The GetDPI Photography Forum

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!

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

Annna T

Active member
I believe the correct technical term for your behavior is concern-trolling. Now I'm sure it's very enjoyable but I personally think that when taken to extremes it is rude and boring. Wouldn't you be better off telling the folks on the Nikon forum how great the D5 is compared to the A7R 2? That would be spreading joy.
I don't think he is trolling and although I own an A7r and A7r2, I agree with most of what he says.
 

Annna T

Active member
Here are a couple of other large aperture portrait lenses that I believe are made to handle future high res cameras as well:

Hasselblad/Fujinon HC 110mm f/2.2:
Weight: 780g
Length: 80.5mm
Diameter: 87.5mm
Filter thread: 77mm

Leica Summicron-S 100mm f/2:
Weight: 910g
Length: 102.0mm
Diameter: 91.0mm
Filter thread: 82mm

Sony 85mm f/1.4 GM:
Weight: 820g
Length: 108.0mm
Diameter: 90.0mm
Filter thread: 77mm

Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-S:
Weight: 595g
Length: 83.8mm
Diameter: 86.4mm
Filter thread: 77mm

So, the Sony is slightly larger but also slightly lighter than the Leica, which covers a larger sensor and for sure must be designed to handle larger resolution sensors in the future. The ancient Hasselfuji which covers 60x45mm is clearly no slouch either. And the Nikon? There are reasons why people still buy those clunky, old flip-flap cameras you know. It's cheaper too :p

So they've made a portrait lens as large and heavy as a medium format lens of similar caliber. Does it bother me? Not one bit, but it has given me yet another reason not to consider the A7. 85mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, and the Nikkor suddenly looks almost pocketable :ROTFL:

Edit: Maybe you should ban me from the Sony forum, so that you can enjoy your gear without having to see my poisonous mails on every page :LOL:
Happily the Zeiss Batis is more or less the weight of the Nikkor :

Zeiss Batis 85 F2 :
Weight: 602g
Length: 131mm (I wonder whether the lenshood isn't included in that length)
Diameter: 79mm (same for the diameder ?)
Filter thread: 62mm

But I prefer the 90mm F2.8 macro which weight only 475gr in spite of being a Sony G lens too.

Also those Batis lenses are nearly impossible to get at. Here no online dealer is showing one in stock. They aren't even predicting a possible delivery date. Not even the brick and mortar shops either.
 

jfirneno

Member
I don't think he is trolling and although I own an A7r and A7r2, I agree with most of what he says.
Jorgen:
It turns out you are right and I am wrong. GetDPI Sony forum enjoys your fascinating and and in no way repetitive posts. Unfortunately I have a defect that makes it impossible for me to enjoy this wisdom. Adios folks and enjoy the show.
 

Paratom

Well-known member
Interesting that the 24-80/2.8 GM Sony lens has nearly the same dimensions like the Leica 24-90/2.8-4.0 lens (even though the second is somewhat heavier)

It appears that highest Quality lenses for mirrorless cameras are not smaller to build than there Counterparts for DSLRs.

The question for me is: If one wants to use such lenses, are the Sony A7 series bodies size appropriate for a compfortable handling?
I expect Sony will present a Little bigger proffessional Body in the future. But thats just my guess.
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Jorgen:
It turns out you are right and I am wrong. GetDPI Sony forum enjoys your fascinating and and in no way repetitive posts. Unfortunately I have a defect that makes it impossible for me to enjoy this wisdom. Adios folks and enjoy the show.
We all have defects. One of mine is that I have problems closing my mouth, and words keep pouring out. I try to be friendly though :)
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Interesting that the 24-80/2.8 GM Sony lens has nearly the same dimensions like the Leica 24-90/2.8-4.0 lens (even though the second is somewhat heavier)

It appears that highest Quality lenses for mirrorless cameras are not smaller to build than there Counterparts for DSLRs.

The question for me is: If one wants to use such lenses, are the Sony A7 series bodies size appropriate for a compfortable handling?
I expect Sony will present a Little bigger proffessional Body in the future. But thats just my guess.
Cannot get around physics. It's still a full frame sensor. Also Sony has a extra special element in it to kill the onion rings and uts designed for higher than current Mpx sensors. There building for future higher res. Sensors that adds size.
 

