Sony Is Missing The best Telephoto Primes
May 1, 2020 11:06:44 #
What Sony lacks are the 300mm f2.8 and f4 e-mount full frame lenses.
Years ago I had the Sigma and Nikon 2.8 f-mount versions and they were awesome. Both worked well with their respective TC 1.4X. The Sigma didn't quite have the IQ or VR of the Nikon but it was no slouch, and a joy to use due to its weight.
Used the Nikon 300 f4 for a period and it was excellent as well. A 300mm Fresnel would be awesome.
I hope Sony is listening.
Years ago I had the Sigma and Nikon 2.8 f-mount versions and they were awesome. Both worked well with their respective TC 1.4X. The Sigma didn't quite have the IQ or VR of the Nikon but it was no slouch, and a joy to use due to its weight.
Used the Nikon 300 f4 for a period and it was excellent as well. A 300mm Fresnel would be awesome.
I hope Sony is listening.
May 1, 2020 11:37:40 #
Tomcat5133
Loc: Gladwyne PA
I had many Nikon's over the years and some good lens. A great experience.
They were so good that I never had a repair until a dropped one at a famous site.
Their lens over the years are just so good. A few years ago I got a Sony NEX 5
mirrorless small camera took it to London. And that was it I have Sony cameras
and lens now. And a camcorder.
To your question I dont think Sony want's to compete with Canon and Nikon on
on long lens for nature, sports etc. To me that is a speciality. At sporting events
use see all the Canon long lens. The Sony's got my attention with the a7 series
I still have the a7s II, a6300, RX100, RX10 24 to 600 bridge. And 10 bit camcorder
The long quality lens are very expensive. Sony camera's want to make stuff
that a lot of enthusiast and pros would use. And video mirrored is where they took command.
Video is what the got right.
They were so good that I never had a repair until a dropped one at a famous site.
Their lens over the years are just so good. A few years ago I got a Sony NEX 5
mirrorless small camera took it to London. And that was it I have Sony cameras
and lens now. And a camcorder.
To your question I dont think Sony want's to compete with Canon and Nikon on
on long lens for nature, sports etc. To me that is a speciality. At sporting events
use see all the Canon long lens. The Sony's got my attention with the a7 series
I still have the a7s II, a6300, RX100, RX10 24 to 600 bridge. And 10 bit camcorder
The long quality lens are very expensive. Sony camera's want to make stuff
that a lot of enthusiast and pros would use. And video mirrored is where they took command.
Video is what the got right.
May 1, 2020 12:43:40 #
Tomcat5133 wrote:
To your question I dont think Sony want's to compete with Canon and Nikon on
on long lens for nature, sports etc. To me that is a speciality. At sporting events
use see all the Canon long lens.
To your question I dont think Sony want's to compete with Canon and Nikon on
on long lens for nature, sports etc. To me that is a speciality. At sporting events
use see all the Canon long lens.
Perhaps you missed the release of Sony's 400, 500 and 600 mm. All of them are newer designs than Canon and Nikon versions.
When you shell out 10-14k for a single lens changing brands is not done lightly.
Sony, the other white lens.
May 1, 2020 12:43:59 #
Sony is very 21st century and acoarst there’s bound to be some folks who just don’t like that.
May 1, 2020 15:13:08 #
May 1, 2020 16:38:03 #
May 1, 2020 16:51:58 #
RWR wrote:
Does Sony manufacture their own lenses?
Don't know. The way things are outsourced it hard to know who makes what.
May 2, 2020 07:02:57 #
joer wrote:
Perhaps you missed the release of Sony's 400, 500 and 600 mm. All of them are newer designs than Canon and Nikon versions.
When you shell out 10-14k for a single lens changing brands is not done lightly.
Sony, the other white lens.
When you shell out 10-14k for a single lens changing brands is not done lightly.
Sony, the other white lens.
Canon 400 and 600 designs are newer than the Sony designs and much lighter.
Only the 500mm is older at 2012 and seeing as the Sony offering is still not as good optically or mechanically there was NO need to upgrade it.
Where did you think that Sony are newer?
May 2, 2020 07:29:07 #
Xanadu
Loc: Clay County FL
I was told by a Sigma rep that Sony is not interested in the lens market. While that statement may be self-serving, then it is time for Sigma, Tamron, etc. to step up and fill the gap.
