CP+ 2015: Sony's new FE lenses almost ready for prime-time

On the other hand, if the 28 mm lens is designed to deliver any kind of decent quality with the adapters, it must be a stellar lens on its own. Actually the 28 mm and 24-240 are the only lenses that interest me in this round: 28 is fast and compact, and the superzoom is both compact for what it is (when folded) and very versatile. My 35 mm needs are covered by RX1, and there is a million of cheaper options for macro.

Try to count ;-)

Exactly, at least the Nikon or Canon FF bodies are more balanced with their lenses.

But with the sony you can do make a nice compact full frame "walk around":
http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.394,567.333,ha,t

Can't really do that with the D750.

Plus the view from above is a bit misleading (or was that the intent?)

http://camerasize.com/compact/#579.394,567.333,ha,b

Now if Nikon would get off their buts and make a decent pancake like canon's 40mm you might have a point.....

@tkbslc - have you held an A7 or A7II body in your hand and compared it to a D750? The difference is significant! Even with lenses mounted. And I suggest you look at the frontal view of the camera size comparison you linked to, not just the top view! Very big difference!

@villagranvicent - As for the issue of "balance", we in the DSLR world have long been able to balance large lenses on DSLR bodies. We all have large 70-200/2.8 lenses that we've all somehow had no problem "balancing". How? It's simply a matter of putting your left hand underneath the lens (as shown in the hands-on photos from CP+)! When you do that, it's no longer such an issue of "balance". Just learn to use your left hand properly to support the camera/lens combo. It's a non-issue.

I no longer travel with DSLRs at all. For me, traveling with mirrorless is so much more comfortable. If you enjoy lugging around a FF DSLR everywhere, knock yourself out.

villagranvicent: You are a photographer! Look THROUGH the camera, not AT it.

Yeah, well then I guess my 70-200/2.8 for my DSLR is also a "monstrosity." The reality is that sometimes you need to use lenses that are bigger than you'd prefer they be. So what? It's not as if the 90/2.8 macro is going to be your full time walk-around lens! LOL. It's a lens designed for a specific purpose, and that's when you'll use it. You mount it when you need it, unmount it when you don't need it. BTW, rather than it being a "monstrosity", I think it's rather beautiful in a classic old-school way.

My definition of monstrosity is putting an anvil on the front of a small, mirrorless camera.

"Mrrowe8",

Why resort to name calling? You should appreciate, we're all able to voice our opinion openly, we have this right in our country. Just because you don't agree with someone, you resort to name calling? Why even go there? What if he's a hipster, big deal. Would you like someone to sh!t on you, because of who you are?

The A5100 or A6000 APS-C cameras look even more bizarre with these lenses, than the A7. I must say that because apparently Sony have stopped designing new lenses for the APS-C cameras, as of 2 years ago. This is the only thing new that will fit.

Sony is now pumping out more new bodies than lenses, it seems. Are they planning to get out of the camera business soon?

I recently realized I am all for the hipster thing - they take pride in their appearance! Unlike so many slobs that seem to just roll out of bed and go out in public.

@villagranvicent - I think you're a little too much into cameras as fashion accessories, LOL. Do you also try to match your camera to your outfit that you're wearing that day? BTW, I don't think lugging around a bulky FF DSLR body is any less ugly or any more attractive. Big FF DSLRs stick out like a sore thumb.

There are physical limitations indeed, but presented Sony lenses are nowhere near them. For instnce, Physics only prohibits the 90/2.8 lens to have less than 32 mm diameter (or 35/1.4 less than 25 mm). The length of the lens should be ~ equal to its focal length [minus the flange distance] less than that if it's a telephoto design, less still if it collapses for transportation.

They should at least be able to make them the same size as equivalent DSLR lenses. Look at the Zeiss 35 f1.4 compared to this:

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/735000-USA/Nikon_2198_AF_S_NIKKOR_35mm_f_1_4G.html

At this point, the purpose of the A7 cameras isn't to reduce weight, or to sell the smallest FF body. They got rid of the mirror, and it just so happens to be the smallest FF body because nobody else bothered trying to compete with Sony on that front.

These lenses are big, but no bigger than standard DSLR FF lenses. There are exceptions, of course, but it also depends on how good they are optically. The Sigma 35 mm f/1.4 isn't small either, but it's amazing optically, so photographers understand why it has to be this way.

It defeats it only part of the time. The rest of the time, you can still put smaller lenses on it. I think that's what people are missing about mirrorless. These lenses aren't permanently attached to these bodies! The beauty of mirrorless is that you can go bigger, or go smaller, all with the same body.

Plus, a lot of people like mirrorless for the EVF. There's a lot of cool things that an EVF can do, and allow the user to do, that an OVF simply can't do.

Auto focus, OSS, etc..

Sony doesn't need OSS, not anymore since the IBIS.
As for AF, the ring-type USM motors do not take any room to speak of (making the lens barrel a few millimiters wider, that's all).

IBIS only accounts for moment around certain axis. The in lens OSS compliments it.

@jjlmoose
Whjat do you mean by "certain" axis? Sony (and Olympus) IBIS compensates for 5 degrees of freedom (Yaw, Pitch, Roll, X-Y displacement). If the lens itself is stabilized, Sony delegates the some functions to it, if not -- the IBIS compensates for all five degrees of freedom (please do not call them "axes") on its own.

THere are dozens of examples of tiny lenses with built in AF motors. They don't take much room at all. That's a cop out.

For a FF example, how about Canon's 40mm f2.8 pancake?

