# Sony introduces lightweight Sony FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS Lens @ 12000$/€



## xps (Jun 27, 2018)

Found on Sony rumor sites.

Offering at: https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1369634-REG/sony_fe_400mm_f_2_8_gm.html

Sony rumor site writes:
"– The world’s lightest 400mm f/2.8 at just 2,895 grams (102.2 ounces)
– Newly developed XD (extreme dynamic) Linear Motor achieves extremely fast, precise, quiet AF
– 1.4x and 2.0x tele-converter support, with high imaging and AF performance
– not front heavy weight like the Canon or Nikon lenses"

Article on DPREVIEW:
https://www.dpreview.com/news/6118705294/sony-s-400mm-f2-8-gm-will-arrive-in-september-for-12-000


Hmmm....
Nearly 1kg less weight than the 400 II 2.8... 
(I hope Canon will offer something similar when the Mk III appears on the market)


----------



## ethanz (Jun 27, 2018)

*Sony 400 f2.8*

Here is a short video about their new lens: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaZzNI5tz0I

Yes its Jared, but he's not too obnoxious in this video.

Looks like a decent lens. And its lighter.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

Presume it's FBW? 

(Do any wildlifers / sports folks use MF enough to care? Have no idea.)

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Presume it's FBW?
> 
> (Do any wildlifers / sports folks use MF enough to care? Have no idea.)
> 
> - A



Watch the video I linked. Not sure if it answers your question, but he talks about how it focuses.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 27, 2018)

Nice lens, but twice the price and 800g heavier than the 400/4 DO II.


----------



## Mikehit (Jun 27, 2018)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CVIogwOPBfU

It looks impressive. 
His one criticism is the camera locking up - would a pro be willing to risk that?


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 27, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Nice lens, but twice the price and 800g heavier than the 400/4 DO II.



Sure, but it’s f/2.8. Compare the 300/4 to the 300/2.8, or the 200/2 to the 200/2.8 – the increased cost and weight for the extra stop of aperture are much greater than comparing the 400/4 to the 400/2.8 (mainly because the 400/4 is a supertele in it’s own right, whereas the 300/4 and 200/2.8 aren’t).


----------



## xps (Jun 27, 2018)

Well, on the first look, this lens has some well planned advantages. Less weight and better balancing. Two advantages, I´d like to see in the next 400mm 2.8 Canon glass too. 
Most time, I´m using the 600+1.4x, but more often, I see that I need an 400 2.8 solution for fast and near passing animals in dawn. 
The first 400mm I photographed with, was more than 6 kg. The newer MK II is lower than 4kg, so Canon maybe is willed to reduce its weight again for about 25%


----------



## PavelR (Jun 27, 2018)

xps said:


> Well, on the first look, this lens has some well planned advantages. Less weight and better balancing. Two advantages, I´d like to see in the next 400mm 2.8 Canon glass too.
> Most time, I´m using the 600+1.4x, but more often, I see that I need an 400 2.8 solution for fast and near passing animals in dawn.
> The first 400mm I photographed with, was more than 6 kg. The newer MK II is lower than 4kg, so Canon maybe is willed to reduce its weight again for about 25%


There are another two advantages ;-):
* Eye AF over almost whole frame
* 20 fps with AF


----------



## docsmith (Jun 27, 2018)

No system is perfect, but it is nice to see Sony populating their lens lineup. Depending on what you want to do, they are a viable option, IMO.

Still happy with my Canon gear.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

PavelR said:


> There are another two advantages ;-):
> * Eye AF over almost whole frame
> * 20 fps with AF



...yet 5 fps with a mechanical shutter. The A9 was just a mad technology project, IMHO -- 'look at this insane performance level we can attain!'

The A7 third generation in general is more of Sony's real next step forward. Those cameras are not 1-series killers or anything and their ergonomics continue to hurt my eyes/hands/wrists, but they have more completely realizable specs without fine print, exceptions and limitations than the A7 second-gen and A9 did. 

Consider: A7 III = 10 fps + full 14-bit RAW + AF on the whole time + mechanical shutter with a lot less lens-related fine print. I'll take that over 20 fps on a Tuesday if it's a full moon and your lens is X and you don't mind nutty e-shutter artifacts every time.

Sony's getting there, don't get me wrong, but there are a dozen reasons the A9 isn't on every sideline today. Lack of long pro lenses is just one of those reasons.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Jun 27, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Nice lens, but twice the price and 800g heavier than the 400/4 DO II.
> ...



The 300/4 is an antique lens with poor IS and takes a TC poorly. If it had modern configuration it would be worth having. The 400/4 is a superb lens which has excellent IS and takes TCs very well. You have to weigh up the loss of a stop against size, weight and cost and performance.


----------



## PavelR (Jun 27, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> PavelR said:
> 
> 
> > There are another two advantages ;-):
> ...


I know full time photographers that use A9...
I use mechanical shutter 1% of the time thus 5fps is not limitation for me. But there are features that any Canon/Nikon DSLR does not have: really silent shutter usable in almost all artificial light, almost whole frame Eye AF, zebra in VF, focus peeking in VF, 4K full width readout.
There are some drawbacks (weather sealing, buttons size = unusable with big gloves), but I've downgraded body handling already by changing Nikon d2x + d200 to Canon 1d4 + 1ds3, so the situation is repeated. But the advantages are huge - I'm using M mode 99% of the time even on the light changing situations on the stage and do not need to check exposure on a display. I can use now 200/2 wide open every time focused on the eye, which was not possible on Canon bodies...


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 27, 2018)

PavelR said:


> I know full time photographers that use A9...
> I use mechanical shutter 1% of the time thus 5fps is not limitation for me. But there are features that any Canon/Nikon DSLR does not have: really silent shutter usable in almost all artificial light, almost whole frame Eye AF, zebra in VF, focus peeking in VF, 4K full width readout.
> There are some drawbacks (weather sealing, buttons size = unusable with big gloves), but I've downgraded body handling already by changing Nikon d2x + d200 to Canon 1d4 + 1ds3, so the situation is repeated. But the advantages are huge - I'm using M mode 99% of the time even on the light changing situations on the stage and do not need to check exposure on a display. I can use now 200/2 wide open every time focused on the eye, which was not possible on Canon bodies...



Forgive me -- my post was not an SLR > mirrorless statement. Mirrorless (esp. Sony's implementation of mirorrless, the tech, features, etc.) can do some awesome things, yes, there's no denying that.

I'm just saying that we're fooling ourselves if we think that if Sony can aggressively compete in sports/wildlife circles with just a couple more superwhites. They are truly _years_ away from bridging the gap in this, one of the most demanding and unreasonable realms of photography.

- A


----------



## Mr Majestyk (Jun 28, 2018)

Canon is working on mkIII superteles and we expect them before 2020 Olympics. I'll bet their jaws hit the floor when they saw the weight of the Sony 400 f/2.8. That's an insane weight reduction and I wonder if this will cause Canon troubles. I had maybe expected mk III's to be 10% lighter, as they mentioned at one stage they will reduce weight with new alloy, but can they achieve essentially DO type weight reduction of 25%. I can now expect the Sony 600 f/4 to also be around 3kg and the 500 f/4 to be 2.5kg. If this comes to light then that will complete my transition away from Canon unless they have something amazing waiting on the mk III's and in the mirrorless segment. Even though the Sony A9 has flaws of ergonomics the performance is insane and I'm tempted to get one, but I know the A9 II will be a vast improvement. Also lack of a supertele 500/600 or even a supertele 200-500/600 zoom is what's really holding me back. For now an A7R3 is a nice introduction to FF mirrorless and I'll bide my time and see what unfolds over the next 12 months. I'm selling my 1DX since the Nikon D500 has better AF so I'll just have the 5D4 left from a once 4 strong Canon fleet.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> I'm just saying that we're fooling ourselves if we think that if Sony can aggressively compete in sports/wildlife circles with just a couple more superwhites. They are truly _years_ away from bridging the gap in this, one of the most demanding and unreasonable realms of photography.
> 
> - A





I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressively compete." While Sony definitely works hard to get the internet review crowd, and I do not want to discount that, but I watched a couple of those videos, and there were some darn good images taken with the Sony system. I think it could be argued that they are starting to compete on certain levels now. If you think of it, a great kit woudl be the 16-35, 24-70, 70-200, 100-400 and the 400 f/2.8. You could do a lot of sports/wildlife with that kit.

