![[Pre Order] Sony FE 50-150mm F/2 GM Lens $6119.10 + Payment & Handling Fee @ George’s Camera](https://files.ozbargain.com.au/n/98/903498.jpg?h=58352b76)
Newly announced lens at a 10% discount, perfect for shooting LinkedIn profile pictures!
[Pre Order] Sony FE 50-150mm F/2 GM Lens $6119.10 + Payment & Handling Fee @ George’s Camera
340
Related Stores
Comments
Very creamy!
Eleven blades at 2.0 at that price, makes me want to buy a Sony body!
Bokeh police has entered the chat…. :)
but. for this money I can have Canon EF 135 F/2 L, 50 1.2 L and still have money left to purchase enough Tesla stock to have an answer when someone asks me what the dumbest thing I ever did was..
Price is ridiculous, hard pass. Hopefully sigma makes one for half the price or less.
Sure, for a hobbbyist, but for a professional sport photographer or wedding photographer it replaces a bunch of lenses.
I can't think of many sports where a 50-150 would be useful. Maybe table tennis?
I'm also struggling with the use case for this lens…..
@ASR-Briggs: Definitely useful for weddings. This on one body + a 18-35mm on another would be basically all you'd need for an entire day.
@ngengerous: Completely disagree sorry. For an outdoor wedding (where light gathering is no problem) I would much rather use my Sony G 24-105 f4. And for a night time or indoor event, I’d rather a 24-70 f2.8 (Sony Mk II probably being the best, but sigma would do as well I’m sure).
50mm is just not wide enough for gatherings. So yeah, only solution is to have a backup camera with another lens. And you will never need 150mm. And even if you DID (for dedicated headshots etc), you’d get much better results out of a 135mm f1.8 prime (Samyang and Sony both have excellent examples).
And it's not really for sports either, as it doesn’t have the reach.
So apart from indoor sports (as other people in the thread have mentioned), I just don’t see the use case here. I don’t get this lens.
@ASR-Briggs: Concerts! I already have the 50mm 1.4, 85 1.4 and 135 1.8 and would be happy to trade off the aperture there for one lens to save myself time swapping bodies or lenses. Yes F2.8 zooms already exist but there are plenty of times when I'm not happy with the conditions at F2.8.
@eecan: Actually, that's a good shout. I could see this being good for concerts. Not sure I'd drop $6k on a lens just for concerts :-P but I'm obviously not the target demographic.
@ASR-Briggs: I would not recommend the 24-105mm F4 for a wedding shoot. I've found that it's optical quality is nowhere close to a proper G Master lens and I would not want to be supplying photos from a lens to a paying customer, especially for their wedding.
@Sibdishh: You must have a bad copy. Mine produces incredibly sharp photos on high resolution bodies (R3, R4, etc).
@Sibdishh: Totally agree.. If my wedding photographer rocked up with a 24-105 F4 with one body, I would be so pissed off.
@ASR-Briggs: I'd have to play devils advocate here…
I can totally see wedding shooters using this lens. Most wouldn't but plenty will. Most wedding photogs run with two cameras.
If you're shooting weddings on one body with a 24-105 F4, imo you're not getting the most creative shots.
Totally subjective on creativity, but after shooting over 500 weddings in the past decade, I haven't run into a single lead shooter using one camera + F4 zoom lens.Most would use a 24-70 F2.8 (or 28-70 F2) paired with a 70-200 F2.8 or (if it's me) run with a 35 + 85 combo with a 24 + 50 for group photos, dance floor and portraits.
Having a 50-150 eliminates the need to carry around a 50, 85, 135, albeit much heavier and more expensive.
@tempestswitch: I'm not necessarily sure I agree that more bokeh=more creative, but I will concede that the bokeh on the 24-105 suuuuuucks.
You did touch on another problem this lens has though. It's monstrous. 1340g and 95mm filters. The 24-70 f2.8 GMII is 695g for reference. I'm sure I don't need to tell you that ya have to lug that weight around all day!
@ASR-Briggs: Never said more bokeh means more creative.
It's everything from contrast, colour, low light, etc. Bokeh is included as well.
An F4 just can't truely isolate the couple from the background enough.But yes the main issue is the stupidly high weight and size… We walk around enough with a few kg the last thing I want is something that's bigger and heavier. I'm sure some jacked up person will be fine with the lens
Indoor sports
@colcha: Sports I'm always sitting on the long end of the lens. A 70-200 would be more useful for the extra reach.
Basketball and other indoor sports at close-ish quarters.
