G Master lenses - 24-70mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4 & 70-200mm f/2.8

[Jim DE]

This is to no one specifically just a general statement from my observations since entering the A7x product line:

I have posted this so many times before it near makes me ill to read it myself but, I honestly cannot understand why in the heck user's from other manufacturers come to Sony forums to try and belittle or downgrade Sony products and sales. I know I NEVER go to other manufacturer forums anywhere on the web (except the medium format forum's fun with MF thread because I really like looking at their images) and even read what they write none the less post crap about their camera's. For one I don't even look at other camera's in camera stores, don't listen to the Canikon or other user guy's pumping themselves up in small groups at the photography society meeting's, read or research any of their products nor do I honestly give a ____ what their companies make or do or don't do. I just don't care!!!!!!

I came to Sony from Minolta many years ago with digitals (I was shooting Mamiya before coming to digital) and chose Minolta 7D back then because Nikon still had not entered this market and between Canon and Minolta I liked the idea of in camera stabilization over having to buy it in my lenses. Sony bought KM's camera division and I just followed because I had lots of glass that worked on the Sony's. I will buy and shoot Sony camera's till I die or they stop making them..... I have no reason to change as I am happy with what Sony hardware can do in my hands and my customers do as well. I do resent it when people who may or may not ever own a Sony product want to belittle or turn it into the product's THEY normally use from other companies. If their products are so ____ good why are they over here making unwanted unsolicited comments about our products to those who are happy with these products and not looking for what they have with their products? We are not drawn to their sites so our products must be making us happy and content. If we among ourselves want to say something about another manufacturer on this forum we don't need the Canikon police to try and convince us differently... it is what we may feel and that is ok, we didn't go over to those forum to state it, it was made among Sony users.

I have posted this on a Sony specific site to other Sony user's but if the shoe fit's? Wear it and walk away back to your manufacturers world.......... I can promise you I won't go over there and slam you products or sales with facts or fiction.:banghead:

Mark my words, these new lenses will be put through a firestorm just like every other new Sony product does from user's of other brands. They will find the most obscure far fetched little defect using a scenario of un-plausable criteria's far outside the lenses design intent and grasp it like a pitbull shaking it till it seem's like it is a earth shattering be all to end all defect among defects. Just like the Lossless/lossy Raw event.....

Jorgen. This post is not about you or your post ..... just a general rant myself from a tired die in the wool Sony user.

 

[iiiNelson]

You are right of course. Sony has developed the camera that many or most Canon and Nikon users wish that those brands had come up with. The most important reason why Canikon doesn't do it is clearly that they make an awful lot of money on the older technology. Nobody wants to challenge his most important source of income. Sony on the other hand entered the DSLR market with fanfare, declaring that within short time, they would be number one or two or whatever... I don't have time to dig into those old press releases and news articles. When they couldn't, they wanted to find another way to the top spot.

What annoys me endlessly, and resulted in the enormous rant last night (I have fast fingers for being such a grumpy, old man, don't you think?) is the repeated claims that:

1. Sony has more or less re-invented photography
2. Canon and Nikon will never catch up, but will be eaten by rabies infested dogs before the end of next week

Sony has:

a) Made a logical business decision, trying to divert attention away from a technology they couldn't succeed with to a newer technology where they had a better chance of succeeding.
b) Produced cameras (the A7 Series) that many photographers (myself included) where asking for on assorted forums across the internet. The final product is so similar to all the photoshopped FM-D and OM-D pictures out there that it's almost scary.
c) Integrated different kinds of advanced, attractive technologies, some from their own toolboxes and some from other sources, that has ended up in a camera unlike any others currently on the market.

Sony has always been a rebellious company. When I jokingly called the A900 the "Walkman Camera" years ago on this forum, it was actually a compliment to Sony and one of the most successful innovations in the history of consumer electronics. It was based on an interview I read decades ago with Sony co-founder Masaru Ibuka (I think it was him) in the Danish HiFi magazine High Fidelity, an interview that impressed me enormously.