On all levels, no. But they are definitely getting to be a more complete system.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



Fair enough. Compare the 100-400/4.5-5.6 II to the 400/4 DO II. Both modern, excellent lenses. The extra stop comes at a 33% weight premium and a 300% cost premium.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

docsmith said:


> I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressively compete."



I define that as willingness for sports/wildlife professionals to stake their livelihood on this gear not letting them down. They simply aren't there yet.

That said, sure, they could make inroads with enthusiasts right now with a 100-400 and a TC.

- A


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



I use both regularly. If you stop at 400mm, then the expensive f/4 prime is hardly worth having as the IQ of both is very similar, f/4 is just one stop better and a zoom is so useful. The difference comes in with TCs. With a 1.4xTC the prime is streets ahead and it is also an excellent f/8 800mm with AF. In contrast, the f/4 and f/2.8 400mm have comparable IQs and both have AF with TCs. The f/2.8 does have a 1-stop advantage but it is really a monopod or tripod lens whereas the f/4 is light enough for easy hiking and hand held for long periods without a pod. I personally for my purposes far prefer the f/4 over the f/2.8 prime and even the 100-400mm II over the f/2.8. But others may take the opposite view.


----------



## Durf (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressively compete."
> ...



That's who they are mainly targeting right now, enthusiasts....and slowly working towards proving themselves to the pro market.

The Sony system is in "beta test mode" in my opinion, but they are making a remarkable footprint in the photography world in a rather quick way. I personally believe they have a ways to go before being able to prove themselves as reliable and dependable as the other major pro systems. 

I'm sure there are many pro's right now watching Sony closely......


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > I guess it depends on what you mean by "aggressively compete."
> ...



They have had a 100-400mm II knock off for some time now - a good lens.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 28, 2018)

Durf said:


> but they are making a remarkable footprint in the photography world in a rather quick way.



_Are they_, though?

I see little evidence of Sony use when I'm out and about with my gear (I shoot wildlife and sport - just where this lens is pitched); and their sales figures don't tell a very good story at all.

I think it's more true to suggest that a small but very vocal rump of Sony users and/or disgruntled Canon bashers (the Venn diagram for those two groups would have a large intersection) _make a lot of noise on forums_ about Sony.

Not the same thing...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 28, 2018)

docsmith said:


> but I watched a couple of those videos, and there were some darn good images taken with the Sony system.



But - and it's a _big_ "but" - nothing that a Canon user could not also reliably achieve with trivial ease.

So what's the incentive for moving to Sony?

Then factor in Sony's reputation for poor support; its habit of dropping products at short or no notice; and Canon's enviable, proven track record in the pro sport/wildlife space, and Sony's relevance becomes more and more debatable...


----------



## edoorn (Jun 28, 2018)

we always want better, right? I know from experience (as in: have been shooting with it) that the Canon is a very heavy lens, not hand holdable. Not for me at least. My 500 II is already a lot better in that regard, now can you imagine a 400 with only 2.9kg weight that is center balanced? Will surely make for a better shooting experience. 

Couple that to the amazing focussing of the A9 (which I've also tried, and yes I've shot with 5d's and 1dx / 1dx2 - trust me, the tracking of the A9 is better) and you have a lot of situations where I can image you'll get 'the' shot easier than with Canon. Mind you, I don't shoot Sony (yet? ) and am happy to wait to see what Canon comes out with, but the benefits for some folks is surely not imagined; it's there.


----------



## docsmith (Jun 28, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > but they are making a remarkable footprint in the photography world in a rather quick way.
> ...



....love that Venn diagram...

Also, in fairness, I wouldn't expect to see this lens out yet...it hasn't been released. 

But, it could be where you are, you aren't seeing any version of Sony's. Ok. So, I am a hobbyist, all I can do is talk about what I see out while traveling, doing my wildlife photography, etc. 

I started routinely seeing Sony's about two years ago. Canon is still by far the most common set up I see. Sony is creeping up on Nikon as the second most common set up I see. And no real trend in who uses them (hipsters, parents, retirees). 




Keith_Reeder said:


> docsmith said:
> 
> 
> > but I watched a couple of those videos, and there were some darn good images taken with the Sony system.
> ...



And do not forget cost. Even in the "professional" set up provided for the videos, Canon is the least expensive of the three. 

As for "incentive" to move, these are internet reviewers, but a couple did talk about the eye-detect AF more consistently getting images, the 20 fps, the weight advantage (which was minimal to nil with other GM lenses) etc. So, if something there really jumped out to someone.

Granted, would I move....no. Not based on what I have seen. Not based on what I shoot nor if I was a sports photographer. Especially considering the cost, reliability, ergonomocs, and capability of Canon. But, I am now at the point where I think they have a decent set up.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

A 400/2.8 isn't typically a go-to lens for wildlife photographers, but rather is primarily aimed at sports photographers. Even though the lens is not yet for sale to the general public, there are hands-on previews already, so Sony is making the lens available to select photographers. I've been keeping an eye on the sidelines at the World Cup, and while I see lots of white lenses, none of them have an orange 'G' on the side. Did Sony not offer the lens paired with an A9 to World Cup photographers? If not, that speaks loudly to their confidence in entering that market. Or did they make the offer, and no one took them up on it? Either way, I'm not seeing these 'inroads' the armchair forum experts are talking about.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

Correct, the 400/2.8 is not a typical birders lens: for big lenses, the 500/4 and 600/4 are the choice ; for hand held the 400/4 II, 100-400mm or rarely the 300/2.8.

Regarding the A9, wild-life photographers use their cameras and telephots as spotting scopes, and optical viewfinders are far more convenient.


----------



## edoorn (Jun 28, 2018)

depends; I know some wildlife photographers that use a 400 2.8 (David Lloyd, Margot Raggett to name some); agreed that it might not be the ideal birder lens (or ideal 'best' wildlife lens for that matter). 

I personally prefer the 100-400 II and 500 (plus 1.4 converter) option, although very early morning I do miss low light options sometimes. And for that budget, many will choose the flexibility of a 200-400


----------



## ethanz (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> A 400/2.8 isn't typically a go-to lens for wildlife photographers, but rather is primarily aimed at sports photographers. Even though the lens is not yet for sale to the general public, there are hands-on previews already, so Sony is making the lens available to select photographers. I've been keeping an eye on the sidelines at the World Cup, and while I see lots of white lenses, none of them have an orange 'G' on the side. Did Sony not offer the lens paired with an A9 to World Cup photographers? If not, that speaks loudly to their confidence in entering that market. Or did they make the offer, and no one took them up on it? Either way, I'm not seeing these 'inroads' the armchair forum experts are talking about.



My guess is the world cup is definitely a more important event to make sure a photographer gets right, so none of the AP or Reuters photographers/editors of the world wanted to try this out at the event. So they get these American youtube influencers to come to a semi-pro soccer game and try it out.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

ethanz said:


> My guess is the world cup is definitely a more important event to make sure a photographer gets right, so none of the AP or Reuters photographers/editors of the world wanted to try this out at the event. So they get these American youtube influencers to come to a semi-pro soccer game and try it out.



The implication being, no one who’s livelihood depends on getting ‘the shot’ is ready to trust Sony gear to deliver for them.

But if Sony wants to provide an all-expense-paid trip somewhere to try out new gear, some people will oblige them. Not like a junket would have undue influence on their opinion, or anything like that. : Conversely, if I invite a practicing physician in to give a talk, they either have to buy their own lunch or declare the value of the roast beef sandwich we provide...and the bag of chips, don’t forget to declare the bag of chips.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> But if Sony wants to provide an all-expense-paid trip somewhere to try out new gear, some people will oblige them. Not like a junket would have undue influence on their opinion, or anything like that. :



And Sony is 100% doing that. They have been flying out the folks at various photo sites/blogs like DPReview, Phoblographer, SLRLounge, etc. to events to try out new gear. Some events have sets and models and/or athletes to try out the new products on, while others they aren't really fooling anyone ("Want to ride in a hot air balloon in another part of the country? Yeah, you do.").