Meh, i'll keep my 70-200mm 2.8mm GM2 and some primes like 50/1.2 and 85/1.4. I get the advatage is that you don't have to swap lense and carry less but the price is just too much for the specs.
Would be nice to get more affordable options but a lens like this is absolutely a niche and priced accordingly, especially at release when nothing comparable exists (Tamron 35-150 goes to F2.8 on the longer end). F2 zooms are very much a luxury.
Hard disagree - this is an insane lens if it fits your usecase.
If you're a hobbyist, you do not need a 50-150 f2 zoom… The existing Tamron 35-150 would more likely suit your needs.
You're not the target market for it. It's in the same league as the big 300/2.8, 600/4…etc. class of lenses - i.e. very niche.
It's a marvel of engineering. If you just want to take nice portraits and blow out backgrounds, then get the 135/1.8 which will give you basically the same results where this sort of lens would get used most.
Yep, so long as you are prepared to zoom with your feet.
like with any prime, but quality will be better than p much any zoom out there. provided you take one of the better primes (L series in Canon world, GM in Sony world).
working in studio and shooting F5.6 however I see little reason to ever take RF 24-105 F4L off my camera. it's as good as having 35mm / 50mm / (70mm) / 85mm primes without switching lenses (it's got a bit too much distortion to deal with at 24mm, and a tad softer at 105mm, but still very much usable at 105). it's all about use case..
I had a bunch of primes which were super useful outside studio, but now that I rarely work outside the studio, all those primes have found new owners.
@ASR-Briggs: oh I am everything user. I bought A7iii three times. I love Sony output, but man, I can't stand their ergonomics. yesterday I almost bought A7riii from Sony eBay, refurb (1 year warranty) is about $1800 once you add all discounts. but then remembered my A7iii experience(s) and decided nah I'll let someone else have it. I also shot Nikon (z6), Fujifilm (X-T everything p much), Olympus (was this even real?) and even Leica
I settled on Canon EOS R (the original). I love the ergonomics and the feel. it's superb for studio work with battery extender attached. Sony is just too boxy and uncomfy to hold. despite awesome drange and overall output. colors are a bit easier to get what I want out of it on Canon. drange irrelevant in studio. 30MP is sweet spot between file size and croppability. 42MP or thereabouts would be a good thing to have (hence me almost purchasing A7riii), but not critical. 20MP or 24MP to 30MP was a very palpable step up. 30MP to 40MP not so much..
anyway +1 for 24-105 F4, I shot the Sony version too (not in studio though, next time I convince myself to go for Sony I will give it a go). a bit bulky and bokeh a bit nervous at 105, but it is a solid do-it-all.
@shabaka: Funny you were looking at an R3. I had mine die on me just 2 weeks ago….. but after 6 years of it being my daily workhorse and shooting hundreds of thousands of photos through it. Would have LOVED to move to an R5, but it can be had for $4.1K in sale season…….and we're just not there at the moment :( Also feels bad buying when it's half way through it's product cycle (2 years old at this point). I was intending to hold out for the A7mk5 launching this year, but the failure kind of forced my hand.
Ending up finding an immaculate used R4 on marketplace for $2100. Got me out of a really tough spot actually!
It's hard for me to compare brands ergonomically, since I've only ever really used Sony (they got their claws into me early with the NEX series).
@ASR-Briggs: A7iii is p much same design as A7riii, and I struggled to have a relationship with it. but once again, I think it all depends on what you start with. my first interchangeable lens camera was a Canon, maybe that's why their ergonomics got stuck with me. and menus. I missed those 2 bits on Sony's a lot
Not really, there are no alternatives which give you the same look as the 300/2.8 or 600/4. With the 50-150mm you can basically get the same look or DOF for portraits with a 135/1.8 or 70-200/2.8 (at 200)
not to mention 50 1.4 GM, 85 1.4 GM which will give even better results than this 50-150.
so a bit questionable. how is this going to make life easier for, say, wedding photographers? they usually run around with a 24-70, and 85 1.4 (or 70-200. or 135 1.8) on a second body. assuming they intend to replace 24-70, you kinda need that wide angle end of it, 50 isn't going to cut it. yes nice to extend past 70 all the way to 150 for nice portraits, but you're losing out on that wide angle, and still will need a 2nd body. or assuming they are replacing 85 1.4 or 70-200 2.8, still kind of don't see the point. very strange lens. but I guess people who want it know what they need it for.
