Sony Isn't Making APSC Lenses.

[@ArthurR]

Why do you think Sony isn't making APSC lenses anymore? Here are my current favorite APSC lenses (affiliate): (1) Best Do-Most-of-Everything Lens - geni.us/BestZoom (2) Best Wide Angle - geni.us/3z4raRX (3) Best Street Lens - geni.us/WTP3y (4) Best Portrait Lens - geni.us/Ta2SJxJ (5) My Favorite APSC Lens that SONY makes - geni.us/36Kai Best alternative to the Sony 35mm F1.8: geni.us/ZravT6

[@branimirteodorovic2297]

Same as Canon and Nikon. They sell APS-C to beginners and hope they will switch to full frame as soon as possible

[@Sebartus]

Create video with title: APS-C message to Sigma and Viltrox: When we will get Sigma 50-140mm f/2.8 - they have patent and Viltrox 56mm f/1.2 - we know from the announcements that they plan to release something new from the APS-C Pro series. For now the best 30mm is Viltrox 27 f/1.2 and Sigma if you like smaller size. You know how many years it took Sony to add the flip screen, touch menu, etc. so... try ( just do it :D ) to contact with Sigma and Viltrox to ask about APS-C future in 2025

[@joseespinoza2687]

Thank you for making this video. Somebody had to and you knocked it out of the park. I found it unacceptable that a $50 dollar camera (NEX-5T) I thifted has the same lens (16-50mm kit) as a $800 camera I bought a month ago from Sony.

[@m4rcin847]

@@branimirteodorovic2297 I wouldnt call R7 beginners APSC, its a great wildlife camera.

[@branimirteodorovic2297]

@m4rcin847 Yes, it is. But you have to pair it with full frame lenses to be good at wildlife photography

[@marcbeebe]

Are they trying the opposite strategy of Canon? Instead of "no third party lenses" they're going with "only third party lenses"?

[@TimBrownTown]

If they do this, they need to work closer with the third party manufacturers so that they can include things like focus breathing compensation for these lenses which they currently do not provide on third party lenses. Additionally, third party lenses are hit and miss with IBIS for video. Come up with some third party cert process for certain lenses for those who need/want these features but allow non certified lenses at discounted prices for those who do not.

[@bondgabebond4907]

@@TimBrownTownThe third party lens makers have been making lenses with nearly no focus breathing. But really, it's up to third-party lens makers to do their best, not have Sony babysit them. They are doing a great job. I have a feeling people are migrating to FF and leaving aps-c behind. And, there are a number of great aps-c lenses Sony has made, and compact FF lenses that work exceptionally well with aps-c camera bodies. That is why the e-mount is so successful. One thing people bring up that is bunk is stabilization. The IBIS in the newer Sony bodies are great. With practice of holding a camera steady plus IBIS has made it possible to take a 1/2 second shot with no degradation in picture quality. Years of shooting film cameras has taught me a lot about shooting at slow shutter speeds with absolutely no IBIS of any kind. Just be happy with the technology you have now, it is lightyears ahead of what we had 50 years ago.

[@TimBrownTown]

@@bondgabebond4907 I agree 100% of this when it comes to photo. I think the focus breathing and IBIS working in coordination with the lens is more important when shooting video. I just purchased my first 3rd Party APSC lens (Sigma 16mm F/1.4) and although it has close to no focus breathing, it is more noticeable than my Sony lenses. I'm not sure why there is no focus breathing compensation for third party lenses. It either has something to do with engineering or they intentionally cripple that ability with third party lenses. Eventually, I'll upgrade to FF, but for now APSC is still my choice (A6700).

[@trulsdirio]

If only Canon made lenses for APS-C themselves lol

[@womz8203]

@@bondgabebond4907 Sony IBIS working worse when used with 3rd party lenses isn't fiction. It's been tested and proven. Chris Brockhurst has a video on the topic kzbin.info/www/bejne/qZWXmKeKa5t0qtUsi=v2H3ZSJ94rnz4s_o It's clear to see with my a6700 too when using the Sigma 18-50 or Sigma 10-18. Standard or Active stabilisation are both noticeably jerky with the Sigma lenses when holding as still as possible for static video.

[@PhilJoe82]

Definitely on your side. I want to add: If Fujifilm would have been less successful in releasing Cameras and Lenses for APSC we would not even have gotten the A6700 or the new Vlogging Lenses. So kudos to Fuji for singlehandly rescuing the APSC Market!

[@catherinegrimes2308]

I wanted an APS-C camera in 2018 and narrowed it down to a Sony and a Fujifilm. After watching lots of KZbin reviews I eventually went for the Fujifilm, with the poor quality of the Sony kit lens being a significant reason for the decision.

[@luciandanaila7561]

I totally agree...

[@m4rcin847]

Yea, whole 8% of it.

[@red.domino]

@@catherinegrimes2308it was and is the only option for a complete lens selection, with Pentax APS-C DSLR. They are the only two manufacturers that really care about this format and that have released specific lenses for this format (i.e. the 70-200 equivalents, 150-600 equivalents etc…). You might miss the snappy autofocus, but for me and lot of other people lens selection is a more important factor…

[@POVwithRC]

I don't think so. We got the a6700 because we had the a6600. We also got it because the R&D for it also helped the FX subsystem FX30. Fuji had no part in influencing Sony's strategy.

[@jermainenaidoo]

You nailed it, full frame makes more money for them. Always follow the money

[@K.Saniaga]

I read around 2019 that APSC was only an entry to FF E-Mount system. If you ever need more options or quality there was the FF. In other words Sony APSC was some sort of bait to their more profitable system.

[@khoradust]

we all need money bro. thats just the reality.

[@bhaalicr]

@@khoradust No, if you want FF, you can always find older models. We buy APSC because we value what it offers beyond "big sensor better". They purposely make the APSC system unbearable for no good reason only to frustrate their consumers.

[@khoradust]

@@bhaalicr sony is a public listed company, making their investor happy is the no. 1 top priority. and making money more and more money by maximizing profit is the only answer.

[@TheCruisinCrew]

There might be something to that point... think about it: 90% of the tech going into a full frame camera also has to go into a similar spec APSC model, so the profit margin on the full frame has to be much better for them.

[@Jmartinezvega]

A F2.8 zoom telephoto lens for APS-C is so much needed. I can't belive not even a single third party lens like that exist YET.

[@el_fucko]

Probably because there's not much to gain in terms of size and weight savings, no?

[@hosmanadam]

Wide fixed aperture + respectable telephoto range + high optical quality = huge lens. Top APSC selling point = smaller kit. Doesn't add up.

[@the_rat_run]

Tamron 17-70 2.8 is great! Even has stabilisation.

