Sony Lenses

[John Koerner]

You know, Sony seems to be doing a great thing by bringing out more and new lenses for its impressive-sensored, under-usable cameras ... which seems to be nice, on the surface.

However, they're always charging more for their lenses, than either Nikon or Canon, which I think is shooting themselves in the foot.

Take a look at their new 50mm f/1.4 prime. Nice-looking lens, appears to have good specs ... but $1,500? Really?

And how about their telephotos?

The Sony 300mm is $7,500 compared to Nikon's 300mm (which is only $5,500) and Canon's 300mm (which is $6,100), and yet the Sony lens is the lowest-ranking on LenScore (1146, compared to 1367 for Nikon and 1333 for Canon).

Same with the Sony 500mm lens ($13,000!!) compared to Nikon's 500mm ($10,300) and Canon's 500mm ($9,000) ... and here again the Sony ranks 200 marks lower than the big boys LenScore (1132 for Sony, compared to 1354 for the Nikon and 1322 for the Nikon).

What is Sony thinking?

Just because its sensors are good, doesn't mean their camera functions and lenses are good.

You would think, if they're the new kids on the block, and they're creating inferior lenses, that they would at least offer a value for them, rather than over-charging for inferior products.

Just a rant, sorry.

[shadowblade]

Check out the new 24-70 and 85 GM lenses.

Those are insane - they make non-Otus Zeiss lenses look soft. No test data available yet, though.

[John Koerner]

The Sony 24-70 and 85 G look comparable to the Canon 24-70L II and 85mm, in both price and specs.

But their super-telephoto lenses are significantly sub-par, yet significantly more expensive.

[shadowblade]

Wouldn't surprise me. It's not like they have an action camera yet to go with them, although the A9 may change things (the A7r2's AF is even more accurate than the 1Dx2 or D5 - just a good deal slower). So there's not much demand for fast superteles on Sony E-mount yet.

[shadowblade]

The Sony 24-70 and 85 G look comparable to the Canon 24-70L II and 85mm, in both price and specs.

I'd rate them a cut above in terms of optical quality. Maybe it's improved manufacturing leading to a smoother surface or more precise shape, but they seem sharper. Need some definitive data, though.

[John Koerner]

Exactly.

What is there to tempt the consumer to give them a shot?

They have under-functioning cameras, they produce lower-level prime telephotos ... and then they charge 30% more for them

Hence my rant

They're shooting themselves in the foot IMO.

I could see if their 1100-rated 300mm lens was, say, $3000. Then I might want to try one overtop of a Sony camera for wildlife.

But they charge $7500. Why would I want to spend that kind of money to put a so-so lens over an under-functioning camera ... when I could spend $2K less, get a better Nikon lens, and put it over a highly-functional camera that gives me field advantages, not disadvantages?

Their pricing makes no sense ...

[John Koerner]

I'd rate them a cut above in terms of optical quality. Maybe it's improved manufacturing leading to a smoother surface or more precise shape, but they seem sharper. Need some definitive data, though.

Well, let's see what the data says.

For portraiture and such, I can see the attraction. (Plus their pricing is more comparable.)

But their sports telephoto price points are insane, given the inferior optical quality + under-functional cameras.

[scyth]

However, they're always charging more for their lenses, than either Nikon or Canon, which I think is shooting themselves in the foot.

you a lot of 5x mm AF lenses for FE... 3 from Sony, 1 from Samyang, etc plus with adapters (for Canon and A-mount) you have even more... and if you consider a non AF options - everything is on the table ...

[shadowblade]

The cameras are hardly under-functional.

How else can you get a Canon TS-E or zoom, or any Leica lens, in front of an Exmor sensor?

The AF is also incredibly accurate (no 'within 1/3 of the DOF' garbage like Canon/Nikon), especially with eye focus (which, unfortunately, only works with human eyes). It just isn't fast enough for action. But that's what the 1Dx/1Dx2 are for.

[scooby70]

What is Sony thinking?

Just a rant, sorry.

I think Sony is thinking that they want to make high end AF lenses that'll work well on high MP count cameras.

The think is that these days "we" can look really closely and nit pick on screen at 100%, 200% or higher and "we" expect across the frame goodness and an almost total lack of optical nasties but sadly achieving all this means big and heavy and expensive lenses.

As for the rant, there's a simple answer. Don't look at what Sony are doing, don't care and go and buy a Canon DSLR

[John Koerner]

The cameras are hardly under-functional.

Maybe not compared to a cell phone, but compared to the modern Nikon cameras the Sony's are 1-trick ponies.

How else can you get a Canon TS-E or zoom, or any Leica lens, in front of an Exmor sensor?

I don't want a Canon TS-E lens, and I could get a mount for a Nikon camera for a Leica.

Also, the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor.

The AF is also incredibly accurate (no 'within 1/3 of the DOF' garbage like Canon/Nikon), especially with eye focus (which, unfortunately, only works with human eyes). It just isn't fast enough for action.

