Sony lenses -- full frame?

[aldrich]

Hello there!

 

First off, I own Nikon, but I'm trying to get info for a friend...he wants a new pro/prosumer model DSLR for his studio

(about a $15,000 budget for equipment upgrades as well)...he was eyeing a Sony a700. I am trying to convince him

to get either a Canon 5D or Nikon D3 for full frame advantage. I know that the old Minolta Lenses from 35mm are

capable of full frame...

 

Does Sony make a full frame sensor? Even if they did, are any Sony lenses capable of full frame? My assumption is

that Sony is behind the full-frame 8-ball and would have to release an entirely new line of full frame lenses should

they release a full-frame DSLR...very expensive for all Sony users who would want to upgrade, and likely not worth

it...but if I'm wrong, please do correct me. Thank you!

 

--Ryan

[aldrich]

I forgot to mention...He currently uses Olympus Evolt E-410 and is entirely unhappy with the entire system, hence the open mind to a new brand. Thanks!

[aaron meyer]

You are much mistaken regarding the Sony lens lineup.<BR>

<BR>

Only the "DT" line of lenses from Sony are APS-C lenses. This represents mostly a small number of lower-end or

kit zoom lenses (the Zeiss 16-80 f/3.5-4.5 being the one higher-end exception and it's still slower). The full

list of APS-C lenses from Sony is this: <BR>

<BR>

- The aforementioned Zeiss<BR>

- Sony 16-105 f/3.5-5.6<BR>

- Sony 11-18 f/4.5-5.6<BR>

- Sony 18-70 f/3.5-5.6<BR>

- Sony 18-300 f/3.5-6.3<BR>

- Sony 18-250 f/3.5-6.3<BR>

- Sony 55-200 f/4-5.6<BR>

<BR>

From your description, your friend would not be even looking at any of these lenses anyway.<BR>

<BR>

ALL other Sony lenses, and the other Zeiss lenses (the 24-70 f/2.8 SSM, the 85 f/1.4 and the 135 f/1.8) are full

frame. Aside from walkaround zooms Sony has shown little interest in APS-C lenses, preferring to maintain

full-frame lenses.<BR>

<BR>

Sony does make a full-frame sensor (they make the sensor in the Nikon D3), and they will be releasing a

full-frame DSLR later this year (the A900). I am biased since I loved the Maxxum 7 in film form and the A700 is

clearly evolved from that camera, but I really can't say enough positive about the A700.

[dave_redmann]

Sony has already publicly stated that they will introduce a full-frame, 24 MP camera this year. Exactly when, with exactly what specs, and at what price point remains to be seen. The big question will be whether it is aimed a little above the presumed EOS 5D Mk. II (presumably 16 MP and $2500 - $3000, but not a weather-sealed body etc.) or higher-up than that.

 

The Minolta lenses are all full frame, and many are excellent. Of the current Sony lenses:

 

(1) there are the full-frame "G" (professional line) lenses: 35mm f/1.4 G, 70-200mm f/2.8 G, 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 G, and 300mm f/2.8 G;

 

(2) there are the full-frame Zeiss lenses (reportedly also very high-quality): 24-70mm f/2.8, 85mm f/1.4, and 135mm f/1.8;

 

(3) there are other full-frame lenses:16mm f/2.8 fisheye, 20mm f/2.8, 28mm f/2.8, 24-105, 50mm f/1.4, 50mm f/2.8 macro, 75-300, 100mm f/2.8 macro, 135mm f/2.8-4.5 soft focus, 500mm f/8, and the 1.4x and 2x teleconverters; and

 

(4) there are "DT" lenses for "APS-C"-size DSLR's only: 11-18, 16-80, 16-105, 18-70, 18-200, 18-250, 55-200mm f/4.5-5.6.

 

So with 15 G-line, full-frame Zeiss, and other prime lenses covering 16 to 300mm, Sony has a pretty good full-frame, high-quality lens selection UNLESS you want to shoot things that require really long lenses (e.g., some sports, birds). Hey, it's ain't Canon or even Nikon, but it will cover most bases.

