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

[YorkieBen]

I can't see why the 50mm f/1.8 was aps-c only either?

The only APS-C prime that would be semi-worthwhile would be an ultra wide angle prime (10mm f/2.8?) and even its worth would not be all that great.

There is a need for high end APS-C glass though if the A700 does get replaced - regarding the 16-80mm, I think that although it is a tad overpriced it isn't massively more than the other brand's equivalents - Canon 15-85 and Nikon 16-85mm and it is at least as good optically as those from the reviews I have seen.

I would like it to have SSM though

[bfitzgerald]

The 50mm is APS only, well the only reason I can think is to save a bit of small change on optical glass, but it's hardly worth the bother. More pressing is that 50mm isn't really ideal for APS. I would have liked a fast 35mm myself, FF that is.

Not sure on the price of the Canon, though it's meant to be much better than the 17-85mm, which got blown away optics wise by my 18-70mm DT! I think the Nikon is somewhat cheaper, and by all accounts a very good lens. Not sure how many of these lenses we need though.

[alphaomega]

I sure would like a G quality APS-C size lens that matches the new Tokina 16-135mm. I would accept a wide open range of F3.5-F5.6. By quality i really mean equalling my CZ 16-80 right through to 135mm. This would give me a "standard" zoom of 24-200mm and keep me v. happy. For virtually all my image taking I would then only need my Tamron 10-24mm (15-36mm) to complement. One on my A700 and the other on my A350. To be really demanding I would also vote for a G quality 11-18mm F3.5-4. Regrettably it is not likely to happen.

[Greg Beetham]

The only problem is, all G class zoom lenses were always constant aperture...and for that you gets to pay the big bucks.
And yes Baz I agree in general about always making lenses dual purpose, FF first and formost, then naturally it will cover APS-C as well...but I'm willing to make one exception, (if they are in the APS-C lens makiing mood), and that is that format still does not have a good affordable prime, there is only the vastly expensive FF 35 f1.4G, (there is the APS-C 30 macro, but it's not the same as having a prime).....so next time they feel inclined, they can knock out a decent 30 or 35 f2 or f1.8 and I can slip it into the corner of my bag under the puffer or something.
Greg

[alphaomega]

Greg Bentham wrote:

The only problem is, all G class zoom lenses were always constant aperture...and for that you gets to pay the big bucks.

Well, the Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G Series Lens is certainly not constant aperture, so I see no reason why Sony could not introduce more G Zoom lenses with variable aperture.

[Greg Beetham]

Yes you're quite correct, (Alphomega) Sony broke the 'G' tradition with that lens, some would claim that it isn't a true 'G', but the photos speak for themselves...(Gustav's for example), one wonders what would Sony have charged for it if it had been a constant aperture zoom...the mind boggles...
Greg

[KevinBarrett]

I was doing a little math and discovered that most constant aperture zooms in the normal to telephoto range have an aperture roughly equivalent to the zoom range as represented by "Xx".

17-50/2.8 - 2.9x
24-70/2.8 - 2.9x
70-200/2.8 - 2.8x
24-105/4 - 4.3x
60-250/4 - 4.1x

Now I know this isn't a law or a limitation, but it does seem to be the upper limit for speed in a lot of popular focal length ranges. If Sony had made the 70-400 a constant aperture, might we have lost some speed on the short end, as that specification makes a 5.7x zoom? It seems to me that f/4-5.6 is fast enough for a long, long 5.7x zoom.

[Dusty]

I was doing a little math and discovered that most constant aperture zooms in the normal to telephoto range have an aperture roughly equivalent to the zoom range as represented by "Xx".
17-50/2.8 - 2.9x
24-70/2.8 - 2.9x
70-200/2.8 - 2.8x
24-105/4 - 4.3x
60-250/4 - 4.1x

Now I know this isn't a law or a limitation, but it does seem to be the upper limit for speed in a lot of popular focal length ranges. If Sony had made the 70-400 a constant aperture, might we have lost some speed on the short end, as that specification makes a 5.7x zoom? It seems to me that f/4-5.6 is fast enough for a long, long 5.7x zoom.

It's a law of optics, you want a faster, constant f-stop, you use larger glass. You can make 25-250 constant 2.8, but the front element will obscure your view of the subject when setting it up on your super-tripod, and you may have to employ an assistant to carry the thing for you!

There's been a lot of advancements since the design of the original Zoomar lens, but you can't get around laws of physics.

Dusty

[bakubo]

Greg Bentham wrote:

The only problem is, all G class zoom lenses were always constant aperture...and for that you gets to pay the big bucks.