The A7 is a result of the same style of innovation. Unfortunately, it also carries the same kind of limitations, limitations that weren't important during the pre-internet 1970s, but can become fatal in a world where new products are launched literally at the speed of sound. Whatever limitations the Walkman had, the competitors spent years bringing new products to the market to offer real competition, and before they could, Sony had an improved product on the table already.

In today's volatile society, a competing product from Canon and Nikon can be brought to the market minutes after its development, and while I understand that Sony has its own views on user interface and ergonomics, it is after all an electronics company first and foremost, there are millions of Canikon users out there who, the moment a competing product with a well known interface and brand name is available, will run to the shops. It's just human behaviour.

So kudos to Sony for bringing the A7 to the market. It's a camera that I would love to have hadn't it been for some unbelievable quirks, and I might even buy one if Nikon doesn't get their big, fat asses off the ground. But I wish the people at Sony would look a bit more to the competition sometimes, both when it comes to product development and marketing approach. It's a successful company, but they aren't without faults. That may cost them, as it did when they gave the TV market to Samsung. I'm sure they still have some Minolta engineers around who could teach them a thing or two about cameras. They did with the A900 and A99. There's still time to make the A7 III with a proper battery.

And thank you to all the Sony/A7 enthusiasts for enduring my rants and blowouts. I'm only trying to be kind :cussing: :ROTFL: :ROTFL:

I think you're assuming that people haven't crossed shopped or evaluated the competition before choosing Sony. I was a Canon, Panasonic, and then a Leica shooter. Nikon was never really a serious option after my original CaNikon decision but a lot of that has to do with the "backwards controls."

I said it before, I don't believe most have an issue with contrary opinion but the elitist "you're dumb for buying into a Sony system" tone is condescending at least.

 

[Jim DE]

I will admit I haven't cross shopped in digital interchangeable lens cameras. Never found a need to because this hardware has always worked well for me. I am a sort of if its not broke don't fix it sort of person.

I have a Stellar, a canon g10 P&S in a waterproof housing. A Sigma DP2m on a nodel ninja mounted on a Bogen for pano's, and smartphone camera's but in the interchangeable lens cameras I currently have and still use 5 A mount Bodies, 3 E mount, 22 A mount Lenses, 11 e mount lenses, numerous adapted legacy film lenses.... I am in no way moving to any other system until this system is no longer made or usable. I am retired I know I will be long gone before either of those things ever happen.

I have absolutely no issue with contradictory conversations with anyone. But as was stated if it is with someone who does not own the product and is condensending in their tone or topics then I tend to be the same to them. It's like a sports team never likes a rival to disrespect them in their home field.

 

[Guy Mancuso]

Not to change the subject but thought this was relevant . I'm speaking of the new Sony 24-70 2.8 GM

I really have not looked too much at the specs comparing it to others and for me my reference is how much bigger it is over the 35mm 1.4 FE because that's what's in my bag today. I said this before that I don't mind having a bazoka lens in my bag as long as I'm not carrying several of them and I have no plans to have all 3 GM lenses . Than I thought a lot of folks are concerned about the weight and size of the 24-70 . Well it's full frame bodies we are dealing with and you can't change the physics. Than I copied all these specs from B&H. And surprised to see Nikons is bigger, heavier and more expensive to boot. Now these specs do not include any adapters so that's more length maybe let's say a inch and maybe 200-300grams heavier. Than if we look at this lens is native we get all the AF options.

Now after doing this I'm really wondering why there is even one complaint about it. This lens is not designed for the MPX cams we have today but much higher future MPX cams coming and we are getting them now.

I have to say after looking at this that there is not one abnormal factor about it. Besides the weight and size it's inline with everyone else. Price lower than Nikon higher than Tamron and Canon but don't forget the expense of the adapters here. I don't see a argument it seems very fair considering we are buying a lens that would have to be developed in the future and getting it today.

Now we can argue this till the cows come home and turn into steaks. But honestly on all counts it seems very reasonable. I know everybody wants to pay next to nothing. I'm a business too so Guy needs to put food on my table as well , so have zero issues charging clients what the market will bear. Does Sony not have that same privileges .