[@trainspotter_brenzbahn]

I am happy with the E 70-350mm F4.5-6.3 G OSS

[@luismoracmyk]

​@@hosmanadamMaybe a 70mm-105mm 2.8 for APSC might not be that heavy

[@PeakTimeRacing]

They made the Sony A6700 too good and regret it. People are buying it up with APSC lenses. Forget Sony APSC lenses. Sigma and Viltrox are making some insane ones!

[@Kovalser]

💯 and there are great deals on some mint Sony lenses - got my 16-55, 70-350, and 18-110 for bargain prices.

[@sdhute]

A6700 is pretty good However underpowered even toward the canon r10 for half the price. No opengate for the 6700 price. For photography the shutter speeds are pretty slow

[@PeakTimeRacing]

@ R10 is way worse of a camera and doesn’t have opengate. Also any current camera with opengate is more than double the price. Shutter speed of 1/4000 is more than enough. For the price, the A6700 is the best camera on the market.

[@sdhute]

R10 23 FPS for 79 images. The a6700 11 FPS for 59 images. Depends on what you’re using the camera for.

[@PeakTimeRacing]

@ no one is buying a Canon R10 for 23fps. Anyone who wants high FPS for sports photography is buying a full frame.

[@kayakerjer]

An optically updated ultra compact 16-50 zoom is my top priority, in keeping with the compact APC 6700 body size.

[@kerc]

Yep. I still use the original 16-50 because for daily carry, theres no better zoom for my a6400. Not the best performer, but solid overall, and it's *tiny*.

[@bjoern.t]

​@@kerc yes the Sigma 18-50 is better. But nevertheless it hurts a little bit to replace the Sony Kit with it 😃

[@klauseibinger6617]

I watch you vids for years, thanks for you content. I still like APSC, its smaller and affortable. My last purchase was the Tamron 28-200 for my a6700 for outdoor sports photography. 3 rd party companies fortunately make good lenses. All the best, keep clicking 😊

[@dultraman]

IMHO, Sony can probably see something on the broader APS-C sales perspective, like APS-C users are still feeling satisfied with the current available lenses or maybe Sony felt that the APS-C lens tech is just pacing too fast to the point of catching up to Full-Frame hence delaying development. Regarding lens dev, they felt the urge to update FF lenses to stay competitive with the hybrid niche. I don't even think they're that bothered about 3rd party releases as it just solidifies there stance on making E-mount more widely accepted. I was just there at the Canon camp and look at non-Canon users yappin all day about the lack of 3rd-party FF support.

[@ArthurR]

Good points, I agree with that line of logic.

[@burningSHADOW42]

Sony didn't really have that much competition on the APS-C plattform. The APS-C cameras seem to be mostly used by beginners and they are happy with anything that makes better pictures than a phone. With the A6700 more professional users have become interested again. Maybe this and competition by the chep chinese AF lenses will push Sony to refresh their line-up. Looking at lenses like the Sony 18-135 and Sigma 18-50 f2.8, there is a lot of potential to market the Sony APS-C line-up as comapct go-anywhere cameras more advenced shooters. All you need for that are lenses to match the A6700.

[@hosmanadam]

I agree with the idea of SONY not wanting to cannibalize their full-frame business by making the APS-C alternative too attractive.

[@burningSHADOW42]

@@hosmanadam my guess would be that they could create demand for both or at least captrue more of the market in general. Especially if they clearly split the size and price right. Basically focus on beginners and people that want a really compact camera to take everywhere. That way you get a lot of people that by both full-frame and APS-C cameras and don't resell their APS-Cas soon as they get a full frame camera.

[@fabianlehr4318]

There's one HUGE aspect I hate about third party lenses: They don't work with Active Steadyshot, so you get terrible handheld video stabilization with all third party lenses. I have tested several dozen Sony, Sigma and Viltrox lenses and the result is always the same: On the a6700, Sony or Sony/Zeiss lenses deliver basically gimbal like handheld video stabilization with Active Steadyshot while with third party lenses, you only get a crop, but zero added stabilization with Active Steadyshot. That's why, I have completely stopped using third party lenses for video - my Sigma and Viltrox lenses are photography only lenses. Add to that the vastly superior autofocus of modern Sony lenses over any third party competitor. For a hybrid shooter like me, it's so annoying having to use Sigma and Viltrox lenses despite their comparatively terrible video performance because there just aren't any high quality Sony lenses for most focal lengths. There are only three real high quality Sony primes for APS-C: The old but great Sony/Zeiss 24/1.8 and the new 15/1.4 and 11/1.8. That's it. All of them are wide angle lenses and only one is at least f/1.4. If there was a Sony 35/1.4 G, 50/1.4 G and 85/1.4 G for APS-C with a quality comparable to the 15/1.4, I would immediately ditch all my third party primes, and I would gladly pay a premium price for such lenses. I don't want to use third party lenses, but Sony forces me to do it, and I am getting so annoyed by it that I"m thinking about leaving the whole system.

[@gqbaker]

This video hits onto the realization I came to two years ago: Sony (and to an even larger degree, Canon and Nikon) is not really interested in making a complete system of high-quality APS-C lenses. Why should they? For all three companies, their goal isn't to keep you on an APS-C system. _If_ you're the type that _really_ wants to stay on APS-C, want better quality, and are willing to pay for it, you have only two choices: use third-party lenses, or just use first-party full-frame lenses and deal with the added bulk/weight. Of course, after you start using FF lenses, pretty soon you're going to decide that you might as well get an FF body - the end. Two years ago, I decided to stop playing that game and went to Fuji X. I love camera, and I love that Fuji has every incentive to make damn good lenses that are designed specifically for APS-C.

[@GeorgiosS-bo5oe]

I would love a 23mm and 33mm Sony lenses 1.4f. Their 15mm is just amazing.

[@soltu01]

me too

[@tme500ify]

I love Sony 15mm!

[@Jason_Hermann]

I totally agree!! That lens is killer....

[@Sebartus]

Just buy Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 it's amazing the same as Viltrox 75mm f/1.2. I have Sony 15mm f/1.5 but Viltrox is on another level especialy for photos.

[@alexeipg]

​@@Sebartus I have and like the viltrox 27mm, but it's enormous as a prime for a6xxx bodies. A sony f/1.4 at a similar focal length would be drastically smaller, have better autofocus, and, on a more minor note, would likely have a hood that actually stays on and is reversible.

[@d3xmeister]

Honestly I don’t think my Sony 35mm OSS is as bad as yours. I have one I bought new in 2024 and I do have the Viltrox 27mm, the Sigma 30mm plus many others. I have not made scientific side by side but shooting this lens at f1.8 it looks very sharp to me, I don’t find it softer than my other lenses in the same range.

