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!