Sony Lenses

[shadowblade]

Leica aren't action lenses, though.

I never mentioned Leica in the context of action shooting.

You can't put a Leica M lens in front of your D810 either.

Not so.

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

Not for daytime sports. You're going to be shooting wide-open for subject isolation. On a sunny day, you're getting 1/1600 or so at f/4 and ISO 100. Maybe bump it up to ISO 400 when it's overcast. It's not every match or every event, but frequent enough for low-ISO performance to matter.

In wooded conditions, ISO 2000+.

What sort of sport do you shoot in a forest?

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

Note the word 'sensor', not 'camera'. AF was never part of the argument.

The 1Dx2's AF also kicks ass. It can track a drone flying erratically, weaving through long grass and through branches against a backdrop of trees, shooting at 14fps and hitting 90% of shots.

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

At base ISO, the D500 isn't even competitive against the A7r2 and D810. Not only does it have less DR, it's also nowhere near as sharp, because a crop sensor demands so much more of the lens in front of it than a full-frame sensor.

You mean, less and much less, right?

The numbers speak for themselves. Real measurements, taken at every native ISO setting, not some overall, derived figure that doesn't even tell us what it's measuring.

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.

They give you the one thing the Exmor sensor really needed and which Nikon/Pentax/other Exmor users couldn't provide - a lens mount compatible with all the best landscape lenses available, as well as any other lens you might want to use.

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

And try sticking the sharpest landscape lenses in front of that D810.

That's right - except at the few focal lengths which coincide with Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma Art primes, you can't.

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

And which idiot uses a Sony to shoot action?

If you're spending $3k on an A7r2, you know exactly what you're getting and what you need. Criticising a body not designed for action for shooting it badly is as dumb as criticising the IQ280 for not being able to shoot birds in flight and having no suitable lenses for the job.

[John Koerner]

I never mentioned Leica in the context of action shooting.

You can't put a Leica M lens in front of your D810 either.

No, but I did.

Why do I need Leica M lenses, when the Zeiss Otus series provide better options?

Not for daytime sports. You're going to be shooting wide-open for subject isolation. On a sunny day, you're getting 1/1600 or so at f/4 and ISO 100. Maybe bump it up to ISO 400 when it's overcast. It's not every match or every event, but frequent enough for low-ISO performance to matter.

Nobody measures DR in an action shot, they look at the moment frozen with perfect timing.

The better lens + more accurate AF are therefore far more important than "DR" on an incompetent camera.

What sort of sport do you shoot in a forest?

Wildlife, genius.

Note the word 'sensor', not 'camera'. AF was never part of the argument.

Excuse me, but this is my thread topic, and I originated it with "lens" and "camera" ...

You're confusing your own proclivity for changing the topic with mine.

The fact is, AF is always a part of the deal in sports/wildlife (action) photography.

The 1Dx2's AF also kicks ass. It can track a drone flying erratically, weaving through long grass and through branches against a backdrop of trees, shooting at 14fps and hitting 90% of shots.

I agree.

It kicks ass against everything else ... except the Nikon D5 and D500

At base ISO, the D500 isn't even competitive against the A7r2 and D810. Not only does it have less DR, it's also nowhere near as sharp, because a crop sensor demands so much more of the lens in front of it than a full-frame sensor.

Again ... the right tool for the job.

At Base ISO, the D810 is king: which is what I grab, if needed.

If I need reach + good low ISO, I grab the D500, which is better than the A7RII, the 1Dx 2, or even the D5.

The numbers speak for themselves. Real measurements, taken at every native ISO setting, not some overall, derived figure that doesn't even tell us what it's measuring.

Real numbers, Base IS0 = Nikon D810.

They give you the one thing the Exmor sensor really needed and which Nikon/Pentax/other Exmor users couldn't provide - a lens mount compatible with all the best landscape lenses available, as well as any other lens you might want to use.

But a lousy, slow, dysfunctional camera for action.

