Sony 500mm G SSM F/4 lens due April.

[Pen Pusher]

Sony have finally announced a release date for their long awaited 500mm F/4 lens. 13,000euros (£10,000)

Don't think Sony are going to be selling many of these to their core photographers and at 3476g (7lbs) is a weight lifting course thrown in as well.

Sony Europe and Sony Japan announced the new rugged 500mm f/4.0 lens. And that beast is yours for no less than 13.000 Euro!!! It will be in Stock by April. Those are the key features of the lens:

Longest-ever focal length G Lens from Sony
Bright F4.0 aperture for superior light gathering
Nano AR Coating on optical surfaces for flawless still images and HD video
Compatible with SteadyShot INSIDE featured in all α cameras
New SSM drive circuit for quick, accurate autofocus
Rugged dust- and moisture-resistant design: ideal partner for SLT-A77
Enhanced handling and operability

Technical specifications
Key Specifications 500mm F4 G SSM
Min. aperture F32
No. of aperture blades 9 (Circular aperture)
Max. magnification ratio 0.135
Min. focus 4.0 m
Filter diameter 42 mm (Exclusive)
Dimensions

(Diam. X L) 140 x 367.5 mm
Weight (approx.) 3460 g
Teleconverter compatibility Yes (1.4x: AF and MF Mode, 2x: MF mode)
Dust and moisture resistance Yes

SonyAlphaRumours

Brian

[Toonman]

Very nice but I don't think the wife will agree. She complained when I bought my 70-400 so it will remain a dream for me.

[Pen Pusher]

What about a new camera then

The new A57 will use a 16 megapixel sensor and has the 12fps function of the A77. It also uses the same battery as the A77. Menu structure is again the same of the A77… same focusing modes as A77. The EVF looks similar to the A77 (might not be but very good) and the response time an manual mode very fast with no lag on settings. It has a swivel screen that looks very much like the same as the A77 and an ISO button on top.

UPDATE: Trusted sources confirmed the specs (with only a small correction). The A57 Specs are right! No articulated LCD screen but swivable. A77 Vertical Grip fits on the A57. No Top LCD.NO GPS.

From SonyAlphaRumours

Brian

[Heidfirst]

I await confirmation on the MSRP (not that I'm buying one).
The Japanese price is 5x that of the 70-400 which would put it ~£8k here.
edit: David Killpatrick says that the UK list is £11000 & Sony UK will have a sample in April.

Can't help but feel that this was meant to be launched along with a new FF but with that having been put back due the floods in Thailand (& possibly an agreement with similarly affected Nikon over exclusivity with the sensor for a period?) they decided to launch it on it's own (it's been shown for several years now as a prototype).

[Heidfirst]

some samples from a retail 500/4 G SSM
http://www.dyxum.com/dforum/i-got-the-5 ... page1.html

[Eizo]

13.000 Euro... And weights much more than Canons even without an IS system...

If you want to be different (for sure not in quality, lol), you have to pay for it!

[MerlinJon]

13.000 Euro... And weights much more than Canons even without an IS system...

If you want to be different (for sure not in quality, lol), you have to pay for it!

Why not in quality? Just because it is a Sony I guess!

[Eizo]

13.000 Euro... And weights much more than Canons even without an IS system...

If you want to be different (for sure not in quality, lol), you have to pay for it!

Why not in quality? Just because it is a Sony I guess!

Because I doubt it is better in quality compared to the Canon or Nikon one's. I only pay more if I get more. So tell me, where is the advantage of the Sony, claiming 3000 Euros more than Canon's actuall II-version? A lens which even does not have an IS integrated, so is far more easy to produce?

[Heidfirst]

Because I doubt it is better in quality compared to the Canon or Nikon one's.

I doubt it's worse either.
What there is no doubt of though is that Sony won't sell as many of these currently as either Canon or Nikon meaning that they won't enjoy the same economies of scale in production & that R&D costs have to be recovered over fewer items > higher price (Gustav paid just under €11000 v 9500 for a Canon 500/4 IS II).
Mind you he is using his & I don't think that the Canon is available yet ...

[Jimbib]

Because I doubt it is better in quality compared to the Canon or Nikon one's.

Could you provide the analysis you undertaken to back up your claims please? I'm very interested in the detailed comparison testing you must have carried out between Canon, Nikon and Sony super-telephoto lenses.

A lens which even does not have an IS integrated, so is far more easy to produce?

The reason Sony alpha mount lenses do not have image stabilization built into them is because it is integrated into all Sony camera bodies. Whilst there are some advantages of having image stabilisation integrated in the lens, it was actually Minolta who originally put IS into the bodies, and so Sony have carried on this convention across their DSLR range, maintaining compatibility with many legacy Minolta products.

Hence in this case, the 500mm F4 lens will be stabilised, just like any other lens you can mount onto a Sony DSLR, regardless of age.

[Eizo]

Yeeepee! Fanboy-Discussion! Sorry, better things to do!

[Heidfirst]

Yeeepee! Fanboy-Discussion! Sorry, better things to do!

translation: you can't argue & back up your case
Sony have proven that they can compete quality wise with Canon & Nikon glass (as have indeed Olympus & Pentax).
If you want to save money there is always the Sigma 500/4.5.