I think it's a good test of each publication's ethics to see how the feedback trends after that. FWIW, I still peg SLRL as being sold on the marketing-ese when they go (they have at times parroted back the spirit/vibe of the event) but _generally_ don't gush about the product in specifics. Their writers are working photographers so if they don't like something, they pipe up about it.

DPReview, OTOH, don't get me started. Recaps of each of these junkets reads like state run TV after Kim Jong Un plays a round of golf: 'With the new [insert product here], Sony has eliminated the last last last reason to resist their obvious greatness', 'This lens pushes shadows 5 stops *so* much cleaner than Canon', 'I saw a puny Nikon user and thanked him for buying our master's sensors', etc. :

- A


----------



## ethanz (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> ethanz said:
> 
> 
> > My guess is the world cup is definitely a more important event to make sure a photographer gets right, so none of the AP or Reuters photographers/editors of the world wanted to try this out at the event. So they get these American youtube influencers to come to a semi-pro soccer game and try it out.
> ...



Not necessarily that, but its the kind of event where if you don't want to or can't spend the time to learn and use new gear. Those pro photographers at pro sports events are busy around the clock and don't have time for that. I'm sure their editors don't want that added time pressure either.


----------



## xps (Jun 28, 2018)

Why do I like this lens?
Because IMO, the advertised weight reduction and the back-moved center of gravity will make Canon engineers think of changing their MKIII version too. At least that's what I hope Canon will do.

And you may call me an stupid old man, I tried to use my grand-grand-sons M5 and my Sony A7R III and A7III on my 600mm and 500mm lenses. The shift in balance IS remarkable big. You need an loooong plate or grip to get in balance again.

If Canon will move on Pro-MLS, they will have to decide, whether they will have to correct the center of Gravity of their lenses.
Another mention from some (lets call them"knowing") pro-photographers is, that Canon might bring out an MLS in an DSLR body, looking like the 1DC. Might be rubbish. Might not be. But then thy will not have to change the interior lens design. And then, they could apply an "dustprotector" like an mirror without function when the body is switched off. Dustprotected Lens changing would be more easy.
IMO Canon AF will compeed with Sony´s when they use it in an Pro-MLS system, because all the hindrances of the mirror will be omitted.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 28, 2018)

Its good to see Sony creating a pro quality lens. 

My issue with Sony is the time and cost to repair a photography product, I think they have a US facility that caters to pro photographers (who own the required amount of Sony Pro gear), so the time may be reasonable, but the cost for repairs has typically been very high due to the complex and difficult to repair designs. It takes lots of time and effort to develop a lens that is easily repairable, Nikon lenses are getting better to repair, the early electronic autofocus models were miserable, I expect that Sony will also learn to manufacture pro level equipment that can be repaired, or they will never gain market share. I doubt if we will see a tear down of this lens, but it would be interesting to hear what a typical repair costs.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

Much is being made about the weight reduction by Sony without the use of DO and that the centre of gravity of their lens is closer to the camera. But, look at the length of the 400/2.8 G Master, 359mm vs 233mm for the 400mm DO II. The Canon lens is 126mm, 5", shorter and so has the advantage of a c of g close to the camera. The DO technology will make other Canon supertelephotos shorter than the Sony counterparts.


----------



## Talys (Jun 28, 2018)

This lens is technologically cool; I'm impressed with the weight and aperture, for sure. But I'm not certain how much of a dent it will put into Canon/Nikon's market of actual photographers who use super telephotos.

It sounds like a nice lens to own if you have big, long $10,000+ lenses, but the 200-400+TC seems like it would be much more useful at the price for both sports and wildlife. Which isn't to say that someone might not want/own a 400/2.8, but with the 200-400 options (from Canon/Nikon) about the same length, you'd think that most would want that lens first. To steal the market, Sony, I think, would have to have one of those to compete in the space.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Much is being made about the weight reduction by Sony without the use of DO and that the centre of gravity of their lens is closer to the camera. But, look at the length of the 400/2.8 G Master, 359mm vs 233mm for the 400mm DO II. The Canon lens is 126mm, 5", shorter and so has the advantage of a c of g close to the camera. The DO technology will make other Canon supertelephotos shorter than the Sony counterparts.



But once again, you’re comparing an orange to a Granny Smith apple – Sony’s 400mm *f/2.8* G to Canon’s 400mm *f/4* DO. Would DO make Canon’s 400/2.8 shorter, sure...but until such a lens is actually produced and sold, discussing it in the context of a comparison is rather premature. 

As I stated above, comparing lenses that differ by a stop of aperture isn’t very useful or reasonable, either. The Canon 400/4 DO also has a big advantage in size/weight/CofG compared to Canon’s 400mm f/2.8L IS II. But it’s a stop slower. 

Meanwhile, for an apples to apples comparison...

Canon 400mm f/2.8L IS II: 343 mm and 3850 g
Sony 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS: 359 mm and 2895 g

The Sony is very slightly longer, but 25% lighter and better balanced. That’s a win for Sony. Can Canon beat it? To do so, they’ll have to repeat their improvement from the 400/2.8 IS MkI to MkII, which was a 28% drop in weight (similar to the improvement to the 600/4...whereas the 300/2.8 and 500/4 lenses saw much less of a drop in weight for their MkII iterations).


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Much is being made about the weight reduction by Sony without the use of DO and that the centre of gravity of their lens is closer to the camera. But, look at the length of the 400/2.8 G Master, 359mm vs 233mm for the 400mm DO II. The Canon lens is 126mm, 5", shorter and so has the advantage of a c of g close to the camera. The DO technology will make other Canon supertelephotos shorter than the Sony counterparts.
> ...



What I am getting at is that the DO technology not only reduces weight but it also reduces length. The 400mm DO is 35% shorter than the 400mm/2.8s from Canon and Sony. If Canon decides to make a 400mm f/4 DO it would be also ~35% shorter. It is perfectly reasonable to compare the advantages of different technologies even if the fruits of them have yet to be realised.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 28, 2018)

Talys said:


> This lens is technologically cool; I'm impressed with the weight and aperture, for sure. But I'm not certain how much of a dent it will put into Canon/Nikon's market of actual photographers who use super telephotos.
> 
> It sounds like a nice lens to own if you have big, long $10,000+ lenses, but the 200-400+TC seems like it would be much more useful at the price for both sports and wildlife. Which isn't to say that someone might not want/own a 400/2.8, but with the 200-400 options (from Canon/Nikon) about the same length, you'd think that most would want that lens first. To steal the market, Sony, I think, would have to have one of those to compete in the space.



All the pro sports photographers I see have the 200-400 and use it. (They probably also have the 400f2.8 somewhere) 

The 2.8 is certainly the standard though. The AF on it is better since its 2.8 over the f4. So it makes sense for Sony to start here.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > Much is being made about the weight reduction by Sony without the use of DO and that the centre of gravity of their lens is closer to the camera. But, look at the length of the 400/2.8 G Master, 359mm vs 233mm for the 400mm DO II. The Canon lens is 126mm, 5", shorter and so has the advantage of a c of g close to the camera. The DO technology will make other Canon supertelephotos shorter than the Sony counterparts.
> ...



I think I agree with John here. It seems confusing to try comparing it to a DO. The Sony lens is not a DO type of lens (correct?).


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> The Sony is very slightly longer, but 25% lighter and better balanced. That’s a win for Sony.



Let history take a moment to appreciate that Neuro just tipped his cap to Sony.

June 28, 2018: The day Neuro became a Sony fanboy. 

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> What I am getting at is that the DO technology not only reduces weight but it also reduces length. The 400mm DO is 35% shorter than the 400mm/2.8s from Canon and Sony. If Canon decides to make a 400mm f/4 DO it would be also ~35% shorter. It is perfectly reasonable to compare the advantages of different technologies even if the fruits of them have yet to be realised.



So far, we’ve seen DO lenses only as fast as f/4 (400mm prime, 70-300mm variable aperture zoom, and the prototype 600/4 DO from Canon, and Nikon’s 300/4 PF). Are f/2.8 or faster lenses amenable to diffractive optics? Possibly, there are patents for a 16-35/2.8 DO and a 70-200/2.8 DO. So far, nothing to suggest that a 400/2.8 DO will ever happen. Time will tell. 