Anyway these specs seem normal to me

On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:44 PM, Guy Mancuso <[email protected]> wrote:

Sony 24-70
Front: 82 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.45 x 5.35" (87.6 x 136 mm)
Weight 1.95 lb (886 g)

Sony 35 1.4
Front:72 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.09 x 4.41" (78.5 x 112.0 mm)
Weight 1.39 lb (630 g)

Tamron 24-70 2.8

Physical
Filter Thread Front: 82 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.5 x 4.6" (8.89 x 11.68 cm)
Weight 29.1 oz (825 g)

Canon 24-70 2.8 latest version

Physical
Filter Thread Front:82 mm
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.48 x 4.45" (88.5 x 113 mm)
Weight 28.40 oz (805 g)

Nikon 24-70 2.8

Physical
Filter Thread Front: 82 mm x 0.75 mm Pitch
Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 3.46 x 6.08" (88 x 154.5 mm)
Weight 2.35 lb (1070 g)


Guy Mancuso
Commercial Photographer | Guy Mancuso Photography | Cave Creek, AZ

 

[Show Performance]

Wow, lot's of opinions, teeth gnashing and the expected comments from the neighbor peeking over the fence at your party - Hi Jorgen.

I say, kick back, relax and enjoy the ride. These lenses are no brainers for Sony, given the groundswell of switchers they have embraced since the launch of the a7RII. Every single one of my Canonikon friends that have come over (and there have been many) have all been chomping at the bit to replace their 2.8 zooms. Me, meh... Could care less for them, but I'm definitely interested in that 85/1.4.

As a Batis owner, yeah the lens is a great compromise of ultimate speed for size, and the addition of IS is indeed valuable. So why look at the Sony? I'd like to see if the promise of great bokeh and great resolution can be met, and with the extra speed, I'm looking at the lens as a two'fer. Many of us loved our ZA 135/1.8 and don't yet have a replacement for E-mount that can take advantage of native AF. With the GM 85, the crop equivelance is real close - ~130/2.1 - I can live with that and the 18mp crop. So now I can effectively carry two lenses in one, which I'll remember when I don't have to pack the 900+ grams of the ZA 135mm in addition to the 85mm.

And for those lamenting the size of these lenses, they are a necessary evil to appease those that like 2.8 zooms. Rarely if ever has a fast 85mm been small, and we still have options for small primes that DSLR users will never have. Shooting my little Zeiss 45/2 for Contax G on the a7RII with fast pdaf is a dream. A dream! Can't do that on a DSLR. And wait, there will be more small primes and we will soon see the AF M-mount adapter. People seem to forget that with mirrorless we can have it both ways - scale up or down. Who knows if Sony will release a larger DSLR type pro body - I don't so don't ask - but i wouldn't bet against it. Does anyone really think Sony is done with product announcements for the year?

The future lies with mirrorless there is zero doubt. So let's have some fun with it and enjoy the creative options we have.

Chad

 

[jaree]

Sony is making their shareholders very happy, and trust me, they know what they are doing.

I am sure they know what they are doing, but shareholders are happy...Really? Maybe if someone had a magic ball to buy exactly at the dips, then yes.

Quotes for SNE, Interactive - Yahoo! Finance

Now this is what is really making me happy as a shareholder:

Quotes for V, Interactive - Yahoo! Finance

In fact, a mid-cap ETF would beat most stocks out there:

Quotes for VO, Interactive - Yahoo! Finance

I would rather buy V, MA hold for 10 years and watch the money grow. Or, if you can stomach a wild ride and afford to lose it all or hit it out of the park (no middle ground) go for 3x leveraged UWTI Quotes for UWTI, Interactive - Yahoo! Finance

 

[jaree]

Now on to the camera and lenses:

I like the A7 and look forward to using the GM lenses soon. The beauty is that you don't have to buy them if they are too expensive and/or heavy for you - plenty of options available that are cheap and light and work very well.

And, who cares if DSLR sales are down or up, or if Sony will beat Canon or Nikon. Plenty of choices to go around, use what works for you.

 

[dmward]

Reading this is mildly entertaining. For me the real consideration is having the tools to get the job done.
The 24-70 F2.8 looks like a useful tool. The 70-200 less so for me, the 85 isn't substantially different than the Batis which I already have in my kit.

