New Sony A7II with 5 Axis Stabilization Announced

[shadowfox]

I don't know how you can make an 'adapter' that tunes a body (sensor, actually) for lenses without including optics in the adapter or firmware to do corrections on the data.

G

True, but reading people complain about wide-angle lenses causing image artifacts on these bodies, there may be something that can be done at the adapter level, or maybe a special hood. Who knows?

 

[dcsang]

I get that, but the 55 1.8 and the 35 2.8 are excellent lenses, especially the 55mm. It is top notch. I just don't see the 28mm matching that. He said "if it proves to be as good as the 55/1.8 and assuming the price is right, then I will likely pick one up." I'm thinking that's going to be hard to match (especially for a Sony 28mm).

I would agree. The non-Zeiss lenses are not going to be up to snuff in my opinion. I wouldn't opt for a 28mm but I will opt for the Zeiss 24mm f2.0 when it shows up. Same goes for the 85mm f1.8 Zeiss lens. I know these lenses will be spendy but I actually have fallen for this system to compliment the M(240). I think I (and others) just have to be patient because those lenses will be coming......

Cheers,
Dave

 

[kxl]

I get that, but the 55 1.8 and the 35 2.8 are excellent lenses, especially the 55mm. It is top notch. I just don't see the 28mm matching that. He said "if it proves to be as good as the 55/1.8 and assuming the price is right, then I will likely pick one up." I'm thinking that's going to be hard to match (especially for a Sony 28mm).

Obviously no one really knows until it is released and people get a chance to play with it. You may be right that it will fall short of the 55/1.8. If so, I'd have to figure out whether any shortcomings, e.g., sharpness, color, etc... would still be worth the purchase of a new lens, or just stick with my 28/2.8 Hex-M and forego a 28mm AF lens for my A7R (at least in the near term).

 

[Addy101]

I would agree. The non-Zeiss lenses are not going to be up to snuff in my opinion. I wouldn't opt for a 28mm but I will opt for the Zeiss 24mm f2.0 when it shows up. Same goes for the 85mm f1.8 Zeiss lens. I know these lenses will be spendy but I actually have fallen for this system to compliment the M(240). I think I (and others) just have to be patient because those lenses will be coming......

Cheers,
Dave

Maybe you should wait for the lens before you decide that "non-Zeiss lenses are not going to be up to snuff". Sony G-lenses certainly are up to snuff.

 

[YYV_146]

I would agree. The non-Zeiss lenses are not going to be up to snuff in my opinion. I wouldn't opt for a 28mm but I will opt for the Zeiss 24mm f2.0 when it shows up. Same goes for the 85mm f1.8 Zeiss lens. I know these lenses will be spendy but I actually have fallen for this system to compliment the M(240). I think I (and others) just have to be patient because those lenses will be coming......

Cheers,
Dave

The Sony Zeiss lenses are Sony lenses. Zeiss involvement is highly limited. You can't even repair or do maintenance on one of those lenses at a Zeiss facility.

One the one hand, there have been some serious bumbles in the Sony Zeiss line. The new 24-70mm F4 is one, IMO. Performance is only marginally better than the (surprisingly) not too bad 28-70.

On the other, some of the best optics I have used is Sony/Minolta. The 135mm STF is currently branded as a Sony lens, and is one of the highest performing 135mm primes for SLR systems. The lens out-resolves the A7r sensor at even the extreme corners, wide open. The Minolta 85mm limited is a better lens than the Zeiss Alpha 85mm F1.4, and the Minolta 600mm F4 is a better super-tele, image quality-wise, than even the new Canon 500mm F4.

Just to name a few examples. Minolta is Sony now, so I'd expect no less from modern optics of the company.

 

[Samouraï]

The Sony Zeiss lenses are Sony lenses. Zeiss involvement is highly limited. You can't even repair or do maintenance on one of those lenses at a Zeiss facility.

One the one hand, there have been some serious bumbles in the Sony Zeiss line. The new 24-70mm F4 is one, IMO. Performance is only marginally better than the (surprisingly) not too bad 28-70.

On the other, some of the best optics I have used is Sony/Minolta. The 135mm STF is currently branded as a Sony lens, and is one of the highest performing 135mm primes for SLR systems. The lens out-resolves the A7r sensor at even the extreme corners, wide open. The Minolta 85mm limited is a better lens than the Zeiss Alpha 85mm F1.4, and the Minolta 600mm F4 is a better super-tele, image quality-wise, than even the new Canon 500mm F4.

Just to name a few examples. Minolta is Sony now, so I'd expect no less from modern optics of the company.

Good post. I've used the 135 STF, and the IQ is phenomenal. Sony's current head optical designer said it's his favorite lens of all time (or at least one of them).

I'm curious. How does Sony come out with the 55FE right around the time the 55 Otus was released? How much sharing between Zeiss and Sony goes on behind the scenes? Are there any similarities between these two lens designs?

 

[Godfrey]

True, but reading people complain about wide-angle lenses causing image artifacts on these bodies, there may be something that can be done at the adapter level, or maybe a special hood. Who knows?

A mount adapter is nothing more than a tube with appropriate flanging at both ends that is precisely made to give the right mount registration and align the lens properly. Good baffling and quality construction are the best you can do with it.