Incidentally, the patented 70-200/2.8 DO is only 10% shorter than the extant 70-200/2.8L IS lenses. Certainly a very different lens design, but extrapolating from one data point is not terribly reliable.

With DO lenses, the decrease in length seems relatively more significant than the difference in weight.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > The Sony is very slightly longer, but 25% lighter and better balanced. That’s a win for Sony.
> ...



I’m a fact and data fanboy. Nothing recent about that.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 28, 2018)

But how sturdy is the Sony? Most of the Canon 400mm II's I have seen are used in very brutal conditions. 

Another important factor, the Canon is $2,000 less.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 28, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> But how sturdy is the Sony? Most of the Canon 400mm II's I have seen are used in very brutal conditions.
> 
> Another important factor, the Canon is $2,000 less.



They show a metal frame in some of the videos, probably to tout how "sturdy" it is. Time will tell how truly sturdy they are. 

The Canon has been as high as $11,500 in it's history. I'm sure if Canon released a new f2.8 now and sold it for $12,000 they could improve quite a bit.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 28, 2018)

This is an impressive lens, there's no doubt.

The questions have to be asked whether Canon could release a 400 f/2.8 IS III to compete with this.

One of the Sony things I saw suggested that it was because the lens was designed for the mirrorless FE mount they had more flexibility with lens design in moving elements back towards the rear, this plus the use of more fluorite elements was the key.

See lens layout below. Note that it's possible for Canon to do something similar on the EF mount and move the lenses to the rear, but only by ditching compatibility with the extenders!

I'm sure there is some improvements that can be made to the standard EF version but I doubt to the extent that it would have the same weight and balance benefits of the Sony.

Of course, Sony have come in at a higher price mostly because they know they can get away with it - but also because they're prepared to use more fluorite elements and they are costly to grow and shape.

Maybe finally we are seeing the end of the myth that the EF mount can do everything and doesn't need replacing.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Of course, Sony have come in at a higher price mostly because they know they can get away with it



Sony production volumes may have a big bubble at first based on pent up demand, but there is zero chance they will have anywhere near the steady state production volumes of the Canon or Nikon equivalents. That drives price, as I presume it does for other GM lenses. 

- A


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What I am getting at is that the DO technology not only reduces weight but it also reduces length. The 400mm DO is 35% shorter than the 400mm/2.8s from Canon and Sony. If Canon decides to make a 400mm f/4 DO it would be also ~35% shorter. It is perfectly reasonable to compare the advantages of different technologies even if the fruits of them have yet to be realised.
> ...



There is more than one data point: the conventional Nikon 300mm f/4D is 222.5mm long and weighs 1440 g, the Nikon equivalent to a DO, the 300mm f/4 E PF, is 148mm long and weighs 750g.

When it comes to zooms, I am uneasy about quoting the effects of having a DO on shorter zooms because of their complex nature. But, another data point is comparing the Canon 70-300mm and its DO equivalent: the DO is 166mm long at max and the conventional is 220mm, 32.5% longer.

By the way, you could put a 1.4x speed doubler on the 400mm DO II and turn it into a 285mm f/2.8 DO for one of those smaller mirrorless.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> One of the Sony things I saw suggested that it was because the lens was designed for the mirrorless FE mount they had more flexibility with lens design in moving elements back towards the rear, this plus the use of more fluorite elements was the key.
> 
> See lens layout below. Note that it's possible for Canon to do something similar on the EF mount and move the lenses to the rear, *but only by ditching compatibility with the extenders*!
> 
> ...



Facts and data rule the day. If you look at the block diagrams of the two lenses, you'll see that the space behind the rear elements of both of them is similar. Given that the protrusion of the Canon 2x extender is only a few millimeters, there is ample space for such a protrusion in the Sony lens design. Which there would have to be, since *the Sony FE 2.0x teleconverter has just such a protrusion*, and if anything, the Sony TC protrudes even further into the lens barrel. 










Regardless, you tell yourself whatever you need to so you can sleep at night. You have plenty of company from other forum members who also choose to ignore reality.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 28, 2018)

AlanF said:


> There is more than one data point: the conventional Nikon 300mm f/4D is 222.5mm long and weighs 1440 g, the Nikon equivalent to a DO, the 300mm f/4 E PF, is 148mm long and weighs 750g.



When I mentioned a comparison to the Canon 300/4, you replied:



AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > ...Compare the [Canon] 300/4...
> ...



The Nikon 300/4D is an 18-year-old lens. So I should refrain from making comparisons to old lenses lacking a modern configuration, but it's fine for you to do so. Interesting application of a double standard…


----------



## AlanF (Jun 28, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > There is more than one data point: the conventional Nikon 300mm f/4D is 222.5mm long and weighs 1440 g, the Nikon equivalent to a DO, the 300mm f/4 E PF, is 148mm long and weighs 750g.
> ...



I am not applying double standards. Let's compare it with another very modern 300mm/f4, the Olympus Zuiko, described as compact and lightweight, https://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/lenses/om_d_pen_lenses/m_zuiko_pro/m_zuiko_digital_ed_300mm_1_4_0_is_pro/m_zuiko_digital_ed_300mm_1_4_0_is_pro_specifications.html

The fine Olympus is 227mm long and weighs 1220g, which is very similar to the Nikon's 222.5mm length and 1440g. The Nikon DO equivalent is substantially shorter and lighter.

Nikon has announced the development of a 500/5.6 PF lens https://www.nikon.com/news/2018/0614_lens_01.htm "that is significantly smaller and lighter than comparable predecessors due to the adoption of the same type of Phase Fresnel (PF) lens element used in the AF-S NIKKOR 300mm f/4E PF ED".


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 28, 2018)

So far it appears the Sony lens is superior to Canon's current version in every way that can be verified.

With the exception of:
Build quality
Price
Optical performance

Canon is surely *******.

For what it is worth, Sony also makes a much better TV than Canon.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > AlanF said:
> ...



We should probably drop the tangent. I have no argument with the fact that incorporation of DO elements makes a lens smaller and lighter. I do take issue with your initial comparison of the Sony 400/2.8 to the Canon 400/4 DO – that comparison is obviated by the difference of a full stop of aperture (regardless of the DO).


----------



## Talys (Jun 29, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> For what it is worth, Sony also makes a much better TV than Canon.



Their gaming system is also much better. My Sony PlayStation won't let me cross play Fortnite, but my Canon Pixma has no option to even launch it even though it's much bigger. I think that Canon is surely purposely nerfing the Pixma.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

Incidentally, the discussion above got me thinking about the TCs. The Sony 400/2.8 is weather-sealed just like the A9 and a7RIII (well, mostly sealed...except for the hotshoe and bottom plate). But unlike Canon's TCs, the Sony TCs aren't sealed. This very nice new lens is targeted at sports shooters...is it that they never use TCs? Or that pro sports aren't played in inclement weather?


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 29, 2018)

Got to be honest, it looks a great lens and we should always welcome more competition as it will only drive Canon forward. The size is particularly impressive as I thought the FE mount was only going to give size advantages at the wider end.

But we must always keep some balance. A good friend of mine recently decided to move to Sony - he's a landscape shooter so the smaller size and IBIS can really help him and he couldn't resist. I had a play with his a7R III and must confess I was impressed -it's tiny, has IBIS, amazing EVF etc. Got the Zeiss 55/1.8 mini Otus and it was wonderful. Then he ran into problems. He ordered the 16-35GM - unusable at 24-35mm it was so soft on one side. The replacement was the same. So he gave up and is trying the Loxia Zeiss lenses (which in fairness have an outstanding reputation for quality control - but means no zooms and no autofocus). At the longer end he bought the 100-400 GM - again first copy soft on one side, second copy is the same but the other side. And he's really not nit-picking, I've seen the photos, it's clearly decentered without even zooming in. Third copy is outstanding, perhaps a touch better and smaller than the Canon 100-400L II. This was nothing though compared to the back and forth he has had with amazon trying to get a decent copy of the Zeiss 35/1.4. He has given up after the fifth attempt. The poor guy is now tearing his hair out trying to get just anything that will give him good quality results. He is going to have to go for a mix of Zeiss Loxia lenses and re-buy some of the L glass he sold and use an adapter which is hardly ideal. Sony has designed some amazing glass - some of it the equal of L lenses but they do not manufacture things the way Canon does.

