isn't going to help longer term (market will get saturated there too) The camera market is shrinking no bones about it, so the makers will have to put more effort into the system, less frequent body updates it's been happening for a while. Great..lower prices suits me just fine bring it on!

A few makers will have to lose their shirts, it's up to Sony to ensure they're not one of them. The market cannot sustain the number of camera makers out there something is going to have to give.
Yup. Time will tell which strategy is working. Even if Sony fails, I'll still enjoy having a more compact system for some time, and will try my best to avoid going back to the bulk. But that's just me.
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bakubo »

bfitzgerald wrote: I can at least get the micro 4/3 smaller lenses take,
Yes, you get the point.
bfitzgerald wrote: but nothing going on there I can't do with APS-C just as well
Oops, no you don't. Small is the point.
User avatar
bakubo
Tower of Babel
Posts: 5865
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:55 am
Location: Japan
Contact:

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by bakubo »

Vidgamer wrote: Not a bad option, but what strikes me about m43 is that there's not much of a cost difference. Might as well get a larger sensor.
Same old thing. You can buy a Toyota Prius or a big Ford F-350 pickup truck for about the same money. How fair is that?!? :evil:

Seriously though, if you don't care about size then go for big, if you do care about size then go for small.
Vidgamer
Imperial Ambassador
Posts: 527
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 3:37 am

Re: Lenses!

Unread post by Vidgamer »

There are always tradeoffs. If size didn't matter, I might have stayed with A-mount, but then there are a couple of other advantages with E-mount. For example, the SLT mirror steals some light.
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests