[MrNPhoto]

Sony does both. The 28mm F/2 FE needs a good bit of correction, but its small and compact with fast AF. The 90mm FE macro on the other had is large and needs no correction.

Hmmm, PhotographyBlog reviewed the Sony 90mm FE Macro and said:

"There's some very slight barrel distortion evident at 90mm in the RAW files - the Sony A7/A7R II automatically and successfully apply corrections to the JPG files."

We all want perfectly designed lenses, with no distortion, vignetting, or CA, but the cost of such optics would be prohibitive. In-camera lens corrections are low cost, easy to adjust (for the manufacturer) and widely used in the industry, and will continue to be used, likely improving with time.

Redesigning the 70-200mm would likely take much longer than the current 3-4 month delay. Tweaking lens correction algorithms or AF algorithms on the lens /camera combo could be done in this timeframe.

[thibs]

There's difference between tweaking a lens output with software and pushing bottle into a so called lens with software.
It seems Sony (but I'm sure others too) like to take the wine bottle approach at times.

Note that m43 (and Fuji I think) does the same. All files AFAIK even RAW are corrected.
Reviews skewed if this is the case IMO.

[Rondec]

Hmmm, PhotographyBlog reviewed the Sony 90mm FE Macro and said:

"There's some very slight barrel distortion evident at 90mm in the RAW files - the Sony A7/A7R II automatically and successfully apply corrections to the JPG files."

We all want perfectly designed lenses, with no distortion, vignetting, or CA, but the cost of such optics would be prohibitive. In-camera lens corrections are low cost, easy to adjust (for the manufacturer) and widely used in the industry, and will continue to be used, likely improving with time.

Redesigning the 70-200mm would likely take much longer than the current 3-4 month delay. Tweaking lens correction algorithms or AF algorithms on the lens /camera combo could be done in this timeframe.

I don't think designing standard lens focal lengths (primes, standard length zooms like 24-70/16-50/70-200) should require large amounts of manipulation to get decent output. I can understand if you are talking about ultra wides or lenses that are super zooms. There are bound to be compromises there. But a lens that is 2x or 3x zoom shouldn't need a bunch of software adjustments to get adequate output, unless the manufacturer has decided to cut corners, for whatever reason. I have no idea why a 35mm prime should have uncorrected vignetting of 2.6 stops at f2.8 (as measured by Photozone), to me that is just a sign that Sony did a sloppy job designing the lens. There are a bunch of 30-ishmm lenses out there that don't have this sort of profile and they aren't super-expensive.

[BrianR]

Hmmm, PhotographyBlog reviewed the Sony 90mm FE Macro and said:

"There's some very slight barrel distortion evident at 90mm in the RAW files - the Sony A7/A7R II automatically and successfully apply corrections to the JPG files."

DxO's distortion tests put the 90mm Macro at 0.2% and the 28mm F/2 FE at 2.1%: Camera Lens Database - DxOMark. I have neither, but the Pentax lenses I have that scored 0.2% you pretty much have to go looking for the distortion to see it, and even then you need plenty of straight lines in your picture and a ruler. I have nothing that scored near 2.1%, but this review has an example of the distortion of the 28mm F/2 FE: Sony FE 2/28 - Review - phillipreeve.net.

There's a big difference between having very low distortion that's only noticeable in extreme cases and distortion that jumps out at you anytime you have straight lines. That's not to say there isn't a case for lenses that are intended to go through heavy PP corrections if it gives a cost/size/weight advantage, but it would be pretty sad if it become the norm in high end optics.

[Winder]

Hmmm, PhotographyBlog reviewed the Sony 90mm FE Macro and said:

"There's some very slight barrel distortion evident at 90mm in the RAW files - the Sony A7/A7R II automatically and successfully apply corrections to the JPG files."

.

I have the FE 90mm macro and the distortion isn't visible for 99% of the time. LR 5 doesn't have the a profile, but DxO does and when I apply the DxO profile you have to look very carefully to see what changes. The FE 90mm is an excellent lens. It is probably the best AF macro lens on the market.

