The Amazing Sony A1/A7/A9/APS-C & Anything else welcome Mega Thread!

chrism_scotland said:
At least the 50 is reasonably priced, the 70-300 at £1150 seems a bit much though considering it's not that fast.
Click to expand...

Once it's been on the market a while the price may drop a bit and it might end up not too far from the comparable top end variable aperture lenses. How much is the Canon? Knocking on for £900? I think the Nikon is a bit cheaper just over £700 maybe but these high end variable aperture zooms all seem to be at the expensive end. Don't Fuji do a variable aperture that's well over £1k and it's not even FF?

It wouldn't be too surprising to see the Sony dropping below £1k and nearer the Canikon competition, in time.
 
The Fuji equivalent is faster and costs approx 450 quid. The 55-200. It doesn't need to be full frame.

The Sony A mount 70-300 is a decent lens but a lot of people thought/think its overpriced, the emount is bigger and again costs even more. Looks like Sonys done what it did with old Minolta lenses when they updated them.

Nikon doesn't make a higher end 70-300 lens. Only the vrii which is about 420 quid.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
The Fuji equivalent is faster and costs approx 450 quid. The 55-200. It doesn't need to be full frame.

The Sony A mount 70-300 is a decent lens but a lot of people thought/think its overpriced, the emount is bigger and again costs even more. Looks like Sonys done what it did with old Minolta lenses when they updated them.

Nikon doesn't make a higher end 70-300 lens. Only the vrii which is about 420 quid.
Click to expand...

Yeah as I said this would need to be something really special to get my interest. As I shoot Nikon too, a used Tamron at around £180 would be the better option. Unless this is a very special lens. But I'd guess it's just highly priced like the a mount glass.
Will wait for reviews and monitor grey price.
 
woof woof said:
Once it's been on the market a while the price may drop a bit and it might end up not too far from the comparable top end variable aperture lenses. How much is the Canon? Knocking on for £900? I think the Nikon is a bit cheaper just over £700 maybe but these high end variable aperture zooms all seem to be at the expensive end. Don't Fuji do a variable aperture that's well over £1k and it's not even FF?

It wouldn't be too surprising to see the Sony dropping below £1k and nearer the Canikon competition, in time.
Click to expand...

The Fuji longer lens at that price is the 50-140 which is a fixed f2.8, the 100-400 is variable and dearer but thats not an equivalent lens to a FF 70-300.
 
addicknchips said:
Yeah as I said this would need to be something really special to get my interest. As I shoot Nikon too, a used Tamron at around £180 would be the better option. Unless this is a very special lens. But I'd guess it's just highly priced like the a mount glass.
Will wait for reviews and monitor grey price.
Click to expand...

An FE mount Tamon 70-300 USD VC for £250 would be a good lens!
 
Sony FE lens prices may drop, look at the FE 70-200mm f4, I paid £1250, it is now £979.
 
Rizvan said:
Sony FE lens prices may drop, look at the FE 70-200mm f4, I paid £1250, it is now £979.
Click to expand...

Youre still looking at £900 if the drop was equal. Also, most with the option of native would just buy a Tamron or Sigma 150-600.
 
I owned the Nikon 70-300mm VR, it was poo!
I don't think Sony has made it a cheap 70-300 lens as it has the G designation.
 
JYC said:
Try £400!!
Click to expand...
£400? Do you want the Sony for that or the Nikon?

The Nikon I was thinking about is the £720 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR 1 which I assume is a high end lens. You may be thinking of the G AF-S VR IF ED? Which I thought was a mid range lens? That's probably worth a lot more if you're paying by the letter :D
 
Last edited:
Rizvan said:
I owned the Nikon 70-300mm VR, it was poo!
I don't think Sony has made it a cheap 70-300 lens as it has the G designation.
Click to expand...
I have to wonder why some people even have a DSLR/mirrorless if they judge a lens entirely by its focal length. Surely they'd be better off with a cheap superzoom. dpreview comments make me sad.

"Oh I had a £99 70-300mm Sigma lens once, I can only assume that this is exactly the same, but with a zero tacked on the end of the price. What a rip off!"
 
chrism_scotland said:
The Fuji longer lens at that price is the 50-140 which is a fixed f2.8, the 100-400 is variable and dearer but thats not an equivalent lens to a FF 70-300.
Click to expand...
You're right, these aren't really the same. Fuji don't make one the same but they do make expensive slow APS-C zooms yet you're here critisising Sony. Again.

Several of the usuals seem to make premium expensive slow zooms. The new Sony looks to be expensive but not outlandishly so in this company and I'd rather drop the "slow" critisism as several manufacturers seem to make expensive slow zooms and hope that the performance is equal to or better than the similar slow lenses from the competition and also that the price looks reasonable once we know how it performs and what the street price is 6 months to a year from now.
 
Crossroads said:
I have to wonder why some people even have a DSLR/mirrorless if they judge a lens entirely by its focal length. Surely they'd be better off with a cheap superzoom. dpreview comments make me sad.

