Now we're talking. Announced FE mounts

[philip_pj]

Overall a sound start, bearing in mind you should see the Loxias as integral parts of the lineup - and we have three more (at least) of them coming. One will be the serious wide angle prime, the WATE/Distagon 21mm competitor if I can put it that way. What is interesting is the MTF of the 16-35 zoom is really good at the 35mm end, in another league to the large 16-35/2.8 in ZA. You can see some buyers passing over the 24-70/4 and adding a 55mm prime to this one.

Most users are disappointed about 'no portrait lens' - when a scaled out FE55 would appear to a great idea. Looking at the reaction to the 85mm Otus, AF will be a big winner from now on with these and future sensors, manual focus is good for sitting subjects but I would have missed many shots if the FE55 did not have AF. This is the Achilles heel of the FE range.

The zoom looks very promising as compared with its Canon counterpart - a little smaller in filter size (72mm vs 77mm), weight (518g vs 615g), dimensions (78mm x 99mm vs 83mm x 113mm), much less complex (12/10 vs 16/12 elements/groups) and a 7 blade aperture against a 9 blade on the EF lens.

It also has no fewer than five asph elements, the large front is a double sided effort, and three ED elements. $200 more, but the MTF give plenty of promise this one will deliver. People will look at bokeh rings at 35mm and like the Canon CA is likely banished for good. The converter idea - who knows?

 

[Guy Mancuso]

You hit the nail on the head the 16-35 and the 55. I'm okay still with my ZA 85 1.4

I'm going to sell my Sigma 35 1.4 A mount and get the zoom. My theory having the 17TSE add the 24TSE, 16-35,55 or 50 ART lens maybe even the Zeiss new 50, 85 and 135 in ZA which I use both of those on the A77II as well along with the sigma 18-35. That would really round me out well

 

[ZoranC]

Look at the sizes of 35/1.4 and 90/2.8:

http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/sony_35mm_hands_on_04.jpg
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/sony_35mm_hands_on_07.jpg
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/sony_90mm_hands_on_05.jpg

Am I the only one that is disappointed in a way? What happened to promise of mirrorless of being lighter/smaller? Maybe reality that there is no way around laws of physics, that if you want great performing lens for full frame sensor it will be of full frame lens size, is starting to slowly wake us up. I am sure they will be fine but "hey, replace your existing bulky system with one of ours that will be almost equally bulky" is not what was used as marketing pitch, quite the opposite, to do "one step forward two steps back" is not why I got mirroless.

 

[ecsh]

The reality is, IMO, the only the removal of the mirror reduced the size of the body. Since the sensor size is still full frame, the lens will have to follow suit. That is why M4/3 lens get away with their size.
I for one will be ordering the 90 macro when it is available, regardless of the larger size.

 

[ZoranC]

The reality is, IMO, the only the removal of the mirror reduced the size of the body.

Yes, I know that. What I am doing is trying to remind us of it / raise awareness of it.

 

[iiiNelson]

Look at the sizes of 35/1.4 and 90/2.8:

http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/sony_35mm_hands_on_04.jpg
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/sony_35mm_hands_on_07.jpg
http://www.photographyblog.com/images/uploads_ee2/news_gallery_images/sony_90mm_hands_on_05.jpg

Am I the only one that is disappointed in a way? What happened to promise of mirrorless of being lighter/smaller? Maybe reality that there is no way around laws of physics, that if you want great performing lens for full frame sensor it will be of full frame lens size, is starting to slowly wake us up. I am sure they will be fine but "hey, replace your existing bulky system with one of ours that will be almost equally bulky" is not what was used as marketing pitch, quite the opposite, to do "one step forward two steps back" is not why I got mirroless.

I think making the lenses MF only is the only way to get around size and speed if you're concerned about that. I find in reality that the lenses aren't really as large as people try to make them seem. I know the 55 FE got a lot of complaints when it was first released but it's not much larger than a Leica 50 Lux in reality without the hood being attached.

I care first and foremost about optical quality and speed and then size is about the 3rd or 4th most important thing for me. I'm not a 28 guy but I'm curious about how the new one will perform with the 21 adapter or I want to see if Zeiss will make a Loxia lens in the 18-25 range.

 

[ashwinrao1]

Looks like a nice way to start rounding out the options, but the lenses look BIG, particulary the 90 Macro, which I am sure will be a stellar optic. The 28 f/2 seems most in line with camera size/balance, and I could see that if it's a solid performer, adding the 16 and 21 wide coverters (if they are solid) could make for a nice wide set to couple with the 55 for those inclined to use primes.

The 16-35 looks promising, but once again, compared to the WATE, it's huge (though the price is way better)....

I wish Sony figured out how to bend light onto their sensors to make them play well with lenses of smaller designation, as these lenses look "SLR" sized, while the A7 series bodies are so much more appealing for size...

 

[ZoranC]

I think making the lenses MF only is the only way to get around size and speed if you're concerned about that. I find in reality that the lenses aren't really as large as people try to make them seem. I know the 55 FE got a lot of complaints when it was first released but it's not much larger than a Leica 50 Lux in reality without the hood being attached.

I care first and foremost about optical quality and speed and then size is about the 3rd or 4th most important thing for me. I'm not a 28 guy but I'm curious about how the new one will perform with the 21 adapter or I want to see if Zeiss will make a Loxia lens in the 18-25 range.