And only the second-best for Base ISO

And try sticking the sharpest landscape lenses in front of that D810.
That's right - except at the few focal lengths which coincide with Zeiss Otus lenses and Sigma Art primes, you can't.

The Zeiss 15mm ... the Zeiss 20mm ... the Zeiss Otus 28mm ... the Zeiss Otus 55mm ... all of these fit on a D810, do they not?

And which idiot uses a Sony to shoot action?

The same idiot who suggested using the D5 for landscape?

If you're spending $3k on an A7r2, you know exactly what you're getting and what you need. Criticising a body not designed for action for shooting it badly is as dumb as criticising the IQ280 for not being able to shoot birds in flight and having no suitable lenses for the job.

Changing the subject to make a point is as dumb as suggesting to use a D5 for landscape.

The subject was Sony lenses ... and what was criticized to high-end were their sport/wildlife telephoto lenses ... that ONLY fit on their substandard, non-action cameras ... and fail miserably, stats-wise, compared to both Nikon and Canon.

Any other questions, or do you think you can stay on-topic now?

[shadowblade]

No, but I did.

Why do I need Leica M lenses, when the Zeiss Otus series provide better options?

Because Zeiss Otus only exists at three focal lengths, and those three lenses alone would take up half your pack already.

Nobody measures DR in an action shot, they look at the moment frozen with perfect timing.

The better lens + more accurate AF are therefore far more important than "DR" on an incompetent camera.

You were the one who brought up sensor performance. Which is what I argued on. Not camera performance.

And DR is inversely proportional to noise/SNR. The better the DR, the less noisy.

If DR doesn't matter in an action body, then the sensor itself barely matters. Which, for many applications of action cameras, is probably true.

Wildlife, genius.

You mentioned 'sport'.

Excuse me, but this is my thread topic, and I originated it with "lens" and "camera" ...

You're confusing your own proclivity for changing the topic with mine.

Direct quote I was responding to. I even quoted it earlier.

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

The fact is, AF is always a part of the deal in sports/wildlife (action) photography.

Obviously. But you had to say that 'the highest-functional sports sensor is a Nikon sensor, not an Exmoor'

It kicks ass against everything else ... except the Nikon D5 and D500

Test results? You've mentioned this time and time again, without showing a single comparison of production models of the two cameras.

Basically, you're saying 'it's better because I say it's better.' Guess which camera will be more commonly carried by the sports photographers at Rio in August. Hint: it's not the Nikon.

Again ... the right tool for the job.

At Base ISO, the D810 is king: which is what I grab, if needed.

Your comment was, 'At base ISO, the D500 and D810 are better.' This was in relation to my earlier quote, 'Actually, the best sensor for action is probably either the A7r2 or 1Dx2, not the D5,' which you had quoted directly before you made that statement.

There's no way the D500 sensor stacks up to the A7r2 or 1Dx2 (at any ISO) or the D810 (at base ISO).

The D500 has much less SNR (5dB less) at ISO 100 than the A7r2 and D810, and less than the 1Dx2.

Real numbers, Base IS0 = Nikon D810.

Yep, only just. Certainly not the yawning gulf you're claiming it is. And your lens selection is much more limited, outside of a few third-party primes.

I'll take the sharper lenses in exchange for the 1/3 stop of DR, and pocket the extra 6MP as spare change.

But a lousy, slow, dysfunctional camera for action.

As you said, 'the right tool for the job'. It's a perfect camera for non-action work. And a low-resolution action camera with limited base ISO performance is a lousy tool for landscapes.

The Zeiss 15mm ... the Zeiss 20mm ... the Zeiss Otus 28mm ... the Zeiss Otus 55mm ... all of these fit on a D810, do they not?

So, what's your solution at 45mm, or 70mm, or 160mm? Crop large chunks out of your image to achieve the desired composition? Or fly 150m into the air and 500m off a cliff in order to re-frame a landscape so that you can shoot it at one of your few available focal lengths?

Changing the subject to make a point is as dumb as suggesting to use a D5 for landscape.