Well, the Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6 G Series Lens is certainly not constant aperture, so I see no reason why Sony could not introduce more G Zoom lenses with variable aperture.

The Sony 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 G also.

[Greg Beetham]

Yes the 70-300G is another Sonyfied 'G', not constant aperture and not particurlarly fast either, the one thing Sony didn't forget to do was adjust the price accordingly to suit the name, I think I must have subconsiously not considered these as proper G lenses in the traditional Minolta sense, the one who originally made G lenses what they were.
When you think about the Sony 70-300G, if they had made it a 100-300 instead they surely would have been in striking distance of constant aperture (like the Sigma 100-300 f4 APO), say f4 or f4.5 without making it overly large and heavy. Although the Sigma 100-300 f4 APO is reputed to be a fair lump (I've never handled one), and quite a good lens, Sony probably wanted to have something different enough to be attractive/versatile enough for people to justify buying instead.
Another thought, if they had made the 70-400G a DT 'G' lens instead of FF how much weight could they have saved? or could they have made it a similar size but at constant f4.5.....
How good is the 70-400G on FF anyway, has anyone used it on an A850 or A900?
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

Hmm if they made the 70-400mm G a DT, then that kinda wipes out FF users, and I suspect it's more likely those buyers who would outlay that kinda cash for a lens like this.
Not tried the 70-300mm G, most people seem to like it a lot though, it would be nice if it were a little faster. 100-300mm APO, that would be a good lens to update, but then knowing Sony they would charge too much, put those nasty fine ribs on, and them whack a slow SAM motor in it

To be honest, between Tamron and Minolta, I have more than enough choices in that, and can safely ignore just about all the Sony lenses out there, not that many appeal, and those that do are just too damn pricey to be worth it for me.

[Greg Beetham]

I still think that APS-C format is far better at Macro and sports/wildlife, especially birds than FF, that's why I think a high class lens like the 70-400G would suit the smaller format really well if it was designed specifically for that format from the ground up, they could leave the current one in production as well if they like. If there was a choice I wonder which APS-C shooters would choose, the smaller lighter faster one, (but probably just as expensive) or the FF version. FF to me is a scenic, studio, glamour, commercial, wedding, group portrait type cam, not an action, wildlife, macro cam, so I'm thinking the majority of buyers of the 70-400G are actually APS-C format shooters, it would be interesting to see the results of a survey on that.
Greg

[bfitzgerald]

I think long term FF is the future, so you have to think years ahead. For that reason I've avoided like the plague APS-C only lenses, and will continue to do so. Granted, my 35mm desires are also part of that, no doubt that does not apply to most.
It's only a matter of time before we get a sub £1000 FF body, and I'd hate to have a load of lenses that are APS-C. As it is, lenses such as the 70-400G, are hardly big sellers, relatively few would buy this type of lens.

It might be an ok idea, if only they really were smaller, and cheaper, but I doubt they would cost that much less. When you make a FF lens, it can work for both types of user, APS-C only limits that, not a problem so much now, but down the road it could be. APS-C exists as a compromise format, it's perfectly ok for what it is and does, but the real meat is FF, least for me. But presently it's just too expensive to justify.

If making high grade big tele zoom APS-C only lenses were the way to go, Canon would have done it a long time ago. And again, shorter focal lengths like the 50mm, it's insane to make APS only for that, it's not cheaper to the end user, and lenses such as this are small anyway. This applies to both Nikon and Sony, they just don't really get it

[bakubo]

Certainly there is no right or wrong answer as to whether someone who uses an APS-C body ever buys even a single APS-C lens, but it just seems to be sort of masochistic to go for 5, 10, or 15 years without a very wide angle (11-18mm, 10-20mm, etc.) or a reasonable walkaround lens that is wide angle to tele (16-80mm, 17-50mm, etc.). There is the FF Sigma 12-24mm, but it is very large and by the time FF bodies are cheap there will probably be better FF choices available then too. Even getting to a 28mm fov on APS-C using FF lenses is pretty limiting. You can get something like a FF 17-35mm, but not much else. A 28mm fov is enough much of the time, but for the last 20 years or so I have learned to like being able to go wider from time to time. Anyway, it is up to each person to decide. I figure that in my case that after I get 5-10 years of use from an APS-C lens and then maybe get a FF body that I will just sell the APS-C lens. I sure wouldn't want to have to do without the types of lenses I mentioned above for many years.

[KevinBarrett]

It's only a matter of time before we get a sub £1000 FF body, and I'd hate to have a load of lenses that are APS-C.

I have a hard time believing you'd be satisfied with any of the compromises of getting a FF DSLR under £1000. You're hardly satisfied with any of the APS-C offerings under £1000.