P.S. the Sony comes complete with a drop-in CPL - that's an extra €200+ on the Canon.

[Jimbib]

Yeeepee! Fanboy-Discussion! Sorry, better things to do!

Because I doubt it is better in quality compared to the Canon or Nikon one's.

Trolling troll is a troll, you made a careless comment and got called out on it, don't get too excited. I highly doubt you have better things to do... oh wait, did you see what I did there?

Aside from that distraction, back on topic, the 500mm lens has appeared at Wilkinson's Cameras with a pricetag of £10k.

http://www.wilkinson.co.uk/sony-a-g-500mm-f4-ssm.html

I'm very much looking forward to hopefully seeing some airshow snaps with this lens.

[Eizo]

Trolling? "You make me sad!"

Well, so then, explain to me please:

A lens, cheaper in production compared to those having an IS system (and it IS much cheaper to produce, no discussion), is sold for a much higher price than compared lenses from known manufacturers like Nikon and Canon? And it is even heavier than those without IS... I could add that IS inside camera is idiocy too, but that would turn the discussion completely off topic!

For me the situation is summed up like paying for an overrated expensive all-wheel drive car and getting a car with a "cheap" front wheel drive. I see people are buying it, but maybe you unravel the mystery why SONY users accept to pay more and get less in comparison? Goofiness or ignorance?

[DaveM]

Sony were very happily in bed with Zeiss the last time I checked - expect Zeiss glass in this little baby and that doesn't come cheap.

[Jimbib]

Trolling? "You make me sad!"

Well, so then, explain to me please:

A lens, cheaper in production compared to those having an IS system (and it IS much cheaper to produce, no discussion), is sold for a much higher price than compared lenses from known manufacturers like Nikon and Canon? And it is even heavier than those without IS...

Oh, so you no longer care about the performance of the lens, just the economics of it? In your assumption that it'll be cheaper to produce, you clearly haven't taken into account the differences between Sony and the likes of Nikon & Canon. When they already know they don't have same customer numbers that Minolta used to with their supertelephoto lenses, why would they produce the lens in the same mass quantity as Nikon & Canon? That would be commercial suicide and, as a result, the 500mm F4 is in fact being made to order, hence the higher list price. Besides, it's not a secret that the tsunami in Japan destroyed many of the ELD glass elements which took approximately a year to grow, that'll definitely put a spike in the final production and consequent retail prices.

I could add that IS inside camera is idiocy too, but that would turn the discussion completely off topic!

Care to back that up at all? Or just going to carry on throwing around unsubstantiated opinions again?

For me the situation is summed up like paying for an overrated...

Again, ready to step down off your Nikon-Canon soapbox yet? Why not just wait for some actual independent reviews of the lens? Oh wait, that would be far too sensible.

...expensive all-wheel drive car and getting a car with a "cheap" front wheel drive. I see people are buying it, but maybe you unravel the mystery why SONY users accept to pay more and get less in comparison? Goofiness or ignorance?

Why don't you go and ask them? Several people already have this lens in their possession, I'm sure they'll be happy to explain their purchasing motives to you. Again, this lens is not intended for likes of numbers that Nikon & Canon mass produce for, the commercial success or failure of this lens won't heavily impact the overall Sony Alpha system overall as it is made to order in very little numbers. Notice how I haven't actually said if I agree with the pricing of this lens once, it is practically (not theoretically) irrelevant to me, I'm merely stating the facts. If you did a little research, all this information would be easy to find.

[MerlinJon]

For me the situation is summed up like paying for an overrated expensive all-wheel drive car and getting a car with a "cheap" front wheel drive. I see people are buying it, but maybe you unravel the mystery why SONY users accept to pay more and get less in comparison? Goofiness or ignorance?

You have not got a clue what you are talking about!!!!! New Canon 500mm F4 around £9,500, Sony 500mm F4 at around £10,000 I make that only £500 difference but then again what would I know as a Sony user I am only Goofy or Ignorant......

[Heidfirst]

Well, so then, explain to me please:

A lens, cheaper in production compared to those having an IS system (and it IS much cheaper to produce, no discussion), is sold for a much higher price than compared lenses from known manufacturers like Nikon and Canon?

I see that you need to brush up on your reading comprehension & economics
If you look back at my earlier post "What there is no doubt of though is that Sony won't sell as many of these currently as either Canon or Nikon meaning that they won't enjoy the same economies of scale in production & that R&D costs have to be recovered over fewer items > higher price ".
Nobody is arguing that the Sony isn't dearer but there are sound reasons for that even though we may not particularly like that it's dearer.

& Sony are a known manufacturer with a good reputation for the quality of their higher end glass but let's wait for the reviews.

And it is even heavier than those without IS...

under 300g on a lens that weighs more than 3Kg -not exactly a huge difference & most people are going to use these lenses on supports of some kind.

I could add that IS inside camera is idiocy too, but that would turn the discussion completely off topic!