Heck, I'm even looking at E mount APS-C lenses that will get the job done with an A7RII.

Having the best tool is important. Everything else is coffee table bantering.

 

[GrahamWelland]

Now after doing this I'm really wondering why there is even one complaint about it. This lens is not designed for the MPX cams we have today but much higher future MPX cams coming and we are getting them now.

Beats me too. I would have thought than many many people would relish the opportunity now that they've gone to the Sony system to take advantage of the best lenses that Sony can create. My personal preference is with Medium format and Sony with TSE lenses but if I were only shooting Sony I'd be rushing to pick up the very best glass available that is fast and versatile and hopefully future proof.

If smaller size/weight is your thing then you are well covered by the f/4 lenses.

What's not to like? If you don't need/want them then it's simple, don't buy them. Bitching about it seems like a waste of time and effort to me.

And if you're a non-Sony shooter lobbing troll bombs in and comparing to other systems - what's the point? What are you trying to achieve in a Sony forum?

Just saying. :chug:

 

[Lucille]

Picture break:

The excellent Sony color signature. Thank you Sony, and I look forward to that sexy 85mm f/1.4



Sony A7R MII, 28mm f/2

 

[hcubell]

Beats me too. I would have thought than many many people would relish the opportunity now that they've gone to the Sony system to take advantage of the best lenses that Sony can create. My personal preference is with Medium format and Sony with TSE lenses but if I were only shooting Sony I'd be rushing to pick up the very best glass available that is fast and versatile and hopefully future proof.

If smaller size/weight is your thing then you are well covered by the f/4 lenses.

What's not to like? If you don't need/want them then it's simple, don't buy them. Bitching about it seems like a waste of time and effort to me.

And if you're a non-Sony shooter lobbing troll bombs in and comparing to other systems - what's the point? What are you trying to achieve in a Sony forum?

Just saying. :chug:

I doubt that anyone objects to the creation of big and fast native FE lenses for those that need them. What I object to is that Sony appears to be creating two segments in its its FE lens offerings: (1) big and fast and expensive lenses with the highest optical performance and (2) light and slower lenses that are considerably less expensive but offer lesser optical performance. The choice of FE 24-70mm zooms is an object case. The verdict is out, of course, on just how great the optical performance of the new 24-70mm f/2.8 G Master lens will turn out to be. However, the verdict has been in on the f/4 24-70mm for quite a while, and it is generally viewed as mediocre.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

I'm assuming these lenses are as much designed for the next generation of Sony E-Mount cameras as for the current models. I assume they will have, say, 84 MP resolution (double the current A7RII, but that makes sense because the only reason the A7RII has 42, not 50 megapixels is video).

i wonder how much notice they gave Zeiss.

Like some others have said, a G Master ultra-wide would be good, but that does not need to be a fast lens.

I'm in. When and where to buy is the only issue.

 

[Pradeep]

I came to this thread late and I can't believe all the whining going on.

If you don't like a product - simple, don't buy it! Has been said often enough. If you don't like a company or its vision - again, simple, stay off the forum dedicated to it. What is so difficult to understand about this?

I too don't like my 24-70 f4, but sometimes a company does not get it right with all their releases. There are many such duds in the Canon line-up too.

What Sony has shown with these new releases is that it has the courage to go beyond its perceived mandate. It bodes well for the future of photography and for all of us who love the medium. As far as weight and heft is concerned, yes, I too would happily pay the same amount for a lighter version, a better version of the 24-70 f4. Having said that, this new lens, if it does turn out to be stellar (and I don't see why not), then it would replace my Canon 24-70 2.8 MkII and by extension, replace my 1DX for photography in that focal length.

I love my Batis 85 so would not be interested in the new version. The 70-200 is a bit of an enigma, my current Canon version is f4 and mainly used for wildlife, so I would not buy the Sony release.

However, it is quite possible that Sony would come out with an A8 series with a larger body, more robust AF, higher frame rate and longer battery life. That would a very tempting wildlife camera.

