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

jonneymendoza said:
Then Sony would just put the price down to 1.5k on the mk3!
Click to expand...
The price will go down to that soon anyway, they always do after initial release.
 
snerkler said:
They don't as the only way you can get the same feature set is to go mirrorless. However, the D750 still gives the A7iii a good run for its money and is cheaper, and it over 3 years old. I wonder what the D760 will offer?

Have you tried the camera yet?
Click to expand...
I've had probably 5 or 6 D750 bodies and honestly it doesn't give the A7III a run for its money at all

The D750 has price on its side and lenses vastly cheaper

As a camera it's not even close tbh
 
snerkler said:
They are going mirrorless, they said that last year. I don't think they can ditch DSLR and f-mount just like that though, it'll take a long gradual process for people to move across.
Click to expand...
It the long gradual process which is costing them in the short-medium turn which the likes of Sony / Fuji leaping a head.
I think they should just do a cold-turkey and put a stop to ALL their DSLR development, how much more can you eeek out of DSLR technology?
Time to move on and go all in with mirrorless. :D
 
F/1.4 said:
I've had probably 5 or 6 D750 bodies and honestly it doesn't give the A7III a run for its money at all

The D750 has price on its side and lenses vastly cheaper

As a camera it's not even close tbh
Click to expand...
I know it doesn't in terms of feature set, but in terms of getting the image (barring eye AF) and final image I'm sure it does. I'm not denying the A7iii isn't very well priced though.
 
Shooting 95% with prime lenses another thing I think was the single biggest reason for me going mirrorless was not having to deal with micro adjusting every lens to every body. What a pain in the arse that was
 
rookies said:
Like 100/400
Click to expand...
It's not much more expensive than the Nikkor 80-400mm which is around £2100.
So your talking £400 difference if your paying full list price, cheaper if you get a discount ;)
I believe the Sony 100-400mm GM is a better lens.
 
Are Sony going bring cheaper ones or more ranges. No 3rd party yet in that range is there
 
rookies said:
Such a shame big Lens cost too much
Click to expand...

Riz_Guru said:
It's not much more expensive than the Nikkor 80-400mm which is around £2100.
So your talking £400 difference if your paying full list price, cheaper if you get a discount ;)
I believe the Sony 100-400mm GM is a better lens.
Click to expand...

I agree with Rookies the lenses are expensive, but I think the main issue is the lack of lenses tbh. Compared to the high end Canikon the Sony are only just a bit more expensive, but there's no alternatives. For example, Nikon offer the 200-500, 80-400 plus there's then the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm which are significantly cheaper with just as good IQ. Likewise Sony only offer the 16-35mm f4 whereas Nikon have the cheaper (albeit sharper) 18-35mm. Sony need to start bringing out some mid range lenses if they want e-mount to appeal to the masses.
 
rookies said:
Are Sony going bring cheaper ones or more ranges. No 3rd party yet in that range is there
Click to expand...
I doubt they will announce anything cheaper for the telephoto range yet, they might focus on the high end telephoto G Masters for now to meet the needs of the professional market.
The Sony A9 is still missing key sports / wildlife lenses which means that sales of the Sony A9 have been low.
 
snerkler said:
I agree with Rookies the lenses are expensive, but I think the main issue is the lack of lenses tbh. Compared to the high end Canikon the Sony are only just a bit more expensive, but there's no alternatives. For example, Nikon offer the 200-500, 80-400 plus there's then the Sigma and Tamron 150-600mm which are significantly cheaper with just as good IQ. Likewise Sony only offer the 16-35mm f4 whereas Nikon have the cheaper (albeit sharper) 18-35mm. Sony need to start bringing out some mid range lenses if they want e-mount to appeal to the masses.
Click to expand...
I agree that Sony need to start bringing out cheaper yet good quality lenses......now that the Sony A7 III is out, this body represents good value, they should make some lenses with the same idea. :)
 
Canon lens won’t work as fast I believe so that out of question
 
rookies said:
Canon lens won’t work as fast I believe so that out of question
Click to expand...
There has been plenty of discussion and some say that they work great and in some instances better on Sony bodies because of features like Eye-AF.
Personally I don't think they are as fast as native FE lenses.
I thought you were going to get the FE 70-200mm f4? I have owned this lens and it was tack sharp with great IQ, you could easily crop and retain sharpness.
Do you really need more than 200mm? What's the longer Nikkor you got at the moment?
 
Riz_Guru said:
I agree that Sony need to start bringing out cheaper yet good quality lenses......now that the Sony A7 III is out, this body represents good value, they should make some lenses with the same idea. :)
Click to expand...

They have a few?

The 50mm 1.8 looks decent for the money and not far off Nikon 50mm 1.8.
The 70-200 2.8 is on par with Nikon new version price wise
The 28-70 is much cheaper than Nikon kit lenses and meant to be decent enough.
The 70-200 f4 is a bit high on price
The 28mm 2 is cheaper than Nikon 28mm 1.8

I think because there are not really any gen 1 or gen 2 versions of lenses as they are so new, there hold used value.
 
JJ! said:
They have a few?

