Jump to content

Sony/Minolta lens range vs Canon / Nikon


ilkka

Recommended Posts

<p>It has been mentioned so many times that Sony lens range is somehow lacking in comparison to Canon and Nikon, that I put together a table with all the full frame Sony/Minolta AF lenses and corresponding Canon and Nikon offerings. The main misses in the Sony/Minolta list are 14mm wide angle, 2.8/400 and tilt and shift lenses. For tilt and shift one can of course mount Schneider lenses on Sony AF body so I included those in my table. One can still complain that Canon and Nikon has a wider range available new, but most of the Minolta lenses are easily obtainable in good condition if one looks for them. I have more than 10 lenses for my Sony 900 and only one of them is branded Sony and I have not felt I miss anything important. I try to post the table here.</p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>It would be much more effective if you listed all current lenses I think, as a lot of those are difficult to find Minolta lenses, that are usually highly priced.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>most of the Minolta lenses are easily obtainable in good condition if one looks for them</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's the problem, most people coming to the mount don't want to do that or see the point in doing so. It's generally only dedicated users of the mount that search for these great old Minolta lenses... I'm one of them, I don't mind doing that, just worth mentioning I think.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>I agree with Richard. The old primes are technically available .. if you have good reason to buy into the Sony system, they're there. But if I'm comparing systems, I'm going to consider them unavailable, as supply & demand has them hard to find and priced higher than new equivalents. So I'd rule out the 28, 35 & 100/2's, the 100/2.8 Soft Focus, the 200/4 macro, the 200/2.8, 400/4.5, and I personally wouldn't bother with a 135/2.8 at current prices. <br>

The beercan is technically a 70-200/4 and wildly popular, but if I'm looking at Canon's 70-200/4 as the lens I want, the beercan doesn't cut it. The 70-200/2.8 is a fine lens, but not up to the latest Canon & Nikons. Only a few lenses are SSM compared to many in the Nikon/Canon camps (and I don't find SAM a selling point). And only a couple lenses focus as fast as many of the better Canon lenses. There's a lot more to a lens lineup than focal lengths. <br>

On the flipside, some of the older Canon & Nikon lenses are pretty dated and Sony still gives you the benefit of stabilization with fast primes. Also, Sony has its own unique points in the lineup; I'd settle for the Canon/Nikon equivalents of the 16-80, but would prefer the 16-80 itself, and the 70-400 is a gem. (The 70-300 is nice, too). The 135/1.8 is supposedly a killer lens (haven't owned one; only tried it at a show) but it's a shame the 85 & 135 aren't SSM. Sony is better positioned as far as the technoloy goes to shift into video, but less well positioned as far as lenses go. <br>

I managed to buy a 28/2 before prices skyrocketed. Though today, it wouldn't bother me too much if I didn't have it because the 35/1.8 is a fine alternative for APS-C. I have an old 85/1.4 bought cheap. And then I have mostly newer lenses. I have a 400G bought new years ago, but today I would happily opt for the 70-400G. The Sony lineup has what a lot of us need, and other lineups may not have all we want, so it's always a compromise. The other lineups are more likely to be able to satisfy more buyers. But Sony has something like 10% (give or take) of the DSLR market, and I'm sure their lineup can satisfy far more than 10% of DSLR buyers ! </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The current lens ranges of all systems are easily compared. One can easily see that Sony has a much more limited range than either Canon or Nikon. And then people complain it has not enough lenses. That is exactly why I put together the table to show all lenses that have been made for the Sony system, some easier to find than others. Just to show that it actually has a very wide range of lenses, some of which have been rebranded as new Sony lenses even if they are actually decades old Minolta designs. </p>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hello Ilkka,<br>

I agree for the most part. We all have our lens grievances, and as you have shown, once people consider the Sony, Minolta AF, CZ ZA, the complaints looks considerably less well-evidenced. Plus Tamron et al, some of which are very good, like the 17-50 for APS-C and the 28-75 for FF. Samyang to come.</p>

<p>And they do have some that Canikon cannot offer, the STF and 70-400mm, for example.</p>

<p>If readers are not totally wedded to AF, consider Leitax mounts for many/most Leica and Contax Zeiss primes and some zooms. I have Contax 21mm, 28/2.8, 50/1.4, 35-70/3.4 and 100/3.5. All are well-priced (bar the 21mm) and truly exemplary! Or the Mirex TS adapter for the cheap and very sharp Mamiya 645 lenses.</p>

<p>The 200 f2.8 APO I found quickly, so no, don't 'rule it out'. Good luck finding the 28/2 or 35/2.</p>

<p>The CZ 16-80 is considerably better than the Nikon 16-85 VR, but CZ should release a 17-45mm of ZA quality rather than play in Sigma/Tamron territory.</p>

<p>The current and near future sales battleground for DLSR class cameras is the high end APS-C market, where the A77 will compete. Sony (and the others) really need to wake up to this and provide high end (Z standard) lenses that stand up to the high Mp sensors coming our way very soon. In actual FLs, something like the ZE range but in APS-C suitable focal lengths, especially wides. This omission in favour of all AF ZAs was a mistake in my view. If you talk to Nikon users, many love the AIS series...</p>

<p>Get (or permit) Zeiss to offer the ZE/ZF lenses in A mount, and Voigtlander while they are at it. That alone would give the mount a big kick along, the advanced Canon guys love them, who would not. In fact, Leitax now offers a mount change (reversible and easy to fit) for ZF lenses, so all you lose is auto stop down. So there are some more ideas for these fabulous cameras.</p>

<p>I think people just like to moan and want it all served on a plate for them. But look at the others...Nikon had that pricey 70-200 VR that did not cover FF when they finally got around to making one, and Canon has had god-awful mid zooms seemingly for ever, plus ghastly wide zooms and ancient primes until recently when they decided to make great ones for the pro market for a kings ramson; ditto Nikon, who made that ridiculous 14-24 no filter kilo heavy zoom. No joy there for most advanced amateurs. Neither has anything like the ZA 85/135, with SS/VR. I think Canikon have divided their lens market into two camps: pro, which they cater for lavishly, and hack consumer, which they treat with contempt. </p>

<p> </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

<p>"I think Canikon have divided their lens market into two camps: pro, which they cater for lavishly, and hack consumer, which they treat with contempt."<br>

Right on, Phil-- that's the truth on a nutshell. With N or C, you usually have to choose between beefy, bulky pro lenses fit for a medium format camera, or featherweight plastic zooms without proper focusing rings or distance scales. Too much, vs. too little. Minolta lenses give you better mid-market choices, IMHO, with smaller, sturdy lenses like the 24-85, the 100-200 and the 100-300 APO. <br>

It's like the SUV craze, or the current Age of Greed and the death of the middle class. Choose your extreme, because the middle is fading away...</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...