01-08-2012, 05:19 PM
[quote name='dhazeghi' timestamp='1326042231' post='14507']
I must admit I didn't realize just how large the Sony 24/1.8 was, compared to the body. It seems strange that the bodies should be so compact and the lenses should be disproportionately large.
The Zeiss 35/2 looks good at f/4, but f/2 is pretty unimpressive. Still, $1k on a MF lens is less than appealing. That's a focal length where AF would actually be useful, especially at wide apertures.
It's a peculiar situation - great body, but very non-obvious choices for suitable lenses. Perhaps Sony spent all their R&D money on the body and had nothing left when it came to lenses?
Thanks,
DH
[/quote]
Frankly, the image just shows how small the NEX 7 really is.
The Zeiss lens has a weight of 225g and a length of just over 6cm.
I must admit I didn't realize just how large the Sony 24/1.8 was, compared to the body. It seems strange that the bodies should be so compact and the lenses should be disproportionately large.
The Zeiss 35/2 looks good at f/4, but f/2 is pretty unimpressive. Still, $1k on a MF lens is less than appealing. That's a focal length where AF would actually be useful, especially at wide apertures.
It's a peculiar situation - great body, but very non-obvious choices for suitable lenses. Perhaps Sony spent all their R&D money on the body and had nothing left when it came to lenses?
Thanks,
DH
[/quote]
Frankly, the image just shows how small the NEX 7 really is.
The Zeiss lens has a weight of 225g and a length of just over 6cm.