"Oh I had a £99 70-300mm Sigma lens once, I can only assume that this is exactly the same, but with a zero tacked on the end of the price. What a rip off!"
Click to expand...

Yup, read those comments about some $90 Tamron too. These people are just simpletons.

PS. I used to have a Canon 70-300mm, can't remember the aperture but it was just a slow lens. It was cheapish but it was also a piece of sh!t.
 
Last edited:
I guess proof will be in the user reviews pudding.
I've heard the Tamron 70-300 vc is on par with the Nikon version.
 
woof woof said:
£400? Do you want the Sony for that or the Nikon?

The Nikon I was thinking about is the £720 70-300mm f4.5-5.6 VR 1 which I assume is a high end lens. You may be thinking of the G AF-S VR IF ED? Which I thought was a mid range lens? That's probably worth a lot more if you're paying by the letter :D
Click to expand...

Where do you get your pricing? The newer vrii of that lens is only 400 odd quid BRAND new, The vr1 was never 700 quid!

The older g lens is like 100 quid at most.
 
Crossroads said:
I have to wonder why some people even have a DSLR/mirrorless if they judge a lens entirely by its focal length. Surely they'd be better off with a cheap superzoom. dpreview comments make me sad.

"Oh I had a £99 70-300mm Sigma lens once, I can only assume that this is exactly the same, but with a zero tacked on the end of the price. What a rip off!"
Click to expand...

Who's doing that, by all accounts the tamron vc is pretty much as good as the Sony A mount G lens but it's less than 1/3 the price. The 400 quid Nikon vrii is better than the Tamron.
 
addicknchips said:
I guess proof will be in the user reviews pudding.
I've heard the Tamron 70-300 vc is on par with the Nikon version.
Click to expand...
I had one of them briefly when I had my D800. Can't remember the exact name, "VC SP Di DG USB OMG" or whatever their particular alphabet soup works out as. It was a pretty solid lens, I just rarely used it since I never much went past 200mm anyway.
 
Rizvan said:
I owned the Nikon 70-300mm VR, it was poo!
I don't think Sony has made it a cheap 70-300 lens as it has the G designation.
Click to expand...

So as you're the Sony guru you've used the Sony A mount G to make a comparison against the lenses being discussed? Surely that at 900 quid must be poo then. Most will disagree with your poo comment tbh.
 
twist said:
Who's doing that, by all accounts the tamron vc is pretty much as good as the Sony A mount G lens but it's less than 1/3 the price. The 400 quid Nikon vrii is better than the Tamron.
Click to expand...
Not here, but at dpreview and in the comments of the "rumour" site.
 
woof woof said:
Yup, read those comments about some $90 Tamron too. These people are just simpletons.

PS. I used to have a Canon 70-300mm, can't remember the aperture but it was just a slow lens. It was cheapish but it was also a piece of sh!t.
Click to expand...

Tbh the old canon 70-300 non l was a pos, just like the nikon g and Sony non g. Different market.
 
woof woof said:
You're right, these aren't really the same. Fuji don't make one the same but they do make expensive slow APS-C zooms yet you're here critisising Sony. Again.

Several of the usuals seem to make premium expensive slow zooms. The new Sony looks to be expensive but not outlandishly so in this company and I'd rather drop the "slow" critisism as several manufacturers seem to make expensive slow zooms and hope that the performance is equal to or better than the similar slow lenses from the competition and also that the price looks reasonable once we know how it performs and what the street price is 6 months to a year from now.
Click to expand...

Lol. They do the faster cheaper smaller 55-200. Fujis lenses are faster than fe. I do wonder sometimes.
 
Last edited:
twist said:
So as you're the Sony guru you've used the Sony A mount G to make a comparison against the lenses being discussed? Surely that at 900 quid must be poo then. Most will disagree with your poo comment tbh.
Click to expand...
I managed to bag the Nikkor 70-300mm VRII for less than £300, for the money vs performance it was ok, nothing special, it just wasn't that sharp hence my poo comment. Perhaps it needed AF fine-tuning? Another thing I don't miss about my Brickon lol ;)
I stick by my comment, it was poo. (For my pixel peeping).
 
Rizvan said:
I managed to bag the Nikkor 70-300mm VRII for less than £300, for the money vs performance it was ok, nothing special, it just wasn't that sharp hence my poo comment. Perhaps it needed AF fine-tuning? Another thing I don't miss about my Brickon lol ;)
I stick by my comment, it was poo. (For my pixel peeping).
Click to expand...