Guy Mancuso

Administrator, Instructor
Line Leica has done in the past with the 35-70 2.8 which they only built 500 and cost a absolute fortune and they lost money on it but but it was a statement lens that they could build one. I know I had one at 6k but Sony is making the same statement to canon and Nikon users. It's a clear statement that we can build top notch Pro line optics it's here for you to switch over now. Actually brilliant marketing . Buy it or not they don't care it's a statement we are going to support Pro usage. I love it as it's a brilliant move on there part. Remember more PR more forum threads more whining about size weight and all that creates PR which equals sales. One of the best marketing moves I seen in years in this industry
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
Are you talking about the Seiss designed, Cosina made Otus? It is just a manual focus lens, better on a mirrorless cam but made for DSLRs for reasons that only Cosina know! :ROTFL:
The Cosina 85mm Otus and Milvus are indeed spectacular lenses. I'd love to have either, but I really have all the manual focus glass that I need. I was thinking about the Nikkor. Like most other Nikon products, it reminds me of Volvo; intensely boring until you get behind the wheel and realize that there isn't really anything important to complain about. With my work situation, that is what I need. I can carry heavy stuff, but I can't accept gear that doesn't work as I expect it to and gear that doesn't fit my brain like a glove.

To be on the safe side, I drive a Toyota Corolla. It's even more boring than a Volvo.
 
Here are a couple of other large aperture portrait lenses that I believe are made to handle future high res cameras as well:

Hasselblad/Fujinon HC 110mm f/2.2:
Weight: 780g
Length: 80.5mm
Diameter: 87.5mm
Filter thread: 77mm

Leica Summicron-S 100mm f/2:
Weight: 910g
Length: 102.0mm
Diameter: 91.0mm
Filter thread: 82mm

Sony 85mm f/1.4 GM:
Weight: 820g
Length: 108.0mm
Diameter: 90.0mm
Filter thread: 77mm

Nikkor 85mm f/1.4 AF-S:
Weight: 595g
Length: 83.8mm
Diameter: 86.4mm
Filter thread: 77mm

So, the Sony is slightly larger but also slightly lighter than the Leica, which covers a larger sensor and for sure must be designed to handle larger resolution sensors in the future. The ancient Hasselfuji which covers 60x45mm is clearly no slouch either. And the Nikon? There are reasons why people still buy those clunky, old flip-flap cameras you know. It's cheaper too :p

So they've made a portrait lens as large and heavy as a medium format lens of similar caliber. Does it bother me? Not one bit, but it has given me yet another reason not to consider the A7. 85mm is one of my favourite focal lengths, and the Nikkor suddenly looks almost pocketable :ROTFL:

Edit: Maybe you should ban me from the Sony forum, so that you can enjoy your gear without having to see my poisonous mails on every page :LOL:
The modern optics will get bigger and heavier to cope with the future, high resolution bodies. You are comparing the optics of the yesteryear and wondering why the GM 85 is big and heavy.

Let's just look at the recent Leica SL, another FF mirrorless. For all the expertise that Leica has had this whole time in miniaturizing lenses, the new SL are just ginormous and weighty. Even though the SL body is bigger, I don't think the native combo would be balance either.

What I have compiled this comparison table with the usual spec. But I also included the release year to put things in perspective.



Look at the newly released 2015 Nikon 24-70 VR, it's a monster. The rest of Canikon optics have at least a 6-year lag, most notably the 85 category.

As soon as Canikon release their next iteration of the 85, they would be big and heavy as well. Heck, the 2015 Milvus 85 is a 1.21 kg monster. What you are saying right now is like why the new Canon 35/1.4 II is bigger and heavier than the old Canon 35/1.4 when the old Canon is adequate for your needs.
 

Jim DE

New member
Line Leica has done in the past with the 35-70 2.8 which they only built 500 and cost a absolute fortune and they lost money on it but but it was a statement lens that they could build one. I know I had one at 6k but Sony is making the same statement to canon and Nikon users. It's a clear statement that we can build top notch Pro line optics it's here for you to switch over now. Actually brilliant marketing . Buy it or not they don't care it's a statement we are going to support Pro usage. I love it as it's a brilliant move on there part. Remember more PR more forum threads more whining about size weight and all that creates PR which equals sales. One of the best marketing moves I seen in years in this industry
Guy I don't disagree with your post but really don't think glass alone is what is holding most pro's back. You and I both know prosumers are far more likely to switch systems looking for the holy grail than pro's. Pro's tend to resist changing anything or even more resist buying anything till what they have is completely wore out. We are a cheap lot who grasp on to the life statement that "if its not broke don't fix it"! If they are getting paid for what they do and no one complains they stand pat with what they have and go all in with it. The brands they use they have used for decades and some shiny new fast glass from another brand is not going to change their bet, in fact they may double down and resist even more just to justify to themselves what is in their hand is truly the best for them(which I cannot argue with as for each individual what works and feels the best IS the best for them).