I think these are good times for photographers in general and Sony is certainly a leader in innovation - just look at its amazing line-up of cameras - A7SII, A7RII, Rx1R2, A6300, all great examples of what is possible. There has been very little from Canon in contrast. The 1DX upgrade took four years - a really long time in camera development.

 

[Annna T]

I came to this thread late and I can't believe all the whining going on.

If you don't like a product - simple, don't buy it! Has been said often enough. If you don't like a company or its vision - again, simple, stay off the forum dedicated to it. What is so difficult to understand about this?

Sorry, but things aren't so simple. Each time a product comes out, other possibilities are cancelled or delayed for later. So it isn't about not buying what you don't like. It is about not being able to buy what you would like.

How much sense does it make to produce lenses for a sensor and a body (A8 or A9) that doesn't exist yet ?

Meanwhile what could be reasonably expected in matters of lenses and given the small size of the first A7x is still largely missing. There are only a few small and light lenses :

28mm F2.8 is light and cheap. It is very sharp, but exhibits way too much distorsion even after correction. I would happily pay more and even get a few more weight if it was better suited for architecture.

35mm F 2 : is light but not so cheap for the performance and has got mixed reviews. I didn't get one, because I prefer a 50mm.

55mm F1.8 : is stellar, I love it. It is already a little on the heavy side compared to the other two, but I can accept that in exchange of speed (a standard fast lens is the only fast lens I need).

The list of small and light lenses ends there for me. I wanted to add the two Batis, but they are still out if stock where I live six months after their announcement. I ended up getting the 90mm macro, but not with a light heart because I wanted a smaller and lighter lens instead.

When I entered the A7 system it wasn't to find myself in DSLRs territory again. It was because of
A) the Sony sensor IQ
B) the mirrorless concept (I'm an early and enthusiast adopter of MFT)
C) the small size of the first elements of that system which led me to hope for a digital M equivalent (A7r, 35mm F2.8 and 55mm F2.8)

Now three years later what is available ? A few cheap so so lenses (only one more than the first two issued) or Canon Nikon equivalents in matters of size and weight.

The A7r2 weight 625gr. aka 200gr. more than the A7r, compared to 770gr. for my Canon 6D and all the three lenses recently announced are about the weight of their Canon counterparts.

Where is a light 135mm F2.8 or F4 ? Where are the wides and ultra wides ?

No, Sony preferred to spit out lenses for a body and a sensor not yet existing and increased the size of the A7r2. Do you really think that apart of a few landscape and product photographers there are many needing 84MB ? I find 36-42MB already overwhelming.. And in this very forum at least two pros wrote that they will use their A7r2 in APSC format for shooting events, 18MB being enough for that kind of jobs.

Great that Sony brings out F2.8 zooms, but first they should have brought out the light and high IQ lenses matching this smaller system.

Also at the beginning there were so many people whining to get a bigger body and faster lenses that they have apparently been heard. My turn to whine in the hope that Sony marketing planning section will not renegate the small system they had begun to built and send it to the dustbin of history.

Given the IQ of the Sony sensor and their low noise at higher ISOs and given IBIS fast lenses are less needed than before. How many will shoot the 85mm F1.4 at this aperture ? It means that if the iris is sharp, the eyelashes can already get soft and the eyebrow will be soft. Tony Northrup has a review of the three new lenses where he says the AF of the A7r2 isn't up to the task.. (The link to that video is at Sonyalpharumors, near the end of the video : eye AF is too slow and other AF options focus on the most front subject/element and focus by wire for MF..).

So it isn't as simple as not buying it, if we don't like it, because the system's offering is far from complete and when we get those fast lens monsters, we don't get the small light lenses we hope and which would have been more coherent with the A7r bodies.

 

[Vivek]

Let us see if these lenses ship without much QC issues like the previous ones from sony. There are more important issues to look for in a sony product than helft, weight and price.

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

Here's a thought. The RX1RII has a 35mm F/2 lens matched to the sensor - but it's a Zeiss, when surely, to be consistent with their new ambition, it should have been a G Master lens. My guess is they stuck with the Zeiss because it was inherited from its predecessor. A Mk III Rx1R camera should have a G Master.

