Fake??

[alexramos7]

A image of the a900 with the "new" Sony 28-75mm...

From MinoltaSpain, the user said he found it on the internet.

[KevinBarrett]

It looks pretty convincing; the light matches well enough between lens and camera and the finish, besides the orange ring, is consistent with the rest of Sony's zooms. However, it looks nothing like the concept recently shown, and the noise in the image could have been added to wash away any photoshop tell-tales. That said, I don't know why anybody would make this up (not really news at all) unless they were desperate for attention.

I wonder how well I could manipulate an image to make a new lens in Alpha skin.

[PhotoTraveler]

Odd, why would someone fake this?

But as mentioned, it really doesn't match the PMA lens at all. The focus ring is different, different color band, the AF-MF switch is different. Doesn't match.

But it is more in-line with the current fleet. And the PMA mockup had blatantly messed up distance marks (unless you think 1 yard is more than 1 meter).

It could be this is what the production version actually looks like, and the shot comes from something yanked off the web for an A900 kit and someone up-rez'd it.

[KevinBarrett]

An a900 kit would make a lot of sense. I wonder how many lens sales Sony looses to those who get an a900 and fit it with 3rd party or older Minolta lenses instead of dropping another big hunk of change on the CZ 24-70?

[PhotoTraveler]

Well, I would say there is a lot of folks who aren't going to buy the 24-70 with the A900. Some of it will be cost, the other part is those of use who don't want "that" lens.

Canon gets it right, they have the perfect kit lens, a 4/24-105 (No talk of opinions on quality of that lens, the specs are perfect for the use). It gives them a 1K lens (within reason of price for a kit lens of such a class of body), great range, and perfectly good aperture.

Sony needs such a lens to sell A900s. I don't think they are having many folks buy 3rd party lenses, people just aren't buying the body. And go elsewhere. Sony has a very limited amount of lenses for the A900. The new ZA's basically. It's missing a well suited all around lens, lenses you can travel with, and speciality lenses (TS).

The 4/24-105 is a very very basic needed lens they need. I think without it, they aren't selling anywhere what they could. Interestingly while Canon has a very well liked 24-105 and is said to be bringing a mkII version soon. Nikon doesn't have a good answer either. Nikon users detest the 24-120 nikon, and no hints of a replacement coming, no matter how much the nikon world begs for a 4/24-105 and 4/70-200. I think a great many nikon users use the Tamron 28-75 on their D700's. If I go Nikon, I will probably certainly go and by the Tamron. Sony could be shooting to go for a tie with Nikon, and conceed to Canon till they can get the correct lens out.

The 28-75 almost certainly is some sort of stand in for it. Very odd in what happened to the 24-105? If they were planning to do the 28-75, they should have done it 2 years ago and maybe have kept a few users with it. And definitely had it there when the A900 launched. The fact we see this now screams after though/plan B. Definitly the kind of thing that makes me question Sony.

As is, I suspect they will announce this lens with an A700 replacement as a kit, and offer it as a kit with the A900. If they get a version of the 10-24 out, the 28-75 would work well together with it.

The Tamron will give Sony a unique spot of having 2 F2.8 Standard zooms in their lens lineup as active lenses. No one else has that. But of course that only helps when you really have it integrated into the system. As is, it will stand awkwardly alone for now. Also if it's a stop gap solution, when they want to face it out, there could be many screams. Maybe there is just a curse in A mount. 28-70G, then the 28-70G SSM doesn't happen, 28-75 rebadge stop gap, A mount "dies", Sony comes back and puts the old kit lens 24-105 in place as the loan solution while they work to get the 24-70ZA out, they kill off the 24-105 in prep for new 24-105, they fizzels, they run back and do the same stop gap as KM did.

An a900 kit would make a lot of sense. I wonder how many lens sales Sony looses to those who get an a900 and fit it with 3rd party or older Minolta lenses instead of dropping another big hunk of change on the CZ 24-70?

[KevinBarrett]

Also missing from the Sony line-up is a "vacation zoom" for full-frame. Something in the way of 28-200 or 28-300. This probably isn't as important for a full-frame camera as it would have been a few years ago, since an APS-C sensor (and therefore an APS-C super-zoom) makes more sense for traveling light. I have a friend who shoots Canon and uses a 28-300 (a white lens) on a 5D mkII...Sony could make the full-frame system more appealing with such an offering.

[PhotoTraveler]

Yeah, I've thought about that one too. I think that might even be something where they go to Tamron for a quick solution. If there was going to be any FF tamron ports, I was thinking that's where we would see it.

Still, I think the 2 lens solutions manage. 24-105 and a 70-200 in F4 would more than do the job. The 70-300G is a worthy stand in. Maybe if they could do a 4/20-70 or such they could really hit the extreme, but a 4/24-70 would also be good. I think their is room for both a 24-105 and 24-70 in F4.

I don't think there will be many users of an A900 wanting the super zoom option right now. If FF ever gets sub 2K new, it could be revisited, but for now, I'd say it's a low priority, and they should focus on 2 lens travel options.

For me, Ideal is something like a 4/24-105G, with a 4/70-200 or a 4/70-250, or 4.5/70-250 something like that. Both with 77mm filters, similar build, feel, size. That would be the most I would ever want to carry for zooms. The 24-105 would be my main lens, with a TS, maybe a 1.7/50 packed down in just in case. If there was ever a lens like a 2.8/150G that took the TCs I could be all over that instead of a zoom if it was substantially smaller and lighter than a zoom.

