Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by Amin Sabet, Feb 5, 2015.
So who's getting what?
just as i feared, that distagon looks huge. no way around size at 1.4 i guess. the contax version is probably the best 35 ive ever seen.
I'm intrigued by that 24-240 as a general purpose/travel lens. But I'll wait for the price/performance info. before pulling out the credit card.
I hope you love the price/performance and you keep up with the credit card payments so you can sell me that crappy 24-70 you have.
I'm intrigued by the 35/1.4 despite its largish size.
Oh yeah, for you? Special price!
That little 28mm looks cool. I think it would make a good 2nd lens for people that had the 55mm F1.8. Wonder if it is based on the 28mm F2 Rokkor?
But I'm kinda glad I haven't made the leap to full frame! They are all so expensive. And i'd go broke spending all my money on that 90mm G lens : /
The 35mm looks really nice and will also be excellent for video too.
I never really understood the arguments that were made against a lens being 'too big' on the A7/s/r/ii. It's FF so regardless of mirrorbox/mirrorless you will still have to keep with the laws of physics. Fast glass is big glass.
For the Sony system to be a success it needs to offer both large and fast and slow and compact.
Part of the joys of many mirrorless systems including the Sony FF system is that you can build the system up to be as 'big' as you want but happy in the knowledge that you also have a nice small starting place if you also want to keep things small. The same body can do both.
On the other lenses announced, the 90mm macro could be another nice portrait lens too...
there's no 'argument' about large lenses, only a tidal wave of movement away from them in both the enthusiast and pro ranks. if no one cared about size then everyone would have a 5d variant and an adapted contax 35/1.4 distagon and 85/1.4 planar. ive had 'em, so i speak the truth! ): for pure IQ there are no better combinations.
the a7 is a small camera. to many--certainly not everyone, but many--big lenses on small cameras do not make much sense philosophically, aestheically or ergonomically.
Pro's and wannabes ridicule the big lenses on small bodies.
But if you are not a pro, and you don't have half a dozen different camera bodies to choose from, it makes perfect sense. The lenses are interchangeable so why not have big fast lenses when you don't care about portability and small ones for when you do.
Well substitute discussion/debate or whatever word is most comfortable instead for 'argument' - i'm not saying it in the passive aggressive sense. I'm sure you know what I mean
Regardless, it's an oft discussed topic on these and other mirrorless forums etc... and you are 100% right... there are those who believe a large lens on a small body has no place and contradicts the philosophy and ergonomics of a small mirrorless body.
Conversely as already mentioned there are those who think that this opinion is completely out of touch with practical and financial reality; irrelevant for modern mirror-less times.
They want to have a versatile system that can be as small as possible or as large (and ergonomic) as possible when you add the battery grip etc...
I still can't see any disadvantages with the second approach once you are comfortable with the lens offerings available to suit whichever side of the fence you fall into . Surely above all else - choice, variety and versatility - are the essence of a good system
28mm & 24-240mm sound good...It will be a good travel set up 24-240, 28 & 55mm...
I wonder why Zeiss didn't issue ZM 35mm f1.4 as Loxia for Sony and went with Loxia 35mm f2 Biogon, but I guess they wait Sony version to be the first one....
The day I start worrying about what other people think I should be using to take photographs is the day I might as well take up another hobby.
But.... M mount glass is a lot smaller e.g the voigtlanders 35 mm f/1.4. Yeah I know af vs mf but still. Yet mostly I still agree
I have the Voigtlander 35/1.4 and while it's a fun lens to use, it has swirly bokeh, soft wide open, strong vignetting, and significant CA. Correcting all those kinds of things is what makes the modern 35/1.4s so big (Sigma's highly rated 35/1.4 is also huge), not merely the AF motors.
I really like the next set of lenses coming out. I will definitely get the 24-240 if reviews are decent but the only question is when (possibly next year!)
Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
Some core system lenses in the group, like the fast 35 and 90 macro. One may argue about the actual need of f1.4 aperture, given the performance of current sensors at high ISO, but , that's just showing what can be done. With a concurrent price.
Me, in 2015 I already bought the lens I saved for, which is the Zeiss Sonnar 50 f1.5 ZM. Done for the year.