Talking of Zeiss, the one problem I have with their prime lenses is bad longitudinal CA at wide apertures. This makes the supposed reduced CA of the G Master lens range, as well as their resolution, intriguing.

 

[Vivek]

Here's a thought. The RX1RII has a 35mm F/2 lens matched to the sensor - but it's a Zeiss, when surely, to be consistent with their new ambition, it should have been a G Master lens. My guess is they stuck with the Zeiss because it was inherited from its predecessor. A Mk III Rx1R camera should have a G Master.

Talking of Zeiss, the one problem I have with their prime lenses is bad longitudinal CA at wide apertures. This makes the supposed reduced CA of the G Master lens range, as well as their resolution, intriguing.

The 35/2 in a rx1 I/II is afaik a sony lens with a blue sticker. It perhaps is the first of the GM lenses sporting an AA *lens (Zeiss had no clue what that was when I asked them).

*"advanced aspheric"

 

[Quentin_Bargate]

T...It perhaps is the first of the GM lenses sporting an AA *lens (Zeiss had no clue what that was when I asked them).

*"advanced aspheric"

:facesmack:

I'd be worried (for us, as consumers) if Zeiss allowed Sony to brand a lens as Zeiss unless they had a hand in its design. It has T* coating, so Zeiss must have some involvement. I therefore very much doubt its a G Master in disguise

 

[GrahamWelland]

I still don't get it.

So the 24-70/4 isn't up to the expectations set by other lenses like the 16-35 or 70-200 or 90 macro. Well, it isn't unknown for companies to eventually update existing lenses with new formulations and designs. Heck even the dinosaurs such as Canon, Leica, Nikon or even Phase One/Mamiya or Rodenstock have a few perceived "dogs" in their lens line ups and eventually update/replace them. Now it must be said that historically that replacement takes place at a glacial rate, about a decade or longer if lenses like the Nikon 24-70/2.8 or 70-200/2.8 or Leica 50 Noctilux or 35 Summilux are anything to go by. oke:

Of course if Sony did replace one the current f/4 lenses then I'm sure that there would be people up in arms complaining that their current lenses have now become paper weights and their residual value on the secondhand market gutted etc etc. Such is the nature of Internet forums I guess.

 

[Pradeep]

Sorry, but things aren't so simple. Each time a product comes out, other possibilities are cancelled or delayed for later. So it isn't about not buying what you don't like. It is about not being able to buy what you would like.
................./snip

So it isn't as simple as not buying it, if we don't like it, because the system's offering is far from complete and when we get those fast lens monsters, we don't get the small light lenses we hope and which would have been more coherent with the A7r bodies.

With respect Anna, but a huge international company like Sony is not going to cater to your specific needs or wants. It does what it does because it feels that is where the future will take them. Now you (or I for that matter) can either choose to follow their philosophy or keep complaining about what WE as individuals want. It is up to us.

My goal is to get the best IQ in the smallest package and I too like you and many others bought into the A7 system. However, I am also a realist and stuck with my Canon gear for needs that cannot be met by the Sony.

FWIW, the Sony 16-35 f4 is smaller, lighter and equally good or better than the Canon, certainly at the wide end, I own both and have compared the two. I also have most of the lenses you mention except the Sony 90 G, didn't get it since I have the Batis 85.

Yes, Sony should release the 'bigger' and more capable Camera body before they release the lenses, but then everyone will complain there aren't any lenses to mate it with. Now you have superb lenses that you can use today on your A7R series and enjoy them while waiting for the supposedly yet to come bigger/better body.

If smaller and lighter is really what you want, you can still get the Leica M glass - I still occasionally use mine, you only have MF but it's there if you need it. There is the Batis 25 (granted, hard to find at present), offerings from Voigtlander, Loxia and other third parties that can work for you. Then of course there is the really, really fantastic Rx1R2.

Beyond 100mm, the laws of physics dictate that a fast lens has to be heavy, especially if it is a zoom, which is why Leica does not do well here.

I am happy there is innovation and there is development in progress, may not be exactly what I wanted, but I am excited nevertheless. It can only lead to better things.