Prosumers and wannabes (or think-they-bees) and newbee's look for the golden ring on the product merry go round far more than paid professionals. They think that equipment is the holy grail and will magically propel them to starhood. It won't, it can't , and everyone knows it is what is going on in the 12 inches behind the tools that is the only thing that can do that.

The 3 new lense offered may appeal to some pros who's genre uses those focal lengths but lot get paid who use much wider and much longer focal lengths as their preferred tools for what they do. I for one don't use the zooms in those focal lengths I have in my other systems and they collect dust. Would the new zoom make me as a pro rush to Sony for what I do? Nope ( this is theoretical as I am already all in with Sony just making the point that many genre that photographers get paid well to shoot just would not have much interest in the glass offered). Guy for what you get paid to do these new lenses may be the best thing since a scrapple ;) . It just depends on needs and wants but I truly would not expect many pros ( I hate the term Pro's but ) to move from what they have for shiny new fast glass. If I was Sony I would not even target them as we are cheap BUT the prosumers? Oh yeah I would glitter this pig so much they loose sleep till they empty their wallets to obtain them all!!! That is the customer base that spends money and switches brands like some change their underwear searching for that little bit of difference that will pave their path in gold. Fools and their money are soon parted.....
 
Last edited:

Annna T

Active member
It appears that highest Quality lenses for mirrorless cameras are not smaller to build than there Counterparts for DSLRs.
All is a question of compromises and where you make it : size and weight ? max aperture ? image quality (sharpness, distortion, aberrations etc.) ? built quality and material quality ? or price ? You can't get all at the same time.

But I think that apart of a few lenses (28mm F2.8, 35mm F2.8 and 55mm F1.8) we are getting way too heavy lenses. Sony made a compact body, but doesn't care about the lenses sizes. The choice of material could help with the weight.

Here is an example of the lenses available for the Zeiss Contax G RF and those lenses are full frame :

16mm F8 (a stellar lens, no distorsion).
Close focus : 0,3m
Optics : 5/3 (lenses, groups)
Max aperture : F8
Blades : none
length 11mm
Weight : 125gr

21mm F2.8 a superb lens, very sharp and without distortion.
Close focus : 0,5m
Optics : 9/7 (lenses, groups)
Max aperture : F2.8
Blades : 7
length : 35.5mm
filter size : 55mm
Weight : 180gr

28mm F2.8
Close focus : 0,5m
Optics : 7/5 (lenses, groups)
Max aperture : F2.8
Blades : 6
length : 30.5mm
filter size : 46mm
Weight : 150gr Sony FE 28mm F2 : 200gr. I'd have preferred one with slower max aperture, but lower distorsion.

35mm F2 could be sharper in the corners
Close focus : 0,5m
Optics : 7/5 (lenses, groups)
Max aperture : F2
Blades : 7
length : 31.5mm
filter size : 46mm
Weight : 150gr Sony 35mm F2.8 : 120gr.

45mm F2 incredibly sharp
Close focus : 0,5m
Optics : 6/4 (lenses, groups)
Max aperture : F2
Blades : 6
length : 63mm
filter size : 46mm
Weight : 190gr Sony FE 55mm F1.8 weight : 280gr. the Sony Zeiss lens is superb but the 1/3d larger max aperture cause an increase of 100gr.

90mm F2.8
Close focus : 1 m
Optics : 5/4 (lenses, groups)
Max aperture : F2.8
Blades : 6
length : 35.5mm
filter size : 46mm
Weight : 150gr There is no light short tele for the Sony FE system. The 90mm F2.8 macro is huge and weight 425gr.

The Contax G lenses have compromised on both the max aperture and some aberrastions like fringing and exhibits a harsh bokey. But they are usually extremely sharp and well corrected (little distorsion). I think the material used explain part of the light weight, plus the lower number of lenses and groups and the lower number of blades.

For the A7r, there are only three light lenses of this kind : the FE 28mm F2, the FE35mm F2.8 and the FE55mm F1.8 (already quite bigger). There are no short tele available in that category, no wider angle than F28mm; instead of continuing to develop this line, we are getting lenses so big they are unbalanced on the A7x bodies.


The question for me is: If one wants to use such lenses, are the Sony A7 series bodies size appropriate for a compfortable handling?
I expect Sony will present a Little bigger proffessional Body in the future. But thats just my guess.
Good question !

It is as if Sony started small and with the E-mount in order to lure Nex owners to jump into full frame, but then this didn't succeed, so they surrendered to the vocal crowd whinning for faster lenses on bigger bodies. The development of the FE mount is erratic to say the least.

May be that if we whine as loud as the crowd asking fast lenses, Sony will hear us in the end and keep a line of small sharp distorsionless primes adapted to the small bodies : who knows ?
 

