1. Reminder: Please user our affiliate links to get to your favorite stores for holiday shopping!

New 35mm F2.8 lens, full frame.

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by lenshoarder, Aug 31, 2013.

  1. lenshoarder

    lenshoarder TalkEmount Veteran

    297
    Feb 7, 2012
  2. eno789

    eno789 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    720
    Jan 1, 2012
    NoCal, USA
    Brian
    I wish Sony be the first to provide multi aspect in their crop mode implementation on their to-be-announced FF NEX. This would basically comes for free in terms of hardware - only some firmware work. Because the image coverage is circle, theoretically they can provide 1:1, 4:3, 3:2, 16:9 with ease. People with the current e-mount lenses would be so happy for this feature.

    Now, come back to the topic, the main question is the price. If it's around $3000 body only, personally I would wait for the price to come down - I have a Nikon D600 which I'm happy with for FF. I wish the best for those early adopters on FF NEX, and wish Sony the best.
     
  3. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I agree, it's now a question of when, not if. I still struggle with answering the question: what's the point of a full-frame NEX camera, besides a platform for 135 format legacy glass? So far I've found no better explanation than Jordan Steele's one on the relative advantages of one format to another, and the short answer there is: it doesn't really matter!
     
  4. Jefenator

    Jefenator TalkEmount Top Veteran

    876
    Nov 23, 2012
    Oregon, USA
    Jeff
    Thanks for sharing that article! He does list a few advantages of full-frame on the second page: lower noise, richer tonality and shallower depth / more background blur. This may or may not be worth thousands upon thousands more dollars, depending on what kind of shooting one does. (I would enjoy these things but the bulk of my shooting does not demand it...)

    He also lists a few less celebrated advantages of "crop" formats, mostly having to do with greater inherent depth of field and the ability to use wider apertures for landscape and close-up shots. (I routinely enjoy these advantages for my product shots, and still have plenty of latitude to open up and get annoyingly shallow DoF.)

    I saw a line drawing of the new FF 35/2.8 lens on SAR. If authentic, it would be significantly smaller than the current SEL24! It might be fun to try out if it were not TOO outrageously expensive (I'm expecting square in the middle between Sigma and Leica pricing).

    As I explore other 35mm equivalent solutions, I've got to say: the SEL24 keeps looking better and better. I love the overall character and the ability to get real close (1:4) is nice to have!
     
  5. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    First: If I get a FF NEX with a 35mm f/2.8 I'd have about the same low-light performance and dof of an APS-C NEX with a 24mm f/1.8. So at least with the launch lens, there's even less reason to buy it.

    Second: I still don't get why Sony does this. A fourth lens line, really? I, for sure, won't go out and buy this thing. I'm more than happy with my APS-C sensor and Zeiss lenses (which I'll have 4 of at the end of the year), so it's not only financially impossible for me to change to ff, I also don't think it makes much sense. One stop better low light performance? Well, I'm already happy with the performance of my NEX-5, and the next generation APS-C cameras should have a one stop advantage over it, so I don't care.

    Better DR and color depth? Again, as opposed to some earlier digital cameras, I don't have a problem with the DR on my NEX, and as APS-C sized sensors are going to improve too, I don't see the point. As for color depth, well, I'd get a medium format camera if I really wanted to improve on it, but the improvements on ff aren't nearly enough to be worth it.

    I said it a few times now, but I don't think ff is necessarily the sensor size to go nowadays.

    Also, why does Sony launch 2 Zeiss lenses (+3 Touits) and so many other great APS-C E-Mount lenses when a new ff system is due to be out soon?
     
  6. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    I largely agree with you there. And resources on the FE-mount system (that's what the FF NEX mount is called apparently) detracts from resources spent on the E-mount APS-C lenses which seems weird from a business perspective: while the situation has improved a lot, the limited lens program is still an achilles heel of the E-mount system. Most glaringly absent is a high-quality telephoto lens, and extreme telephoto beyond 210mm is even totally absent. Sometimes Sony seems to do things just because they can, not because they're a viable business opportunity. Oh well, exciting times are ahead, that's for sure!
     
  7. lenshoarder

    lenshoarder TalkEmount Veteran

    297
    Feb 7, 2012
    Same reason Canon releases APS only lenses even though there is the 5D. Full frame is a small market for an elite few. The vast majority of people will still with APS NEX. Why force everyone to pay for a FF lens when they just need a APS one?
     
  8. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Yeah, but when was the last time Canon released a €1000 APS-C lens?
     
  9. Newtype

    Newtype TalkEmount Rookie

    10
    Jul 16, 2013
    A NEX FF is coming, but, like many of you, I question its utility outside of Sony simply proving that it can be done. If it does, in fact, require a completely different line of lenses, it would do nothing but further show how weak the e-mount line truly is.

    I personally believe the jump to FF will result in better photo quality, but I still want Sony to tweak to their in-camera processing to allow for a punchier photo OOC, more life-like photo straight out of camera.
     
