New Sony FE lenses (FE 16-35 f/2.8 & 12-24 f/4)

Discussion in 'Sony Alpha E-Mount Lenses' started by addieleman, May 17, 2017.

  1. addieleman

    addieleman Passionate amateur Subscribing Member

    Nov 13, 2012
    Netherlands
    Ad Dieleman
    Not a real surprise, question only was when it would come: FE 2.8/16-35mm

    Well have you ever: FE 4/12-24mm! Less than 600 grams and not super-large either. A G lens, so should have decent image quality.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Informative Informative x 2
  2. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    790
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    I was all excited about the 12-24 until I saw the price $1700 "sigh":doh:
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  3. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    Wish I had the cash for that 16-35!!!

    I didn't see the 12-24 coming! It looks very promising and as Ad says not super large and heavy either! Only issue (as with most uwa zooms) is the built-in hood/no filter thread but that's to be expected :(
    Anyone knows the front element diameter? I'm trying to see if a 100mm square filter system would be sufficient or if it will need 150mm as with other uwa zooms...
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  4. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    790
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    Heres the specs

    Sony FE 12-24mm F4 G specifications
    Principal specifications
    Lens type
    Zoom lens
    Max Format size 35mm FF
    Focal length 12–24 mm
    Image stabilization No
    Lens mount Sony FE
    Aperture
    Maximum aperture
    F4–22
    Minimum aperture F4–22
    Aperture ring No
    Number of diaphragm blades 7
    Optics
    Elements
    17
    Groups 13
    Special elements / coatings Aspherical, ED & Super ED elements, Nano AR & fluorine coatings
    Focus
    Minimum focus
    0.28 m (11.02″)
    Maximum magnification 0.14×
    Autofocus Yes
    Motor type Piezoelectric
    Full time manual Yes
    Focus method Internal
    Distance scale No
    DoF scale No
    Physical
    Weight
    565 g (1.25 lb)
    Diameter 87 mm (3.43″)
    Length 117 mm (4.61″)
    Materials Magnesium alloy
    Sealing Yes
    Colour Black
    Zoom method Rotary (extending)
    Power zoom No
    Zoom lock No
    Hood supplied Yes
    Tripod collar No
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
    I don't find the announced price illogical.
    The 35mm 1.4 is about the same price :)
    The Canon 11-24 f4 is what? Over $2,5K?
     
  6. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    790
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    I was hoping nearer the 1200 mark to justify it, I'll just have to justify a bit harder lol :rolleyes-20:
    I guess if I sell my 16-35 and CV10 it would lessen the burden.
    Be a great lens to have for me 12-24, 24-70, 70-300, 3 lens kit that covers it all :2thumbs:
     
    • Like Like x 2
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  7. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    790
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    The sample pics on DP Review look good, edge sharpness and distortion seem OK.
     
  8. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
     
    • Like Like x 2
  9. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. NickCyprus

    NickCyprus Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Oct 11, 2012
    Cyprus
    Nick
  11. bdbits

    bdbits TalkEmount Top Veteran

    966
    Sep 10, 2015
    Bob
    The pricing is not crazy when you look at competitors (not sure how IQ compares though). Here in the US, the Canon 11-24 f4 is currently on sale for $2700. :eek:
    Canon EF 11-24mm f/4L USM Lens 9520B002 B&H Photo Video
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  12. serhan

    serhan TalkEmount All-Pro

    Aug 27, 2011
    NYC
    Size comparison
    1465326.
     
    • Like Like x 3
    • Wow Wow x 1
  13. JonathanF2

    JonathanF2 TalkEmount Veteran

    410
    Aug 16, 2014
    Los Angeles, USA
    It's nice to see Sony expanding their lens collection, but all these lenses seem so big to me! I'm glad I can just adapt my Voigtlander M mount lenses and call it a day!
     
    • Like Like x 2
  14. Mus Aziz

    Mus Aziz TalkEmount All-Pro

    Sep 3, 2015
    Mus
    I need to start saving now, for the 12-24, maybe just one meal a day for the next 12 months :(
     
    • Funny Funny x 6
    • Wow Wow x 1
  15. Kiwi Paul

    Kiwi Paul TalkEmount Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    790
    Feb 14, 2016
    Aberdeen, Scotland
    Paul
    I've changed my mind about it, it doesn't take filters so I'd really have to ponder it more. In my m43 days the 7-14 (14-28 equiv) didn't take filters and I got by with that but I'd prefer a lens that did. The Sony 10-18 works surprisingly well between 12-16mm as a ff lens and can can filters from 13mm (below 13mm vignetting occurs) so really I should just keep using that with the 16-35.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  16. izTheViz

    izTheViz TalkEmount Top Veteran

    571
    May 10, 2013
    Paris
    Yannis Marigo
    I started using the playmemories apps as a substitute for GND and ND and frankly speaking I find them quite convenient once you get used to them. Just missing the CPL so far. But I get you point. However I tend to use filters less and less and exposure blending more and more.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  17. WestOkid

    WestOkid TalkEmount All-Pro Subscribing Member

    Jan 25, 2014
    New Jersey, USA
    Gary
    I agree the apps are getting better. I use them when I want to pack light or I forget the filters because I didn't think I would need them.

    Even so, no app can replace a CPL and there are times when the manipulation of light by a CPL makes all the difference in a shot. The other thing is the more practical FE 16-35 F4. For me, the 12-15 mm range is not enough to overcome the flexibility you get from a normal filter thread and the more valuable 25-35mm range. It's not like it's an Astro lens at F4. I'm not saying the 12-24 doesn't have a place, but it seems like a niche lens to me. I have no interest at all.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
  18. Golfhacker27

    Golfhacker27 TalkEmount Regular

    48
    May 15, 2016
    An uber wide like the 12-24 would have had me salivating. I am a photography cheapskate (I entered the Sony FE system due to lightweight and cheap 3rd party lenses), but might have been prepared to pawn the family heirlooms for this lens. But the lack of filter is a deal-breaker.
    So I will now hope that the older 16-35 drops in price (new or secondhand) as people migrate to these new lenses.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
  19. davect01

    davect01 Super Moderator Subscribing Member

    Aug 20, 2011
    Fountain Hills, AZ
    Dave
    They do look like great lenses.

    Just big and expensive.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. fractal

    fractal TalkEmount Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Jun 17, 2014
    Southeastern PA
    Chris
    Actually,

    The 16-35 weighs less than 1/2 of comparable Canon and Sigma. I'll give you "expensive", but same ballpark as the competition.
     
    • Agree Agree x 3