May 2, 2020 07:34:20 #
RWR wrote:
Does Sony manufacture their own lenses?
Sony may out source some but do make a lot of their own lenses including the Zeiss for Sony.
May 2, 2020 07:53:24 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
joer wrote:
What Sony lacks are the 300mm f2.8 and f4 e-mount full frame lenses.
Years ago I had the Sigma and Nikon 2.8 f-mount versions and they were awesome. Both worked well with their respective TC 1.4X. The Sigma didn't quite have the IQ or VR of the Nikon but it was no slouch, and a joy to use due to its weight.
Used the Nikon 300 f4 for a period and it was excellent as well. A 300mm Fresnel would be awesome.
I hope Sony is listening.
Years ago I had the Sigma and Nikon 2.8 f-mount versions and they were awesome. Both worked well with their respective TC 1.4X. The Sigma didn't quite have the IQ or VR of the Nikon but it was no slouch, and a joy to use due to its weight.
Used the Nikon 300 f4 for a period and it was excellent as well. A 300mm Fresnel would be awesome.
I hope Sony is listening.
Sony is listening joer. They already released the best, lightest 600 f4 on the market, and it's TWO pounds lighter than the Nikon.
They have introduced the Sony 400 2.8 with the weight of a 300.
And, they have released the Sony 200-600 zoom. It rivals the 600 4 without the bokeh however.
I am sure Sony will produce a 300 2.8 at some point. The 300 4 may be some time.
But give Sony a break joer, they have only been producing lenses for a fraction of the time Nikon has and they have already passed Nikon on several lenses.
Below is an example of the sharpness of the Sony 200-600 hand held on a Sony a9.
May 2, 2020 07:59:13 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Architect1776 wrote:
Canon 400 and 600 designs are newer than the Sony designs and much lighter.
Only the 500mm is older at 2012 and seeing as the Sony offering is still not as good optically or mechanically there was NO need to upgrade it.
Where did you think that Sony are newer?
Only the 500mm is older at 2012 and seeing as the Sony offering is still not as good optically or mechanically there was NO need to upgrade it.
Where did you think that Sony are newer?
You think? The Sony 600 4 is lighter than the Canon, but not by much. Canon 6.71 to Sony's 6.7. However, the Sony is better balanced than the Canon. The Sony also has a better focusing design than the Canon.
Come on Architect, where have you been, where did you get you info on MUCH LIGHTER?
May 2, 2020 08:33:14 #
billnikon wrote:
You think? The Sony 600 4 is lighter than the Canon, but not by much. Canon 6.71 to Sony's 6.7. However, the Sony is better balanced than the Canon. The Sony also has a better focusing design than the Canon.
Come on Architect, where have you been, where did you get you info on MUCH LIGHTER?
Come on Architect, where have you been, where did you get you info on MUCH LIGHTER?
Focus is still better with Canon.
Yes Sony is an imperceptible bit lighter.
The stupid comment that it is newer than Canon is blatantly false and optically the Canon is still superior.
May 2, 2020 08:45:03 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
Architect1776 wrote:
Focus is still better with Canon.
Yes Sony is an imperceptible bit lighter.
The stupid comment that it is newer than Canon is blatantly false and optically the Canon is still superior.
Yes Sony is an imperceptible bit lighter.
The stupid comment that it is newer than Canon is blatantly false and optically the Canon is still superior.
Afraid you are reaching for the stars again Architect1776. The Sony is clearly better in EVERY respect. You are grasping at OLD technology and really do not comprehend or grasp the idea of advanced engineering. But, I forgive you Architect1776. Anyone with a 1776 in their name is already dating themselves. So I understand you wanting to hold on to OLD and outdated thinking. I am sure you are the star in your retirement community.
May 2, 2020 08:55:58 #
billnikon wrote:
Afraid you are reaching for the stars again Architect1776. The Sony is clearly better in EVERY respect. You are grasping at OLD technology and really do not comprehend or grasp the idea of advanced engineering. But, I forgive you Architect1776. Anyone with a 1776 in their name is already dating themselves. So I understand you wanting to hold on to OLD and outdated thinking. I am sure you are the star in your retirement community.
The Canon 400 and 600 are newer than Sony.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.