Being AF has nothing to do with it. Filter thread on 35/1.4 is 72mm. That is same size as Zeiss for Nikon, which is a MF lens.

... and 72mm front is _not_ perceivingly large, it _IS_ large.

 

[ggibson]

Yeah, I think the trio for me will be the 16-35, 55, and a portrait 85 if they ever release one (or maybe bite and get the older SAL version+adapter).

 

[sagar]

Now I am seriously thinking! Considering AF Only option, apart for some weight-loss what advantage does A7 FE system offers over say 5D with equivalent lenses?

 

[jagsiva]

AF is one element contributing to size, FF is a second, but 3rd and mostly affecting WA focal lengths appears to be the much needed retrofocus designs. So even thought the body is shallow/thin, the lens tube is still much longer when compared to symmetrical designs (Leica M, Schneider tech lenses etc.)

Having said that, I have had smaller cameras than the Sony, but I think the A7R + 55FE is as small as I want to get and still feel like I can hold it steady at eye level.

 

[iiiNelson]

AF is one element contributing to size, FF is a second, but 3rd and mostly affecting WA focal lengths appears to be the much needed retrofocus designs. So even thought the body is shallow/thin, the lens tube is still much longer when compared to symmetrical designs (Leica M, Schneider tech lenses etc.)

Having said that, I have had smaller cameras than the Sony, but I think the A7R + 55FE is as small as I want to get and still feel like I can hold it steady at eye level.

Agree and there's a lot to say for ergonomics and an acceptably usable size. While I prefer a FF body smaller than DSLR's I think there is a point where things can get so small that it's not as useable for those of us with larger hands or frames.

 

[iiiNelson]

Being AF has nothing to do with it. Filter thread on 35/1.4 is 72mm. That is same size as Zeiss for Nikon, which is a MF lens.

... and 72mm front is _not_ perceivingly large, it _IS_ large.

There's always the option of the 35/2, 35/2.8, or the 16-35/4 if size is your concern. For me I will take a manageable size increase (if it performs) for the speed.

 

[Show Performance]

Size be damned. I am all over that 35/1.4

I crudely resized the new lenses to match the 55/1.8 and it doesn't seem too bad considering I have been waiting for a stellar 35/1.4 on A-mount for years. The 35/2 is excellent but the 1.4 is just too weak in the resolution department.

 

[Show Performance]

and it has a freaking aperture ring! Where the hell did that come from?

 

[Show Performance]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the 35/1.4 is just a hair longer than the A-mount G version (not a large 35mm like the Sigma or Canon) but you are losing the mirror box depth, so the package is going to be significantly more compact.

 

[dandrewk]

Fast lenses, sharp lenses, will almost always equate to larger size and weight. So before we start vilifying Sony for not taking advantage of mirror less technology with lens designs, how about we compare apples to apples?

Nikon 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 77mm
Weight: 680g
Size: 3.2 x 4.9"

Canon 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 77mm
Weight: 615g
Size: 3.25 x 4.44"

Sony 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 72mm
Weight: 518g
Size: 3.07 x 3.88"

I have zero complaints.

 

[Show Performance]

Make sure you shave off that extra mirror box depth and weight while you are at it!

Fast lenses, sharp lenses, will almost always equate to larger size and weight. So before we start vilifying Sony for not taking advantage of mirror less technology with lens designs, how about we compare apples to apples?

Nikon 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 77mm
Weight: 680g
Size: 3.2 x 4.9"

Canon 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 77mm
Weight: 615g
Size: 3.25 x 4.44"

Sony 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 72mm
Weight: 518g
Size: 3.07 x 3.88"

I have zero complaints.

 

[ZoranC]

I crudely resized the new lenses to match the 55/1.8 and it doesn't seem too bad ...

If your effort is close enough approximation of real relative sizes then I would have to agree it's not too bad. If that wishful thinking ends up fulfilled then I will also pray Sony makes them in "not misaligned" version, unlike my copies of 35/2.8. (Sony, are you listening?)

 

[ZoranC]

Fast lenses, sharp lenses, will almost always equate to larger size and weight. So before we start vilifying Sony for not taking advantage of mirror less technology with lens designs, how about we compare apples to apples?

Nikon 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 77mm
Weight: 680g
Size: 3.2 x 4.9"

Canon 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 77mm
Weight: 615g
Size: 3.25 x 4.44"

Sony 16-35 F4.0:
Filter thread: 72mm
Weight: 518g
Size: 3.07 x 3.88"

I have zero complaints.

Then why go through all expense of switching to mirroless, please? Could you please tell us what would justify time and money expense of selling systems we own now with platitude of lenses that are available now for system with lenses that will be available mañana mañana if we are not going to be making any progress? Did we gain anything in autofocusing accuracy, consistency and speed? What about autofocus tracking? Face recognition? Dynamic range etc over Nikon? Anything? No? So take away size and weight and what is left to justify burning money and all the effort? Anything? We should do it just because we like making our lives complicated switching systems and have nothing better to do with our time and money?

Take away everything and we should have stayed with our existing already paid off gear. At least my 50s and 35s on Nikon are not having color shifts, and I have not heard of Canon's having them either.