I'm not wanting to start a war here but it's really a cautionary tale before any of you start selling off many L lenses as I see so much relentless criticism of Canon. Remember the grass isn't always greener. Right now Sony has some big technological advantages but they really are nowhere near Canon quality when it comes to build and manufacturing.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> The size is particularly impressive as I thought the FE mount was only going to give size advantages at the wider end..



Just to be clear, although the Sony 400/2.8 is substantially lighter than the Canon 400/2.8, it's actually a few millimeters longer. So, a weight advantage but no size advantage.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > The size is particularly impressive as I thought the FE mount was only going to give size advantages at the wider end..
> ...



Thanks for the correction - I hadn't realised - seeing the fairly large weight advantage I just assumed it must be a fair bit smaller too, plus we are used to seeing the 400L on a 1DX while the photos of the 400GM are of course attached to a smaller camera giving the impression of a smaller package.


----------



## Durf (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > The size is particularly impressive as I thought the FE mount was only going to give size advantages at the wider end..
> ...



It looks like a Canon 70-200mm f/2.8 on a GoPro.....12 grand? amazing!

Personally I think Sony is trying to do too much too fast and it may creep up and bite them in the behind. For someone to spend 12 grand on a lens for a system that hasn't really proven itself to be pro grade dependable and reliable is quite insane in my opinion.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> Got to be honest, it looks a great lens and we should always welcome more competition as it will only drive Canon forward. The size is particularly impressive as I thought the FE mount was only going to give size advantages at the wider end.
> 
> But we must always keep some balance. A good friend of mine recently decided to move to Sony - he's a landscape shooter so the smaller size and IBIS can really help him and he couldn't resist. I had a play with his a7R III and must confess I was impressed -it's tiny, has IBIS, amazing EVF etc. Got the Zeiss 55/1.8 mini Otus and it was wonderful. Then he ran into problems. He ordered the 16-35GM - unusable at 24-35mm it was so soft on one side. The replacement was the same. So he gave up and is trying the Loxia Zeiss lenses (which in fairness have an outstanding reputation for quality control - but means no zooms and no autofocus). At the longer end he bought the 100-400 GM - again first copy soft on one side, second copy is the same but the other side. And he's really not nit-picking, I've seen the photos, it's clearly decentered without even zooming in. Third copy is outstanding, perhaps a touch better and smaller than the Canon 100-400L II. This was nothing though compared to the back and forth he has had with amazon trying to get a decent copy of the Zeiss 35/1.4. He has given up after the fifth attempt. The poor guy is now tearing his hair out trying to get just anything that will give him good quality results. He is going to have to go for a mix of Zeiss Loxia lenses and re-buy some of the L glass he sold and use an adapter which is hardly ideal. Sony has designed some amazing glass - some of it the equal of L lenses but they do not manufacture things the way Canon does.
> 
> I'm not wanting to start a war here but it's really a cautionary tale before any of you start selling off many L lenses as I see so much relentless criticism of Canon. Remember the grass isn't always greener. Right now Sony has some big technological advantages but they really are nowhere near Canon quality when it comes to build and manufacturing.


Lensrentals has analysed the copy variation of the 16-35 GM - it is a disaster at 35mm https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/08/sony-fe-16-35mm-f2-8-gm-sharpness-tests/


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



What I have been arguing consistently and unambiguously is that the DO technology is better than the Sony optical innovation of using smaller glass elements further back in the body. The Sony has managed to decrease weight and move the centre of gravity closer to the body. The DO technology does both of those and reduce size as well. There is a huge great (waste of) space behind the front element of the Sony, but Canon and Nikon have been able to move the front element back into that space and make the lenses shorter.


----------



## ethanz (Jun 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> What I have been arguing consistently and unambiguously is that the DO technology is better than the Sony optical innovation of using smaller glass elements further back in the body. The Sony has managed to decrease weight and move the centre of gravity closer to the body. The DO technology does both of those and reduce size as well. There is a huge great (waste of) space behind the front element of the Sony, but Canon and Nikon have been able to move the front element back into that space and make the lenses shorter.



But Canon has only done that on f4 lenses. Sony has done something to reduce weight without using DO-like technology, and in an f2.8 lens.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Facts and data rule the day. If you look at the block diagrams of the two lenses, you'll see that the space behind the rear elements of both of them is similar.



That is true, but I think you're not taking into account the different flange distance, so for an equivalent design you'd need to take 26mm off the end of the Sony layout for it to work on EF - and that is why I am saying it potentially could be done, but only at the expense of the extenders.

I am sure there are optical formulae that would allow a rear-heavy design to still work with the EF mount, but I stand by my statement that I doubt this could be done to the same level of weight reduction/weight redistribution that the new Sony 400mm does.

There are a lot of things I think Sony need to catch up on to get the pro market to pay attention, not least their poor record on weather sealing. And the Canon 400mm 2.8 remains an outstanding lens that I sorely wish I had in my arsenal. 

But, as I've said before, a shorter flange distance gives more flexibility with lens design. it's not just about the light-weight compact lenses. It's about designers having new options for all designs. No design that currently performs well on the EF lens couldn't perform at least as well on a shorter flange mount, and more likely than not it could be designed better.



neuroanatomist said:



> Regardless, you tell yourself whatever you need to so you can sleep at night. You have plenty of company from other forum members who also choose to ignore reality.



If I am wrong then feel free to point out my mistakes and I'm happy to listen. I certainly don't know everything. But please do so with some civility, there's no need to descend to insults.


----------



## AlanF (Jun 29, 2018)

ethanz said:


> AlanF said:
> 
> 
> > What I have been arguing consistently and unambiguously is that the DO technology is better than the Sony optical innovation of using smaller glass elements further back in the body. The Sony has managed to decrease weight and move the centre of gravity closer to the body. The DO technology does both of those and reduce size as well. There is a huge great (waste of) space behind the front element of the Sony, but Canon and Nikon have been able to move the front element back into that space and make the lenses shorter.
> ...



Fresnel lenses are not limited to f/4 or narrower. As neuro has pointed out, there are Canon patents for a 16-35/2.8 DO and a 70-200/2.8 DO. The biggest opportunities for DO/PF technologies, however, are for the 500/600/800 supertelephotos, which will be f/4 or greater anyway. And length is very important. The 400mm DO II is often used on safaris (along with the 100-400) because there is room to swing it round in a Jeep whereas the current 400s, 500s etc are often too long.


----------



## sanj (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Facts and data rule the day. If you look at the block diagrams of the two lenses, you'll see that the space behind the rear elements of both of them is similar.
> ...



Neuro thrives on rudeness. He has issues.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Facts and data rule the day. If you look at the block diagrams of the two lenses, you'll see that the space behind the rear elements of both of them is similar.
> ...



I disagree. The Sony design has space at the back for a TC protrusion, the Canon design does, too. I see nothing about the design of the Sony lens that suggests Canon could not design the lens similarly to save/redistribute weight. 




jolyonralph said:


> I am sure there are optical formulae that would allow a rear-heavy design to still work with the EF mount, but I stand by my statement that I doubt this could be done to the same level of weight reduction/weight redistribution that the new Sony 400mm does.



Completely disagree with that. I think it’s possible for Canon to achieve that with traditional optics. But even if not, as AlanF points out Canon could design a 400/2.8 DO that wold be significantly smaller than the Sony lens, and likely at least as light...and being much shorter, the center of mass would be even closer to the body than with the Sony lens. I’m not at all convinced they would do so, but they could.

So far, no new lens designs have challenged the notion that a shorter flange focal distance allows designs that offer significant benefit (however, it does allow smaller lens designs at the cost of sacrifices in optical quality).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

Thanks, sanj. Great and useful contribution to the discussion. You’re a peach.


----------



## takesome1 (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Incidentally, the discussion above got me thinking about the TCs. The Sony 400/2.8 is weather-sealed just like the A9 and a7RIII (well, mostly sealed...except for the hotshoe and bottom plate). But unlike Canon's TCs, the Sony TCs aren't sealed. This very nice new lens is targeted at sports shooters...is it that they never use TCs? Or that pro sports aren't played in inclement weather?



"Weather Sealed" can be a broad term. I have never seen a standard of testing that a lens manufacture would have to meet to make this claim. The Canon 400mm has been proven in the field when it comes to weather sealing, the Sony has only the claim that they have weather sealed. 