The subject was Sony lenses ... and what was criticized to high-end were their sport/wildlife telephoto lenses ... that ONLY fit on their substandard, non-action cameras ... and fail miserably, stats-wise, compared to both Nikon and Canon.

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

In what world is a 50/1.4 prime a sport/wildlife telephoto lens?

[RobertJ]

If you're like me, and you're about to pull the trigger on some Otus lenses for the A7R2, the new Sony lenses are really, really cheap, especially after looking at the sharpness capabilities.

I just finished looking at the Sony 50mm 1.4 RAW samples in Capture One, most of them shot at 1.4 or 2.0, and what can I say?  The lens is really, really, really good!

If it's as sharp as the Otus, even wide open, the deciding factor would be if you care about the cyan/green fringing or not.  With the Otus, there's probably less, or close to zero thanks to the APO, while the Sony is going to have some fringing.  Also sample variation and corner to corner sharpness will probably put the Otus on top, but the Sony is probably the best non-third party standard lens I've seen so far.  Far, far better than anything from Nikon or Canon...so far. 

It looks similar to how the Zeiss Milvus 50mm 1.4 would perform, but somehow seems to have less fringing from the samples I've seen.  Of course I haven't seen anything scientific.

[Paulo Bizarro]

I don't see where the novelty is, really. I have never seen a sports or animal life pro using Sony system. Plus, are we confusing things?

Sony A mount system has a more complete lens system, compared to the more recent E mount system.

So you have found out that Sony A mount telephotos are more expensive, and less performing compared to Canon and Nikon. Good, nothing new here.

[Paulo Bizarro]

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


Just a rant, sorry.

The new 50mm lens follows the trend of the 55 f1.8 ZA lens; rather than producing a "me too" cheap standard lens, Sony has produced a really high quality lens. No doubt the new 50 1.4 comes from the same staple: lots of exotic glass and 11 bladed iris. Quality comes at a price.

I am sure your Nikon system does not have such high quality 50mm lenses, unless you get a Zeiss Otus or Zeiss Planar 50 FE:)

[chez]

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 ...

Do you also have the same angst when looking at Farraris or $3,000,000 homes? If something is too expensive for my taste, I just move on. Not worth the time lamenting over it.

[John Koerner]

Do you also have the same angst when looking at Farraris or $3,000,000 homes? If something is too expensive for my taste, I just move on. Not worth the time lamenting over it.

Chez, as soon as I wish to emulate "you," I will send for information.

But until then, I will pretty much do as I wish, thanks.

It is my belief that Sony's prices for their so-so telephoto lenses are a joke, especially considering their optics are inferior to existing Nikon/Canon glass, and that they deserve to be publicly-derided for it.

If you disagree, and believe I should keep this on the down-lo, I will have to learn to live without your approval. For that matter, Chez, some people might have just moved on and not have lamented my post

[chez]

Chez, as soon as I wish to emulate "you," I will send for information.

But until then, I will pretty much do as I wish, thanks.

It is my belief that Sony's prices for their so-so telephoto lenses are a joke, especially considering their optics are inferior to existing Nikon/Canon glass, and that they deserve to be publicly-derided for it.

If you disagree, and believe I should keep this on the down-lo, I will have to learn to live without your approval. For that matter, Chez, some people might have just moved on and not have lamented my post

Just an observation. Seems to me like you were getting all worked up on the price of equipment you don't even use. If that is what floats your boat...go for it...who am I to say otherwise.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would agree that Sony lenses are a bit overpriced and underperforming. But that wouldn't hurt you being a Nikon shooter or a former Canon shooter.

Best regards
Erik

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

Sounds like a great lens!

Sony can only be praised for understanding the market's expectation for premium lenses at reasonnable price points. They apparently choose a classical approach with a high performing lens featuring a good balance btwn technical qualities and look as opposed to the route chosen by Canon and Nikon to put a higher emphasis on look with their 50mm f1.2 and 58mm f1.4.

