Sony Lens Quality-

[NealS]

Recent reviews of Sony optics have revealed that they are merely adequate performers:

Sony 70-200: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/son ... /page5.asp
Nikon 70200 VRII:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... /page5.asp

CZ 16-35: http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/495 ... ff?start=1
Nikon 16-35: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-ni ... ff?start=1

I wonder if Sony have decided not to compete in the Serious Amateur or semipro end of the market? Let's hope that they do not end up like Pentax.

[peterottaway]

I'm not sure about where you are coming from with your query. But I would suggest that you go to Thom Hogans website to read his latest posting about blaming the equipment and then re-read the reviews in full not just cherry picking some bits.

Lens reviews are like lens design even now that there are supercomputers involved, very much an subjective art. Questions such as what, when and why count for as much as technology,costing and market placement. You need to read the review with a knowledge of the editorial policies, the likes and dislikes of the reviewer and some understanding of the intended uses of the lens being reviewed. What appears to be a similarly specified lens from manufacturer A with a long history in sports and photojournalism will not necessarily have the same design points as with manufacturer B who has traditionally marketed to fine art , portrait, studio and landscape photographers.

Also you need to keep on asking yourself what does this lens do for me as a photographer ? I use both a Sony A 850 and a Nikon D 700 and own the CZ 16 - 35 lens as this makes more sense to me with what I use those cameras for and my own working habits.

[David Kilpatrick]

Well, I have just been sent a CD of Nikon 16-35mm pix from a D700 owner who is deeply unhappy - failing Alamy quality control, has sold two excellent Nikon lenses to fund the purchase including his 20-35mm f/2.8 (have to say, I would not have done that trade).

His Nikon/16-35mm suffers from a serious FF error which he can probably fix, but the curved focus field, severe CA, cut off vignetted corners, and general softness are MILES from the quality of a typical Sony CZ 16-35mm. Corner sharpness possibly better. I'm getting a sample to check out.

David

[youpii]

Recent reviews of Sony optics have revealed that they are merely adequate performers:

Sony 70-200: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/son ... /page5.asp
Nikon 70200 VRII:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... /page5.asp

CZ 16-35: http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/495 ... ff?start=1
Nikon 16-35: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-ni ... ff?start=1

I wonder if Sony have decided not to compete in the Serious Amateur or semipro end of the market? Let's hope that they do not end up like Pentax.

For the 70-200, you compare the Nikon that's been only available for a few month with the Sony that is much older. In that range some Sony users even prefer the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. So if that range is what you use the most, Nikon might be the better way for you.

For the 16-35, the Sony/Zeiss is sharper in the wide end and that's what matter the most for its buyers. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is even sharper but you have to accept a rounded front lens.

I don't see any perfect world from any of the manufacturers for now.
You should remember that most of these are already very sharp; sharp enough for most uses, especially if you know their "weaknesses".

And at at the end of the day, you're not hired for the sharpness of your lenses, but for your skills in using them...

[Wes Gibbon]

I wonder if Sony have decided not to compete in the Serious Amateur or semipro end of the market? Let's hope that they do not end up like Pentax.

If that's the case, why did they produce the 70-400mm G lens?

[Dr. Harout]

If that's the case, why did they produce the 70-400mm G lens?

...Just to name one. In fact there are too many examples.

[WaltKnapp]

If that's the case, why did they produce the 70-400mm G lens?

It's possible that Sony is going to split their DSLR efforts. A separately marketed Pro line as they do in video. And that will probably be just FF unless the a7xx turns out to be far more advanced than it looks like now.

If so they'd probably stick the 70-400G in the pro line and the lower end would be mostly just the SAM lenses in the long run.

Or they could be just as lost and confused as they appear to be with DSLRs and their choices of what to produce are just random.

Walt

[youpii]

As both Canon & Nikon have both released (very good) new versions of their 70-200/2.8, I guess Sony now has some pressure to make a new one too.

[NealS]

I'm not sure about where you are coming from with your query. But I would suggest that you go to Thom Hogans website to read his latest posting about blaming the equipment and then re-read the reviews in full not just cherry picking some bits.

Have you actually read any of reviews from the links I posted? If so, you will see that there is no subjectivity in the tests, numbers are numbers, that is the beauty of objective tests. Comparing lenses of similar specifications the Minolta/Sony designs lag behind.

Why do you think I am dissatisfied with my photos? I am quite happy with them, as a matter of fact. The argument that Hogan presents is hardly original, in fact it is nearly as as old as amateur photography itself, that an HC-B, or August Sander, or a Cecil Beaton can take better photographs with a Holga than the typical amateur with his state of the art kit, and there is some validity to that, but that was not the point of my post. It's the the 2-3 generation old optics that I was commenting on, in that respect you have missed my point entirely, I fear. Just to put it in consumer terms, if Marque A has a new set of widgets on the market that is 2-3 generations ahead of Marque B's offerings would a new buyer with no bias go for A or B, assuming equal price? [/quote]

Lens reviews are like lens design even now that there are supercomputers involved, very much an subjective art. Questions such as what, when and why count for as much as technology,costing and market placement. You need to read the review with a knowledge of the editorial policies, the likes and dislikes of the reviewer and some understanding of the intended uses of the lens being reviewed. What appears to be a similarly specified lens from manufacturer A with a long history in sports and photojournalism will not necessarily have the same design points as with manufacturer B who has traditionally marketed to fine art , portrait, studio and landscape photographers.