Exactly my point: under-functional.

But that's what the 1Dx/1Dx2 are for.

Nice troll attempt

Although the new Canon 1Dx II is the fastest at 14 fps, fast is a poor substitute for accurate ... which is what the D5/D500 are for ... better sensors ... better primes ... better functionality ... and better price tag

Jack

[scyth]

but compared to the modern Nikon cameras the Sony's are 1-trick ponies.

but what is your issue then ? you get modern Nikon cameras and whatever lenses you can mount there and you live happily ever after... why so much concern about Sony Imaging well being ?

[John Koerner]

but what is your issue then ? you get modern Nikon cameras and whatever lenses you can mount there and you live happily ever after... why so much concern about Sony Imaging well being ?

My issue is price versus value.

Though I have made my own purchase decision, I still have an eye out of (and appreciate) great products at great prices.

For this reason, I laud the Pentax K1, as it seems to be an outstanding product at a modest price.

By contrast, the Sony telephoto lenses are so-so products at ridiculous prices.

That's all ...

[shadowblade]

I don't want a Canon TS-E lens, and I could get a mount for a Nikon camera for a Leica.

Not for a Leica M, which are the really sharp lenses (designed as they are for modern full-frame and crop sensors, unlike the R or S lines).

Also, the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor.

Actually, the best sensor for action is probably either the A7r2 or 1Dx2, not the D5. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

1Dx2 - same high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance (for daytime matches, etc.).
A7r2 - similar high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance, twice as much resolution for cropping.

That's just the sensor, not counting the rest of the camera (e.g. the fact that the A7r2 has no decent native long telephotos and tracks slowly).

Exactly my point: under-functional.

So, it's not optimal for shooting action.

The D5 has low resolution and poor DR for landscapes.

[scyth]

My issue is price versus value.

which is not an issue all - as noted, get Nikon mount system which has better modern cameras and better price vs value lenses... why worry about Sony Imaging and keep an eye out for it as it does not offer better modern cameras for you ? I can understan when you see better cameras for your work from Sony and then moan about lenses - but Sony does not offer you anything at all .. no ?

[scyth]

Actually

I suggest to use http://photonstophotos.net, even the man behind it a Nikon shooter... sports oriented sensor is low mp, many FPS, competetive @ high gains in low light typically... D5 is a good one, Sony Imaging does not have a camera for Sony Semi to design such FF sensor and Nikon does not offer to pay for design / to buy one on acceptable terms (or on whatever terms)... when Nikon offers then Sony Semi delivers something like a sensor in D500, certainly D5 with Sony Semi sensor 'd be better than D5 with a non Sony Semi sensor 

[John Koerner]

Not for a Leica M, which are the really sharp lenses (designed as they are for modern full-frame and crop sensors, unlike the R or S lines).

Leica aren't action lenses, though.

Actually, the best sensor for action is probably either the A7r2 or 1Dx2, not the D5. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RM2

Not so.

If you're shooting action/speed, you need high ISO.

In wooded conditions, ISO 2000+.

The D5 kicks butt here, and beyond, and has better AF accuracy. It isn't even a contest.

If you're talking Base ISO, the Nikon D500 and D810 are better.

1Dx2 - same high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance (for daytime matches, etc.).
A7r2 - similar high-ISO performance, better low-ISO performance, twice as much resolution for cropping.

You mean, less and much less, right?

That's just the sensor, not counting the rest of the camera (e.g. the fact that the A7r2 has no decent native long telephotos and tracks slowly).

You exaggerate on the sensor, but have to concede on the camera ... which brings us full circle to my point: Sony charges more, but gives you less in their lenses + under-equipped cameras.

The D5 has low resolution and poor DR for landscapes.

Um, guess what? The Nikon D5 is not a landscape camera. If you need the best Base ISO scores, try the Nikon D810

No one needs to make a billboard-sized photo of an action shot: magazines and online publications are all that matters: and this is where the Nikon D5 trumps anything a Sony combo could produce, will get you the shots a Sony combo will miss, and will save you thou$and$ in the process

[pegelli]

Just a rant, sorry.

Feel better now?
Just buy that Nikon stuff you find better at cheaper prices and be happy, basically no need for rants then

[John Koerner]

Feel better now?

I do, Pieter, thank you

Just buy that Nikon stuff you find better at cheaper prices and be happy, basically no need for rants then

I did, Pieter, thank you again

However, as a fan of cameras and lenses in general, and especially of new and better technology ... I am a self-appointed "watchdog" of sorts ... and I give praise to those camera/lens combos that offer the best bang for the buck ... and I vilify and condemn those who offer "substandard for more"

Unfortunately, Sony telephotos qualifies for the latter ... while the Pentax K1 qualifies for the former.

[pegelli]

... I am a self-appointed "watchdog" of sorts ...

and a highly appreciated one, judging by how most discussions turn out on these posts you make