I think the best that could be said, both brands equally claim Weather Sealing however there is no evidence that their Weather Sealing is equal.


----------



## scyrene (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Maybe finally we are seeing the end of the myth that the EF mount can do everything and doesn't need replacing.



You're conflating two separate things. I don't recall anyone saying the EF mount could do everything or was perfect. But that doesn't mean it needs replacing. I don't think any mount can be perfect, can it?


----------



## docsmith (Jun 29, 2018)

This is dancing around what is likely the most interesting part of this release.

If Canon could do a design similar to Sony's (lighter, back centered elements), why haven't they? Or, put another way, is there something special about Sony's lens and current tech that precluded Canon from doing something similar in 2011?

I am with Neuro in the above debate, I do not think this is flange distance. That comes into play with UWA lenses. I've never heard it as a factor for telephoto lens designs. I actually think this may have been intentional on Canon's behalf. Simply put, the 1Ds III (1D camera in 2011) weighs twice that of the Sony A9, 3.1 lbs (1404g) to 1.5 lbs (673 g). I've never used the 400 f/2.8 II, but I can tell you the 500 f/4 II, and 600 f/4 II are remarkably well balanced at the tripod ring with a Canon body.


So, I do wonder if this design is all about balance at the tripod ring. Sony is trying to balance a lighter camera, so they needed less weight upfront. Of course, if you mounted a Canon 1D to the Sony lens, it actually probably isn't balanced.

If true, this will be perhaps the first time I'll conceded that Sony's "mirrorless" resulted in a real weight savings in a lens-body combo. Of course, Canon could release a lighter body, but you would start to get into their famed robustness (the 1Dx II is heavier than the 1Ds III).


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Jun 29, 2018)

AlanF said:


> The Sony has managed to decrease weight and move the centre of gravity closer to the body. The DO technology does both of those and reduce size as well. There is a huge great (waste of) space behind the front element of the Sony, but Canon and Nikon have been able to move the front element back into that space and make the lenses shorter.


It will be interesting to see what happens as users test the lens. There are virtually a infinite number of possible optical formulas, each has its strengths and weaknesses. You always trade off one thing or the other. I expect that Canon decided that putting the glass toward the front enhanced properties that they value and sacrificed balance and weight. It is possible to build much lighter lenses of the same focal length and aperture, but they always lose something in te process.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

takesome1 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Incidentally, the discussion above got me thinking about the TCs. The Sony 400/2.8 is weather-sealed just like the A9 and a7RIII (well, mostly sealed...except for the hotshoe and bottom plate). But unlike Canon's TCs, the Sony TCs aren't sealed. This very nice new lens is targeted at sports shooters...is it that they never use TCs? Or that pro sports aren't played in inclement weather?
> ...



Agreed, but my main point was that the Sony TCs lack a mount gasket entirely, so even if the lens and body sealing are effective adding a TC renders the lens/body sealing useless.


----------



## xps (Jun 29, 2018)

docsmith said:


> This is dancing around what is likely the most interesting part of this release.
> 
> If Canon could do a design similar to Sony's (lighter, back centered elements), why haven't they? Or, put another way, is there something special about Sony's lens and current tech that precluded Canon from doing something similar in 2011?
> 
> ...



This might be indeed one of the problem, like I wrote in an posting.
Try to attach an 7AIII with adapter on an 600 or 600+1.4x extender. You need an very long Arca swiss plate to get it balanced too.
As I wrote, this might be one of the problems, Canon has to master. And just think of the big bashing, if they would release an 400/500/600 III lens that is not balanced for all the Pros out there?
So, the rumor, they could offer an MLS in an DSLS body could be an way to circumnavigate this problem


----------



## FramerMCB (Jun 29, 2018)

On paper this new Sony lens looks great! They have achieved something good here! I've enjoyed reading the back and forth that you gents have been engaged in. 

One thing that has really stood out for me over the years: Canon is in the business of making IMAGING SYSTEMS that work. Period. Everything they make works well together and they seem to design cameras, lenses, accessories, printers, etc that all work extremely well together and reliably. And they have the customer service piece figured out too, especially in taking care of the Professional photographer...

It's great that Sony has brought/introduced all this new tech to market, and they are getting there with their camera bodies and some lenses. But they are not there yet with the complete system and system reliability and service. 

With Canon, it's not just that they make reliable stuff with little copy variation (especially with their PRO stuff), it's that when a PRO has an issue with a piece of kit - need a repair, calibration, etc. - Canon's service will loan a replacement out to get one "over-the-hump". Perhaps Sony does this too, but if there is such copy variation between lenses, for example, then a loaner might not be that helpful...

The good news is, it will be very interesting to read performance reviews of this new lens attached to an A9, and the A7R III.
Cheers!


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Maybe finally we are seeing the end of the myth that the EF mount can do everything and doesn't need replacing.



Said nobody, ever...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 29, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> Got to be honest, it looks a great lens and we should always welcome more competition as it will only drive Canon forward.



Don't see why it would - you can't use this lens on Canon bodies, and if a photographer is moving to Sony he won't be doing it _just_ for this lens.

So there's no obvious pressure on Canon here.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Got to be honest, it looks a great lens and we should always welcome more competition as it will only drive Canon forward.
> ...



+1 on "just for this lens". 

This lens is a statement piece and pricey toy for now -- nothing more. A lot more stuff/developments/offerings need to happen before this new lens is part of a compelling value proposition to sports/wildlife folks. As others have said, at present, there are numerous gaping holes with Sony here that need to be addressed before folks will stake their livelihood on an A7/A9 setup.

That said, though it's just a statement piece for now, a statement piece _that alleges to outperform Canon is one of its strongest areas_ may warrant Canon getting all hot and bothered and (I hate using this word in this context) respond with a step forward of their own. 

So, no, this new lens is not a shot across the bow business-wise, but it may be one from a 'pride of lens design' perspective. But if a 24-70 f/2.8 VR for Nikon didn't get Canon to spring to action to respond, I doubt this will.

- A


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 29, 2018)

docsmith said:


> If Canon could do a design similar to Sony's (lighter, back centered elements), why haven't they? Or, put another way, is there something special about Sony's lens and current tech that precluded Canon from doing something similar in 2011?



I suspect we're simply in the usual "_Canon doesn't see a market for a significant redesign, so sees no need to change its current offer_" space - that's how Canon tends to work.

And while light is nice and all, I think _way_ too much is being made of it here. Once this lens is on a monopod (or a tripod, but monopods are more usual on the sidelines), the weight advantage will pretty much go away. 

Compared with an "equivalent" (400mm f/2.8 or 500mm f/4, say) Canon lens, properly balanced, on a monopod: the Sony and the Canon will feel pretty much the same used that way.

Conversely, I (not a big guy, and almost 58 years old) shoot all day long with my 500mm f/4 Mk II, _handheld_: and I honestly believe that the slight heft and weight-forward nature of the design makes it easier to keep steady, and to move around quickly. 

It doesn't _feel_ weight forward either, when my hand is positioned under the CoG - which is right where you'd want it to be on the Canon. So it feels _right_ as it is.

And when it's in the bag, it's in the bag - I've yet to find myself wishing that my bag was lighter, so no advantage there either...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (Jun 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> That said, though it's just a statement piece for now, a statement piece _that alleges to outperform Canon is one of its strongest areas_



Matt Granger has a video review out already (I don't watch video reviews, so I'm quoting from a site that links to it) where he asserts that the Sony "smokes" Canon (and Nikon) optically.

That's - to be kind - _exceedingly_ unlikely, isn't it? Any optical improvement over the best that Canon and Nikon have to offer would be vanishingly small. Then bear in mind that IBIS _doesn't come close_ to in-lens stabilisation at this kind of FL, and I struggle to see the real world advantages of this lens over the "opposition".


----------



## Durf (Jun 29, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> ahsanford said:
> 
> 
> > That said, though it's just a statement piece for now, a statement piece _that alleges to outperform Canon is one of its strongest areas_
> ...



Yeah, it won't be long and Matt Granger will be known as "That Sony Guy"......


