Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Sony Announces FE 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8

  1. #1

    Sony Announces FE 70-300 f/4.5-5.6 and 50mm f/1.8

    http://www.sonyalpharumors.com/sony-...-a-new-rx10m3/



    Sony announces two new lenses. A variable focal length 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 and a consumer priced 50mm f/1.8.
    (Insert list of camera gear that lets others know how much money you have here.)

  2. #2
    When beginners look to enter full-frame, I always steered them away from Sony E-mount because FE has a lack of cheap full frame lens options, the lack of 50mm was a big one. With the 50mm f/1.8 Sony lens joining the fray, I feel Sony officially filled a missing puzzle piece.

    Wildlife photographers can be happy that a telephoto covering the full frame is here as well. It has a "G" badge though, so expect the price tag to match.
    Last edited by Panza; Mar 29 2016 at 01:28 PM.
    (Insert list of camera gear that lets others know how much money you have here.)

  3. #3
    Elite Member leuius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal (QC)
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by Panza View Post
    Wildlife photographers can be happy that a telephoto covering the full frame is here as well. It has a "G" badge though, so expect the price tag to match.
    This is probably the same A-mount lens that Jay reviewed recently but with an E-mount instead; so no LA-EA3 or -EA4 adapters required. Maybe more compact?

    If Sony follows the same approach (which makes perfect sense to me), we should see a native E-mount 70-400mm eventually.

    Thanks for the heads-up.

  4. #4
    Super Moderator Obelix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Milwaukee, Wi
    Posts
    1,539
    I hope we will see Tamron version of this lens at half price

  5. #5
    Nice additions for the E mount. The 70-300 is very tempting, it looks smaller than the A mount version with adapter? Hope the IQ is good as.
    Good to see cheaper lenses too. With the 28 and 50, the next missing is an cheap 85.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by leuius View Post
    This is probably the same A-mount lens that Jay reviewed recently but with an E-mount instead; so no LA-EA3 or -EA4 adapters required. Maybe more compact?

    If Sony follows the same approach (which makes perfect sense to me), we should see a native E-mount 70-400mm eventually.

    Thanks for the heads-up.
    When I looked at the arrangement of the grouping, there were two elements in a group placed very close to the rear of this lens. By that design the LAEA adapter would not serve as a viable replacement. I believe 2 ED and 4 or more aspherical elements as well -- those aren't cheap. The A-mount 70-300 uses 1 ED element.
    (Insert list of camera gear that lets others know how much money you have here.)

  7. #7
    Its definitely the not the same lens design. Both lenses are very similar in size, if they were the same, the E mount one should be longer because of the flange distance.
    Hope the compromise for the size don't affect too much the overall IQ.

  8. #8
    Thanks for sharing Pan and new article up here: http://sonyalphalab.com/new-sony-fe-...ens-announced/

    Definitely different optics in 70-300mm!

    Jay
    Jay - Comments, Questions, and Critiques always welcomed and encouraged!

    Current Everyday Gear: Sony A7r, Sony A6400, Sony Nex-6, Sigma 56mm f/1.4 Lens, Sigma 30mm f/1.4 Lens, Sony E 18-55mm, Sony E 55-210mm OSS Lens, Sony E 16mm f/2.8 Pancake, Rainbow Imagining MC/MD Lens Adapter w/ Minolta MD 50mm f/1.4 PG Rokkor Lens

  9. #9
    Advanced Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    209
    Now if they would only come out with the FE 135 f1.8.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jay View Post
    Thanks for sharing Pan and new article up here: http://sonyalphalab.com/new-sony-fe-...ens-announced/

    Definitely different optics in 70-300mm!

    Jay
    Great article Jay, good to see stuff like this on the site!


    Quote Originally Posted by SPtheALIEN View Post
    Now if they would only come out with the FE 135 f1.8.
    SP, you're tugging on my heart strings with that one. :')
    (Insert list of camera gear that lets others know how much money you have here.)

  11. #11
    Greetings,

    Great article, Jay. I sure enjoy your website, reviews and forum!!

    Thank you.

    Smorton
    Last edited by Smorton; Apr 2 2016 at 10:51 AM.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Smorton View Post
    Greetings,

    Great article, Jay. I sure enjoy your website, reviews and forum!!

    Thank you.

    Smorton
    Post more ; )! Don't be shy!
    (Insert list of camera gear that lets others know how much money you have here.)

  13. #13
    I am scared. But I will try to post something.

    Really have learned a lot about cameras and lens from your reviews and really looking forward to learning from this forum.

    Thanks once more.

    Smorton

  14. #14
    I have the F4 70-200 but I am tempted by the smaller size and greater range of the 70-300. Has anyone had experience with both? I'm not sure if it would be worth it to try to sell the 70-200 (Anyone here interested?) and purchase the 70-300.

  15. #15
    Elite Member leuius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Montreal (QC)
    Posts
    845
    Quote Originally Posted by DavidC View Post
    I have the F4 70-200 but I am tempted by the smaller size and greater range of the 70-300. Has anyone had experience with both? I'm not sure if it would be worth it to try to sell the 70-200 (Anyone here interested?) and purchase the 70-300.
    I had a chance to try the 70-300 and the optics is fine. The one thing that bugs me though is the absence of a tripod collar, even as an option. When mounted on a camera fixed to a tripod, the arrangement feels front heavy; you need a strong tripod head. The smaller size is relative because the 70-300 extends as you zoom whereas the 70-200 is all internal.

    I will wait for an eventual 70-400...

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by leuius View Post
    I had a chance to try the 70-300 and the optics is fine. The one thing that bugs me though is the absence of a tripod collar, even as an option. When mounted on a camera fixed to a tripod, the arrangement feels front heavy; you need a strong tripod head. The smaller size is relative because the 70-300 extends as you zoom whereas the 70-200 is all internal.

    I will wait for an eventual 70-400...
    Thanks. This is helpful. Maybe I'll wait too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •