Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR Lens and why not Sony?

<p>Doesn't it seem odd to anybody but me that whereas Fuji already makes a 23 1.4 lens, they chose wisely to introduce this smaller f2 lens (even though they have their own X100 series) while Sony only offers the larger $900 24 1.8 ZA for APS-C? (and that is with a $200 discount!)? I mean I think most of us know that historically the 50 f2 and 35 f2 (equiv) lenses were the most popular versatile general purpose lenses, so why does Sony offer only 1 high quality option for the equivalent 35 field of view, and it is obscenely expensive? Should we assume that since the coming Fuji 23 f2 is only $450 that it is probably krap compared to the Sony/Zeiss ZA?<br /> Further why would only Chinese fringe companies like SLR Magic and Mitakon realize there is a demand for such a lens with their 23 1.7 lenses? I don't think these usually get reviews that are as good as what we see from Rokinon/Samyang for their extremely ambitiously fast but still really cheap lenses? I mean we are seeing so many e-mount lenses and a few are optimized for APS-C. I think my point is substantially made by the fact that when the APS-C Sony NEX was introduced, Zeiss offered exactly one lens first: the 24 1.8 ZA. Can't one of the established companies like Sigma or Rokinon or Tokina (that has the new 20 f2 FE) realize there is a market for an affordable version of an APS-C 24 f2 even if it is slightly slower and lacks the Zeiss name plate? It's not like I'm clucking for some rarely used accessory. For FE there is the Loxia 35 f2, a real gem. Then there's the Sony Distagon FE 35 1.4 too (yes, large). But then there is the Zeiss 35 2.8 FE for $699 that is MUCH smaller than the APS-C ZA lens? What gives?</p>

<p>There's no reason a full-frame lens cannot be used on an APS-C camera. 23 mm is 23 mm. Conversely a lens with APS-C coverage cannot be used on an FF camera without severe vignetting.</p>

<p>One can only guess why Sony hasn't introduced any new APS-C lenses while adding 18 FF lenses to their catalog. It would seem Sony has no interest in adding to the smaller format collection, although the A6300 is a notable exception.</p>

<p>A very good reason to use both APS-C and FF cameras which take the same lenses is for a backup, much lighter weight and a more compact body. Moreover, the cropping factor can be used to your advantage when you need more reach from lenses, while retaining much more resolution than by cropping a FF sensor.</p>

One of the reasons I switched from Sony to Fuji. They don't seem interested in supporting the customer by building out a

complete system so much as always having the next cool thing. They forgot about SLRs when they started making mirror

less and have taken a scattershot approach to the mirrorless line.

<p>I'd agree we can only assume that Sony is placing its bets on FF rather than APS-C, and largely leaving the APS-C lens field to others. It is possible that Fuji, Canon and Nikon have been competing so hard in this space (albeit not all mirrorless) that Sony have decided to concentrate on their unique (for now at least) FF mirrorless.</p>

<p>Sony apparently sees no future in DSLRs either. Why compete with established companies like Canon and Nikon with outdated technology?</p>

<p>The only thing "disjointed" about Sony's lens catalog is that they don't all look alike, or even have the same badge. The concept of "function over form" is part of Sony's DNA. They have established a solid working relationship with Zeiss, to which Canon and Nikon have given only grudging assent.</p>

<p>Edward, I realize that using full frame lenses on a Sony APS-C is possible, and that would be a great solution if Sony made a very compact affordable 23 f2 FE or even a 23 f2 2.8 in order to achieve the equivalent 35mm field of view on the APS-c bodies, but of course they don't. And I know they make a 28 f2 FE, but an equivalent 42 is nice but not a 35, which is the classic semi-wide one lens solution. The really weird thing is that none of the main aftermarket companies do either nor does anybody make a dedicated APS-C 23(or 24) f2 or 2.8, which would be cheaper and smaller than an FE lens. I can only guess that Sony has some kind of agreement with Zeiss so that nobody will compete with that $1,098/$899 24 1.8 ZA lens, and maybe they even use leverage with the likes of Sigma to prevent them from making such a lens. </p>

<p>To answer the OP's question, no it is not odd. There's a tradition in RF style cameras to offer a 1.4 version of a 35 mm equiv, and a 2.0. 1.4 is a bigger lens, but you gain a stop of light. In Fuji's case, they are slowly developing a line of 2.0 lenses that have a relatively small footprint and are weather resistant, since the new generation of Fuji top line X cameras are also weather sealed. </p>

<p>there's a simple explanation: Sony is a huge global company, but maintaining three seperate lens mounts plus 1" sensor fixed-lens bodies puts a strain on their R&D resources. Sony is an engineer-oriented company; Fuji is a photography-oriented company. the new 23/2 is weather-resistant unlike the earlier 1.4. so it works better with the weather-sealed xT series. if i had a dollar for every time a Sony APS-C user complained about their lens selection, i could buy a full Leica system. In an ideal world, potential buyers would have thoroughly researched lens choices before buying, as the relatively affordable prices of the A6xxx series tends to be a bit misleading, if not a case of bait and switch, when quality lenses are added to the mix -- some of which dont actually exist, even from 3rd party suppliers. The most logical conclusion is that Sony wants you to buy one of their A7 series cameras and their more pricey lenses, even though the A6k series are good, compact bodies with a lot of features. it's even worse if you buy a Sony A-mount camera, except that Sigma does make a 2.8 standard zoom in that mount. i would say you get what you pay for, but a better aphorism would be read the fine print and research carefully, before buying.</p>

<p>Sony make a pretty good TV, (I think).</p>

<p>Large companies are driven by marketing and sales, not engineering. Engineers and programmers can be rented at reasonable rates, as well as most development.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Large companies are driven by marketing and sales, not engineering. Engineers and programmers can be rented at reasonable rates, as well as most development.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>you're missing the point, probably purposefully. Sales is the final step in the photographic product development equation. i'm referring to philosophy and approach. There's a huge difference between Sony and Fuji in that regard. Fuji not only makes cameras with physical, tactile controls, but in a few short years, has rolled out a line of essential lenses covering everything from pancake primes to 2.8 telephotos. Sony's lens selection, spread across three different mounts, at times seems baffling. Sony's UI for years was confusing and became a running joke at DPReview; Fuji's don't get in the way of the user nearly as much. Even the latest Sony cameras have confusing trick modes on AF which are often counter-intuitive to what they should do. Sony covers up its camera's flaws by simply releasing new models, while Fuji is the industry leader in firmware updates and support for older bodies. Fuji;s 16 and 24 mp APS-C sensors punch way above their weight for IQ, while if Ming Thein is to be believed, Sony's touted stabilization actually induces errors into image capture and is closer to 2 stops than the claimed 4-5. Everything i just mentioned speaks to an engineer-driven company whose products look a little better on paper than they perform in the real world. Fuji is the opposite; they have a photographer-centric approach which has intangibles and and aesthetic you might not glean from reading a spec sheet.<br /> <br /> I'm not sure why some people have a compulsive need to defend Sony as if they were part of its marketing dept., rather than being able to have an objective view of what they're good at -- and what they're not so good at. It's predictable at this point, but also kind of tired. At the end of the day, i'm not saying Fuji is better than Sony, just that they have different approaches and aesthetics. if a Sony system does everything you need it to do, that's great. Ditto Fuji. But i see a lot of complaints about what Sony isn't doing, specifically around lenses. With Fuji, not so much.</p>

<p>Responding to Eric and Edward, I'm not sure either of you understand what I mean, but it may be that I don't understand what you mean. Edward, you say Sony is driven by sales. I think if Sony made a small 24 2.8 $350 aps-c that would be an equivalent 36mm lens it would sell well (unless it were undercut by Sigma). Eric, you seem to be saying that they would rather prod me to buy into their A7 series instead of giving me what I want in the smaller aps-c camera, but the problem is that I know what I want; I'm don't want the larger camera and larger lenses for what I do, so they can sell me what I want and need or they can watch me walk away or at the very least, they can see that I just don't buy any more of their new stuff, and I just keep managing with what I already bought from them, or I switch systems.<br>

Eric, I think you made the point that buyers should research what they are getting before they buy-in. I agree., and I do so like crazy. That's why I bought into Sony NEX for what it did for me then adequately like being able to fulfill a dream of using my Nikon and Leica lenses, but because I don't see a full commitment, I don't buy much more. I am more or less content with this NEX 5n and NEX 6 solution even now for me, but that doesn't mean I won't or can't complain about how it is ridiculous that Sony doesn't offer more options for the MOST POPULAR FOCAL LENGTH FOR GENERAL PHOTOGRAPHY - the equivalent 35mm field of view. <br>

I bought the Sony 5n before the Fuji X-E1 was introduced, and the Fuji X Pro 1 that was already out was too big for me and too expensive. If Fuji had got the X-E1 out the door sooner, things might have been different. </p>

<blockquote>

<p> Eric, you seem to be saying that they would rather prod me to buy into their A7 series instead of giving me what I want in the smaller aps-c camera, but the problem is that I know what I want; I'm don't want the larger camera and larger lenses for what I do, </p>

</blockquote>

<p>To make a general point about sales and marketin, essentially all camera makers are doing the same thing: attempting to shift the point and shoot market they lost to smart phones to higher-profit-per-unit products. That's why we see the $1800 APS-C enthusiast cameras from Nikon and Fuji, as well as a $1300 1" sensor superzoom and the A7 series from Sony. The logic behind this is simple: if sales overall are down, and DSLRs have peaked --once every family has one, you either have to convince them to upgrade bodies or entice them to keep adding lenses --you can stabilize profits by selling higher-cost products.<br>

<br>

The Sony APS-C bodies are a bit of a condundrum: the A-mount was Sony's answer to DSLRs, but is hardly the leading edge of technology these days in a highly-competitive market, and tends to get lost in Sony's extensive product line. The A6000 series, meanwhile, carries the leftover DNA from the NEX cameras which were Sony's first real foray into mirrorless ILCs (if we dont count the SLT DSLRs which were much larger physically). No doubt, if Sony was starting from scratch, the E-mount bodies might have a slightly different aesthetic. As it is, they have a slightly maddening combination of consumer and advanced features which look good on a stat sheet but reveal a more complex picture when you peek under the hood. For instance, not addin direct AF point selection to a body with hundreds of PDAF points across the frame and a high per-second capture rate limits the camera's usefulness for enthusiasts. The relatively low cost of the A6000 is a bit misleading, since the 16-50 kit lens is almost universally-reviled and much better for video than stills -- it's at least a notch below Fuji's sleeper 18-55 in terms of IQ. That means that to maximize the 24mp sensor in the A6000 and A6300, you've looking at upgrading lenses immediately, which drives up the price. That's also when you'll find that there are n 2.8 zooms for E-mount, not even from 3rd-party manufacturers. The upshot of that is getting deep into the system is going to be expensive, if you can even get the lenses you ideally want, at which point the advantages over APS-C and full-frame DSLRs shrinks considerably, except for maybe overall compactness.<br>

<br>

So that's one paradigm. The other Sony paradigm is the A7 series. On paper these bodies look fantastic. in practice, they're more hit and miss. The prime lenses are pretty expensive, especially compared to some of Fuji's lineup, and the pro-spec zooms are just as big and costly as their DSLR full-frame counterparts. You wont get the same level of AF tracking as with DSLRs, so these bodies are more suited for landscapes and maybe portraits than sports and action. If you have the cash for a body and a few primes, they are capable of impressive results, but you'e paying 2x-3x what a similar APS-C system might cost, in some cases, and maybe even more than a comparable full frame system. That may or may not be acceptable, depending on actual photographic needs. Sony doesnt currently make an A7 sports-oriented camera, so there's no reason to suggest they're going after that market. The A6300 arguably has better sports performance than any current A7 body, but again we're back to available lenses.<br>

<br>

All of that is what Sony's marketing dept. won't tell you; their tactic is to emphasize all the technology in these bodies rather than the functionality. Technology by itself doesnt take pictures, though, so the overall user experience may or may not be better for any typical shooter than other systems, even those which are not full frame and/or have less megapixels than the highest-end Sonys. So, while Sony's obviously a marketing-driven company, they are also engineer-driven in terms of their aesthetic. They are trying very hard to be cutting-edge, and use that as a selling point, but that may not matter so much to the consumer if they can't get the lens they want at the price point they want. OTOH, if you dont care that much about ultimate optical quality or building a complete system, and can live with the kit lens, the A6000 is an affordable, compact, and versatile camera with some tricked-out features. i think eventually we'll see Sony's mirrorless APS-C line evolve into a complete, high-performance system, but right now it seems apparent Sony has some concerns about not cannibalizing their higher-priced A7 line. if you can get someone to pay $4000 or $5000 for a body and a few lenses, why would you try to hard-sell them on a different system at a much lower price point?<br>

<br>

I didnt get much into Fuji here, but they have less internal conflict than Sony, since they only have one sensor format to develop products for, not four as Sony does. if you combine that with an intentional photographer-centric approach and a very logical lens lineup, it's easy to see why they've maintained their niche.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> because I don't see a full commitment, I don't buy much more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>this is a really key point. Sony probably wouldnt be happy to hear you're still using a NEX body and haven't gotten much deeper into the system or upgraded to a newer body, but you can't be the only person in that exact same position. For all of Sony's hype over the last two or three-years, their sales haven't really grown in terms of volume, though they are making up for unit sales drops by selling higher-end products. I honestly don't know that Sony's priority is a full commitment to APS-C, rather than continue to push high-megapixel full frame bodies and the demand for high-end lenses which comes along with them. Personally, i'd rather see an RX10 model with pro-level AF (or a fixed-lens RX10-like camera with APS-C sensor), but they have yet to deliver that either.<br>