[Poit]

Hey crazy folks,don't get a heard attack,but the sale of the 2.8 70-200 should start in September.
I had one for testing till i destroy it and the main problem was my problem to,the tripod collar is absolutely ... 😠 not to use under real action life.
I turn the tripod collar to the right side and my right hand fingers are in the way.
Can not hold the camera with hand shoes and if you have bigger hands and fingers,it can hurt you.
than the AF get a new firmware,he is very fast but a little nervous.
.

So, just to be clear, the ergonomics aren't great (it can actually hurt you)....and the AF is quick but has a tendency to hunt?

Hmmmm....not a glowing insider report

Out of curiosity, how did you destroy it? Throw it at a wall in frustration, or did the AF motor fail? lol

[monochrome]

Originally posted by asahi man Quote Hey crazy folks,don't get a heard attack,but the sale of the 2.8 70-200 should start in September. I had one for testing till i destroy it and the main problem was my problem to,the tripod collar is absolutely ... 😠 not to use under real action life. I turn the tripod collar to the right side and my right hand fingers are in the way. Can not hold the camera with hand shoes and if you have bigger hands and fingers,it can hurt you. than the AF get a new firmware,he is very fast but a little nervous. .

So, just to be clear, the ergonomics aren't great (it can actually hurt you)....and the AF is quick but has a tendency to hunt? Hmmmm....not a glowing insider report Out of curiosity, how did you destroy it? Throw it at a wall in frustration, or did the AF motor fail? lol

First - 'destroy' is likely an English-as-second-language issue. Maybe he meant 'panned' it or gave a negative beta test report.

Second, imagine portrait orientation, grip down. When wearing gloves (hand shoes) his fingers didn't have enough room and he postulates someone with large hands might have scraped knuckles.

Of course one could shoot portrait, grip up, so the tripod foot isn't in the way (the way I naturally shoot portrait, with my right hand above the camera and my left palming the left side).

Or Ricoh could pull the lens back from release for several months and (among other things AF) redesign the tripod foot . . . . .

[Poit]

First - 'destroy' is likely an English-as-second-language issue. Maybe he meant 'panned' it or gave a negative beta test report.

Second, imagine portrait orientation, grip down. When wearing gloves (hand shoes) his fingers didn't have enough room and he postulates someone with large hands might have scraped knuckles.

Of course one could shoot portrait, grip up, so the tripod foot isn't in the way (the way I naturally shoot portrait, with my right hand above the camera and my left palming the left side).

Or Ricoh could pull the lens back from release for several months and (among other things AF) redesign the tripod foot . . . . .

You could be correct on all counts Mono.

Maybe why the delay...

PS I shoot portrait the same.... don't know why that would be an issue except for left handers. Who are just freaks anyway.....teee heeee

[derekkite]

It isn't uncommon to see the tripod foot on top of the lens handheld. Up out of the way. It is preferable to have one that is a useful handle though.

[Winder]

As I have said in the past. I am willing to bet the FF body is pushed back until Spring of 2016.

I wonder if Ricoh is going to release the new glass or hold it until the body is ready.

[Zygonyx]

So is it expected....
At least when listening to kenspo and Pentax seller in Paris.

[Weevil]

Went to a Camera Show in Laval, Québec, Canada this weekend, and talked to the Ricoh rep there...

He told me that they portponed it to make it better than the pre-prod version.

he told me the last news he had about the availablilty of this lens was end of November 2015... anyways, I just pre-ordered my copy (there was a reasonnable deal for the show, which was below B&H price, but in CAD$ ),
my local reseller was able to honor the same price too... so I ordered it from my local store!




I also tested the HD 560mm f5.6.. Wow! I want one ! So light and Sharp!


sorry for the quality of the pics, taken with my phone...

[rawr]

sorry for the quality of the pics

Useful pix.

The DFA 70-200 looks way smaller than I thought. I am surprised. My Sigma 70-200 HSM II is probably larger. I am bit disappointed. The DFA doesn't look big and 'pro' enough.

[D1N0]

The DA 560 looks pretty big though, it's a good thing it's so long otherwise it would scare of all the birds.

[kenspo]

Useful pix.

The DFA 70-200 looks way smaller than I thought. I am surprised. My Sigma 70-200 HSM II is probably larger. I am bit disappointed. The DFA doesn't look big and 'pro' enough.

Are you serious? Its bigger and feels more heavy then both Nikon and Canon's 70-200! But, its up there with them on quality..that is sweet