Sony Lens Quality-

[Greg Beetham]

Still, the issue is credibility, if Sony wants to be seen as a credible alternative (status-unknown), then you would need to offer a range of system lenses similar to that which the opposition has in their range. (and accessories). Sony has two D3, 1D killer cameras in their range (pricewise) that could use a good shift lens for architectural work...so why not capitalize on that and finish the job. I guess it's in keeping with the way Sony does things though, build half a Macro flash system, half of a DSLR lens range, missing accessories....still, after all this time.
Greg

[peterottaway]

Greg, I fully concede your point about credibility and consider that Sony has been confusing a lot of people who wished them well when they took over from Minolta.

It seems to me that a along with the CZ zooms and primes that an new quality 24 - 105 and a revamped 70 - 200 make a more important short to medium term sales pitch in the enthusiast and general pro market. The 500/4 when it turns up will not match the range that Canon and Nikon can field, but if it is any good then it will offer some reassurance that some gaps are being attended to.

I stand prepared to be howled down, but to me if you are going for a prestige new lens then a really top of the line, fully corrected 14 mm wide angle would be the way to go.

[Greg Beetham]

Well fair enough, a top notch 14mm prime is ok by me, if you need one, it's not high on my priority list though simply because too me very wide angle lenses (14mm on FF is a very wide angle lens), are special use only, like dramatic impact close ups, (the subject lines too infinity are very acute), creating spacous interiors etc. I don't personally like them much for general outside photography, for that same reason, they reduce everything further than 20 feet away to microscopic proportions. Nowdays if you need a wide view outdoors it's so easy to mantain some natural perspective with an appropriate focal length and do a generously overlapped pan of a couple of shots, or three even, and join em up later. One can do it easily now with todays software even without a tripod and end up with a great wide angle scenic shot. I think wide angle use outdoor for general photography is an anachronism left over from the film days where you really didn't have much other option.
As far as a good 24-105 goes, if Sony were to bring us a really decent one at say f4 or f4.5 even, (so it's not another big heavy expensive lens), I reckon it would sell like hot cakes.
Greg

[youpii]

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

I was like that before. But then realised that as Sony's market share is much smaller, it's unlikely that they would invest as much money as Canon/Nikon in making new lenses. That sucks but that's how modern companies are managed. Each division produces its own balance sheet and has to prove some profitability or be sacked...

From my point of view, I'm happy enough with my lenses and might upgrade if new models prove to be better. But I agree that if I was working for the National Geographic or some top level publication, I might switch or have a dual system.

As I always say, cameras & lenses are tools, not religion. Buy what you need, whatever brand it is... Like a car or a TV.

[Greg Beetham]

Well in view of Sony not wanting to spend large on a complete-ish range of lenses, why not start with more affordable lenses to begin with? Some good mid range portable ones, like many of the Minolta mid range zooms and primes (modernized/digitized), that are now hard to find and expensive.
Why did Sony, when the only camera they had for a long time was the A100, release first up, large heavy expensive lenses like the FF CZ 135 f1.8, and the FF CZ 85 f1.4 instead?
They did release a very desireable Zeiss, the DT16-80 f3.5-4.5 quite some time after the A100 came out, but it earned itself such a bad reputation through either a bad body design or bad assembly control that people were scared off it, including me.
Lately it seems Sony has switched tack and is now concentrating on lenses for their upcoming NEX cameras, (as well as the cameras themselves).
I assume that's what the SAM lenses are for, with more to follow supposedly, some, probably the longer focal length ones, with IS/VR...if you take any notice of the rumour mill that is.
Let's hope that Sony doesn't forget about DSLR's amid all the excitement of building their EVIL type camers and lenses.
Greg

[lightdreamer]

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

Have you really in mind that photozone clear declares that you cannot compare the numbers?
Regarding the photozone test in a way that makes sense, the CZ 16-35 is the winner against the Nikon 16-35.

Really don't understand how you come to your conclusion.

BG lightdreamer

[catalytic]

Well in view of Sony not wanting to spend large on a complete-ish range of lenses, why not start with more affordable lenses to begin with? Some good mid range portable ones, like many of the Minolta mid range zooms and primes (modernized/digitized), that are now hard to find and expensive.
Why did Sony, when the only camera they had for a long time was the A100, release first up, large heavy expensive lenses like the FF CZ 135 f1.8, and the FF CZ 85 f1.4 instead?

I agree with you... definitely need them to launch some improved versions of practical and portable lenses like the 35/2, 28/2, 24/2.8, 17-35, 24-85/3.5-4.5, and 70-210/4.

I do, however, understand why they went with the more exotic lenses first: to make a splash and get the piblic's attention. Use lust inducing, premium lenses to not only attract attention to the fledgling Sony brand, but to also associate it with quality and prestige right up front. I think Sony also wanted to emphasize that it was the only mfr that could offer unique offerings that weren't available from other systems. In particular, they were the only system to offer auto-focus and modernized optical designs of Zeiss lenses (the ZA 85/1.4's newer optical design is not used in the ZF/ZE/ZK mount versions, and no other mfr offers a 135/1.8 ).

After all, nothing says quality and prestige like Zeiss and Leica. You could do worse things than to associate your cameras with one of two legendary German optical institutions. And perhaps of their location, Sony understands the importance people in Asia place on brand names and status symbols. Zeiss and Leica are revered over there.

A recent example of how important it is to have an established name associated with your product launch is the questions surrounding the pedigree of the Samsung NX system when it was revealed their lenses were made by OPTRON-TEC. Optron who? They quickly realized the error of their ways and scrambled to ask Schneider-Kreuznach to brand some lenses for them.

So I do think Sony had to lead with the more exotic Zeiss glass, but i definitely agree: they at least should have followed it up with a range of more compact and affordable "everyday" lenses.

[Greg Beetham]

Good post catalytic, with the standpoint of marketing 'splash' taken into consideration the Zeiss effect is valid, what I find a little disconcerting is Sony's apparent haphazard approach overall, the release (or more correctly announcement, they weren't actually available for some time, and then you would have to be committed too a high degree to actually track one down), of high end Zeiss FF lenses alongside a mid range APS-C camera is only one example of the obscure Sony approach to designing, manufacturing, distributing an appealing and functional DSLR system.
There are others apart from lenses, the lack of accessories (macro in particular) for instance, and the introduction of the small new bodies using a different battery than any of the current and former bodies, in a market segment that would expect such a frivolous camera to 'do' movies of some sort or other...like their opposition can, but the Sony ones couldn't, not overly smart marketing I think.
Greg

ps. What became of Leitz? it was a close companion of Minolta back in the early days....I see you can still buy Leitz microscopes and maybe binoculars...