Vs your poo 24-70 that was 750 quid?
 
twist said:
Said like a true Sony guru lol.
Click to expand...
Yup, I need to keep telling myself that Sony is IT, no more changing brands etc lol. :)
I've yet to give in to my GAS and order the G Masters :) phew!
 
twist said:
He needs to do it.
Click to expand...
This is what I'm worried about Mmm the NEED! Lol
Got so much other things to buy too, new car, AstroTurf, baby toys etc Mmmmm.
Question is, do I sell my FE24-70mm f4 & 70-200mm f4 lenses to make way for the G Masters or keep them?
The FE70-200mm f4 is awesome lens which is relative low in weight mmmmm.
The G Masters are like tanks! Lol :)
 
We'll see whether this new 70-300mm is an order of magnitude better/sharper than the Nikon or Canon versions soon enough, but even if you love Sony I don't understand how you can defend the price of a £1150 f4-5.6 zoom. It's clearly overpriced!!
 
Rizvan said:
This is what I'm worried about Mmm the NEED! Lol
Got so much other things to buy too, new car, AstroTurf, baby toys etc Mmmmm.
Question is, do I sell my FE24-70mm f4 & 70-200mm f4 lenses to make way for the G Masters or keep them?
The FE70-200mm f4 is awesome lens which is relative low in weight mmmmm.
The G Masters are like tanks! Lol :)
Click to expand...
Keep the 70-200 but sell the 24-70 imo
 
JYC said:
We'll see whether this new 70-300mm is an order of magnitude better/sharper than the Nikon or Canon versions soon enough, but even if you love Sony I don't understand how you can defend the price of a £1150 f4-5.6 zoom. It's clearly overpriced!!
Click to expand...
Me? I'm not really defending it am I? I've said it's on the expensive side...but what I'm not doing is shouting that it's too expensive and too slow and should be $90 or £400 because Tamron and/or Nikon make one at that price.

Lets take a more reasoned view than just deciding that the Sony 70-300mm is a slow rip off.

I've only ever owned one 70-300mm and I doubt I'll own another any time soon but as an outsider looking in I do think that criticism of this lens because it's slow and expensive is a little strange and premature as other marques are clearly making and selling slow expensive zooms too and if we look at some of those slow and expensive zooms the Sony whilst on the expensive end of the scale isn't IMO eye wateringly and off the scale so, and the street price might just drop a bit and possibly end up a bit closer to the other slow premium zooms on sale.

I thought DPR was bad enough :D
 
Last edited:
The Sony marketing is obviously paying off when average/amateur photographers are willing to pay upwards of £1k for any relatively slow variable aperture telephoto. Regardless of the optical quality, can you really see anyone choosing this to cover fast/lowlight wildlife or sports because that's where Sony are aiming at selling it for £1k. Regardless of ISO performance on modern Sony bodies, you shouldn't be expecting to shell out £1k for a pretty average specification lens.

While people aren't shocked at these prices, Sony will have no reason to bring out more realistically priced alternatives.
 
woof woof said:
Me? I'm not really defending it am I? I've said it's on the expensive side...but what I'm not doing is shouting that it's too expensive and too slow and should be $90 or £400 because Tamron and/or Nikon make one at that price.

Lets take a more reasoned view than just deciding that the Sony 70-300mm is a slow rip off.

I've only ever owned one 70-300mm and I doubt I'll own another any time soon but as an outsider looking in I do think that criticism of this lens because it's slow and expensive is a little strange and premature as other marques are clearly making and selling slow expensive zooms too and if we look at some of those slow and expensive zooms the Sony whilst on the expensive end of the scale isn't IMO eye wateringly and off the scale so, and the street price might just drop a bit and possibly end up a bit closer to the other slow premium zooms on sale.

I thought DPR was bad enough :D
Click to expand...

Which other marques exactly? Only 1, Canon, and that comes in at under £900, Nikon at £400 ish, Tamron VC at £250ish.. Slow, weirdish FL and expensive doesn't sit well with most people. Most of the 'longer slow zooms' you speak of aren't the same FL they are long zooms. Were specifically talking about this FL.
 
Last edited:
Crossroads said:
Apparently it works for the Canon marketing machine so I'm not sure why people are angry at Sony for producing something of similar quality at a similar price.
Click to expand...

It certainly does but Id bet the 70-300 isn't a huge seller, plus its £250 cheaper from a more established system with a clear upgrade path. Sony shouldn't be pricing themselves well above the bigger players if they are trying to gain ground.

EDIT I am glad they are giving users more options.... but the pricing.
 
Last edited:
Crossroads said:
Apparently it works for the Canon marketing machine so I'm not sure why people are angry at Sony for producing something of similar quality at a similar price.
Click to expand...

To be honest, I'm not angry at Sony because they're a business out to make profit. I'm more surprised that there's enough disposable income knocking about for people to justify a (obviously on paper because I haven't seen any reviews) pretty unexciting telephoto lens for over £1K. The Canon equivalent is either the non-L 70-300 F4-5.6 IS @ £340 or the weather-sealed L F4-5.6 IS @ £876.

I understand that the FE range is desperate for lenses but if Sony continue to release lenses over £1K it's difficult to imagine them eating too much into the CaNikon market for all but the most wealthy or in-debt amateurs.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top