90 mm f/2.8 ==> the "hole" should be 33 mm in diameter. OK, make it 40. 46 mm even! ... like the fantastic Contax G 90 mm lens. Check that size out, for a full frame lens.

normally i won't complain with a big body DSLR camera, as it does't pretend to be a small camera. But this small(ish) A7* series with many lenses bigger than DSLR, not helping anybody.

otherwise i agree on you with bigger sensor, needs bigger image circle, means bigger glass elements etc

As Mark Alan Thomas said, Leica produces lenses for FF way smaller. How big the old FF film Zeiss Contax G lenses are? So there the "bigger sensor means bigger glass" makes no sense.

Size isn't the only issue. There's also optical quality.

There are big and small versions of many different lenses, such as 35 mm lenses. This new Sony 35 mm FE looks huge to me, but so is the Sigma 35 mm, which also happens to be fantastic. They used to make a smaller 35 mm lens, but it wasn't as good. The Nikon 35 mm is also big.

Perhaps it's impossible to create a small 35 mm FF lens, with AF, that's as sharp and well-corrected as these lenses?

There are always tradeoffs.

@Nordstjernen:

He said in the 18-20mm range, not 35mm.

It does A LOT to reduce the bulk. First, it allows to get away from the retrofocus design, and helps making normal and wide lenses substantially smaller and sharper at the same time. Second, it allows the lens designers to place the corrective optical elements closer to the sensor (where the mirror box otherwise would be) again allowing for more compact design. Third, it frees the room to collapse the lens when not in use.

Happy Jones - ever tried to use your thumb and/or index finger for the on-the-lens buttons? For sure, no need for a third hand. Just using the five "flexible hot dogs" called fingers. Valid for all brands!

Nah, too busy trying to "balance" the massive lens with my hands.
With normal cameras you can hold the camera and lens combo with your right hand with you finger ready to go on the shutter buton. No 2nd hand needed! Image that!
And why can't they make a $400 85mm F/1.8 lens like everyone else? If they do in few years it will be as big as a house and retail for $1500.

Happy Jones - balancing the camera with the left hand is a well known strategy for a ultra-steady grip, using the fingers for manual focus, depth of fioel control and operating eventual on-the-lens buttons. Then your right hand is free for setting all kind of controls and pressing the shutter release button. Highly recommended! Works for all brands - also yours! Or you could use your right hand and the camera grip for your 400 mm f:2.8 lens ... lol!

@Nordsjernen: You can't use reason on some people. They even don't understand basic physical principles. Look at Sigma 35/1.4 or 50/1.4 Art lenses. Manual Zeiss Otus and 135 APO. All build for quality and certainly not small. Macros are specialty lenses and usually are not small at all due to design restrictions. Look at Tamron 90/2.8 (much larger than my 85/1.8g) or Canon 100 or Sigma 105. Every engineer knows that using three points for stabilization helps, especially with longer focal lengths.

It is a stopgap measure. What do you expect? And the 28mm is a budget offering which should not be compared to a Nikon flagship lens. Adding the adapter might be more expensive, ut that gives you the versatility of two lenses.

The 20mm F1.8G is a slow, soft lens with ugly bokeh compared to the Leica 21mm F1.4 Summilux. And it's heavier. Does this mean Nikon is throwing BS at the wall?

Actually the Leica 21mm f/1.4 isn't all that great, considering it costs $7K. The Nikon 20mm 1.8, on the other hand, is giving even the Zeiss Distagon 21mm quite a run for its money by f/2.8 or f/4...

BTW I wouldn't consider the Nikon f/1.8 G lineup to be "flagship"... It is decidedly aimed at prosumers / hobbyists, actually. Meanwhile, Sony can't seem to figure out how to properly fill the gap between a Zeiss 35mm f/1.4 that probably weighs and costs as much as a Canon 50 L, ...and consumer superzooms and adapter-ed budget primes.

(The Sony 35mm f/2.8 FE is indeed lightweight, but it's $800 and, well, f/2.8...)

All in all, these are all amazing lenses for certain types of photographers, but I'm failing to see how Sony's FE system is all that superior to a lightweight-ish DSLR system such as a D750 or 6D with the right assortment of lenses. Unless you absolutely need focus peaking or in-camera stabilization, the Sony system is far less jump-ship-worthy than people talk about.

"The 20mm F1.8G is a slow, soft lens with ugly bokeh compared to the Leica 21mm F1.4 Summilux. And it's heavier."

Apples to oranges. Leica lenses don't have AF and the elements are smaller due to the short flange distance.

And since when is f/1.8 considered slow? With the way current Nikons operate at high ISO settings the only need for an f/1.4 is for selective focus not speed.

Yes, but the 28mm + 21mm adapter is a LOT smaller, lighter and cheaper than the Nikon 20mm f1.8G + 28mm f1.8G.

These are just pre production samples, fattened up for the show. They will be put on restricted caloric intake until they can fit in the box for shipping.

Good FF digital lenses are gonna be large. But it's too soon to judge these mockups, even before they become prototypes. We need to wait for the pre-production "copies" which may or may not match what ends up for sale.

Yes, I have the A7 ll, and there are some valid complaints here.

Rangefinder lenses are small and light; why aren't these?

Because they were designed in film days, when the borders of film could accept light from any angle. Sensors require telecentric lenses, and such lenses for full frame can be neither compact nor short.

All the above lenses you mentioned other than the Voigtlander are APS-C only lenses and also slow f2.8 lenses.

Large aperture lenses like the Zeiss 35mm f1.4 needs to have AF and needs to be sharp wide open. Modern lenses need many more elements to correct against abberations and remain sharp wide open.

Take the Sigma 35mm f1.4. Its huge and big but its also the sharpest 35mm f1.4 for DSLRs around.

Are the hands diminutive too?

Why do people think that because the body size is smaller the lenses will be smaller? The sensor is still the same size, the glass is going to be similar. Eventually all that will exist is a big lens with a tiny rectangle attached to the back of it.