I would not confuse this with an inability to produce high quality lenses at competitive prices. The super tele produced by Sony currently sell in very small numbers because pretty much everybody needing one shoots Canon or Nikon. That explains the pricing.

If Sony were willing to tackle the sports/action segment they would have to release 2 high speed bodies (one APS and one FF) and to realease 4 super teles. I am pretty sure that they could come up with something great at competitive prices, but I seriously doubt it would be an economically sound move for them.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Guillermo Luijk]

I would agree that Sony lenses are a bit overpriced and underperforming. But that wouldn't hurt you being a Nikon shooter or a former Canon shooter.

Maybe he needs to hear happy Sony users admitting: "Yep I pay more for less" or so.


www.guillermoluijk.com

[John Koerner]

Hi,
I would agree that Sony lenses are a bit overpriced and underperforming.

Yep.

But that wouldn't hurt you being a Nikon shooter or a former Canon shooter.
Best regards
Erik

Who said anything about being hurt?

I review alternatives to see where they're at.

If I see a great deal (like the Pentax K1) I will say so. Doesn't hurt me, doesn't help me.

If I see over-priced, mediocre offerings I will say so. They only way I could be "hurt" would be to buy one, which I would never do.

The quality of their lenses indicates they should be 2/3rd the price of the competition, not 1/3rd more.

[John Koerner]

The super tele produced by Sony currently sell in very small numbers because pretty much everybody needing one shoots Canon or Nikon. That explains the pricing.

I am surprised they could sell even one.

If Sony were willing to tackle the sports/action segment they would have to release 2 high speed bodies (one APS and one FF) and to realease 4 super teles. I am pretty sure that they could come up with something great at competitive prices, but I seriously doubt it would be an economically sound move for them.
Cheers,
Bernard

They already have super-tele lenses, so it would at least make sense for them to create bodies to match.

Stated in the reverse, why bother making very expensive super-tele lenses at all, if they are not going to have bodies to match, and are going to perform worse and yet cost more?

I am also not sure what makes you think they could make a great action body. Their existing bodies are quite far behind the functionality of other offerings. They essentially offer housing with a sensor inside, and a few buttons to make it work.

I am sure any attempt to create an equal what the D5 can do would take years to achieve, if they could.

[BernardLanguillier]

They already have super-tele lenses, so it would at least make sense for them to create bodies to match.

Stated in the reverse, why bother making very expensive super-tele lenses at all, if they are not going to have bodies to match, and are going to perform worse and yet cost more?

I am also not sure what makes you think they could make a great action body. Their existing bodies are quite far behind the functionality of other offerings. They essentially offer housing with a sensor inside, and a few buttons to make it work.

I am sure any attempt to create an equal what the D5 can do would take years to achieve, if they could.

Unless I am mistaken, these super teles were designed for a mount and I see them as statement lenses. Lenses that you have to have as the leaders of a company producing photographic equipment. They are probably the result of the dreams of a small number of people in an era when product planning was less of a science. IMHO.

Companies like Sony can do pretty much anything they want if they decide to focus their resources on that. There is no doubt in my mind they could produce a D5 competitor from a technology standpoint (it would take a couple of years, yes), but in terms of opportunity cost I don't think it would be the wisest way to assign their resources.

But I could be wrong and would in fact love Sony to put pressure on Nikon and Canon in that segment. Nikon did IMHO innovate more with the D5 than Canon did with the 1DxMkII (in terms of AF mostly), but I am sure they could still do more...

And, since this thread is about lenses, I do think that Sony is making many right choices with their lenses release (schedule, specs, price point,...), a lot more than Nikon who seems to be selecting their lens line-up roll out using a random number generator...

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

Unless I am mistaken, these super teles were designed for a mount and I see them as statement lenses. Lenses that you have to have as the leaders of a company producing photographic equipment. They are probably the result of the dreams of a small number of people in an era when product planning was less of a science. IMHO.