[@luciandanaila7561]

I own the Sony 35mm F1.4 OSS as well... Totally pleased by the rezults unfortunately I don't own any similar lens to compare it to, but overall I still find it pretty great... no flaws there if you ask me...

[@mlangenberg]

The Sony 35mm F1.8 OSS was the first prime lens that I bought for my Sony a6000 in 2017 and I still very much enjoy shooting with it. Even on my Sony a6700, for which I also have the Sony 16-55 F2.8 G. The 35mm F1.8 OSS is so compact that I can fit it inside the smallest camera bag to carry in a backpack as an alternative to the standard kit lens (which I stopped using). Maybe Arthur got a bad copy?

[@mariopassalacqua6674]

Agree. I find the 35 1.8 to be very sharp and have a great character to it. I own lenses across the Canon RF and EF mounts, Sony, and Nikon ecosystems. Trust me, this lens holds it own.

[@virusheat]

I've been hearing the same question since sony annnounce a5100 camera. Think about it.

[@luciandanaila7561]

I still use the Sony A5100... capable little camera, same 24mm sensor... Travelwise is a joy...

[@huk_ger9315]

APS-C buyers are much more cost sensitive than FF buyers --> Sony focuses on FF and sees APS more like a gateway to the e mount ecosystem + focuses on the bodies because there they have (probably) higher margins (FF tech can trickle down to APS C, smaller chip dies have higher yield etc). For the consumer, as long as the third party lenses keep coming, this is fine. I have a 6400 and 2 sigma, 1 tamron, 1 samyang lens.

[@TheMchef]

Everybody wins. But I wish Sony gave more shits when they "updated" the lens kit. There's really no other lens so compact at that range.

[@WildBikerBill]

They focus on bodies because there is far more upgrading/turnover of bodies with new technology and features. Lenses have almost always been a 'buy quality once and keep forever' kind of product.

[@jasonbourne4155]

Great comment! You bring up a very valid point. I recently bought the a6700 with the kit Sony 18-135. Nice lens, but greatly outperformed by Sigma’s 18-50, granted without the added zoom.

[@Faerdder]

I'm not so sure about that. Not everyone chooses APSC for cost saving. Fuji has no FF but only APSC and MF and many of their APSC products are on the pricier side but it seems to work for them.

[@plustwominutes]

I have been asking myself this a lot recently and when you said 3 years ago for the 3 new lenses it made me realize I have been living in delusion. I really do hope they release a whole new line up for APC because the feel of those 3 new lenses made me think there is hope...but i could just be delusional. Also love your videos and well I'm glad to see that the biggest APC guy i know is thinking the same thing.

[@KamilFaisal]

still waiting for a6200

[@andrebauer777]

or 6400 II.

[@ChristianNoval]

I couldn't agree more and I use both Sony full frame and ApS-c. I want more ApS-c lenses from Sony

[@TristanPerry]

THANK YOU! I've been curious about this too. I have two A6600 cameras and over the years have tried out LOTS of lenses: 3 Sony kit lenses, Sigma 16mm, Sigma 23mm, Sigma 30mm, Sigma 18-50mm, Viltrox 23mm and a Sony 35mm F/1.8. While many are good (especially the Sigma 18-50mm - wow!), I do kinda feel that Sony lenses are a bit more stable all around - especially for AF and OSS performance on a good lens - but there's just not enough good options out there for APS-C. I've been looking at changing one of my A6600s to a full frame as a result, then getting a Sony G FE lens.

[@luciandanaila7561]

Sony A6600 is a great choice... I own one and I love it... you should try the Viltrox 27mm F1.2 but use an Ulanzi cage with a side handgrip - it's a must! For comfort... otherwise, it's too front heavy to consider... if you ask me... sony A6600 is better than A6700... the last one overheats...

[@TristanPerry]

@luciandanaila7561 thanks for the tip. I'm really happy with the A6600 and have also doubted the 6700 due to overheating concerns. The 27mm Viltrox Pro does definitely look interesting. Makes sense re the cage, thanks for the tips 😊

[@Wistbacka]

2:00 Your apple example; apple are still selling an outdated Mac Pro for launch price (from 2020 or whenever it launched), all while the much newer and much cheaper M4 Mac mini runs circles around it in everything except gpu-intensive workloads. They could release the M4 Mini with a modern AMD Gpu, and it would be cheaper still and much better than the now outdated Mac Pro

[@ArthurR]

100%. I think Apple does things like this all the time.

[@lewiss66]

Waiting for viltrox to produce a good light zoom lens like 50-300 f2.8-... and I'm all set :)

[@lvc394]

That would be nice. If it had OSS that would be better.

[@randomname931]

I would absolutely buy that. Love my viltrox 27mm

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

Tamron and Samyang have 35-150 f/2-2.8 - these lenses are both great - Tamron has probably a bit better quality but it comes also with higher price. For APS-C it would be ~54-225 - imho best compromise between range and brightness. For pure range Tamron has 50-300 and 50-400 and Sigma has 100-400 but these lenses of course can't be f/2.8 or anywhere near - more like f/4.5-6.3.

[@randomname931]

@@krzysztofnowacki9674 I have the tamron 35-150 and it is super front heavy on my a6700. great lens but a chore to lug around and shoot with.

[@jcanracer]

The lenses available are probably "good enough" for 90% of the Sony APSC community, and the cost-benefit analysis doesn't show it as profitable to spend much more R&D money on APSC lenses. As an A6700 owner, I feel that this is also the reason they didn't improve the resolution on the EVF or rear screen when they released the A6700, which is a shame. I stuck with APSC for the size of camera body and lenses, not because I wanted to be painted into an "entry-level" box, so I respect your concerns in this video!

[@RafaRadwan]

Shame on Sony for not treating APSC seriously

[@banditalley9592]

Is the lens market not saturated already? What more can people produce? I have all the lenses I need from 10mm to 350mm. Apart from breaking a lens I have no reason to add to my kit. It's APSC, if I want higher "quality" I would upgrade to Medium Format

[@alexeipg]

Compare to fujifilm, which has a full line of aps-c fast primes from 18mm to 90mm featuring linear motors, aperture rings, and high quality glass/coatings. Sony has only 1 such prime for aps-c, the 15mm. Sigma has been the main substitute for first-party sony primes, but its lenses have stepping motors, no manual controls, and are notably larger than what sony could do (as evidenced by the 15mm being half the size of the sigma 16mm).

[@swr410]

There are almost no weather sealed lenses for Sony apsc, for starters. The good lens options are mostly on the somewhat large side. There are basically no semi-premium compact lenses for the system. I would love it if Sony made apsc versions of their compact G lenses, with brighter apertures and slightly wider focal lengths.