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> That's - to be kind - _exceedingly_ unlikely, isn't it? Any optical improvement over the best that Canon and Nikon have to offer would be vanishingly small. Then bear in mind that IBIS _doesn't come close_ to in-lens stabilisation at this kind of FL, and I struggle to see the real world advantages of this lens over the "opposition".



Depends on his basis of saying "smokes". If pixel-peeps 20 MP 1DX2 output (with an AA filter) against 42 MP A7R3 output without an AA filter... :

(Sorry, haven't seen the video.)

- A


----------



## Graphic.Artifacts (Jun 29, 2018)

Guess we know why Canon is upgrading their Super Tele’s. Looks like a nice lens. Canon is not going to like sharing the sidelines with an additional manufacturer regardless of the minimal impact it will have on their bottom line. The big whites made Canon what it is today and I’d bet they see this as a significant threat. Ultra high frame rates could be the killer app that drives mirrorless adoption in sports pro’s and if it’s seen as a significant competitive advantage it could happen pretty quickly since a lot of that gear can be rented.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> jolyonralph said:
> 
> 
> > I am sure there are optical formulae that would allow a rear-heavy design to still work with the EF mount, but I stand by my statement that I doubt this could be done to the same level of weight reduction/weight redistribution that the new Sony 400mm does.
> ...



I bow to your superior knowledge of optics (having seen your other postings) and have to accept you're right on this. Certainly DO gives a great potential advantage, although there is a fear amongst many that it DO is a "contrast killer" which even if is not the case with modern DO lenses does have to be clearly addressed in the marketing of any new lens.

What I agree with less is your last comment about sacrifices in optical quality. While I'm fully aware of the theory that having elements too close to the sensor brings the angle of the light hitting the sensors at the edge of the sensor to the point where they cannot have the same sensitivity as those at the sensor, and I am sure it is an issue, the reality is that there are some really optically excellent lenses that use this factor to produce superb, professional results.

As I have mentioned before, the Sony/Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 and especially the FE 55mm f/1.8 are superb lenses . So clearly not all smaller lens designs require a sacrifice in quality, and if these two can produce superb results, why can't other designs?


----------



## Durf (Jun 29, 2018)

My dream lens is the approx. 2 grand Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS USM ii Lens, which someday I might be able to own. I would seriously love to have this lens and it's optics are superb by what I am hearing. (The human eye can only see so well)....

Even considering owning a 12 thousand dollar lens is beyond ludicrous in my reality. 

It's almost comical seeing all the well known youtubers gather to play with this lens for a while!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> What I agree with less is your last comment about sacrifices in optical quality. While I'm fully aware of the theory that having elements too close to the sensor brings the angle of the light hitting the sensors at the edge of the sensor to the point where they cannot have the same sensitivity as those at the sensor, and I am sure it is an issue, the reality is that there are some really optically excellent lenses that use this factor to produce superb, professional results.
> 
> As I have mentioned before, the Sony/Zeiss FE 35mm f/2.8 and especially the FE 55mm f/1.8 are superb lenses . So clearly not all smaller lens designs require a sacrifice in quality, and if these two can produce superb results, why can't other designs?



Yes, you’ve made that argument before, but I still disagree. The Sony 35/2.8 has 7 elements in 5 groups and is 37mm long. The Canon 35/2 has 7 elements in 5 groups and is only 6mm longer. Granted, the Sony lens delivers much better IQ...which it damn well should for 3x the price. But it’s really no smaller than the Canon lens. The Sony lens shows that it’s possible to make small, high IQ lenses...but not that making them for a short flange distance offers any advantage. (Apologies if I implied that the sacrifice in IQ was due to small lens size, my point is that the short FFD doesn’t offer any selective advantages.)

Same story with the 55/1.8. Yes, an excellent lens. But it’s 71mm long, whereas the Canon 50/1.4 is only 51mm long...and if Canon developed a new 50/1.4 with modern coatings and optics and a 3x higher price target, I am pretty sure the IQ would be on par with the Sony. So again, the short FFD offers no meaningful advantage.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 29, 2018)

Durf said:


> It's almost comical seeing all the well known youtubers gather to play with this lens for a while!



Sony knows what they are doing there. The A7 platform is principally an enthusiast-fueled phenomenon. It makes perfect sense for them to rope in known youtubers, vloggers, bloggers, etc. that enthusiasts watch/read to give this a go as the first 'critical' take.

The wildcard, of course, is that very few of these folks have a wildlife/sports background. So having a (for instance) Kai Wong being amazed at ripping off 20 fps with this thing isn't going to get a birder, safari or sports shooter to snap it up.

So I'm curious to see how they rope in more serious hobbyists/pros _that these lenses were designed for_. There's no way to get a respected Canon-using or Nikon-using gear influencer to give this a fair shot without somewhat turning this into a referendum on the A7/A9 platform as a whole, which puts Sony in the negative (at least, at first) as these folks will have to fight through the new platform's handling, AF, controls, etc. before they can speak to the virtues of the lens.

- A


----------



## Durf (Jun 29, 2018)

ahsanford said:


> Durf said:
> 
> 
> > It's almost comical seeing all the well known youtubers gather to play with this lens for a while!
> ...



I'm sure over the next year or so Sony will load up a few pro's with their A9's and these high dollar lenses and finance them on a few trip shoots to show the world that yes, there stuff can do this too!

Yes, Sony knows what they are doing when it comes to pushing product. 

I do admit that this lens looks awesome and the images shown from it don't look too shabby either!


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 29, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yes, you’ve made that argument before, but I still disagree. The Sony 35/2.8 has 7 elements in 5 groups and is 37mm long. The Canon 35/2 has 7 elements in 5 groups and is only 6mm longer. Granted, the Sony lens delivers much better IQ...which it damn well should for 3x the price. But it’s really no smaller than the Canon lens. The Sony lens shows that it’s possible to make small, high IQ lenses...but not that making them for a short flange distance offers any advantage. (Apologies if I implied that the sacrifice in IQ was due to small lens size, my point is that the short FFD doesn’t offer any selective advantages.)
> 
> Same story with the 55/1.8. Yes, an excellent lens. But it’s 71mm long, whereas the Canon 50/1.4 is only 51mm long...and if Canon developed a new 50/1.4 with modern coatings and optics and a 3x higher price target, I am pretty sure the IQ would be on par with the Sony. So again, the short FFD offers no meaningful advantage.



Curious. I'm not sure about official pricing, but the Canon 35mm f/2 IS and the Sony 35mm f/2 are around about the same price when shopping around. 

And the issues isn't about a few mm of length? That's not the most important factor, it's the weight.

The Canon 35 is 336g, the Sony 35 is 119g, a significant saving.


The Canon 50mm 1.4 isn't even in the same league as the Sony 55. The Sony 55 is a unique lens, it's not your standard 50mm lens (Sony have one of those, much cheaper).

The Sony 55mm is about the same weight as the Canon 1.4, for a significantly greater image quality.

And we ALL know that Canon aren't going to release any new 50mm lenses until ahsanford has finally given in and bought the 50mm f/1.2L


----------



## Talys (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, you’ve made that argument before, but I still disagree. The Sony 35/2.8 has 7 elements in 5 groups and is 37mm long. The Canon 35/2 has 7 elements in 5 groups and is only 6mm longer. Granted, the Sony lens delivers much better IQ...which it damn well should for 3x the price. But it’s really no smaller than the Canon lens. The Sony lens shows that it’s possible to make small, high IQ lenses...but not that making them for a short flange distance offers any advantage. (Apologies if I implied that the sacrifice in IQ was due to small lens size, my point is that the short FFD doesn’t offer any selective advantages.)
> ...



I'm kind of confused. On the sony end, we're talking about:

https://www.adorama.com/iso3528.html

Correct? That's an $800 35mm f/2.8 with no optical stabilization (right?)

versus either the older EF35 f/2 that has a street price below $300:
https://www.amazon.com/Canon-35mm-Angle-Cameras-MODEL/dp/B00009XVCU

Or the newer EF35 f/2 IS with a street price of $550:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00A2BVBTG/ref=psdc_173565_t3_B00009XVCU

Right? And that's before Canon's MIR's which are substantial and frequent.

So a couple of things, the non IS version is closer to 200 grams, and you can't expect IS to weigh nothing. And obviously (unless I'm looking at the wrong lenses) we're looking at an f/2 versus and f/2.8 lens, so it's not exactly apples to apples. I mean, that's _one full stop_. No different than comparing 400/4 with 400/2.8 and going, "hey, the f/4 is lighter". Well, no kidding.

