Photoclubalpha

I know many have wanted an update from Sony to the beercan Minolta 70-210mm f4, but until then this might be worth a look:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/2013/01/29 ... s-at-cp%2b

Also, a 12-28mm f4.

Yes it sounds interesting. Perhaps a good compromise for travelling if the IQ is decent. Easier to pack than the Sony f2.8 version.

Mike

70-200mm f4 is pretty heavy at 1020g, that's more than expected for an f4 in that range
The UWA might be decent.

Much depends on pricing though, and if they turn up for A mount

bfitzgerald wrote:70-200mm f4 is pretty heavy at 1020g, that's more than expected for an f4 in that range

I think the beercan weighs 695g so 1020g is certainly heavy. Some like big, heavy lenses though...or so I have seen people post from time to time. I am not interested in this Tokina lens though. I have a beercan that I bought in 1997, but I don't use it much.

I am looking at this range of lens at the moment so this discussion is of interest to me. I sold my beercan last week and will sell my Tokina 70-200/2.8 ATX in the next week or two. It is not a zoom lens I use often but want good IQ when I do. I will keep away from the f4 for one reason- I want to be able to shot portraits, birds or other beasts often with minimum DOF. I was considering the new Tamron SP 70-200mm F/2.8 Di VC USD which looks great but weighs nearly 1.5kg which is 150gm heavier than the SAL70200G and is only $400 cheaper. I'm not sure how they compete image wise but know the Sony to be a great performer. I understand what you guys are saying about easier to pack, lighter etc for a f4 but I think I can live with the 300gm extra for a lens that has more options when it comes to shooting. I'm using an A77 and A700 at the moment but will at some stage go FF. I have tried to limit the number of lenses to keep weight acceptable rather than go without a lens because of its weight. I have a Tokina 11-16/2.8, Zeiss 16-35/2.8, Tokina 28-70/2.6-2.8 (will replace this with the Zeiss), Tokina 70-200/2.8 (to be upgraded) and Minolta 100/2.8M. When I go FF the 11-16 will go. I also have a Tokina 400/5.6 ATX which when I update my 70-200 will be replaced with a 2x converter. I don't know what my bag will all weigh, about 7-8kg I suspect plus tripod at times. <10kg for a 50+ to me is okay. I have bought several bags trying to get the perfect bag. I started with a Trekker ll which gathers dust. Next was a Magnum AW which I love and use when I carry my full kit including extra body, 400/5.6 and primes but not a practical bag in the field. I then bought the Slingshot 201 AW which is great and gets used but often not quite big enough. I now have found the right bag for me, the Mini Trekker AW. Carries all I need and can attach tripod. Back to the 70-200, 300gms more for a f2.8 than the Tokina f4 isn't so great in the overall picture and my bag can handle either. if you are convinced the f4 is the way to go Tokina have just announced news for the prototype 70-200/4, http://www.examiner.com/article/tokina- ... 00-f4-lens

The new Tamron 70-200mm VC is quite a high price right now but it's sure to drop in price (it has to v OEM makers) I've not read any reviews of that lens yet, but I'd be tempted to wait until later in the year when it should be much more sensible price wise.

The 70-210mm f4 well it's "only f4" but IMO for the price/outlay (there are tons of them around for just over £110 odd, so you can pick the better ones over the hard used ones) it's in a league of it's own bang per buck. I'm astonished Sony has only one 70-200mm lens and it's pricey at that (too pricey IMO v it's rivals)

Don't know how much this new Tokina is either. If I were a Canon user I'd plump up for the 70-200mm f2.8 L non IS myself it's only slightly more than the IS f4 version. On A mount we're a bit different as we have IBIS, that's why lenses like the beercan are popular. It's also why Sony should be selling their 70-200mm at a price nearer to £1000. They could easily make a 70-200mm f4 (or new beercan) for half that price

I thought I read somewhere that Tokina had decided to not make any more a-mount versions of their lenses? I hope I'm wrong.

bfitzgerald wrote:They could easily make a 70-200mm f4 (or new beercan) for half that price

not & make a profit.
Even the 3rd party manufacturers with a higher potential volume per basic design can't do that.

Canon manage to sell their one under £500 so sorry I don't buy the "can't be done for a profit argument"
If Sony continue to ignore important lenses, they're only making life harder for themselves in the longer term. I don't expect Canon prices, but they have an opportunity to make lenses with IBIS that are cheaper than the IS Lenses from Canon, but consistently ignore that opportunity.