[@alexeipg]

@@swr410 Oh yeah forgot weather sealing. Sigma lenses have little or no weather sealing (I think their newer lenses have at most a rubber gasket on the mount and nothing else, end lenses like the 30mm have nothing). Viltrox lenses seem to be well built, but their pro line is so new that I don't know for sure how good the weather sealing really is (and I wouldn't personally take mine out in bad weather).

[@swr410]

@@alexeipgthose Viltrox pro lenses look pretty great, but they are just too large for me. The sigma 23 1.4 is pushing it IMO, and the Viltrox Pro 27 is substantially bigger.

[@alexeipg]

@@swr410 Agree completely. The viltrox at least is justifiably large since it's f/1.2, made of metal, and has a bunch of manual controls and weather sealing. But the sigma 23mm size is just silly considering it has none of those things and is actually bigger than the much older and cheaper sigma 30mm f/1.4. I realize the 23mm is slightly better all around than the 30mm, but it's still an extremely lackluster effort.

[@ealcoriza]

As a new Sony user and a long-time Fuji user, I’m also feeling a bit frustrated. There aren’t any Fuji F2 primes equivalent available for the Sony system, and prime lenses specifically for APS-C are quite limited.

[@pow9606]

I heard your valid arguments but do they really need to make more lenses? What I mean is there is no real pressure on them, It's not like canon has a massive array of APSC lenses. With all the third party choices more or less everything is covered. The ecosystem was lacking a bit in wide angle choices so the produced the 3 lenses. They have the 70-350mm telephoto. Sigma primes etc

[@dimitris470]

"Need to"? No. But when they market a whole ecosystem as a lower budget alternative and then not stand behind it, it speaks volumes about their intentions.

[@davect01]

1- Minimal profits for APS-C compared to F.F. lenses. 2- APS-C buyers often are more price sensitive then F.F. buyers and expensive APS-C lenses usually don't sell that well. Your ending statement is spot on. Sony wants you to "upgrade" to Full Frame

[@vidthreenorth4007]

One thing I can add is that in theory, you could make a full frame lens that out performs and APS-C equivalent. Take a 35mm F1.8 for example. Notice the light fall-off into the corner? That can be reduced by making the elements oversize. Oversize, in effect making it cover more area, like full-frame coverage on an APS-C body. Other lens metrics like sharpness, generally become more cost-effective on full frame lenses. Also, if you have a way to shift a lens, then you get to use the extra imaging coverage that way. I use a Nikon full frame 28mm F3.5 SLR lens on my Micro 4:3 cameras with a shift adapter. If I bought a shift adapter for my a6400, I could use it that way on that body too.

[@PatrickWithCamera]

Indeed, sony 35mm and 50mm with OSS needs mark II, their optics are now on par with 30$ chinese lenses. Also aps-c needs some serious aps-c long telephoto and macro lens.

[@burningSHADOW42]

I think they have subscribed to the narrative of "full-frame is better" too much. With the A6700 the have closed the gap in quality and the lenses need to follow. If Sony wanted, they could push their APS-C as compact go-everywhere cameras. They have the camera for it, all they would need would be some new compact weathersealed APS-C lenses. Like an update to the 16-55 f2.8, the 18-135 or the 35 f1.8. They would also make a lot of money as people would probably buy the camera with those lenses as a second camera for scenarios where you don't want to carry a full frame with 2 lenses with you, like on vacation or everyday carry. And an A6700 wir 1 or 2 good lenses makes Sony much more money, than something like their 20-70 or 24-50.

[@bobd7384]

I would say that Sony doesn't see the profit in creating the lenses vs the new lens manufacturers. They seem to be resting on their laurels and focusing on the cameras instead.

[@Vlaakster]

I dont shoot APSC anymore but I love your channel and agree with your sentiments. I feel like things are just moving away from APSC sadly. On a different note, your set and lighting are phenomenal!

[@angelosal85]

What a straightforward and clear view. Impressive and sadly true!

[@sorwerk]

Sony makes zooms for aps-c, pretty good ones. My guess is there is no market for high-end prime lenses for aps-c

[@andrej.antonic]

They made 16-55 which is brilliant and doesn't need an update, that's for sure. But there is no 70-200 equivalent for example. Sony doesn't even have a 23mm, while 35 and 55 are as outdated as they can get, same goes for F4 zooms.. Viltrox showed what's possible for decent price with their F1.2 primes, and it's a shame not to have lenses like those in all focal lengths, especially with how brilliant A6700 and FX30 are

[@camstanley]

Viltrox F1.2 lenses are clear examples of why there’s still a market for high end apsc lenses

[@nyohaku]

Enjoying the 15 mm G. And I had a choice of the 20. But for a 28 I had to turn to TT artisans. Sony could definitely compete better with Fuji for these small aperture ring lenses.

[@dimitris470]

Of course there is a market. And a big one. It just does not make sense for them to sell such lenses because they would canibalize sales from FF by slowing down their upselling. Not to mention it would reduce the perceived value of their high end stuff or potentially even embarass them. Sigma and Viltrox are already embarassing them

[@comeraczy2483]

These are some surprising comments. A quick search on major photography websites shows that Sony has 20 mirrorless APS-C lenses, including a reasonably good one released in 2024. In comparison, Nikon has 7, Canon has 6 (including the dual fisheye - whatever that is). Sure, Canon has released more APS-C lenses in the last 3 years, but they had some serious catching up to do (they didn't have a single one). That said, honestly, there isn't much value in developing high end lenses for APS-C: it is as expensive as designing a high-end lens for FF, but the market is small and vanishing very quickly. The only market benefit of APS-C is that a substantial fraction of the customer base isn't particularly discerning and can easily be dragged into marketing lies like the f-number fallacy. Discerning people who have a clear understanding of the glass they need often also understand that the APS-C economy is usually an illusion (disappointing second-hand market and comparatively pricey glass). Personally, I'd rather have Sony focus on FF than divert some of their top R&D on APS-C.

[@the_rat_run]

Apart from the kit lens, I only have one Sony lens - 70-350, the rest are 3rd party - mainly because, for me, Sony originals are way too expensive. Seeing as the quality of 'budget' lenses is getting so good, it does beggar the question why Sony can't produce excellent lenses that don't break the bank! Great video, thanks, Arthur.

[@marc_elch]

Wating for the Sigma 50-135 f2.8 As you have already correctly pointed out, the depreciation of lenses is significantly lower than that of cameras. Sony can introduce a new camera every year and sell it well. The lenses last much longer and don't need to be replaced as often.

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

Tamron and Samyang have 35-150 f/2-2.8 - these lenses are both great - Tamron has probably a bit better quality but it comes also with higher price. For APS-C it would be ~54-225 - imho best compromise between range and brightness.

