We’ve heard whispers of the Sony FE 16-35mm GM lens bandied about, and perhaps those in the know have also been hearing about an even wider option, but the FE 12-24 f/4 lens just caught me by surprise!
While pre-orders won’t be taken until this Friday, you can submit to have an email alert once they are available via these links which you can see more about these lenses, their specs and will take you directly to B&H:
B&H lists the specs of the 16-35 f/2.8 lens as follows:
- E-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format
- Aperture Range: f/2.8 to f/22
- Two Extra-Low Dispersion Elements
- Three Aspherical and Two XA Elements
- Nano AR and Fluorine Coatings
- Two Direct Drive SSM AF Groups
- Focus Hold Button, AF/MF Switch
- Dust and Moisture-Resistant Construction
- Eleven-Blade Circular Diaphragm
…And the 12-24 f/4 lens is listed at B&H as such:
- E-Mount Lens/Full-Frame Format
- Aperture Range: f/2 to f/22
- Four Aspherical Elements
- One Super ED and Three ED Elements
- Nano AR Coating
- Direct Drive Super Sonic Wave Motor
- Focus Hold Button, AF/MF Switch
- Dust and Moisture-Resistant Construction
- Seven-Bladed Rounded Diaphragm
Obviously, the B&H site has mis-listed the max aperture on the 12-24, but both of these lenses look really, really good on paper. How they test out optically is yet to be seen, but I’d imagine it won’t take long for us to get many comprehensive reviews very soon. These are going to be two popular lenses.
The 16-35 looks very nice, and I’m sure will be an extremely popular UWA zoom for pro use, the price is very high in my opinion. Reminds me of the Canon debate between their EF 16-35mm f/2.8 L and EF 17-40mm f/4 L lenses where the extra stop costs nearly twice as much. For me personally, I use an ultra wide zoom for interiors and landscapes which usually see me stop down to f/8- f/11 or so, and will be shot on a tripod. That made the decision for me an easy one. I see a similar situation here with Sony’s offerings. The 12-24mm lens looks pretty damn intriguing, and while the price is still very steep, by comparison to the 16-35, for my UWA use, I’d be opting for the wider, slower zoom myself, assuming these both test well optically.
Both are dust and moisture resistant meaning they should do well to hold up in inclement weather for outdoor shooting, as we should expect for lenses like these, targeted and priced for professional use.
Anyhoo, keep an eye out for these bad boys. Should go some way in helping round out Sony’s full frame lens game for those serious, and deep pocketed shooters.
Cheers, and happy shooting,
Tyson
Tyson Robichaud Photo-blography 
Whoa it’s expensive alright… about the price of 2 Voigtlanders! (OK apples and oranges :))
LikeLike
I know! These types of announcements make me very happy to also exist within the micro 4/3 system. While we certainly have some pricy optics, there are so many other, very high quality and comparably reasonable options as well. Also apples:oranges, but at least the m4/3 oranges can do 90% of the job of these apples 🙂
for the remaining 10% of appliness, those of us needing it have to come to terms with the current going rates. I will say though, I’d probably be more willing to spend this kind of money on Sony lenses, knowing their sensors are tops currently, than for the equivalent Nikon or, especially Canon (which I still shoot with as well) lenses which aren’t too far off in pricing right now either. Full frame is a crazy expensive landscape right now, for professional applications and I feel it would be tricky to justify from a hobby standpoint when the Fuji or m4/3 systems are providing very compelling choices at much lower prices.
LikeLike
I currently am using a Canon 24mm 1.4L II on my Sony A7II with a fotodiox adapter. I love the quality I am getting out of it but my biggest itch to sell the 24mm and jump onto some Sony native glass is the lack of good Autofocus with the adapter. I am a pure Hobbyist so I do not have much flexibility to add such pricey lenses to my arsenal. Maybe you can throw some advice my way. Thanks!!!
LikeLike
If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! I’d say stick with the L lens unless there is some major reason to spend a ton of money on a Sony lens that might not even perform as well on all fronts. The last two full frame lenses I’ve purchased are EF mount, sigma lenses. I’ve no need to overspend for the Sony offerings myself, but I’m not shooting in situations where a slightly better AF speed performance is going to make or break shots for what I shoot.
LikeLike