I'm pretty sure Canon make a decent profit on the 70-200mm f2.8, if Sony priced half way between that and the IS version they'd be along the right lines. Same for the f4 version price it half way cheaper than the IS Canon one, bit more than the non IS one. It can be done

I think Sony were always going to be at a disadvantage with oem lens prices, KM as we now know kept the optical division http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/produc ... index.html and made Sony badged A-mount lenses for Sony, the few that Sony chose to keep in the range that is. The optical division within KM has been transferred to another division that makes optics for other companies as well as security cameras and phone cams etc. since the agreement with Sony expired in 2011. http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/produc ... index.html
http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/about/outline.html
http://www.konicaminolta.com/opt/produc ... index.html
Sony I think has been busily trying to source other more economical methods of supplying A-mount lenses the whole time thus the apparent different styles and constructions that have wended their way into the system, I’m not sure where the current G lenses are made, KM might be still involved in the optical element supply maybe or they might make the whole thing, don’t know, there was good conjecture that Sigma was getting involved in optical element supply for Sony too.
As far as the Zeiss lenses go, that is also a bit of a mystery parcel, I think the optics were always made to Zeiss specification in one place (?) the barrel components made in another place, and then assembled together in yet another place or a succession of places.
I have no idea where the SAM lenses originated from, who supplies the optics and who is involved in the rest of the construction of them.
Greg

bfitzgerald wrote:Canon manage to sell their one under £500 so sorry I don't buy the "can't be done for a profit argument"

Canon will have something like 10x the volume & of course by now all the basic R&D cost (done at 1990s costs) will have been written down.
By comparison the new Canon 70-200 IS II is 2x the price of the old (which is the same generation as the 70-200/4) so you could predict that a new Canon 70-200/4 would have a street price of ~£1000.

Also, the trend in many markets is migration away from the middle market (which I would class a 70-200/4 as) to either lower or higher end products.
If the demand is truly there why have the 2 largest 3rd party manufacturers not made one (at any price let alone £500)?
Why has it taken Nikon (again with a far larger potential market than Sony) until now to release a 70-200/4 & it is £1000? Even then I have strong suspicions that a lot of Nikon's rationale for going ahead with it is marketing derived rather than profit/sales.

Greg

We had a Konica Minolta colour copier in our main office at work and in another office there was a Kyocera copier which if I remember rightly was the company who made Yashica and Contax cameras and lenses. Some of he Contax Zeiss lenses were made by Yashica. Yashica had a very good reputation for making excellent lenses both for Yashica and Contax and they quite often out performed the Canon and Nikon equivalents.

I met the Tamron rep in my local photo dealer last year and managed to have a good chat. Its seems from what he was saying indicated that Tamron makes most [but not all] of the Sony Ziess zoom lenses to a Ziess specification but he was unclear as to how many assembly plants were involved, and he said their own 17-50 and Sony 16-50 shared many componants and design, and he said Tamron were involved in the Zeiss Vario Sonnar 16-80, but would not elaborate but said Tamron were not involved in all Sony/Zeiss lenses, there were other players as well. He also said that Tamron had more experience at making zoom lenses for 35-mm and digital cameras than Zeiss did.

Its a bit of a mystery these days to even track down who makes what and for whom. Some of the Sony lenses are made by Tamron, but i'm sure they are not the only source. The Tamron rep did mention Sigma and Tokina as two other companies who were supplying the 're badged trade' along with Hoya.
I don't think Sony themselves will ever disclose their lens sources.
I think launching a new and expensive lens to a small market from any of the manufacturers is a risky busines these days especially because of the world economy in recession.

Heidfirst wrote:

bfitzgerald wrote:Canon manage to sell their one under £500 so sorry I don't buy the "can't be done for a profit argument"

Canon will have something like 10x the volume & of course by now all the basic R&D cost (done at 1990s costs) will have been written down.
By comparison the new Canon 70-200 IS II is 2x the price of the old (which is the same generation as the 70-200/4) so you could predict that a new Canon 70-200/4 would have a street price of ~£1000.

Also, the trend in many markets is migration away from the middle market (which I would class a 70-200/4 as) to either lower or higher end products.
If the demand is truly there why have the 2 largest 3rd party manufacturers not made one (at any price let alone £500)?
Why has it taken Nikon (again with a far larger potential market than Sony) until now to release a 70-200/4 & it is £1000? Even then I have strong suspicions that a lot of Nikon's rationale for going ahead with it is marketing derived rather than profit/sales.

I still disagree because whilst Sony might not have the volumes, it's a bit like saying you run a business but never advertise and expect to get trade come it. Ain't gonna happen. You have to speculate to a degree, to accumulate.

People said it was not worth while Sony making budget prices esp a 50mm as they would not sell any or make any money. Reality is they were horribly wrong, 50mm sells well (and it's cheap) and it drove down the price of the 50mm f1.7 to much more reasonable levels.

By your theory Sony can't compete across the board on lenses as they don't have the volume so should they shut up shop? Nikon did a 70-200mm f4 as it was needed and badly and it WILL be a big seller for them. Sony's problems is they don't have one to sell to people, thus if you don't build it, they won't come.