  10. Bimjo

    Bimjo Super Moderator

    Oct 28, 2011
    Washington State
    Jim
    Those who shoot UWA legacy lenses will like a FF NEX more than folks that shoot nothing but "normal" or longer lenses. There's a world of difference between a 12mm FF lens on FF than the same lens on a APSC sensor.

    So, if you don't shoot UWA then you're probably thinking "Meh!" If you do shoot UWA you're probably thinking "Yippee!"
     
  11. shaolin95

    shaolin95 TalkEmount Top Veteran

    942
    Jul 3, 2013
    Indeed...that would be my main reason to like FF , not that I can afford it or feel like changing as I love my nex-6. Going from 16mm to 12mm even on the Nex-6 is awesome and just using the 10mm fisheye makes another big jump so I cant imagine what it will be in FF. :)
     
  12. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Don't forget that there are no modern rectilinear full frame lenses wider than 14mm (at least none I'm aware of), that's hardly wider than the 10-18 on a crop sensor (15mm eq). Yes, there is the Voigtlander 12mm f/5.6, but frankly, it's not a good lens.
     
  13. serhan

    serhan TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2011
    NYC
    I am catching up with rumors. If FF has sensor stabilization, it will be very good esp using the older/rf lenses. Also Zeiss 55mm 1.8 might be interesting for both FF/crop. The wide side will be challenge to the older lenses esp if the MP will go up. Even excellent Zeiss 21mm needs f/5.6 on Nikon 800(E) while it is good at f/2.8 w/ Canon 5DII...
     
  14. Utik

    Utik TalkEmount Regular

    170
    Feb 7, 2013
    Rimini, Italy
    Sigma 12-24 for full frame.. it's incredible how wide it goes.
     
  15. Fiddler

    Fiddler TalkEmount Regular

    94
    Mar 8, 2012
    Edinburgh
    Colin
    I'm not tempted. I don't do very low-light shooting, and I don't need paper-thin DOF, so I'll stay with my NEX-7 until a very compelling reason to switch appears.
     
  16. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    If the FF camera comes up for something like less than € 2000 I don't think I'll be able to resist it for very long. There's a nice Minolta line-up waiting to be used in full glory (or maybe not in such full glory, those wide-angle lenses might well show up with unsharp corners).
     
  17. dsiglin

    dsiglin TalkEmount Veteran

    230
    Apr 23, 2013
    Greenville, SC
    A larger sensor would also let them increase pixel count while keeping noise down. Look at High ISO on the Nex7 and then the Nex5. Those extra pixels on the 7 come at a price. With a FF sensor you get more overhead, so 24MP on a FF would be better high ISO than 24MP on APSC. One Disadvantage for FF is you no longer get the "sweet spot" of legacy glass.

    I wish Sony would implement some kind of sensor guard that covers the sensor/glass when the lens is removed, to keep dust from getting on it. There could be a manual override button that would open up the guard for access to the sensor and the guard would stay open when lenses are mounted.
     
  18. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Wrong. The high ISO performance of the NEX-7 is just as good as it is on the NEX-5 or NEX-6 when viewed at the same magnification. When viewed at bigger magnification, the NEX-7 will look noisier, but it will also contain more detail. It's true that a FF sensor has a one stop high ISO advantage, but seriously, with camera sensor technology improving that fast only very few people who always shoot with an ISO value above 3200 will truly benefit form that.
     
  19. dsiglin

    dsiglin TalkEmount Veteran

    230
    Apr 23, 2013
    Greenville, SC
    Steve Huff did a test a while ago. Luminous Landscape also performed some comparisons noting that "The point of the exercise is that the NEX-5n has an 16 Megapixel sensor, and which many regard as having very good high ISO noise characteristics. The NEX-7 has class-leading 24 Megapixel sensor, and thus smaller photo sites (pixels), and therefore will, in theory at least, display higher noise. . . It should be fairly obvious that if you have two sensors of the same size, one with 16 Megapixel and one with 24 Megapixels, the one with the lower pixel count will, all other things being equal, have lower noise. The reason is simply physics; the pixels are larger and therefore collect more photons. More photons means a higher S/N ratio." (emphasis mine)


    In the end the difference is not much at all, though I find the noise characteristics of the Nex5n more pleasing. But to my main point: Either way, eventually you hit a performance ceiling when cramming MP onto APSC sensors. Going FF will raise that ceiling. Does that justify the price difference? And is losing the "sweet spot" of legacy lenses counterbalanced by better tonality, etc. That has to be evaluated person by person. For me, no freaking way, I only got the Nex5n because I found it a bargain bin price.
     
  20. Poki

    Poki TalkEmount Hall of Famer

    Aug 30, 2011
    Austria
    Again, magnified to the same size, noise performance is the same. The little differences in the comparison shots are both the differences between two different sensors as well as the 'measured ISO vs. calculated ISO'-Problem. That's basically what the Luminous Landscape article says (and they had an awesome essay a while back where they explained in full depth why sensors with the same size and more pixels don't have more noise than those with a smaller pixel count), and the DxOmark analysis shows the same.

    Fact is, every sensor of the same size has the same sensitivity to light, provided the same sensor technology is used.