[@marc_elch]

@@krzysztofnowacki9674 For me the 35-150 is way too big and also too heavy

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

@@marc_elch If this is your main concern, then I think this Sigma won't be very small and light either. For now there's also Tamron 70-180 G2 which weight significantly less than Samyang 35-150. Moreover there's Sigma 50-150 f/2.8 on the market, which is even bigger and heavier than Samyang 35-150.

[@marc_elch]

@@krzysztofnowacki9674 The Tamron is 855g and still full frame. I beleive that sigma can build a even lighter APS-C lens in this campareable focal lenght

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

@ The only pretty light and wide range tele-zoom lens for Sony APS-C mount is Tamron 28-200 (575 g) but it's f/2.8-5.6.

[@2b_outdoors182]

Why dont other companies have power zoom on these lenses?

[@jordanquinnfilms]

I like power zoom lenses too. The Sony G 18-105 is an awesome lens but a little outdated. I wish they could make that same lens but newer

[@zeten]

@@jordanquinnfilms The Sigma full frame f/2.8 28-105 is a nice image quality upgrade to that one, but it's different enough that it doesn't serve the same niche. No power zoom, the lens extends, and it's a boat anchor in comparison to the weight of the 18-105. I had a real frustrating time trying to find an upgrade to the 18-105 and decided to compromise.

[@jordanquinnfilms]

⁠@@zeten yes! I have seen that lens and it looks great! It’s a little pricey though. You shoot yours on an apsc?

[@JeffsWay.]

We have a choice of outdated lenses on APS-C, or lenses for full frame that are ridiculously expensive.

[@smoloms]

I think it's not necessarily a market that they think they can be competitive in. The third party lenses we are getting now are really really good.

[@jordanquinnfilms]

Your right! They make an awesome camera that’s fairly new like the a6700 but don’t put out any new special lenses for it?

[@XelBlackHearts]

Hi ^^ I have a question. Hoping that maybe you can help me. I have been using the A6700 for a year and I mainly use Sigma 18-50 and Viltrox 27. I am a fan of your videos on YT 🙂 Seeing how much knowledge you have about lenses, I would like you to advise me about one lens. I received a very nice offer on the Sony 16-55 G lens. And I'm considering buying it to get rid of my Sigma. But is the Sony 16-55 G really optically better than the Sigma? What I really care about is the quality of the image, i.e. sharpness and colors. Will the Sony lens have better colors or sharpness compared to the Sigma? I will be very grateful for your answer :)

[@ArthurR]

Technically speaking, yes, the Sony is better in terms of optics. You give up close focus ability and the size/weight advantage of the Sigma.

[@XelBlackHearts]

@@ArthurR Hey, thanks for the answer :) I don't really care about the lens being light or having macro or close focusing capabilities. What I care most about is the best possible image quality, i.e. sharpness of details and colors. The question is, is there any difference in colors between Sigma and Sony?

[@TheRiehlThing42]

What was their last APSC lens? Was it the 70-350mm? Was there another one after that? For my Sony a6700, my list of lenses I use. (1) Portraits - Tamron 17-70mm (2) Street lenses - Sony 20mm, Sony 35mm, and Sony 50mm. I can have one on my a6700, and carry the other two lenses in my pocket (3) Wide angle - Rokinon 12mm Ultra Wide (4) The two I take to wedding shoots - Tamron 17-70mm and Sony 70-350mm So, I'm using six lenses mainly. My Tamron is almost always on my camera.

[@Htbaa]

Hmm I feel like the wide angle primes and wide angle zoom came after the 70-350mm but you could be right bout that though. At the moment I have everything I want, not waiting for a specific lens to become available.

[@TheRiehlThing42]

@@Htbaa Same on lenses. I had thought about getting ones specifically for cinema, think that would be it. But I'm not really needing them, I don't think anyways. I think there were some other lenses that might have came out with a release of a newer APSC camera, but not a dedicated lens like the 70-350mm.

[@azolaun]

Feels like the last apsc lens they released was the updated 16-50mm M2 and its not much of upgrade to even want to buy again after my kit lens broke

[@sidvicious3129]

Arthur, your points are outstanding. Apsc seems to be an afterthought on all of the major platforms except Fuji. I don't think Sony will ever take off the teleconverter and FPS restrictions as it was an agreement between Sigma, Viktrox, Tamron, and others to make the lenses. Nikon is actually making some of the best glass for full frame Z, and they are doing it quickly, building relationships with Tamron and Viktrox. I think Sony secretly doesn't care about Apsc because they know Sigma and Tamron will handle it, and they will still get paid. Canon is slowly being brought into Apsc kicking and screaming!!!

[@HaryonoYong]

do you have a recommendation for sony apsc lens that equivalent with 70-200 f2.8 in full frame? thank you

[@MiddleofKnowhere]

This is a good analysis and Op-ed. Great questions asked and in a way holding Sony's feet to the fire.

[@dimitris470]

APSc equipment was never a first class citizen for many companies. They were always a means to create extra crippled stepping stone products. This allows them to keep many features only on FF, boost prices, and eventually upsell their clients. And all that by minimizing R&D costs.

[@MaxPhotoGraphic]

You definitely have a Point on why do not they create new aps-C lens and personally my problem is: why do not they update the 1 inch compact camera swooshing in som'n new. Rock ON Arthur.

[@Jason_Hermann]

Because there is no "money" in it since the 3rd party lenses were allowed starting with the Sigma DC DN Lenses from my recollection.... Now it's not even close to worth making them it seams like with these new lenses we've been reviewing are incredible values.... This is why Canon still refuses to let most 3rd party lenses, so you are forced to buy Canon... They would need to make special lenses like the new 70-200mm f/4 G 2 for example, with macro and so fourth in order to justify the money, but it's prolly still not worth it to them when you can just use a full frame lens on aps-c camera if you want to spend the money for those incredible technology packed zooms.... In addition, the 3rd party lenses tend to be optical copies of what is already developed, so it's way less R&D for them... Nice work with the video Arthur ;)

[@WineLad]

Good news!! Canon now allows 3rd party lenses. Sigma has some for rf mount and tamron just released thier 1st for it as well. I think they came to the conclusion that choice of lenses encourages customers to pick up a canon body!!

[@Jason_Hermann]

@@WineLad True, but only Sigma and Tamron with AF, and if you notice they seam to be crippling what those 3rd parties can make unfortunately...

[@eletor]

The Sony 35 has OSS, the generic lenses do not. I would choose a used Sony over a new TTartisan. Most people will never notice the small difference in sharpness but people are aware of things that hold value, even if that value is manufactured. A company will always seem inferior when it's founded on being the low cost option. Most of the lens designs of the generics look bad and I'm not inspired to use them. This might seem silly to some, but I think people that have been doing this for a long time find value in gear that continues to motivate them to shoot. That gear usually isn't cheap.