The artifacts created by short focal length lenses have to do with the depth of the sensor stack and the incident angle of light from nodal point to the edges of the sensor. You can't do anything to correct that other than with optics or in software acting on the captured data.

G

 

[YYV_146]

Good post. I've used the 135 STF, and the IQ is phenomenal. Sony's current head optical designer said it's his favorite lens of all time (or at least one of them).

I'm curious. How does Sony come out with the 55FE right around the time the 55 Otus was released? How much sharing between Zeiss and Sony goes on behind the scenes? Are there any similarities between these two lens designs?

One is a Sonnar design with AF as a priority consideration and the other a Distagon and dedicatedly MF. Very little similarities, if any.

The Otus is revolutionary in the sense that such designs were never made into standard lenses prior to it. Zeiss had a 35mm Distagon for some time, but using the reverse telephoto to create a 55mm is, at least as they claim, much more difficult.

Then again...The Leica APO 50mm, which is (for the most part) a normal double gaussian lens, outperforms the Otus at every stop. The Sony is also a classic 50mm design and comes extremely close to the Otus's performance resolution-wise (though suffering from more CA and worse Bokeh).

 

[borge]

I wouldn't count on it being as good... it's a sony lens and not zeiss.

The FE 55/1.8 is also a Sony lens, which is designed in-house by a Sony lens designer. Zeiss only handled quality control and allowing Sony to use the T* coating.

 

[Abbazz]

Sony should cut off the bumop in the middle of the A7 and move it to the correct side. That would really be an upgrade 😀

And which side would the bum(o)p have to be moved to exactly? Unless there are two different A7 models for left-eyed and right-eyed photographers, I don't think it would be a good idea to shift it from where it is...

Cheers!

Abbazz

 

[jsrockit]

The FE 55/1.8 is also a Sony lens, which is designed in-house by a Sony lens designer. Zeiss only handled quality control and allowing Sony to use the T* coating.

Ok, fair enough. I still think it'll be hard for the 28mm to compete with the 55mm just based on focal length differences alone.

 

[jsrockit]

Well, I decided to sell all of the Fuji stuff I don't use... so, I ordered the A7 II.

 

[goo0h]

steve huff seems pretty impressed:

http://www.stevehuffphoto.com/2014/12/05/the-sony-a7ii-first-look-and-video/

 

[shadowfox]

The artifacts created by short focal length lenses have to do with the depth of the sensor stack and the incident angle of light from nodal point to the edges of the sensor. You can't do anything to correct that other than with optics or in software acting on the captured data.

G

That makes sense.
So that's why we have adapters with optical elements.

 

[dfatty]

http://www.thephoblographer.com/201...sonys-5-axis-stabilization-work/#.VJRRQf8PBTB

interesting discussion of 5-axis stab on the sony and oly. i'm not big into using M lenses on other bodies, but i hadn't considered that they wouldn't benefit from stabilization on the stabilized oly and sony bodies because they don't provide the camera focal length and focal distance data. that's probably old news but i hadn't heard it before.

 

[Godfrey]

That makes sense.
So that's why we have adapters with optical elements.

I haven't seen any, except those that also act as a tele converter.

G

 

[raid]

Is this the end of the acceptance of Leica digital M bodies?

 

[burancap]

interesting discussion of 5-axis stab on the sony and oly. i'm not big into using M lenses on other bodies, but i hadn't considered that they wouldn't benefit from stabilization on the stabilized oly and sony bodies because they don't provide the camera focal length and focal distance data. that's probably old news but i hadn't heard it before.

What a bummer. I was actually giving a great deal of consideration to the II because of the stabilization with legacy glass -after I see if we have an XP2 in the near future, or not. The article changes that and I have no problem waiting for as long as I have to now.

What I do not understand though, from the article ...

“The behavior of the system is largely dependent on the lens. The lens bears a responsibility if it’s going to enjoy five axis stabilization. It needs to provide focal length and focal distance to the system. But we put in a provision for you to manually put in the focal length. But you cannot put in focus distance. We thought that would be pretty cumbersome.”

If you could, it would solve the problem with M glass and stabilization. One would think, at least I do, that if you are going to be troubled enough to input (and save?) a focal length, why not the focal distance as well??? From a data footprint, it is nothing.

 

[f16sunshine]

It's easy to enter the focal length when you mount the lens (one time per lens change ).
Entering the focus distance would need to be done continually. It's just too cumbersome.
My understanding from the article is that some stabilization will be provided even without the focal distance so long as the focal length is entered.
What that translates to is a big ??

 

[burancap]

It's easy to enter the focal length when you mount the lens (one time per lens change ).
Entering the focus distance would need to be done continually. It's just too cumbersome.
My understanding from the article is that some stabilization will be provided even without the focal distance so long as the focal length is entered.
What that translates to is a big ??

Hmmm. The article defines "focal distance" as:

"But in that case, the camera can still only have the focal length input, and not the focal distance–which has to do with how far away from the sensor the lens is."

Which is always the same per (storable -measured from where?) lens, no?

I think to you and me, the "focal distance" would be from the film/sensor plane to the subject of focus (and my guess -what is really meant in the article).

I don't think the camera(s) do anything with a lens -with *any* manually entered data. It seems that is solely for EXIF population?

So yes, a BIG ???

An interesting, but poor article.