 

Really, though, I'd advise anyone ready to spend $15k to wait until the late fall. You will very likely see one (or rumors say two) full-frame Sony DSLR's, a Canon replacement for the 5D, and (rumor has it) a second Nikon full-frame, a D700 at presumably more like $2500. You can drive yourself crazy waiting, but this is one of those few times when waiting three or four months seems very prudent.

[tommyinca]

Check here:

 

http://www.dyxum.com/lenses/index.asp

 

As much as Canon and Nikon IMHO.

 

They also has a couple of interesting one for studio setting, like a 100mm f2.8 soft focus, a good fast 28mm f2, the

fastest in production 135mm/1.8 and a funky 135mm that let you adjust focus transition.

 

Other like a fast 35/1.4 and 85/1.4 they have. They don't have a 200mm f2 or f1.8 you will have to settle for a f2.8.

 

They have fast zoom like everyone else 24-70/2.8 and 70-200/2.8. They are weak on fast 17-35mm wide zoom with a

old Tamron design and Minolta's f3.5.

[aldrich]

Thank you so much...I knew I'd find the info I needed here! Hopefully the A900 (which I had no idea about -- I follow Nikon feeds) will be much better on noise at high ISO than the A700...the much anticipated D3X is also expected soon from Nikon....Speaking of Nikon...funny how Sony makes the sensor and gave Nikon the go-ahead before putting it in their own line!

 

I will pass this info to my pal tonight...whether he waits or not is up to him, but at least now he has the correct info from some Sony users and not a biased Nikonian! Thank you again!

 

--Ryan

[ricardovaste]

Ryan I really think you could have googled this or just looked at what is on offer on a website that sells photographic equipment, as your first statement is wildly assumptive and based on thin air.

[aldrich]

Mr. Harris, While I accept your ideas and criticism, I will state again that I am unfamiliar with Sony products altogether...Every manufacturer has different codes and acronyms for all products (VR vs IS vs OS vs SR; G vs. L vs. II; DX vs. DT vs. EOS, EFS, AFS, etc.) including lenses (G for Nikon simply means no aperture ring, while G for Sony, as I learned above, means professional grade). While I could have wasted time clicking link after link of searching myself, I figured I would save time and use this as a resource to hear from some educated users rather than potentially cryptic and unreliable "googled" sites. Fortunately, there were some that were willing to educate, rather than chastise me about wasting time with "wildly assumptive" statements. As far as I'm concerned, this is a resource for learning just as much as it is networking, troubleshooting, and open discussion. At least that's what I use it for and I don't use it too often. What IS a waste of time is reading harsh and unnecessary criticism. Perhaps you should not waste your own time by posting such trash and go post where you feel your assumed high expertise can be better used.

[aaron meyer]

Not sure what you mean about poor high-ISO performance with the A700. RAW noise at high ISO speeds is quite good provided you're using one of the better RAW converters and not Adobe. Adobe has issues creating mottled images from A700 RAW files and Capture One currently has issues with the compressed RAW files (cRAW). Nikon and Canon may have a half-stop edge at most, but in real use that doesn't come into play.

 

A good comparison of A700 RAW files from different converters can be seen here: http://www.photoclubalpha.com/2008/02/21/a700-6400-iso-seven-raw-processors/

[aldrich]

Thank you Aaron,

 

I got the poor high-ISO noise from, I believe, Popular photography's rating, though I'm not sure. Let this also be a testament to why I post here instead of googling all day long.

 

I myself use Lightroom for RAW conversion, but I shoot Nikon and have no problems. I would assume the A900 won't have this issue.

 

Thanks for helping my friend!

[aaron meyer]

I should clarify that it hasn't been an issue for me. And I apologise for the slight towards Adobe. It does well with most other sensors, but doesn't seem to like the CMOS sensor of the A700 and I've heard rumors of similar complaints from Canon 5D users. Near as I can tell from the article I linked to, the chip Sony used doesn't seem to like the particular de-mosaic algorithm used by Adobe.