You also forget that margins on lenses are good, in some cases very good v bodies where margins are less impressive (bar high end stuff)

bfitzgerald wrote:
By your theory Sony can't compete across the board on lenses as they don't have the volume so should they shut up shop?

Of course not, but they need to be selective about what they do develop & produce - & that's even ignoring Sony's apparent lens capacity issues. Lenses are only high margin once you have paid development & production engineering costs & that takes a certain amount of volume.
Sigma obviously didn't sell enough 50-150/2.8s (a 70-200/4 equiv. for APS-C) in Alpha mount to make it worthwhile making it's replacement in Alpha & that's with a basic design effectively already paid for by Canon & Nikon versions.

I don't expect the Nikon 70-200/4 to be a big seller - as I said imo it's as much a marketing decision to fill a perceived gap against Canon as it actually being a viable business line. At least they have a better chance of recovering their costs compared to Sony with the 500mm G SSM which (superb as it appears to be) I'm pretty certain was almost entirely a marketing led decision.

classiccameras wrote:Greg

We had a Konica Minolta colour copier in our main office at work and in another office there was a Kyocera copier which if I remember rightly was the company who made Yashica and Contax cameras and lenses. Some of he Contax Zeiss lenses were made by Yashica. Yashica had a very good reputation for making excellent lenses both for Yashica and Contax and they quite often out performed the Canon and Nikon equivalents.

I met the Tamron rep in my local photo dealer last year and managed to have a good chat. Its seems from what he was saying indicated that Tamron makes most [but not all] of the Sony Ziess zoom lenses to a Ziess specification but he was unclear as to how many assembly plants were involved, and he said their own 17-50 and Sony 16-50 shared many componants and design, and he said Tamron were involved in the Zeiss Vario Sonnar 16-80, but would not elaborate but said Tamron were not involved in all Sony/Zeiss lenses, there were other players as well. He also said that Tamron had more experience at making zoom lenses for 35-mm and digital cameras than Zeiss did.

Its a bit of a mystery these days to even track down who makes what and for whom. Some of the Sony lenses are made by Tamron, but i'm sure they are not the only source. The Tamron rep did mention Sigma and Tokina as two other companies who were supplying the 're badged trade' along with Hoya.
I don't think Sony themselves will ever disclose their lens sources.
I think launching a new and expensive lens to a small market from any of the manufacturers is a risky busines these days especially because of the world economy in recession.

Of course classiccameras, I was forgetting the input from Tamron thanks for the reminder, they were involved with KM B.S. (Before Sony), to some extent but I’m not sure how big their influence was, personally I don’t think representatives are necessarily privy to information that’s more accurate than we can find (not much) apart from what they hear on their own rumour mill, and that could be worthwhile or it could be sus, how can one tell?
I know a couple of lenses back in KM days that were obviously of Tamron origin, the 28-75/2.8, 17-35/2.8-4 stand out because they don’t have the Minolta focus range window and the focus collar revolves backwards (a la Nikon) and I think the KM7D had a kit lens from Tokina when it appeared, at least it did here, but by then KM was involved heavily in negotiations with Sony where it would all sone become KM A.S. (After Sony).
I think the KM optical div was making a few Minolta designed lenses for Sony for an unknown period of time after that, the 16 was one, the expensive 35, the 50 & 100 macros, the STF, the standard 50, the 70-200G and the 500reflex. They also had the KM24-105 and the 18-200(Tamron design, but who was making it?).
They didn’t bring over the 100-300APO(D) strangely enough even though the design was completely updated at that time, it was to be a long long time before Sony finally brought out their own 70-300G(origin unknown), and much later the 70-400G(origin unknown).
Sony announced the 16-80 Zeiss way back when the A100 came out (along with the 135 & 85 Zeiss) but the 16-80 had a lengthy delay period and when it was finally released it was plagued by problems that seemed to go on forever, definitely no KM involvement with that one, and I don’t know who was doing what with the 85 and 135 Zeiss either.
They since have brought out a whole bunch of APS-C zooms, some seemingly duplicating or overlapping ranges already covered by other lenses of similar speed, and I don’t think KM was involved in many or any of those.
Then there is the SAM lenses, maybe Sigma is involved with the optics for those and some of the zooms as well who knows? Tamron could be assembling some of the other zooms too, like you say it is all very mysterious and convoluted, I wouldn’t mind betting there is some involvement by the Chinese in making lens barrel components.
Who is making the 300/2.8G and the new 500/4G for Sony? I see Sony has a 300/2.8G II out now too.
Sony don’t seem interested in any f4 lenses as far as I can tell, there isn’t any 24-105/4 or a 70-210/4 in the range.
Greg