New Sony 400mm for Mirrorless Cameras: I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras. The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is...

cambriaman Loc: Central CA Coast

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

cambriaman wrote:

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

Its purpose is to lure Canon and Nikon wildlife pros and amateurs with deep pockets over to Sony. Even if it was 1/3 the cost I wouldn't buy it even if it was affordable, due to the weight. I have a self imposed 3lb. limit for a lens.

BebuLamar

Sony has to have lenses for their system.

mas24 Loc: Southern CA

Sony wants to enter the professional sports competition, just like Canon has dominated this category for decades. The Canon 400mm L f2.8 lens is a very popular lens, used by pro photographers for NFL football games. It was selling for about $10,000 new. And was used on the Canon 1DX Series cameras. The Sony a9 with 20 fps, should now qualify as a pro sports camera with this new lens. I noticed it is more expensive than the Canon counterpart. The "E" mount full frame mirrorless Sony cameras are on the rise now. Nikon and Canon are increasingly experimenting with mirrorless technology.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

cambriaman wrote:

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

They have always been white with their fast teles (its still a Minolta design)! Nothing confusing about that!

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

mas24 wrote:

Sony wants to enter the professional sports compet... (show quote)

It certainly is more expensive than the Canon and Nikon equivalent lenses; but it is also considerably lighter and, apparently, better balanced than either.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

joer wrote:

Its purpose is to lure Canon and Nikon wildlife pros and amateurs with deep pockets over to Sony. Even if it was 1/3 the cost I wouldn't buy it even if it was affordable, due to the weight. I have a self imposed 3lb. limit for a lens.

Same here. When I first saw it I did feel somewhat disheartened by the price. I then did a double take and realised that even if I could afford one I would have to carry it for miles. There is only one location where I can take my gear from my car and walk a few metres to a hide: and I only visit that location three of four times a year, as it is 100 miles away. So, like you, I would have to pass on one even if it were a third the price. On the bright side, I do have the Sony 100 - 400mm on the end on my A7III.

tcthome Loc: NJ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVIogwOPBfU Haven't watched the vid but it might help with the thread.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

mas24 wrote:

Sony wants to enter the professional sports compet... (show quote)

I think it's the stunningly fastand accurate hybrid autofocus with 693 AF points and 93% coverage on the A9, together with the fast, long lens that will make it the envy of anyone not using one.

I've already gotten a taste of what is possible with their baby RX10M4 - and this is way bigger and better. If I wasn't so heavily invested in Nikon, or if someone stole all my gear, I'd seriously consider replacing it with a Sony A9 and a Sony A7rIII and a bunch of lenses to go with it, including that 400mmF2.8.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

cambriaman wrote:

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

It is a nice start for Sony. I will wait for the 200-400 f4 or the 500 f4 before I make the switch to the A9 from my current Nikon system.

Blaster34 Loc: Florida Treasure Coast

cambriaman wrote:

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

White? Canon's, Minolta's & Sony's high end Telephoto lenses have been white for years.

leftj Loc: Texas

cambriaman wrote:

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

Check out Matt Granger's review on YouTube.

ORpilot Loc: Prineville, Or

cambriaman wrote:

I see that Sony is offering an f.2.8/ 400mm tele lens for their mirrorless cameras.
The only thing that make this worth comment to me is that is offered in a white finish.
Are they trying to confuse the world? Start a trend?
It's only $12,000 a copy so Don't think we'll be seeing a lot of them out there.

I would have one if I could use the presidents credit card. In the mean time: that is why there are lens rental places.

Don, the 2nd son Loc: Crowded Florida

speters wrote:

They have always been white with their fast teles (its still a Minolta design)! Nothing confusing about that!

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Jerrin1 wrote:

It certainly is more expensive than the Canon and Nikon equivalent lenses; but it is also considerably lighter and, apparently, better balanced than either.

Not much different in price from Nikon's $11,196.98. price. The sony is one dollar and 2 cents more. But the lens is lighter and back weighted which should help a lot with Sony tiny camera size.