The 50mm 1.8 looks decent for the money and not far off Nikon 50mm 1.8.
The 70-200 2.8 is on par with Nikon new version price wise
The 28-70 is much cheaper than Nikon kit lenses and meant to be decent enough.
The 70-200 f4 is a bit high on price
The 28mm 2 is cheaper than Nikon 28mm 1.8

I think because there are not really any gen 1 or gen 2 versions of lenses as they are so new, there hold used value.
Click to expand...
Correct, when people go on about Sony lens prices, they should consider that the Sony lenses are fairly new when compared to some of the decades old designs from Nikon & Canon. They should compare the prices with the actual launch prices for the Nikon and Canon rivals to see what the difference is in launch prices, I suspect the gap will be smaller. Sony may reduce prices in a decade or two :D lol
 
Riz_Guru said:
Correct, when people go on about Sony lens prices, they should consider that the Sony lenses are fairly new when compared to some of the decades old designs from Nikon & Canon. They should compare the prices with the actual launch prices for the Nikon and Canon rivals to see what the difference is in launch prices, I suspect the gap will be smaller. Sony may reduce prices in a decade or two :D lol
Click to expand...
That's just nonsense!
 
Wonder if an adapted Sigma 120-300 f/2.8 or their 180-600mm would perform well enough? Don't think you can adapt Tamrons?
 
Swiss Toni said:
That's just nonsense!
Click to expand...
I wouldn't say its nonsense, however it depends how you look at it. If you compare original launch prices, you will see what the differences were and how Canon and Nikon prices have reduced over a set period of time since launch.
Therefore Sony lens prices could reduce over time too, its normal for manufacturers to reduce prices when newer replacement MKII lenses are released and/if production costs reduce due to sales volumes etc.

If you want the latest new Sony lenses then you've got to pay the price unfortunately.
 
Last edited:
Riz_Guru said:
I wouldn't say its nonsense, however it depends how you look at it. If you compare original launch prices, you will see what the differences and how Canon and Nikon prices have reduced over a set period of time.
Therefore Sony lens prices could reduce over time too, its normal for manufacturers to reduce prices when newer lenses are released and/if production costs reduce due to volumes etc.

If you want the latest new Sony lenses then you got to pay the price unfortunately.
Click to expand...

But Sony lenses are not all more expensive, especially if you are not going for the G master series.

For example - UK prices (not grey):

50mm 1.8
Sony £249
Nikon £189

28mm 1.8/2.0
Sony £399
Nikon £559

Sony 28-70 £395
Nikon 24-85 £439

85mm 1.8
Sony £429
Nikon £469

70-200 F4
Sony £1249
Nikon £1049
 
JJ! said:
But Sony lenses are not all more expensive, especially if you are not going for the G master series.

For example - UK prices (not grey):

50mm 1.8
Sony £249
Nikon £189

28mm 1.8/2.0
Sony £399
Nikon £559

Sony 28-70 £395
Nikon 24-85 £439

85mm 1.8
Sony £429
Nikon £469

70-200 F4
Sony £1249
Nikon £1049
Click to expand...

:D time to get shopping ;)
 
What Sony tc like on the 70-200 f4 anyone know pls
 
rookies said:
What Sony tc like on the 70-200 f4 anyone know pls
Click to expand...

incompatible?

The SEL14TC teleconverter is compatible with the following lenses: SEL70200GM, SEL100400GM
The SEL20TC teleconverter is compatible with the following lenses: SEL70200GM, SEL100400GM
 
dancook said:
incompatible?

The SEL14TC teleconverter is compatible with the following lenses: SEL70200GM, SEL100400GM
The SEL20TC teleconverter is compatible with the following lenses: SEL70200GM, SEL100400GM
Click to expand...

Another bad move from Sony ffs
 
dancook said:
To encourage you to upgrade? :D
Click to expand...
Correct :D
The Sony FE 70-200mm f4 was designed before the G Master lenses / TC's, its rear neck opening doesn't allow the TC to slot in because of the optical element.
So it was never designed to accept a TC.
 
JJ! said:
Keep on saving for the 2.8. You will NEVER be happy with the F4... thinking about what could of been!
Click to expand...
lol the 70-200mm isnt a bad lens at all ;) but the G Master is the king, but it comes with a king price! lol
@rookies Just buy the following for now and decide later ....

Sony A7 III
Sony Zeiss 55mm f1.8
 
dancook said:
incompatible?

The SEL14TC teleconverter is compatible with the following lenses: SEL70200GM, SEL100400GM
The SEL20TC teleconverter is compatible with the following lenses: SEL70200GM, SEL100400GM
Click to expand...
Which illustrates why you really need to do your homework before diving headlong into Sony from Canon/Nikon.
 
JJ! said:
But Sony lenses are not all more expensive, especially if you are not going for the G master series.

For example - UK prices (not grey):

50mm 1.8
Sony £249
Nikon £189

28mm 1.8/2.0
Sony £399
Nikon £559

Sony 28-70 £395
Nikon 24-85 £439

85mm 1.8
Sony £429
Nikon £469

70-200 F4
Sony £1249
Nikon £1049
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you be comparing the Sony 24-70/4 with the Nikon 24-85 (24mm lenses are always more expensive then more common 28mm)?

Sony 24-70/4 - £869
Nikon 24-85/3.5-4.5 - £435
or Nikon 24-85/2.8-4 - £589

Also, where do you get the Sony FE 85/1.8 for £429 new?

Sony 85/1.8 - £561
Nikon 85/1.8 - £429

The Sony FE 50/1.8 is also £279

(all prices from CameraPriceBuster)

There's no denying that Sony lenses are more expensive than equivalents from CaNikon. Regardless of how old the lens designs are, you're still buying a brand new lens with warranty that delivers the same optical formula for considerably less across the board. Whilst there will always be some reduction of kit prices over time, I do still believe that Sony are re-couping a lot of their R&D costs from people who are willing to pay higher prices for OEM kit as there aren't any alternatives.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top