For hobby for sure bro, but can only charge $100 for a wedding coverage maxed for tamron. With this one yes, skies the limit. 🤫🤫
I wouldn't buy it because I'd rather 200mm and f/2.8 than 150 at f/2, but it would be awesome to zoom out from 200 to 70 and have it at f/2, which is pretty neatly between 50mm and 85mm f/1.8 prime…
… but the 50mm f/1.8 is, what? <$300? For my use case, I'll continue double-strapping cameras. 35mm f/1.4 + 70-200 f/2.8 and a lot more redundancy.
I guess this lens is awesome for someone who needs to rely on one camera for whatever reason.
Not necessarily just a solo body thing, could complement it nicely with something like the 28-70 F2 or 300 F2.8. Would be more about responding quickly within that focal range for sports/events and not wasting time switching to a second/third body or swapping to the right prime lens.
See, I wouldn't bother swapping a 70-200 for a 50-150 when pairing it with a 28-70. Why lose 50mm of reach just to cover the 50-70mm range twice?
Maybe if you were doing a 16-35 + 50-150 for concerts? That extra 1/3rd a stop might be useful in those darker environments.
A 50-150mm f2 + 300 or 400 f2.8 makes a lot more sense, especially for someone like a sports photographer.
Another cool lens that I don't see appealing to most people, especially at that price, but will definitely have been on some people's dream list, so I'm happy to see they've made it.
My dream lens would be a 24-135mm f/2 (constant). Then I'd drop the 70-200 and pickup up a 400 f2.8
@besttechadvisor: Not sure if I misunderstood but F2 to F2.8 is not 1/3 stop, it is a full stop of light. Its the same sized jump in light as it would be from F2.8 to F4 so a pretty significant difference and worth the trade off on focal length for some.
Definitely not a lens for everyone though the same way the 300 2.8 isn't. I'd agree with you that the overlap isn't ideal, if it was a 70-200 F2 and a similar size and weight I'd have put in my pre-order by now lol.
@eecan: Yes, sorry, 1 full stop.
1-1.4, 1.4-2, 2-2.8.
I misspoke because it's 1/3rd the total light when going from 2.8 down to 2, which I was thinking will be significant in those low light environments such as concerts.
Tamron 35-150mm F/2.0-2.8 is insanely good - especially for shooting events.
Nice, lens is compatible with linkedin photos. Bought. Tanks op.
"Lens is compatible with LinkedIn photos"?
Using this for my intercom camera. Works well.
Thanks OP, bought 10.
^ for those who came looking for this comment!Oh, how greedy of you. How dare you stop others protentionaly missing out on this bargain, I bet they are all for resale on marketplace yes? . Jesus is not happy. ;-)
A niche tool of trade lens, too much for hobby to most people.
Would consider if it's around $4k as it does "replace" 85 and 135.
erm, you don't need to buy a 6k+ lens to get professional results.
Most of my stuff is with a 35/1.4 and 50/1.2 which are far, far less than this. And in photographer circles I'm considered a gear head!
Amazing lens, no doubt Canon would charge $8999 or something even more insane.
hows this go for doing instagram pictures hanging off a cliff?
You need a long and strong arm to selfie with this lens.
actually MFD is 0.4m, so as long as you grow a third arm about 40cm long you'll be fine for a 50mm selfie, which in retrospect will not get a lot of that cliff in the frame.
I seriously recommend investing in something like 12-24mm GM or 14mm GM prime for a lighter and cheaper influencer style immersive environmental cliffhanger selfie material
These flogs will ghost you after you make an order and you have to constantly contact them to get an update on your order.
Use SONY5 will take another $305.95 off, it's $5581.28 delivered.
$5,881.28 for me.
Sorry for the typo
This might be great for biceps training?
Don't recommend purchasing from George's Camera. Had a bad experience with them for an online purchase last year. Bought a Sony 70-200mm f2.8 lens from them, they stated online that the item was in stock, also called them to confirm. They shipped the lens 6 weeks later, despite paying for express shipping. Contacted them but kept getting ghosted and they wanted a stock fee for a refund.
This would be a dream lens as I shoot at these focal length all the time.
Compared to the first gen 70-200mm this is thicc at 103mm wide with a filter diameter at a 95mm and slightly heavier.
Quad Xd linear motors for autofocusto move all that glass and needs the best Sony camera bodies to take advanate of it.
Super surprised they could engineer in optical stabilisation into the body, videographers rejoice.
Can see it being super popular with wedding photographers.
This could be good for astrophotography.
I'll bite at F1.2
so cheap
How's the bokeh?