[@zyxyuv1650]

OSS for primes became obsolete more than a decade ago. No company has released an optically stabilized standard prime in 13 years, the only exception is macro lenses and telephoto primes like the 300mm and the Canon RF 135mm. Before that, the "final" prime released by any company with optical stabilization was the Sony 35mm f/1.8 in 2012, and that was the end of OSS for standard primes. As for "holding value", you're worried about holding value for something that's totally meaningless. The TTArtisan only costs $120 bux, how much does holding onto $120 of that value even matter? What are you going to lose, 50 dollars? Instead you're trying to hold onto fake value for some F-tier blurry old obsolete Sony lens with horrible color fringing and contrast, because fake GUCCI bag symbolism and shallow materialism is more important to you than the actual photography. Sad

[@eletor]

@@zyxyuv1650 What's wrong with having OSS? Just because it's no longer common doesn't mean it's bad or anything, people using a6300 and older cameras would benefit. I mention holding value because it is important to a lot of people. A used Sony 35 1.8 is most likely done depreciating and might end up costing nothing to own if you were to sell. Plenty of people value a result that isn't razor sharp and the sales of mist filters lately show that. The TTartisan lens has plenty of flaws as well judging by the reviews I've seen. I've been making films for a little over 30 years now, professionally for the last 10. A lot of my work is on this channel I'm posting from but I don't want you to go look at it for a few seconds, I just want you to know I'm not an average consumer of camera gear. Neither are you from the sound of it. The most important thing is getting a result and sometimes having specific things help you accomplish that. I wouldn't buy either lens, I'm just answering a call to action from old Arthur here to help drive up engagement. For this focal length I use a Zeiss 40mm F2. I find the results to be very favorable on full frame and aps-c. What specific lens would you recommend?

[@zyxyuv1650]

@@eletor There's only two (good) options on Sony full frame, the Samyang AF 45mm f/1.8 and the Sony FE 40mm f/2.5 G. The Sony weighs 173g and the Samyang weighs 162g. The weight of the Samyang is rare for full frame f/1.8, less than any existing APS-C equivalent. I haven't tried the Sony, but I have the Samyang and it's one of the important primes that makes the case for using full frame. If you can deal with 28mm + 40mm crop, then there's two more good options, the FF Viltrox AF 28mm f/1.8, and the APS-C Viltrox AF 27mm f/1.2 Pro. The Viltrox 27mm is one of the finest APS-C lenses created so far.

[@zyxyuv1650]

​@@eletor In lens design, everything is a tradeoff. You can usually make something a stop faster if you make it a stop heavier, or the opposite. OSS requires the lens to have a floating group with floating elements. This group usually reduces image quality, reduces reliability, increases focusing time, and increases cost and complexity. It also requires a software implementation with realtime physics using the OSS gyro feedback, which also increases cost and dev time. This may or may not be a success, I.e. Tamron VC stabilization can be a disaster with Sony for video. OSS was a necessary evil in the past due to the lack of IBIS, as the alternative was much worse than not having it. Now, having OSS is worse because of all these downsides, with upsides that are only relevant for a few budget cameras, whose buyers don't spend much on primes. In some cases OSS is calculated to be specifically beneficial combined with IBIS, like in the case of some long telephotos.

[@e.c.8668]

I was almost one of those who bought the Sony 35. But...I was perusing the u-toob and your Viltrox review popped up and I was sold. So I got the Viltrox while it was on sale. I've taken a few photos and I'm very happy. Now I need to find a zoom and then I'm done. I'm still leaning toward the Sony P EZ 18-105 F4. Hmmm, maybe a used Sony FE 70-200mm f/4 G OSS. But with it on an APSC, there's a big gap between the 36mm and 70, which ends up being about 105mm on the APSC.

[@bobinoregon2859]

I completely agree with you. But what i really want is a new APS-C camera - with much higher resolution. I am certainly going to stay with APS-C - the question is slowly becoming whether I should switch to Fuji?

[@K.Saniaga]

I just want 1 apsc lens and that's a Zoom 16-35mm (FF equiv 24-52mm) f/2 or f/1.8. There was a Sigma 18-35mm f/1.8 in the past that's still makes your old Nikon DX or Canon EF-S a capable camera today. I don't believe Sony will ever make it, neither Fuji (my system) and Nikon has his APSC mirrorless dead. My hopes are that Canon develops one to boost his APSC RF sales and therefore Viltrox, Tamron and Sigma follow through.

[@stevenraz8756]

Hello Arthur, nice content, I am new to Sony ZVE10, I'm using my camera indoors for Video only and within 3 feet of me, so i need it wide, it seems Like I need like 14mm, I would still like Auto Focus, but pretty much set it and forget it... the only option I see now is 10-20 G lens which is a little expensive. I have looed for full frame lens maybe 20mm or other brand of APSC lens that may also be good but affordable, any advise would be greatly appreciated, thanks I might add, I tried also using artisans7 adaptor and tried using EF lens, but I realized 14mm on cannon is closer to 11mm on sony after adaptor, sorry for long comment, but trying to figure this out, thanks

[@IMDABROWN]

Now that I think of it the Sony 35 f1.8 was one of the 1st E-mount lenses I purchased. I think I got it and the 18-105 Glens to go with my a6500 back in 2017.

[@CreativeIsolation]

Despite being a huge company, Sony makes so much stuff. And after a quick search I see that they have been gradually downsizing their numbers for years. At their peak they employed 180,000 people. I’m guessing the number of people in their camera lens department probably isn’t much more than viltrox or the others. Also, remember the delays they had with the PlayStation?

[@peter4fiter]

And to think that I was one step away from buying sel1655g, and now I don't know anymore. Advice appreciated, thanks ❤

[@kevinrtres]

Sigma 18-50 is the way to go. Sony waaaaayyyyyyy too expensive....even though it's undeniably the better lens.

[@plutonium5156]

Sigma's reverse zoom rings are maddening.

[@peter4fiter]

@@kevinrtres rather tamron 17-70 f2.8

[@erl412]

Go for it. I ditched my sigma 18-50 for sony 16-55 2.8. Sharpness and active stab are way better esp when it comes to video.

[@peter4fiter]

@@erl412 I can't find if Video Correction interferes with ibis. I have seen a few tests where Tamron had weird VC behavior while filming on a camera with ibis. The tests were from 3 years ago. Has this defect been fixed with software updates?

[@StuffYouMightLike]

Sony seems quite happy to let the third party lens companies have the APS-C E mount market. They did release the wide angle lenses 3 years ago, but those lenses are considered critical to their vlogging line of ZV cameras. And that's what Sony cares about APS-C - vlogging. They'd rather you stick to full frame for photography. It's fine. The E mount is open to third parties and they are making kick ass glass for Sony APS-C.

