Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Wow, indeed!
Look like great additions and the 70-300 G was one of the better A-mount lenses. The second version looked even better than the first. I'm happy that they're giving people small and light lenses as well. Seems to be a great pairing size wise with the 28/2.Wow, indeed!I wonder why it took Sony this long to get away from kissing Zheiss' and come up with their own.Good stuff! :thumbs:If they would come up with a 35/2 quickly, it would be nice.
I'd probably choose the 70-300 if I didn't need the speed or were size conscious.So now the inevitable question: The new 70-300 or the 70-200 w/1.4 tele-extender?
One thing that comes to mind is that the focusing FE system is totally different from A-mount systems. And the other is that the high resolution sensors may be more compelling for the lens IQ. So they may have needed to rethink the whole.Just out of curiosity:
Why have they made the 70-300 100g heavier and 10 mm longer than the A-mount lens? No, it's not because they have bolted 10 mm of piping to the older lens. They are completely different formulas, so this is a new lens. However, the A-mount lens had a very good reputation, so I would have thought that they would use the latest version of the A-mount lens if they were not going to make it smaller and/or lighter, but they seem to have made it new as well as bigger...
But they must have seen the need for better image quality when they designed the second version of the A-mount lens, don't you think?One thing that comes to mind is that the focusing FE system is totally different from A-mount systems. And the other is that the high resolution sensors may be more compelling for the lens IQ. So they may have needed to rethink the whole.
I think that the high res sensor accounts for something. Then Leica lenses : most of them are only MF and without stabilization. So that takes some of the weight and volume away.But they must have seen the need for better image quality when they designed the second version of the A-mount lens, don't you think?
It isn't only Sony doing this of course. Lenses for Nikon, m4/3 and some of the Zeiss lenses are moving in the same direction. I find it strange, and with camera bodies getting smaller, somewhat uncomfortable. Also, Leica seems to have no problems making compact high quality lenses. Leica lenses are expensive of course, but so are some of the recent monsters from Zeiss, Sony and Nikon, not to speak about the mammoth lenses for "micro" 4/3, the 42.5mm f/1.2 and 300mm f/4.
Maybe they think photographers like big lenses?
Physics and ultimate image quality for sensors with higher pixel densities I'd assume. 100g isn't that much weight to add on. Just a few additional ounces. What matters more is how it balances on the camera than the additional weight. I don't mind a little extra weight if it means that we get a better optical design compared the A-mount version and if you prefer that version one could always opt for it plus a LA-EA3.But they must have seen the need for better image quality when they designed the second version of the A-mount lens, don't you think?
It isn't only Sony doing this of course. Lenses for Nikon, m4/3 and some of the Zeiss lenses are moving in the same direction. I find it strange, and with camera bodies getting smaller, somewhat uncomfortable. Also, Leica seems to have no problems making compact high quality lenses. Leica lenses are expensive of course, but so are some of the recent monsters from Zeiss, Sony and Nikon, not to speak about the mammoth lenses for "micro" 4/3, the 42.5mm f/1.2 and 300mm f/4.
Maybe they think photographers like big lenses?
You are right of course, also with regards to the 100 grams. Zoom lenses are difficult compromises, and in an age where sharpness and lack of distortions have become the top priorities, the lenses will possibly have to grow. I don't agree with those priorities, but I'll open a separate thread on that when I have time.Physics and ultimate image quality for sensors with higher pixel densities I'd assume. 100g isn't that much weight to add on. Just a few additional ounces. What matters more is how it balances on the camera than the additional weight. I don't mind a little extra weight if it means that we get a better optical design compared the A-mount version and if you prefer that version one could always opt for it plus a LA-EA3.
We don't disagree here. I hold lens character above absolute sharpness personally when most things are nearly equal but a "sterile" look can give you a neutral baseline to work with.You are right of course, also with regards to the 100 grams. Zoom lenses are difficult compromises, and in an age where sharpness and lack of distortions have become the top priorities, the lenses will possibly have to grow. I don't agree with those priorities, but I'll open a separate thread on that when I have time.