I don't think Sony is a leader in this segment. Or, really, any segment.

Companies like Sony can do pretty much anything they want if they decide to focus their resources on that. There is no doubt in my mind they could produce a D5 competitor from a technology standpoint (it would take a couple of years, yes), but in terms of opportunity cost I don't think it would be the wisest way to assign their resources.

Canon hasn't been able to equal the AF of Nikon for a long time, behind every year.

Sony's AF is even worse than Canon's (not even close to Canon).

So I don't think Sony will ever equal Nikon's specs. They are a jack of all trades; master of none.

Well, they're masters of sensors, for landscape, and that's about it.

But I could be wrong and would in fact love Sony to put pressure on Nikon and Canon in that segment. Nikon did IMHO innovate more with the D5 than Canon did with the 1DxMkII (in terms of AF mostly), but I am sure they could still do more...

Put pressure on Nikon ... or buy Nikon and incorporate them.

But they won't beat them, that's for sure.

And, since this thread is about lenses, I do think that Sony is making many right choices with their lenses release (schedule, specs, price point,...), a lot more than Nikon who seems to be selecting their lens line-up roll out using a random number generator...
Cheers,
Bernard

I have to agree that Sony's new zoom and short primes look nice, but was taken aback looking at the price vs. quality of their telephotos

Oh well, I will stop talking about gear now and concentrate on using my own

[adriantyler]

I could get a mount for a Nikon camera for a Leica.

that sounds rather expensive, given you are "ranting" about the cost of sony lenses...

[pegelli]

Or, really, any segment.

How about the mirrorless Full Frame segment?

[shadowblade]

If, as you say, Canon's AF is grossly inferior to Nikon's, and Canon's superteles are also inferior, then explain why >90% of the photographers at any major sporting event are shooting Canon bodies and lenses (with the occasional Sigma 120-300 for some court sports).

They're not stupid, nor lacking in resources - they can afford to shoot whatever gives them the best results. And they're often using new gear, not gear left over from when Canon had no credible rival.

Non-action and landscape photography? Sure, Nikon/Sony dominate here, judging by the gear I've seen being used at various remote vantage-points around the world these last few years. The lack of low ISO DR really hurt them in this area from 2012 onwards, when the D800 was released. Wedding photography? Depends where you are, but probably 60:40 in favour of Nikon here (a lot of them seem to really appreciate the DR advantage of the D810/D750 over the 5D3 when shooting white dresses). But sports/action photography is Canon's bastion - the area that plays to its strengths while minimising the impact of its weaknesses - and it shows no sign of losing ground here.

[Paulo Bizarro]

How about the mirrorless Full Frame segment?

Indeed, in the last 3 years, Sony have put their strengths and resources behind this product line. And today there is a serious option to those who dream of using some of the best lenses (e.g. Zeiss Otus), but don't have the cash, or don't want to have the weight.

You can transition from a DSLR with top quality  glass, to a FF MILC with top quality  glass, for a reasonable cost, and very significant size and weight reduction. Loxia 21 vs. Milvus 21; Otus 85 vs. Batis 85 (or GM 85); Otus 55 vs. Zony 55 and new Sony 50 f1.4, just as a few examples.

It is clear that Sony has all but abandoned the A mount, so I fail to see why they should invest in revamping that platform to shoot action... if you want to shoot action with Sony, you would be much better off getting an E mount APSC A6300 (blazing fast AF) and say the new G 70-300 zoom, or new GM70-200 f2.8 zoom with TCs.

Of course they will never be able to compete with Canikon, but the option is there, no need to get stuck with past lenses; even in the best days of the Minolta, and then Sony A mount, the system was never an alternative to Canikon in that field, so why it should be now?

Creating a top quality MILC system for enthusiasts, and some pros, is where they are now, they have moved on. And I think that by doing this, they pose a larger threat to Canikon, than trying to compete in the super telephoto/action area. With the current lenses in the system, plus the new wireless flash system, they are a serious contender in the event/studio area.