Would anyone like to have some G lenses that are APS-C size

[stevecim]

Just a thought.

Would love something like a 24-300 G DT lens and some 2.8 or faster DT Zoom lenses

[stevecim]

Hmm I was looking at lenses on sonystyle Australia and notice in the specifications tabs for each lens they list the minimum aperture size i.e F22 not the largest, is that the right way to describe lenses?

[David Kilpatrick]

Only the minimum? That would be really strange. The lens is always described by its largest (widest) aperture.

David

[KevinBarrett]

There are a number of zooms that are missing from the Alpha line-up, choices in the premium APS-C segment included. I'd love to see a 16-55/2.8 SSM G DT, or something offering speed in a usable range for the smaller sensor. We might see something like that with the introduction of the next metal-bodied APS-C Alpha, but certainly not before. The full-frame line-up is actually pretty thin, too, with nothing in the 4x, 5x, and greater standard zoom range... just a hoaxed manual for a 24-105mm f/4.

[Dr. Harout]

My answer is 'yes'... if and only if the APS-C format would be here for a very very long time.
Otherwise I would prefer to stick with a FF G lens instead.

[KevinBarrett]

Agreed, Doc. If the focal length/range is useful to me on APS-C, I'd rather have the full-frame glass, but APS-C demands some unique solutions in the ultra-wide and standard-zoom range. For instance, a nice 10mm UWA rectilinear prime lens might be fantastically expensive and prohibitively large and heavy if it were compatible with FF. However, if it were designed for APS-C only, it could be relatively compact and affordable. Heck, we have zooms that start in that range!

Pentax has another fine lens made possible by the smaller image circle requirements of the APS-C format; the FF world could probably never see a lens like their 60-250mm f/4.

[theresa_n]

Agreed, Doc. If the focal length/range is useful to me on APS-C, I'd rather have the full-frame glass, but APS-C demands some unique solutions in the ultra-wide and standard-zoom range. For instance, a nice 10mm UWA rectilinear prime lens might be fantastically expensive and prohibitively large and heavy if it were compatible with FF. However, if it were designed for APS-C only, it could be relatively compact and affordable. Heck, we have zooms that start in that range!

I hope they don't release anymore aps-c format lenses. It would be foolish as the lenses made for 35mm sized sensor work better on aps-c than they do on a full sized one. Sony also has gaps in its lens line-up that need to be filled for all their cameras. For me the larger the image circle the better. They could make lenses smaller as is evidenced by the size of the old manual focus 35mm lenses. I don't know what has driven the growth of body and lens size with the digital era. I miss the size and handling of my x-700.

[KevinBarrett]

theresa_n, you have a valid point, and I'd rather use FF glass over APS-C any day, but I'd still rather pay for APS-C glass. There are compromises that must be made for the smaller format cameras, otherwise, what options are there for the budget-conscious? Since the compromise is made for the smaller sensor, and almost all of us with an APS-C camera live with it, you might as well get picky again about what you put on your cropped-sensor camera. The wide end, particularly, needs dedicated attention. I'm certainly glad Tamron made a 17-50/2.8, or I'd be out of luck in the fast standard zoom department.

[YorkieBen]

I can only think of two possible 'G' lens that are desirable in aps-c are as mentioned a 'standard' fast zoom e.g. 17-55mm f/2.8 SSM and a uwa e.g 11-18mm f/2.8 G SSM

Any other 'G' lenses should be full frame as there is little benefit not to, although a 50-150mm f/2.8 G would be interesting if significantly smaller than the 70-200mm equiv

[bfitzgerald]

Don't see the point of many more APS-C only lenses, esp higher end ones such as G etc.

There is a place for a few (I think there are already enough), but no more please.

[stevecim]

Don't see the point of many more APS-C only lenses, esp higher end ones such as G etc.

There is a place for a few (I think there are already enough), but no more please.

Why? I like the APS-C, I'm getting the same sort of images from my APS-C +70-300mm that I used to get from my 35mm film + 170-500mm lens. wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 or 70-400 in APS-C be smaller and cheaper than the full frame versions? I would love a 70-400G FF but at AUD$2500 it will never happen

[David Kilpatrick]

Tell you what though, there's no need. I put the CZ 16-80mm on the A550. Wow! It's not come off since. Who needs G when you have CZ?

Though it would be very good to have a truly excellent ultra wide. I would not mind 10-17mm f/2.8 or something like that for APS-C with perfect optics. Olympus have it in the 7-14mm for 4/3rds, Nikon have it in the 14-24mm for full frame. There simply is NO APS-C lens coming close except the Tokina 11-16mm, which I have used briefly on a Nikon body. Even just getting the Tokina would be the closest you can come to a G ultra wide zoom. But little chance of that - deadly enemies of Sony...

David

[peterottaway]

I have gone FF and so I don't have a lot of interest in either APS-C lenses or in fact in the rumoured A 7xx camera except as an indication as where Sony may be headed.

But if Sony are going to stay in the middle and upper APS-C market then they do need to offer a small selection of performance glass to go with re badged Tamrons etc. Some enthusiasts will choose to purchase the FF lenses especially in the medium zoom and telephoto, but there will be many people who will prefer a somewhat smaller, cheaper and lighter choice.

These lenses would become more important if a lot of the entry level D-SLR price points is taken over by bridge or EVIL type cameras. To Sonys advantage the electronics and construction of such cameras will be much the same as APS-C D-SLRs and if they opt for the larger sensor size then their optical development costs can be spread.

[Greg Beetham]

I doubt that Sony would abandon APS-C format, not after releasing some lenses just for that format not so long ago, but it's hard too judge if they are going to ever make a high end full featured 'normal' DSLR in APS-C format again, my guess is, maybe not. I think it's not worthwhile making high class long lenses, primes and zooms just for APS-C, not when FF ones do dual duty so well, also there is cost, how much would the price jump if they made individual lenses for each format?
At the short end is where they could lash out a bit more I think, a nice 30 or 35 f2 or 1.7 wouldn't go astray (there is the new 30 macro, but macro lenses aren't as good as standard lenses outside of macro distances), a short high class zoom might be good also, like the one David mentioned, a 10-17 or 18 f2.8, but a constant f2.8 G at that focal range, even in DT, is not going to be small, light or cheap....serious cabbage, as someone I knew once would have said, so, thing is, Sony would have to ask the question, is there a market for it? how many people would actually buy it for an APS-C format camera? My guess is, not many...now, but in time there might be enough potential customers perhaps, in the meantime Sigma have this [NEW] one in APS-C, but I have absolutely no idea how it performs.
Greg
http://sigmaphoto.com/lenses/lenses_all ... avigator=6

[bfitzgerald]

Why? I like the APS-C, I'm getting the same sort of images from my APS-C +70-300mm that I used to get from my 35mm film + 170-500mm lens. wouldn't a 70-200 f2.8 or 70-400 in APS-C be smaller and cheaper than the full frame versions? I would love a 70-400G FF but at AUD$2500 it will never happen

Depends what APS only lenses you are looking for! I am not sure the cost argument is holding up either the 16-80mm is a nice lens, but it's probably a bit overpriced. They might save some optical glass, but it's not passed on to the buyer! Olympus did a good job of killing the smaller format/cheaper idea.
I object to stuff like the 50mm f1.8 being APS, it's not cheaper than rivals FF versions, and they didn't exactly bust a gut making the build nice either. The only one that might appeal aka cost wise is the 30mm f2/8 macro (but again APS only..why??), which is not bad if you ebay one from the far east. Again though, I only see a place for a few kit lenses, and a couple of mid priced zooms being APS only. I def don't agree with APS primes at all.