[@herrreinsch]

been filming for 15 years and I completely agree with you, however today I used a third party zoom lens from 1998 because I just like the way how the Image feels compared to modern class. I guess sony goes with the "If it aint broke don't fix it" strategy. who knows, maybe soon that lens will be "vintage" and "nostalgic" as well. :P

[@vermis8344]

0:19 Oh, look at all those video titles. As a M43 user I can sympathise. 😅

[@trainspotter_brenzbahn]

Good spoke! Greetings from Germany. 💪🏼👋🏼

[@artistjoh]

Does the TTartisans have image stabilization? If not, then how can it be described as a better performer? Sharpness might be better, but stabilization is at least as important as sharpness, and in low light, it can be far more important than sharpness. Performance is NOT just about sharpness.

[@kaishini]

I recently switched my 35mm APS-C lens to the full-frame version and also added a 24mm full-frame lens to use with my APS-C camera. I think this type of full-frame lens work well on APS-C bodies-they’re lightweight, compact, and sharp. The only downside is that they’re more expensive.

[@lepyti]

I'm happy with 3rd party lenses. Only sony lens I have considered getting is the 11mm f1.8. But have the problem of my Tamron 17-70mm f2.8 being too good 😅. I can't justify buying other lenses, because it can literally do everything. Lower aperture would be nice, but I can't decide on what focal lenght would actually be worth it.

[@donaldfarra3910]

If I had to guess the risk benefit ratio is not in favor of producing any updated Sony APS lenses, much less anything unique to compete with third party lenses. If that is the case, then Sony may slow down their release of updated Sony APS cameras as well. Why? In my opinion, the goal of making camera bodies is to sell in house lenses. Keeping those camera bodies competitive in turn keep lens sales up. In the Full frame lens line up Sony has updated their lenses, making them faster and lighter than third party lenses, by only achieving those desireable speed attirbutes while mated to a Sony cmaera body that supports them. Having thir party lenses on the market keeps the body sales up. Having unique lenses keeps the sales up. The problem is the later are expensive and have a limited customer market. Maybe Sony hopes the body sales will eventually appeal to the third party consumers to upgrade to the Sony high performance lenses, for the lower weigh and of course the faster speeds. There is the problem. The high end consumer market profit margin is higher with the full frame cameras. APS cameras if designed and built to compete with that market will reduce the profit margin of Sony as a whole. Just guessing on my part, but once the high end market is saturated Sony will start releasing APS camera with those high end features and maybe release expensive APS lenses that take a advantage of those features, keeping the third party lenses at arms lenght.

[@SummersSnaps]

I wish Zeiss was also still making APS-C lenses, I yearn for more (and updated) Touit's!

[@arfmf]

Sony 55-135 f2.8G, Sony 20 f1.4G Those are glaringly missing. Make it compact and not costing a kidney. A 70-200 compact equivalent and a 35mm equivalent accounting for active steady shot and focus breathing compensation. Both stabilized, will it happen? Probably not.

[@krzysztofnowacki9674]

Tamron and Samyang have 35-150 f/2-2.8 - these lenses are both great - Tamron has probably a bit better quality but it comes also with higher price. For APS-C it would be ~54-225 - imho best compromise between range and brightness.

[@KK-fi6ms]

Viltrox and other competent third party manufacturers are making first party lenses irrelevant. IMO there was only one Sony APSC lens that was truly without equal - 11mm F1.8. Now even that has a capable significantly cheaper alternative from Yongnuo.

[@NirajKedar]

completely agree with you!

[@donetek]

Answer is pretty straight forward - sony e is full frame system, yes it originally was apsc system, but now it is ff

[@classicboy97]

A 27/1.4 and 56/1.4 G would be amazing. Even f2 G primes similar to fujicrons would be amazing, but Sony’s strategy seems to drop aps-c lenses once every few years and then claim that aps-c isn’t dead through the KZbinrs and that they do support the format. Even the 16-55/2.8 is getting long in the tooth and needs to be updated

[@Sebartus]

f/1.4 isn't special when you can have f/1.2 from Viltrox like 27mm, 75mm, and soon probably 56mm - these lenses are killing Sigma and Sony.

[@classicboy97]

Yes but the 1.2s from Viltrox are huge for aps-c. Exemplary glass, but compared to Sony’s 15mm f1.4 G they’re huge. I love how small and optically sharp the 15mm is and am hoping that Sony can make other f1.4 primes within similar sizes or smaller

[@brettyg76]

I have a a6700, but more inclined to buy Full Frame lens… just in case (one day) I decide to upgrade to a Full Frame body. Plus the FF lens tend to be better optically imo.

[@Sebartus]

add to it Viltrox 27mm f/1.2 and 75mm f/1.2 and soon 56mm f/1.2 and you forgot about full frame.

[@Thirsty_Fox]

@@Sebartus I like the Viltrox 27mm but it's so big and heavy you may as well be on a 40mm f/1.8 on FF. Can't argue with its results, though.

[@DarkAvenger1234]

I imagine the prevailing thinking is when all of your full frame can also go on there. What’s the point unless you need it for something specific.

[@anton_14a11]

One of the issues is you buy a used APSC body to save money especially as a 1st camera and then your options for zoom lenses are used tamron and sigma lense that are still over 400 or 10+ year old Sony lens that literally everyone says is soft

[@SM321-k6i]

Arthur I’ve been a subscriber for many years and you are often my point of reference when it comes to photography. I will say that you are a little one dimensional with your own photography in that you take portrait photos of your wife and real estate. You don’t seem to consider lenses for video and I think that you should to achieve some sort of balance to your content. With video in mind the 35m 1.8 incorporates image stabilisation. Yes, the Sony A6700 has in body stabilisation but if using for video on another APC body without it it becomes a problem. Few, if any 3rd party lenses have integrated stabilisation which is a factor to consider. As I’m a seasoned individual..I do remember Sony adopting the view that big TVs using LCD screens “Would never take off” and they were left behind by their competitors and paid a heavy price for this. I’m a Sony fan boy, I so wish they continued development of Action Cameras and didn’t leave it all for the Chinese to exploit. Keep up the great content Arthur.

[@HagaishiSama]

Shit is sad, like for real. But I did picked up the Tamron 35-150mm F2-2.8 and it acts as a awesome 52-225 f2.8 on apsc

[@AZzackP]

I had the sigma 23mm f1.4 and returned it and got a used 24mm f1.8 zeiss which is older than dirt for about the same price. It looks beautiful. Maybe not as sharp, clinical and detailed as the sigma, but it seems to take the digital edge off and have a little more character to me.

[@ftk-alt]

alot of fuji lenses too! their older apsc lenses are still pricey, yet people still buy it because it has characteristics and so-on. their newer updated lenses cost even more that alot of people went buying third party lenses instead. That said, at least when fujifilm officially allow third party lenses, it was a good direction.