A 4/24-135 could be the answer too, or vari-aperture if it had to be. In the end, a big problem is the shear size of some of these teles. A lot of travel shots I wouldn't use them, but you want something. I went years (~10 years) with my film camera with a 28-70 and a 500 reflex, nothing in the middle. Yeah, something in the middle would have been nice, I just didn't have one. But it strangely worked. I always wanted a bit wider and a bit longer on the zoom, so a 24-105 is perfect for me, I'm sure I could do the world with just that, and A900, a 24mm or wider TS, a 1.4/50. Any tele needs to be small, like the 2.8/150 above, or a 4/150 or 4/200.

I so miss the shear compactness of old manual focus lenses. My little MD 3.5-4.8/28-70 was wonderful. My KM 2.8/28-75 dwarfs it. And sure, the KM is a stop plus faster, and probably better optical, but it's huge and is much heavier than the seemingly weightless MD.

[Dusty]

I so miss the shear compactness of old manual focus lenses. My little MD 3.5-4.8/28-70 was wonderful. My KM 2.8/28-75 dwarfs it. And sure, the KM is a stop plus faster, and probably better optical, but it's huge and is much heavier than the seemingly weightless MD.

That was another reason I missed the whole AF craze. Bigger, more expensive cameras and lenses, besides having to re-buy all my old lenses again. I wish someone would mate a good digital sensor to an MD mount, but I know that's never going to happen!

Dusty

[Bengeo]

I wish someone would mate a good digital sensor to an MD mount, but I know that's never going to happen!

How about this option: http://digitalrokkor.altervista.org/why.html?

Andy

[KevinBarrett]

How about this option: http://digitalrokkor.altervista.org/why.html?

Andy

At first I thought this would be a link to the Seagull D55 that Rokkor Files teased us with one April a few years ago.

[PhotoTraveler]

I'm honestly surprised the 3rd party MF body hasn't happened.

Get a solid basic design down. Built it around something like the Sony 10MP CCD (I use to say the 6MP, but this just shows how long I've been waiting). Very basic design, pick and pull the basic design aspects from most brand grabbing what works best. Then offer it in many various mounts, mainly those which are dead, so MD, Konica, FD/FL, contax, R (sniff, just died as we know it, though rebirth is planned).

Seagull or Cosina would be the obvious one to do this. If folks could have a fully functioning basic body for their old lenses, and it sell for a decent price, folks would suck them up.

[KevinBarrett]

Somebody will make a universal mirrorless back with LV, something the size of a micro 4/3 or Samsung NX body, and a collection of adapters to work with these extinct lens mounts...just waiting for the technology to become cheap enough.

[Dusty]

I'm honestly surprised the 3rd party MF body hasn't happened.

Get a solid basic design down. Built it around something like the Sony 10MP CCD (I use to say the 6MP, but this just shows how long I've been waiting). Very basic design, pick and pull the basic design aspects from most brand grabbing what works best. Then offer it in many various mounts, mainly those which are dead, so MD, Konica, FD/FL, contax, R (sniff, just died as we know it, though rebirth is planned).

Seagull or Cosina would be the obvious one to do this. If folks could have a fully functioning basic body for their old lenses, and it sell for a decent price, folks would suck them up.

Think about a universal digital back with an interchangeable mount system. A good sensor, processor, and control layout, but in the front a plate that houses the mount and aperture operating mechanism. The various plates would adjust the thickness needed to properly set the register of the various lenses, and translate the aperture operating arm to the proper position and stop travel for the various lens systems.

One basic camera, many lens systems supported. That cheapens production costs.

We would have a lighter, more compact digital, and still be able to use great glass on it. At $400 - $450, We could have all the functions we used to in a digital format without having to buy new lenses. I'd have to have 2 of them myself!

Dusty

[pakodominguez]

I'm honestly surprised the 3rd party MF body hasn't happened.

Get a solid basic design down. Built it around something like the Sony 10MP CCD (I use to say the 6MP, but this just shows how long I've been waiting). Very basic design, pick and pull the basic design aspects from most brand grabbing what works best. Then offer it in many various mounts, mainly those which are dead, so MD, Konica, FD/FL, contax, R (sniff, just died as we know it, though rebirth is planned).

Seagull or Cosina would be the obvious one to do this. If folks could have a fully functioning basic body for their old lenses, and it sell for a decent price, folks would suck them up.

Nice idea but...

APS isn't a solution. The wider lens (other than the FIsheyes) you can get on the MC/MD mount is the 21mm, not really wide enough, unless you buy new ultra wide lenses, what makes the whole idea of "re-birth" of our nice manual lenses.

In other hand, it is still a mistery how they will perform on digital: a lot of old minolta AF design are good on digital, but we don't really know about this older lenses. As usual, good lenses will work fine on digital, and so-so lenses... probably depending on the sample you are using -my brother is using a Micro-Nikkor 50 f2.8 AIS on his D700 and he's happy with it. I gave him my 24mmm f2.8 AI a couple of years ago, but I haven't see his pics with this lens. I know the 35mm f2 AIS and 135 f2.8 AIS I gave to a friend are good on 6 and 10 MP, because I'd used them and got beautiful images.

I have good manual Minolta lenses from 24mm to 300mm. If Seagull came with a DSRL for Minolta MC/MD lenses, even if it is an APS sensor, I'll buy it. If it is a FF with a decent software (firmware and desktop) I'll consider selling all my Minolta AF/Sony stuff, or probably just keaping both macros and the 100 SF (the 85mm Varisoft is even rear than the 100 SF)

Regards

[PhotoTraveler]

As others mentioned such camera very well will be an EVIL design. Open up a whole market much like M42 users, folks can have lenses from every brand and just have the right adapters.

On the format size, it's about cost. FF make such a thing way to expensive, it needs to be cheap and fun. It's not like this will be folks main cameras, just something to have fun with and relive old days with those lenses.