See comments above. Never assume by default that a poster on the net, about whom you know next to nothing , is ignorant or cannot read.

Also you need to keep on asking yourself what does this lens do for me as a photographer ? I use both a Sony A 850 and a Nikon D 700 and own the CZ 16 - 35 lens as this makes more sense to me with what I use those cameras for and my own working habits.

This is just stating the obvious. The point I wanted to get across was that the new generation optics from N and C are leaving Sony/Maxxum designs behind and as a Sony user I do not like this. Is someone holding a gun to Sony photo division's collective head and preventing them from moving forward, I wonder? In the past, two camera systems I owned were allowed to fall into a state of benign neglect before being discontinued without any warning. I'd hate the same to happen to the Alpha system.

With all the talk of a new mirror-less alpha system on the horizon, perhaps the old DSLR system will be allowed to fade away. I hope not.....

[NealS]

This is a QC problem, David, any make can suffer from it, don't you think?

BTW, are you talking about the new f4 VR WA zoom?

Well, I have just been sent a CD of Nikon 16-35mm pix from a D700 owner who is deeply unhappy - failing Alamy quality control, has sold two excellent Nikon lenses to fund the purchase including his 20-35mm f/2.8 (have to say, I would not have done that trade).

His Nikon/16-35mm suffers from a serious FF error which he can probably fix, but the curved focus field, severe CA, cut off vignetted corners, and general softness are MILES from the quality of a typical Sony CZ 16-35mm. Corner sharpness possibly better. I'm getting a sample to check out.

David

[NealS]

Recent reviews of Sony optics have revealed that they are merely adequate performers:

Sony 70-200: http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/son ... /page5.asp
Nikon 70200 VRII:http://www.dpreview.com/lensreviews/nik ... /page5.asp

CZ 16-35: http://www.photozone.de/sonyalphaff/495 ... ff?start=1
Nikon 16-35: http://www.photozone.de/nikon_ff/492-ni ... ff?start=1

I wonder if Sony have decided not to compete in the Serious Amateur or semipro end of the market? Let's hope that they do not end up like Pentax.

For the 70-200, you compare the Nikon that's been only available for a few month with the Sony that is much older. In that range some Sony users even prefer the Sigma 70-200/2.8 HSM. So if that range is what you use the most, Nikon might be the better way for you.

The glacial pace of Alpha optical updates is just the point, isn't it? Actually, I intend to wait until after Photokina before taking a decision.

For the 16-35, the Sony/Zeiss is sharper in the wide end and that's what matter the most for its buyers. The Nikon 14-24/2.8 is even sharper but you have to accept a rounded front lens.

I don't see any perfect world from any of the manufacturers for now.

Agree completely.

You should remember that most of these are already very sharp; sharp enough for most uses, especially if you know their "weaknesses".

And at at the end of the day, you're not hired for the sharpness of your lenses, but for your skills in using them...

The bit about ".....your skills in using them" I agree with. But that is not relevant to my original post that Sony has not kept pace with the competition

In closing I am happy to say I do photography as a hobby and don't have to worry about making a living off it.

[NealS]

I wonder if Sony have decided not to compete in the Serious Amateur or semipro end of the market? Let's hope that they do not end up like Pentax.

If that's the case, why did they produce the 70-400mm G lens?

Alas, one new release does not make a pro system. I'd like to see some updated high speed primes and specialized lenses, like a WA T/S.

[NealS]

If that's the case, why did they produce the 70-400mm G lens?

It's possible that Sony is going to split their DSLR efforts. A separately marketed Pro line as they do in video. And that will probably be just FF unless the a7xx turns out to be far more advanced than it looks like now.

If so they'd probably stick the 70-400G in the pro line and the lower end would be mostly just the SAM lenses in the long run.

Or they could be just as lost and confused as they appear to be with DSLRs and their choices of what to produce are just random.

Walt

There are very strong rumours of a mirrorless camera system with APS- C sensors. If the new system takes off and is more profitable than the traditional DSLR system, will Sony slow development of the Maxxum system, that's the question.

[Greg Beetham]

There are very strong rumours of a mirrorless camera system with APS- C sensors. If the new system takes off and is more profitable than the traditional DSLR system, will Sony slow development of the Maxxum system, that's the question.

It's hard to imagine Sony getting any slower in the prosumer end of the DSLR market, with a replacement for the A700 for example, and some needed lenses (ie. shift and tilt&shift for starters), accessories for macro shooters etc. Any slower and Sony would stop moving all together I think.
Greg

[peterottaway]

I would put even a single T & S lens ( let alone trying to compete with the Canon family ) at the bottom of my list of things to do. They are expensive and only of marginal interest except to a very small band of photographers. I can only think that Canon regards them as a prestige item.

Like good macro technique they take time and a lot of practice and patience to do well. Some months back DK did an article using the Sigma 12 -24 mm lens on a Spanish cathedral in which he cropped and then straightened the perspective in software, for most photographers and in many circumstances this is a viable alternative.

I would rather have a new digital version of the old Minolta 28 - 135 or a decent 24 - 105 a long time before a T & S lens.