It's Official: New Sony Lenses PMA 2009

[Rooz]

I think a 30mm DT is a good idea, like the Nikon, but why so slow? This had better be really cheap too.

28-75mm F2.8
- This one gets my huh? Or WTF? If it is a rebadge of the Tamron, then its the same as the 28-75 D (not G) that KM used to sell, which certainly was a rebadge of the Tamron. Why they would drop it and bring it back I don't know. I was under the impression they were getting away from Tamron. Might be a nice lens, and apparently we don't know a price tag yet.

the 30mm is not really the same as the nikon 35/1.8. for 2 reasons.

firstly its only a 2.8 lens, the nikon is 1.8. not much you think ? well its 1.3 stops faster. big deal you say ? well, its the difference between shooting at iso 400 and iso 1000. dont look so appealing now does it ?

that focal range is also covered by every single constant 2.8 lens on the market so its a duplication of the focal length without the speed. its a useless lens if its not fast.

secondly, macro lens' typically have very slow AF mechanisms so if this follows that trend...then really its a waste of time.

as for the 28-75, i think this is a great idea. the tamron version has always been optically very good but its AF is appalling and the build quality is rubbish. (like any tamron lens). so if sony can fix the AF and make it a little more robust then this lens is a real winner.

not quite sure why don thinks this is a vindication of anything he has been saying about the lens. its either gonna be a more expensive rebadged version of a pisspoor focussing tamron in which case its as pointless as the tammie. or its gonna be a much better focussing fast prosumer lens in which case it addresses the biggest issue with the tammie.

[laydros]

Hmm. Just looking at DPReview...

Catching a lot of attention are the selection of concept lenses on show. Sony stresses that these are only intended to demonstrate the possibilities of the lens system, rather than representing models that will definately be launched.

The rest is here.

The wording is funny, so I wonder if it means that these lenses are pre-production samples of the listed specs, or if they really aren't promising to make this 6 lens line-up, they are just concepts that may or may not go into production. Like an auto-show concept car.

[laydros]

the 30mm is not really the same as the nikon 35/1.8. for 2 reasons.

firstly its only a 2.8 lens, the nikon is 1.8. not much you think ? well its 1.3 stops faster. big deal you say ? well, its the difference between shooting at iso 400 and iso 1000. dont look so appealing now does it ?

Yeah I went and looked up the Nikon after the post. I'm quite aware of the huge difference in f/1.8 and f/2.8. After it sunk in a little I remembered Sony already sells a 28mm f/2.8, which makes things even stranger. That lens only makes since if the 30 sells for ~$100.

[DonSchap]

As I alluded to, the missing lenses in the lineup are the 24mm f/1.4 ... and the 14mm f/2.8 rectilinear. Anything else is pretty redundant.

The 28-75mm is really the key to everything ... for the Full Frame. If you are not ready to spend yourself broke, this is your lens. The 17-50mm f/2.8 covers it nicely on the APS-C sensor cameras.

If I had one other Full Frame lens to improve upon, it would be the 70-200 G SSM ... taking it to an ø82mm filter ring ... cutting the speed-to-focus in half and making the base aperture f/2.5, so there was a little slop to play with at the widest setting. The 70-200mm f/2.8 G SSM is Minolta's design ... and if Carl Zeiss could step up and tackle this one for SONY ... man, the flock ... she will come.'

As far as PMA goes ... guess we saved ourselves a trip, the 28-75 has been around since ... oh yeah, European Lens-of-the-YEAR 2003-2004. How about that, Rooz? Another feather for your ... tail! That is a very complimentary statement for SONY to make, selecting this particular lens design as their 2009 choice. Even they realize the "bang for a buck." If there are improvements to be made to the base design, so be it. Let's see how it plays! I already have mine in my bag.

[CabotGrey]

I could see an 85 STF useful for the APC. 135 works best with full frame, well maybe not best but alot easier to focus.

[Rooz]

European Lens-of-the-YEAR 2003-2004. How about that, Rooz?

didnt the a100 also win one of those pointless awards once ? shows you the integrity, (or lack thereof), of that particualr judging panel.

[DonSchap]

Fine ... dismiss the facts as you wish ... I just felt it was important to bring it to your attention so you could speak with some authority, when you discuss it with someone else, in the future. As usual, you are entirely welcome to believe the facts as you wish and warp them as needed. I certainly would not want you or anyone to fall back on IGNORANCE as some kind of excuse. Let's remove that and see it for what it is ... your opinion versus the rest of the world.

My friends are the FACTS ... and compelling friends they are too. Regards of whatever "truths" you desire to subscribe to, the facts are still the facts.

The TAMRON SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di LD Aspherical (IF) lens is an established fact ... for the past six years. It looks like it is getting even more life, despite YOUR appreciation of that ... FACT.


28-75 in 3-D (<- click here)

Welcome to my world ...

[Rooz]

what are the facts ? that it won a pointless award ? thats indisputable. yes it won an award, yes the award is pointless.

the facts should be presented on its performance as a package in context with its price, NOT the brand name. the facts are that its a lens with poor-fair build quality, shithouse AF and very good optics. on full frame it doesnt even have the optical performance. its a cheap fast lens for the budget conscious. nothing more, nothing less.

the only appealing thing about the lens is its price. thats it. sugar coat it all you like with your cheerleading, but thats the way it is Don.

[DonSchap]

You know ... I was, indeed, rummaging around for that extra $1200 I would pay to replace the 28-75mm f/2.8 (18 oz) with a CZ 24-70mm f/2.8 (33 oz)... which, of course, is a tremendous optic. Who would not want one, other than it is substantially heavier than the TAMRON.

So ... guilty as charged, I could not find that extra coin in my wallet. Does that affect this argument. Uh, no. The TAMRON lens is a good "budget" decision and I will not argue that. It is pointless, because when money is involved, there is a significant degree of latitude in the decision-making. You want "bang-for-the-buck" ... the TAMRON wins.

If bucks don't matter ... then, why are you reading this? Carl Zeiss for everybody!

[Rooz]

we've been thru this before, i;m not going to go there again.