</p>

<p>Eric, I just want to thank you for such a thoughtful response. I just saw it and sat about to make notes and try to address it line by line as it deserves since you are trying to answer my question(s). I'm sorry I have not been able to do that even though I have read your response several times. I think maybe the answer that is obvious is that Sony doesn't want to make several options in aps-c for the most common focal length 35mm equivalent the world has known because they have their own priorities. I get that, but I think a valid and more subtle point of my question is why has nobody else filled the void?</p>

<p>The second tier China companies have made 23 1.7 lenses. Why not Sigma or anybody else?</p>

 

<p>Even more bizarre, and my hat is well and truly eaten, is the announcement of a new Sony A mount A99 camera. A new addition to what most people had assumed was a well and truly dead system. All I can say is Sony must be going through their development budget at a high rate.</p>

<p>I saw that Robin. I guess I'm switching to A mount since apparently aps-c E mount is dead. :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The second tier China companies have made 23 1.7 lenses. Why not Sigma or anybody else?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>are you referring to the manual-focus mikaton, samyang, etc., lenses? those are hit and miss too. some are good lenses at sleeper prices, but quality control can be off on things like infinity stops and DoF scale markings. those lenses maybe make the most sense on m4/3 bodies where you need every stop of aperture you can get -- if you're a landscape shooter or trying to do low-light work. they make less sense for street photography, since zone focusing makes fast apertures irrelevant, and even less sense for sports/action where AF is a must. i think tokina just announced a 20/2 manual focus lens for Sony e-mount, which off the top has more appeal to videographers and tripod-using landscape photographers, since it cant make use of all those AF points. As for Tamron and Sigma, they concentrate on DSLRs because they still have the biggest market and R&D costs can be split between Canon and Nikon mounts. Since mirrorless lenses are smaller, these are more costs involved; it's not just a case of switching mounts. Sigma has launched a few primes for e-mount, but none of them were very fast up until the 30/1.4. that would probably have to sell well for them to delve deeper into this mount, or Sony would have to secure a bigger market share overall. Or both.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the announcement of a new Sony A mount A99 camera</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Seems counter-intuitive to the argument that the A7RII is a replacement for DSLRs, though they may share the same 42mp sensor. Not to be snarky, but this announcement may get lost in the deluge of Photokina-centered gear from Panasonic: FZ1000 replacement, GH5, LX10, etc. Maybe there are some existing A-mount users left who havent switched to the A7 series, but all the complaints i hear about Sony are about the lack of lenses, not that they dont make enough bodies. </p>

<p>When the aps-c e mount system was introduced Eric, one of the first lenses was the $1,100 Zeiss 25 f1.8 ZA. That was a very logical lens for Zeiss to start with. In the 5 years since then, the only other attempt by anybody to make an equivalent 35mm lens for the system (as far as I know) is that both SLR Magic and Mitakon make a mediocre manual focus 23 1.7. That is who I meant by second tier. I would think that Voigtlander or Sigma or Samyang or even Sony would realize that a more economical 35 mm equivalent lens than the $1100/900 Zeiss would be appealing in the market. I keep saying the same thing over and over again in this thread, but nobody really addresses it. The closest best answer is that everybody knows Sony is focusing on FE, but with the A5300, A6000 and A6300, there would be enough market for such a common focal length at an affordable price</p>

<p>Just to update my own post, I had heard about the Iberit (related to Kipon company maybe?) manual focus FE lenses last Spring but had not seen any additional information. I just saw a Matt Granger video about them linked through Sonyalpharumors, and I will say their 24 2.4 is notable as representing the sort of lens that I am saying is sorely missing, and that is a high quality compact affordable (maybe $500?) not-too-slow equivalent 36mm lens when used on aps-c. It only marginally achieves all of those requirements, but I think it does, and we will see some day what the actual performance is. True, it would be even better for the aps-c shooter if it were optimized for aps-c, but on the other hand, I think I would probably buy it in M mount and have that versatility to use it on other systems going forward as I would choose. I know we can already use SLR 24mm lenses on adapter, but I think this lens is notably more compact than those on adapter.</p>