Two new rumored lenses

[iamdlewis]

From Sony alpha rumors there are two new lenses that will be released soon:

1. Sony 16mm f/1.8 G It will be optically superior and more compact than the existing Viltrox 16mm FE. But also cost close to $1,000.
2. Sony 400-800mm f/6.3-8.0 G Expect similar build quality and pricing of the Sony 200-600mm lens. But the 400-800mm is probably extremely lightweight and compact and perfect for long handheld wildlife shooting.

For me the 400-800 has some interest but not really sure.

 

[FowlersFreeTime]

That 16mm could be enticing to any milkyway/night-sky photographers out there; I believe @DaveC Oz uses the Viltrox lens they are comparing it to.

 

[DaveC Oz]

That 16mm could be enticing to any milkyway/night-sky photographers out there; I believe @DaveC Oz uses the Viltrox lens they are comparing it to.

I do indeed use the Viltrox 16mm. The Sony would have tempted me, but I have been very happy with the Viltrox. Unless the Sony lens has an enormous advantage in size or image quality, I don't think I'll be trading.

 

[Unframed Dave]

From Sony alpha rumors there are two new lenses that will be released soon:


For me the 400-800 has some interest but not really sure.

Likewise. Price will be a big factor. I see that as a very usable safari lens, but then, so is 200-600.

We'll see.

 

[Tim Mayo]

The 400-800 could be interesting. Weight would be a big deciding factor for me though. I'm so used to the 1,365g of the Sigma 500 now that it would take something pretty amazing to convince me to carry a heavier lens. The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens weighs 2,050g but that's an external zoom lens, would the Sony be as well? An internal zooming 400-800mm f/6.3-8.0 G weighing around 1,600g could tempt me but not if it's closer to 2kg and definitely not if they go with an external zoom design. Although shooting at F8 would require a few more sunnier days here in the UK.

 

[Unframed Dave]

I must admit Tim, I hadn't noticed the aperture. That makes it practically useless in the UK.

I remember my 500mm mirror back in the eighties with a fixed f8, you may as well have put a cloudy lemonade bottle on the front of the camera.

I realise a lot of folks use denoise, sharpening and high isos, even so, you can only put so many earrings on a pig!

I'm out.

 

[spudhead]

Well 200-600 and 1.4 work well in decent light ,and make 840mm at f9

 

[Unframed Dave]

In decent light!

 

[spudhead]

Well with the 400-800 regardless of light you are still at 6.3 short end 400mm and 800mm f9 , but with the 200-600 you can add the 1.4 if the light is good simple really !

 

[Loke]

I already have the 200-600 and 1,4TC - so i dont think i would be to interested in that lens. 16mm 1.8 on the other hand could be nice. I've been looking for a slightly wider option than my 24mm f1.8 for landscape and aurora.

 

[Paul stuart]

400-800mm would be a nice birding lens really f8 can be good choice for close subjects depends on price and weight i still enjoy the 200-600mm and my sigma 500mm f5,6 and still tempted by the 300mm f2.8 just for the f2.8,Little interest in the 16mm sony i have the viltrox which is really superb a little heavy but it is a very user specific lens and not something i take with me everywhere ,Fingers crossed the 400-800mm has decent mfd

 

[AlphaWorld]

The 400-800 could be interesting. Weight would be a big deciding factor for me though. I'm so used to the 1,365g of the Sigma 500 now that it would take something pretty amazing to convince me to carry a heavier lens. The Canon RF 200-800mm F6.3-9 IS USM lens weighs 2,050g but that's an external zoom lens, would the Sony be as well? An internal zooming 400-800mm f/6.3-8.0 G weighing around 1,600g could tempt me but not if it's closer to 2kg and definitely not if they go with an external zoom design. Although shooting at F8 would require a few more sunnier days here in the UK.

I have to agree with you on the weight - a heavy beast like the 2.1kg 200-600mm would lose my interest rather quickly.

Curious why you are insisting on an internal zoom, though? As I understand it, internal zoom compromises focal length at close focus distances. It also means that it's longer, and potentially heavier, than a variable length lens might be.

I'm sure we'll hear comments about 800mm meaning that you are shooting through too much air sooner or later

I am likely to have better shooting conditions for an f/8 lens. Means more sunscreen, though.

 

[Tim Mayo]

I have to agree with you on the weight - a heavy beast like the 2.1kg 200-600mm would lose my interest rather quickly.

Curious why you are insisting on an internal zoom, though? As I understand it, internal zoom compromises focal length at close focus distances. It also means that it's longer, and potentially heavier, than a variable length lens might be.

I'm sure we'll hear comments about 800mm meaning that you are shooting through too much air sooner or later

I am likely to have better shooting conditions for an f/8 lens. Means more sunscreen, though.

I just find internal zoom lenses easier to handle, especially when it comes to longer and heavier lenses. They are more balanced and typically have a shorter zoom throw. If I'm in a hide I'll typically use a gimbal and they balance much better, with an external zoom I'll fix it at the longest length just to avoid adjusting the gimbal. The 70-200 F4 G II Macro is pretty much the only external zoom lens I use now. I'd prefer it to be internal but it's so small and light it doesn't bother me as much as the larger lenses.