But anyways, for me, for a light lens like that, size is way more important than weight (I just don't care about 100g - 200g to the total package weight).


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 29, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> Curious. I'm not sure about official pricing, but the Canon 35mm f/2 IS and the Sony 35mm f/2 are around about the same price when shopping around.
> 
> And the issues isn't about a few mm of length? That's not the most important factor, it's the weight.
> 
> ...



I was referring to the 35mm f/2, not the 35mm f/2 IS USM. 

Agree with Talys that for a small prime, 100 g of weight isn't important (to me). Fitting in a smaller bag is. 

Using weight of a lens as a comparator is tricky, because it really depends on the design choices made for the lens. You can pack high quality optical elements into a plastic barrel and end up with a light lens, or you can pack crappy glass into a sturdy metal barrel and have a brick...or something in between.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 30, 2018)

AlanF said:


> Lensrentals has analysed the copy variation of the 16-35 GM - it is a disaster at 35mm https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2017/08/sony-fe-16-35mm-f2-8-gm-sharpness-tests/



That certainly matched the experience of my friend. 

The 16-35GM is actually a great piece of glass in terms of design. I took my 16-35L III on my 5DSR to compare with his a7RIII and was really impressed with the GM. It's considerably smaller than the Canon and has a significant advantage in vignetting at 16mm and f2.8 - it's in another league frankly. The parts of the image that came out sharp came out super sharp, essentially matching the L III. It's basically the perfect wide angle zoom... except for the fact that it's extremely hard to get a good copy! At the price they ask that's absurd.

No lens, certainly no zoom is ever perfect. Especially on 40+MP sensors if you zoom in enough every lens will be slightly sharper in one corner or on one side (I found this out when I jumped from 5DII to 5DSR and found previously "perfect" L lenses actually weren't quite perfect at 100%!) but Sony's quality control issues have a big impact even when viewed at normal sizes.

They clearly have some top notch lens design engineers - I read they now employ some of the top men from Nikon - but their manufacturing department is letting them down. I have been quite impressed with some Sony products but there's no way I'll leave Canon for such badly built lenses.


----------



## mjg79 (Jun 30, 2018)

Keith_Reeder said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Got to be honest, it looks a great lens and we should always welcome more competition as it will only drive Canon forward.
> ...



I see what you mean and I'm sure you're right that it won't put pressure on Canon in the sense of losing lots of money or sales in the same way that, for example, maybe Sony taking a large part of APS-C market share would.

Nonetheless I have the impression that Canon strives to maintain a position of leadership with professionals above all other groups and places great emphasis on those lenses - the 70-200/2.8, 300/2.8 and 400/2.8 etc. - that make up some of the most prized bits of kit. I think at any given point in the last 25 years you could compare to other brands and you would find Canon would be widely regarded as having the best and most advanced version of at least a couple of such lenses. 

So while you're right that Canon won't lose any sleep or perhaps even directly any customers if the GM lens becomes widely regarded as the best 400/2.8 on the market still I suspect sooner or later Canon will push back. Nobody could honestly say the quality of the 70-200/2.8 really was lacking in any department but it didn't stop Canon bringing out the version III.

Having said all that if the GM matches the abysmal build quality of other Sony lenses - a poor level of quality that Sony has indeed allowed to pass out the factory on $2000+ zooms so far - then the type of photographer who buys it won't be pleased, I really can't imagine them charging so much for a lens that isn't top notch but they sadly don't have a great track record on that.


----------



## sanj (Jun 30, 2018)

neuroanatomist said:


> Thanks, sanj. Great and useful contribution to the discussion. You’re a peach.



Most welcome. You are plum.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 30, 2018)

Talys said:


> versus either the older EF35 f/2 that has a street price below $300:



I believe this lens has been discontinued, it's no longer listed on the Canon UK website list of products - which is why I was assuming comparing it with the 35mm IS. 

Comparing the 35mm with IS vs the 35mm Sony without may be unfair, but the Sony cameras do have IBIS.

In the UK, best price I see for the Sony 35mm official UK model with warranty (from Currys) is £559, the best price for the official UK warranty version Canon 35mm IS is £519 (Jessops). Both can be bought cheaper through grey import suppliers of course.

I don't have the 35mm f/2 IS, but I do have the 24mm f/2.8 IS which is a very similar lens, and I don't really use it much. I find the balance of the heavy body with the lighter lens doesn't give me as much benefit as I thought it would so I usually stick with the 16-35 or the 24-70 on the 5DSR. On the A7RII I find the opposite, and I much prefer to use the smaller primes than the larger zooms. 

I'm not saying that one system is better than the other. Sometimes a large camera is beneficial, sometimes a smaller camera is. I'm very fortunate in that I have both options, and I am certainly not telling everyone that my choices are the right choices for all.


And one thing that we can all rejoice in is that Sony improving their game forces Canon to have to up their game to compete. Then we all win.


----------



## jolyonralph (Jun 30, 2018)

mjg79 said:


> Having said all that if the GM matches the abysmal build quality of other Sony lenses - a poor level of quality that Sony has indeed allowed to pass out the factory on $2000+ zooms so far - then the type of photographer who buys it won't be pleased, I really can't imagine them charging so much for a lens that isn't top notch but they sadly don't have a great track record on that.



The most overlooked and critical part of Canon's attractiveness to professionals is the value that CPS offers. For professionals this service is invaluable, and issues such as copy variation are something that CPS swiftly resolves for their members. 

Sony have recently launched their Imaging Pro service which seems to be pretty much modelled on the way CPS works. Considering that Sony photographers were pretty much left to fend for themselves for the longest time any official support is an improvement, but I wait to hear from others whether their service is anywhere near as good as Canon's. But if it is then I'd expect they would resolve issues with poor lens copies for professionals quite rapidly.


----------



## mjg79 (Jul 2, 2018)

jolyonralph said:


> mjg79 said:
> 
> 
> > Having said all that if the GM matches the abysmal build quality of other Sony lenses - a poor level of quality that Sony has indeed allowed to pass out the factory on $2000+ zooms so far - then the type of photographer who buys it won't be pleased, I really can't imagine them charging so much for a lens that isn't top notch but they sadly don't have a great track record on that.
> ...



I agree - and other things feed into that. For example Canon designs their lenses so they can be repaired relatively easily. Sony treat them more like electronic products where several big parts come pre-fabbed and have to be replaced at enormous costs. The lens rental teardown of the 70-200 GM made this clear with some parts (or more precisely collections of parts Sony doesn't supply individually) costing half the price of a new lens.

I think this impacts not just professionals but also committed amateurs who want to know that if buying an expensive lens it should last many years and if there is a problem it can be easily corrected. 

Unlike many here I am not hostile to Sony. I've been able to use an A7R III and was impressed. Paired with a Loxia 21 it is a superior landscape set up - especially if weight and size matter - to anything offered by Canon or Nikon. Another great lens with the 55 1.8 Sony Zeiss. It's like having an autofocus Otus which is tiny and matches a camera with IBIS. But from reading online, the data sets presented by lensrentals and the experience of a friend I can see in particular the zooms have many quality control problems. Add in that they are very expensive and it adds insult to injury. If I had a Canon 100-400L and it got damaged or I found it was decentered or whatever I would feel confident I could get it serviced and as good as new and at a reasonable price - I wouldn't have the same confidence with Sony to be frank or if they could repair it the bill might be enormous. 

I hope Canon is paying attention to what is going on and letting Sony make the mistakes. As I said, especially for wide angles, there are clearly some benefits to be had from a mirrorless set up allowing the rear element to sit closer to the sensor. I hope when Canon moves to make use of that, whether through a new mount or allowing EF mount lenses to protrude backwards, that they really double down on quality as it's an obvious area they can easily beat Sony in.

If you read on the fredmiranda site many of the landscapers have gone over to Sony for the small size and high quality Zeiss Loxia and Batis primes. But when it comes to the Sony lenses it's fairly common to hear stories of having to go through 4 or 5 copies of a lens to get a well centred copy - right now Sony has that market to themselves but I can't see many people bothering with that level of nonsense once Canon and Nikon enter the market.


----------