You can add it but it doesn't help your case.
Both systems have their pros & cons but overall they balance each other out to be very comparable.
(& both will probably be overtaken by software based systems in the long run)

[Eizo]

You have not got a clue what you are talking about!!!!!

But you have?! So maybe you got the gift of telling me, WHY the lens is more expensive? The others in this thread failed already, maybe you can help?

New Canon 500mm F4 around £9,500, Sony 500mm F4 at around £10,000 I make that only £500 difference

Hmm, you should do more research, mate!

The Canon is available starting at £8500 in UK....

http://www.camerapricebuster.co.uk/prod2215.html

even lower (£7500!!!) if you buy it in the EU:

http://www.digistore.at/objektive/canon ... is-usm.php

whereas I could not find the Sony 500mm for your claimed £10,000, most shops in europe have it for £10,600:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-500mm-Super- ... B007N9YPXY
http://www.factoryprices.nl/product_inf ... 2551826015

Or gimme the link of a shop selling the Sony 500mm for £10,000 or below, as you said it is available for that price.

So, we are talking about facts:

1. price difference £2000-£3000 (and not £500! )
2. a) no image stabilizing system and it's disavantage(s) (but neglect that, as Sony users want to live with it)
2. b) a lens not comparable to the Canon and Nikon one's, as the image stabalizing system takes much more effort in construction (NON-IS should be cheaper compared to IS-lenses, THIS WAS THE INTENTION OF IT WHEN MINOLTA INVENTED IT!!!! But Sony users pay more to get less, as I stated. )

It looks to me, I'm the only one here discussing facts and not opinions! But hey, why should Sony Fanboys be different to those from Apple!

I am always open for discussions based on facts and not on chitchat! CU!

[Jimbib]

But you have?! So maybe you got the gift of telling me, WHY the lens is more expensive? The others in this thread failed already, maybe you can help?

See my previous post.

Or gimme the link of a shop selling the Sony 500mm for £10,000 or below, as you said it is available for that price.

My second post in this thread.

2. a) no image stabilizing system and it's disavantage(s) (but neglect that, as Sony users want to live with it)

All lenses are stabilised using Steady Shot Inside. Please do your research.

It looks to me, I'm the only one here discussing facts and not opinions!

Orly?

Because I doubt it is better in quality compared to the Canon or Nikon one's.

I could add that IS inside camera is idiocy too, but that would turn the discussion completely off topic

Now you're just ignoring the actual facts I have pointed out, I'm done trying to reason with you, try doing a little research, you might enjoy it.

[MerlinJon]

What is the point!

[Eizo]

All lenses are stabilised using Steady Shot Inside. Please do your research.

Ah ok, we start lying instead of discussing facts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_stab ... Lens-based

[Jimbib]

All lenses are stabilised using Steady Shot Inside. Please do your research.

Ah ok, we start lying instead of discussing facts...

And now you're just picking holes again.... for the sake of being difficult, beginning to spot quite a pattern here.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/alpha_01.html

Hand shake that can be amplified by lens focal length is countered by the system's image stabilisation. Still waiting for you to actually contribute to this thread, but I won't hold my breath.

[Eizo]

And now you're just picking holes again.... for the sake of being difficult, beginning to spot quite a pattern here.

http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/alpha_01.html

I know the Sony system very well.

Hand shake that can be amplified by lens focal length is countered by the system's image stabilisation. Still waiting for you to actually contribute to this thread, but I won't hold my breath.

And it is a sensor based IS system, which is no as good as the in lens integrated systems of Nikon or Canon! (Moving viewfinder problem, angle and so on. Just follow the link on Wikipedia, for the case you think I only talk about my personal view) But thank you for the link. So we are still here:

No built in IS inside the lens, but nevertheless much more expensive than those who have one inside and therefor are more costly in production.

If you reply now, that the lens itself IS stabalized, you are the hole picker, not me. I wonder why nobody is able to say: I have no argument, but I like Sony because of XYZ. But the discussion is going in circles, as everybody tries to raise the price of the Canon, lower the price of the Sony, telling me it would have IS but (too bad!) not in camera... But who would actually confess paying more for something he gets less in exchange.

[Jimbib]

And it is a sensor based IS system

Wow, you finally did a bit of actual research, congratulations Unfortunately your objective point you have raised seems to stop there. On with the subjective...

which is not as good as the in lens integrated systems of Nikon or Canon! (Moving viewfinder problem, angle and so on.

Again, your opinion.

You realise there is no discrete answer to sensor-based vs lens-based? You have conveniently ignored the advantages, for example being able to use any legacy AF Minolta glass (eg 28-135mm F4-4.5 known for it's decent performance and affordable price) and maintain IS in taking photos. What about the lack of roll correction in lens integrated IS that is in fact present in some sensor-shift IS? What about the general price hike of paying for IS in every single lens you purchase versus non-IS versions of the same lens? Oh, and moving viewfinder problem you say? Sony is now moving to producing SLT's, not SLR's, eradicating the discontinuity of the image projected to the viewfinder. There is no one answer between the two systems, they both have pros and cons, get over it.

Just follow the link on Wikipedia

Wikipedia links? How cute, bless you.