 

I don't think your friend can go wrong with the A700, but I also don't think he could go wrong with a Canon 5D or a Nikon D3 either. They are all great cameras.

[glyn r]

Ryan

The Sony Alpha system is based on the late lamented Minolta system. The Later AF Minolta 35mm equipment is fully compatible with Sony. I have 3 Minolta FF lenses for my APSC camera. I use the APSC lenses at the telephoto end where the 1.5 magnification is useful. There are some wonderful FF lenses in the Sony G range.

[douglas_ferling]

I would imagine that high ISO wouldn't be too much of an issue if your friend is opening a studio. The Nikon D3x is only rumor at this point, whereas the A900 has been shown for 6 months, but, assuming the D3x is a reality, neither it nor the A900 will have high ISO like the D3. Very different cameras for different uses.

 

Sony's current fullframe Zeiss lenses are testing better than anything out there, and more are on the way. Those lenses, combined with a ~$3000 24MP fullframe, are focused directly at a shooter like your friend. I'm moving away from medium format to the Sony system for this very reason.

[ricardovaste]

It saddens me that you lower yourself to personal insults, but oh well.

 

My point is not there to take offence, its just as simple as it is, don't read into it anymore. This website is a resource, yes, thats how we both use it. But one of the reasons that it is such a useful resource is because their are pages of previously asked questions that are easy to access, full of useful information.

 

But hey, what do I know, im just a kit. I'll leave this to the "old folk" ;-).

 

Good luck to you and your friends new venture.

[ablyth]

Short answer, the Sony A900 (full-frame camera) will be out this year. Old Minolta AF (auto focus) and G lenses will be perfect with it. These lenses will also be fine with the A700 (and the DT's). If I were him, I wait for the A900, and be shopping for second hand Minolta AF and Konica-Minolta G lenses. The good thing with the KM and Sony system is the menu system is much simplified and quite intuitive. He should be able to learn quick.

[robert_paul1]

A couple of posters have mentioned that Sony makes the Full-Frame sensor in the Nikon D3. They may have said due to the fact that Sony has indeed made the sensor used in previous APS-C DSLRs put out by Nikon.

 

However, it has not been proven that Sony makes the sensor used in the D3. Nikon has said that THEY designed the sensor. So, it may be possible that Nikon contracted Sony to manufacturered the sensor for them. If this is the case, then Sony does not have a right to use the sensor, unless Nikon allows Sony to use it.

 

The more likely possibility is that Nikon may have felt that now that Sony is in the DSLR business, and is a direct competitor, may have decided to design their own sensors, and have a third party do the manufacturing.

[aaron meyer]

"However, it has not been proven that Sony makes the sensor used in the D3. Nikon has said that THEY designed the sensor. So, it may be possible that Nikon contracted Sony to manufacturered the sensor for them. If this is the case, then Sony does not have a right to use the sensor, unless Nikon allows Sony to use it.

 

The more likely possibility is that Nikon may have felt that now that Sony is in the DSLR business, and is a direct competitor, may have decided to design their own sensors, and have a third party do the manufacturing."

 

Sony manufactures the sensor in Nikon's DSLRs. Nikon designed the sensor in the D3 and contracted production to Sony. You are almost certainly correct that Nikon has not licensed the sensor to Sony for use in their own cameras, but it simply wouldn't make business sense for Nikon to spend more money by contracting a different chip manufacturer. Sony's economies of scale and manufacturing experience make them a logical choice for volume production.

[amarkin]

A couple of things:

 

I will very much doubt of Nikon ability to design a digital sensor. They may have played some part in the project but they did not design the sensor.

 

Canon gained a lot of experience with their electronic equipment can manufacture. Sony can. Few other electronic companies can design a chip. Nikon � no.

 

If FF Sony camera is released later this year it�d be interesting to know how much their flagship camera would cost. I suspect it�d be no less than $4K. Everything produced by Sony is expensive.