500/4 G and 24/2 ZA SSM
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/press_room/ ... 56463.html
With pics there:
http://news.sel.sony.com/en/image_libra ... eras/dslr/

David, it's time to update the page you wrote in 2007
http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2007/08/0 ... d-cameras/
Although the 35/1.8 & 300/4 seem lost in the past.

Sony Alpha rumors mentions a 35 F2 SAM and an 85 F2.8 SAM

I may update the write up from 2007 though I don't necessarily think the tele or wide are exact replicas of what was planned then.

Just as an aside, I am going to say: 30mm f/2.8. This is one fantastic little lens. I have been shooting with it for a week, and it's been giving me some of the sharpest snapshots I've ever had. So if 35mm f/2 and 85mm f/2.8 SAM lenses appeared, even built to the same lightweight cheap quality, Sony could have a winning formula.

My 50mm and 100mm macro lenses (Minolta original) were meant to go on eBay today and I forgot, I was too busy. I am using the 30mm and the Sigma 70mm from now on.

David

That gives me the chills. Could you please provide with some full size shots, David?

Yes please some posts David.
Arun Gaur
http://tripolia-indianlandscapeimages.com

I'm hoping the 30mm or 35mm (I hope the 35mm is as good) turns out to allow DMF to operate without damaging the lens in the end. Does the 30mm focus slowly like a regular macro? i'm wodering why they woulkd even bother with the 35mm ?

Would they be FF or APS-C ?
I think 2.8 is too dark for a 85mm, unless it's a macro

Yes indeed, they need more lenses to make the bodies more attractive anyway. So I'm surprised that they only announced two lenses at PMA 2010.


The Minolta 50 & 100 macro are very good, why use the 30 and Sigma 70mm instead?

I knew it! I just got a little scary when I saw the plastic mount. I'm willing to buy a wide angle (prime) and this 35mm f2 FF will fit perfectly my needs (and I hope my pocket too, I imagine the 24 Zeiss a little too expensive)

I was a little reluctant to add this post given that the level of whining on some boards already exceeds rush hour at Heathrow even without the release of specifications, sample exposures and hands on testing.

Its just that I would have thought that lenses like the CZ 18 mm or 21 mm would have added something more than a 24 mm however good it turns out to be. The 500 mm is not going to be the years best seller but I can understand the need for a good long telephoto or two.

My own personal hope was for something like the Contax N 24 mm - 85 mm / 2.8 even when you have to buy 82 mm filters to feed the damn thing. Alas that became a forlorn hope for the next few years when they re badged the Tamron 28 mm - 75 mm.

That being the case where's the bl**dy Sony 24 mm - 105 mm / 4.0 ?

The 35mm f/2 is still a rumor. The only announcement was for the 24mm f/2 Zeiss.

Sony is already selling the rebadged Minolta 20/2.8, which is old but not bad.
But the 24mm slot was empty until now.



I think the Contax N 24-85 mm is F/3.5-4.5, not F/2.8. It would be welcome to my camera bag anyway

Sorry Youpii, I was letting my dreams get ahead of my thinking.

With the 24 mm I think it's going to be expensive for what is going to be delivered, so a plain vanilla Sony would have done.

Yes where Concerning lenses, a big disappointment. The 500/4, at probably $8000 (give or take a few thousand), will only appeal to a minority, certainly not to A2xx A3xx A4xx A5xx owners.

The A700 'upgrade' doesn't look that promising, either. Doesn't look like a solid and full-buttoned body. Makes me scared thinking about an A900 successor

I think there is a huge disconnect between Sonys lens and body strategy. Wouldn't be surprised if they stop APS-C next year, forcing you to buy one of these mirrorless things and use your APS-C lenses with an adaptor.

...and opt for FF