bfitzgerald wrote:Well the 55-210 is E mount and not a lot of good for A mount users leaving that aside I don't like the rendering from the samples I've seen, and the Minolta 70-210mm f4 is a proven performer here (at least for me field use wise) I don't consider the lenses comparable
Sorry, I meant the Tamron 55-200. I consider the lenses comparable. I've seen photos from the Beercan, and while good, I got sharp results even wide-open from my 55-200, and it turned out to be a great performer, IMHO. But without having a Beercan here to compare directly against, who knows? For a while, the Beercan had a cult following, causing prices to get to $250. That has long past. The last time I looked, they seemed to be in the $150 range again, which is still good for what it is.
Onto the 85mm saga, simply put you have the 3 Amigos as I call it 35, 50, 85mm. It makes sense to offer "a more expensive f1.4 version" and a "more affordable f1.8 offering" that way multiple buyers are covered with their needs. There is nothing wrong optically with any of the "easy choice" lenses I've used them and they're good (but rather tacky cheap build unfortunately)
The 85mm f2.8 is two stops slower than the 85mm f1.4 that's a big difference and I think the lens should have been f2 at least (a stop faster) I elected to buy a Tamron 90mm f2.8 which covers my macro needs and a candid/portrait lens, but an 85mm f1,8 would still appeal. Sony would sell a whole lot more of those than the 85mm f1.4 that's for sure. Again Sony lost out to a third party maker who's offering made more sense.
I don't think it's worth worrying about. Sony owns a part stake in Tamron, so maybe they don't even mind that Tamron fills that gap. I agree, it would be nice to have more ~f1.8 choices (in e-mount as well).
Ditto 70-200mm if I ever decided to buy an f2.8 (and I don't at the moment) I'd have to be raving mad to pay the prices Sony are asking for the GII version it's not competitive and thus rather pointless, either of the Tamron's are far better value even the newer one which is on a par build wise with OEM makers is vastly cheaper.
There are some other gaps such as a 24-70mm f4 again offering a more affordable alternative to the f2.8 lenses. Though we are told a new 24-105mm f4 is due will be interesting to see if Sony can price it at reasonable levels
I think f2.8 tele zooms are a bit overkill. Fine for those who find that sort of thing fun, but they're too large, heavy, expensive, and I just don't have a need for those kind of extremes. Even if in the past one could justify such a lens, just the higher ISO capability of newer cameras mitigates the difference quite a bit. So, for zooms, I don't mind f4. Now, for primes, I think there's a place for faster primes, although I do have a couple of the f2.8 primes because of price. When push comes to shove, I'll make do with f2.8.