[@marc_likes_marketing]

I went the full frame route because I wanted dual SD slots, and because it seemed like Sony supported those bodies more. However, I still keep an APSC (a6400), since the lenses are just as good (imo), are more inexpensive and are way more portable. It's common for me to bring my sony 11mm 1.8 (one of my favorite lenses) on my 6400 when I'm going somewhere scenic, and I need something I can fit in a small bag. I also like that I can attach my full frame sigma 70-200 2.8 and get a 105-300mm 2.8 focal range. If I could do it all over again, I probably would stick to just APSC, since you have companies like Viltrox making amazing, yet inexpensive, glass, and because I could have gotten a backup 6400 for $700, instead of spending $1,300 on my a7iii. The third party support is quite stellar

[@r3d260]

I have both apsc and full frame. I take apsc as a walk-around camera. The release of the three wide-angle apsc lenses was a good sign back then, but did not get any of them simply because the focal length is not for me. It was once becoming clear that Sony was redefining apsc line as vloging line, but the release of a6700 confused me. And the dead silence of the apsc lens update confused me further. It seems Sony is as confused as the customers at this point what they want to do with apsc. As a customer, I’d like to see Sony make more updates on apsc lenses. In recent years, Sony usually make the lens smaller than 3rd party but with very good quality and autofocus, like Sony 15 1.4 vs Sigma 16 1.4. The form factor is important as a walk around option, so I would like to see more of this.

[@rukinaa]

Does it really matter if they make apsc lenses themselves anyways? I'd rather use full frame lenses and/or third party lenses, this doesn't seem to be an issue at all if sony makes apsc lenses in this day and age.

[@railgunawesome7114]

This is why I always tell ppl looking for apsc to just go with MFT instead. Nobody really makes good apsc lenses so you're stuck buying the large expensive full frame ones which kind of renders the point of apsc invalid. At least with MFT they actually produce high quality lenses that take advantage of the smaller sensor.

[@dquarks]

I'm a Fuji X guy and I'm so happy with the latest Viltrox 1.2,1.4, and 1.7 offerings. All because i have the IBIS body to help stabilize the image. Now, with wide open aperture prime lenses, i am more interested in night photography. Lastly, the prices are so good with Viltrox, it's much easier on my pension income.

[@uToobviewer2]

Sadly I'm one of those people who bought the 35mm oss last month...and I say that as someone who already had the sigma 30mm f1.4 for 8 years now. I was disappointed at how slow and underwhelming it was. It wasn't even as good as the sigma for accuracy and speed. And the stabilisation wasn't as good as I was hoping which was one of the reasons for buying it. I'm still keeping it but I wouldn't encourage anyone to buy it unless you really need the stabilisation.

[@matthewd7719]

It is unfortunate. They should make a few more updated APS-C lenses. They being said, it could be less profitable for them than we realize. I was new to Sony A mount full frame with the Sony a99 and shortly after the a7 came out, I had no good choice but to move to mirrorless for new updated lenses since I was still investing in full frame for the first time.

[@mrpp296]

A comparison video is needed on 75mm 1.2 lenses between meike and viltrox please 🙏🏻

[@leocasati]

simple, they want you to try APSC to upgrade to Full Frame in the near future, they just use the apsc lineup to get people to their eco system

[@Cervin_Suisse]

It really seems to be what Nikon is doing.

[@flat-out]

Do you think Sony will listen to your rant about APS-C lenses? I dunno, you were featured in some of their Alpha Universe site articles and their KZbin channel so you gonna have some pull.

[@ArthurR]

Very minimal, but worth a shot!

[@huasheng9695]

I'm also been frustrated by the lack of Sony e mount apsc lenses with my a6400 even with 3 of the best sony apsc lenses 11 1.8 、18-135、70-350 so I double systems buying a Panasonic MFT - the G9ii happy with that~~~

[@GMCorchestra]

I think we really need a fast tele zoom lens like 70-200 f2.8 but for apsc

[@luciandanaila7561]

True that! APSC war is coming to an end... and the winner in my opinion will definitely be Viltrox... 27mm & 75mm F1.2 are supreme! Sony cannot beat that powerstorm reallity check, nor the price! Cheap outstanding lenses - is not a Sony thing! Even the full frame reign is in danger to be crushed by Viltrox ... 135mm is a living exemple... If you ask me I am glad we live such a revolution .... High quality for a fair price - this is the way! Mandalorian style! Great topic! Respect!

[@pisachasrinuan7960]

Yea, it has been a while since they release a fleet for vlogger. I picked up 15mm F1.4 and really really love it. I think it's fair if Sony want to leave budget segment to 3rd party. They don't have to update everything, but at least they should decrease the price of some old lenses over years... I want a new Telephoto and maybe update 16-70 F4 for APS-C...

[@sdhute]

Will Sony ever change their mount and keep it locked for a period of time ? Has the E mount ran its course ?

[@nightdonutstudio]

If Sony make a f2 zoom lens for apsc. I will more likely to purchase fx30, a6700. Right now f2.8 zoom lens on apsc is not enough for low light.

[@HagaishiSama]

The Tamron 17-70mm with the a6700 is perfect using the BSI CMOS sensor

[@Mraz75]

I’m with you in this APSC matter..

[@WestEpicVisuals]

I'm guessing that the profit margin on aps-c lenses is a lot less than margin on camera bodies. I feel like its reasonable to assume that manufacturing a camera body is prolbably cheaper and has a higher yield than manufacturing high quality glass. If sony can lean on their old lenses and 3rd party manufacturers to uphold the aps-c line, then all they need to do is include updates that flow down from their FF bodies into the aps-c ones and make a lot more money doing it. None of that is based on any facts but thats just my swing at it.

[@koolpep]

My wife uses an A6700 for wildlife. She had the Sony 70-350 for APSC. We recently upgraded her kit to a Tamron 50-400 (full frame) lens and it was a game changer, the lens performs so much better AND has more reach and close up capabilities.only downside is, the weight and length is significantly higher. But it’s a price worth paying. I think Sony is moving away from apsc ONLY lenses, as it makes more sense to develop full frame which can also perform excellent on apsc

[@ckaye]

I agree with everything you said about Sony APSC lenses. My only suggestion is this: why not pick up the phone, call Sony press relations to see if they'd give you their side of the story. The worst that could have happened would be a Sony spokesperson saying he or she had no comment.

[@ArthurR]

I've spoken to some Sony representatives at some events, and my impression is they will pass the word up the very long ladder that is corporate. On the flip side, Ive had very good and direct conversations with higher titles at Sigma, and they seem to "get it" and act on it more quickly.

[@slglasius]

I hope they launch a couple of dual card slot bodies and launch a new 23, 33 and 56. Maybe a new telephoto zoom.