Annna T

Active member
Cannot get around physics. It's still a full frame sensor.
No, but you have to choose where you make the compromises. For the small A7x bodies, the lower weight should be balanced against the fastest apertures. It isn't coherent to make huge lenses for small bodies. It isn't even ergonomic.
 

Annna T

Active member
The modern optics will get bigger and heavier to cope with the future, high resolution bodies. You are comparing the optics of the yesteryear and wondering why the GM 85 is big and heavy.

(...)

As soon as Canikon release their next iteration of the 85, they would be big and heavy as well. Heck, the 2015 Milvus 85 is a 1.21 kg monster. What you are saying right now is like why the new Canon 35/1.4 II is bigger and heavier than the old Canon 35/1.4 when the old Canon is adequate for your needs.
I think there is also a great part of lazyness in not caring for the weight. There are new materials available which should allow lighter lenses. My progressive eyeglasses are made by Zeiss and they are at the same time incredibly clear and incredibly lighter than the previous ones I had, this despite complex corrections.
 
I think there is also a great part of lazyness in not caring for the weight. There are new materials available which should allow lighter lenses. My progressive eyeglasses are made by Zeiss and they are at the same time incredibly clear and incredibly lighter than the previous ones I had, this despite complex corrections.
I have not seen any high-end optics in the past two years from any makers that would buck this trend of going bigger and heavier, including that Leica Lux 28/1.4. The fact that people can pixel-peep so willy-nilly nowadays that highly-corrected lenses are the only way to go. Those would need more elements for correction. To handle the added weight, AF mechanisms and the lens housing should be more robust (more parts or better material) as well.

However, I do agree that there is a certain laziness in the industry for not pushing aggressively for a more ray angle friendly sensor or different types of lens elements.

Canon has their new BR tech that might promise a better performance with less use of heavy ASPH glass, but they're the only one in town. Organic sensor might promise a future of small, light, rangefinder-like lenses, but that is uncertain. With the neck-breaking pace of high MP body introduction, I don't see how this is going to change any time soon. For light and small lenses, one has to settle with slower than f/1.4 (or even f/2) and more compromised performance.
 

CSP

New member
I think there is also a great part of lazyness in not caring for the weight. There are new materials available which should allow lighter lenses. My progressive eyeglasses are made by Zeiss and they are at the same time incredibly clear and incredibly lighter than the previous ones I had, this despite complex corrections.
are you serous you compare the design of a single lens which does not really need to resolve a lot with a complex lens design for a zoom ?


and even when it is possible to build lighter lenses i would in any case opt for the lens with more weight. it is far more easier to stabilize a heavier lens than a light one. for me the sony 70-200 4 is far to light for handheld shooting especially when you use the aps -c mode so it becomes a 300mm.
 

CSP

New member
No, but you have to choose where you make the compromises. For the small A7x bodies, the lower weight should be balanced against the fastest apertures. It isn't coherent to make huge lenses for small bodies. It isn't even ergonomic.
seems for mosts of the time it was not a problem for photographers to shoot a large lens attached to a small body or was the nikon F or canon F1 not a big success and standard for professional photography in almost 25 years ?
 

Jorgen Udvang

Subscriber Member
I have not seen any high-end optics in the past two years from any makers that would buck this trend of going bigger and heavier, including that Leica Lux 28/1.4. The fact that people can pixel-peep so willy-nilly nowadays that highly-corrected lenses are the only way to go. Those would need more elements for correction. To handle the added weight, AF mechanisms and the lens housing should be more robust (more parts or better material) as well.
What you are saying is in reality that photography to a large degree has been replaced by pixel peeping, and I think you are right. While I find it fascinating to see all the detail that I can get using the 36MP camera, it has little or no artistic value. When I'm not doing photos for a client or shooting stock, I'm mostly back to the older 12MP variety. It's just as satisfying, and 8 years ago it was state-of-the-art.

What I would have liked to see is an 85mm along the same lines as the 55mm f/1.8. It can't be that difficult, can it?
 

Paratom

Well-known member
seems for mosts of the time it was not a problem for photographers to shoot a large lens attached to a small body or was the nikon F or canon F1 not a big success and standard for professional photography in almost 25 years ?
Maybe my memory is wrong but I remember those cameras to be bigger with larger grips, wheels etc.
even though maybe slimmer design.
 

hcubell

Well-known member
With these new lenses, Sony is chasing the same crowd that they were notably unsuccessful in chasing with their A mount cameras and lenses. This, to me, is a big mistake. For every 24-70 F/2.8 FE zoom they sell at $2,200, I believe they would sell 5x or more that number if they released an F/4 24-70 zoom with spectacular performance that was half the size and charged the same $2,200.
 
Top