Sony officially announces the a7CR and a7C II along with the FE 16-35mm f/2.8 GM II

Canon Rumors Guy

Canon EOS 40D
Canon Rumors Premium
Jul 20, 2010
11,331
4,021
Canada
www.canonrumors.com
Sony Electronics announces the release of two new additions to the Alpha 7C series of compact full-frame interchangeable lens cameras, the Alpha 7C II (model ILCE- 7CM2) and Alpha 7C R (model ILCE-7CR). The Alpha 7C II is equipped with a full-frame image sensor with approximately 33.0 effective megapixels and features the latest still image and video functions and performance in a compact and lightweight design (approximately 4.88 in wide x 2.8 in high x 2.5 in deep and weighs approximately 18.1 oz.) It is the second-generation version of the Alpha7 C, which is celebrated for its combination of performance and features in a compact size, perfect for a wide range of shooting scenarios such as travel and street photography.

See full article...
 
A Sony 16-35/2.8 costing $2300? The same price as the Canon 15-35/2.8L at launch, and it's not even as wide. That's a fail, Sony. Total lack of innovation.

Gee, that was fun...all I had to was copy the Sony troll posts and change the lens names. :LOL:
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Upvote 0
It's why I bought an R8, and that little FF camera worked out great for travel. But for that, I'd far prefer the RF 14-35/4 over a 16-35/2.8, the extra 2mm makes a meaningful difference for me on the wide end.
I know what you mean.... a 40 to 50mm doesn't seem to change all that much... but at the wide end... just a couple of mm is quite noticeable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Upvote 0
Upvote 0
I know what you mean.... a 40 to 50mm doesn't seem to change all that much... but at the wide end... just a couple of mm is quite noticeable.
In my case, that's mostly because much of my travel shooting is urban and in that use case you often can't 'just back up a bit'. With the 16-35 range (I had both the EF 16-35/2.8L II and the EF 16-35/4L IS), I would usually bring the EF 11-24/4L along as well, even when I didn't really want to carry it. With the RF 14-35/4, I will sometimes leave the 11-24/4 at home (when processed with DxO, the wide end of the RF 14-35 after the required correction ends up at ~13.5mm FoV compared to the 11-24/4, and the corners are just as sharp).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Upvote 0
In my case, that's mostly because much of my travel shooting is urban and in that use case you often can't 'just back up a bit'. With the 16-35 range (I had both the EF 16-35/2.8L II and the EF 16-35/4L IS), I would usually bring the EF 11-24/4L along as well, even when I didn't really want to carry it. With the RF 14-35/4, I will sometimes leave the 11-24/4 at home (when processed with DxO, the wide end of the RF 14-35 after the required correction ends up at ~13.5mm FoV compared to the 11-24/4, and the corners are just as sharp).
I have never made a good image with the 11-24 at 11mm.... there is so much in the frame!
 
Upvote 0
I have never made a good image with the 11-24 at 11mm.... there is so much in the frame!
Yeah, you need to have something in the foreground. The shots that I've liked at 11mm are usually where I'm standing next to something vertical. Both of these were in Tours, France, the first was in the Cathédrale Saint-Gatien and the second was a wall next to the train station.

Cathédrale Saint-Gatien de Tours Interior.jpg

Convergence.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Upvote 0
I have never used such a thing, let us know how it goes.
I'm using an R5. Immediately, it has a lot of vignetting and the edges have a strong blur to about the size of an aps-c sensor, So, it's probably unusable for most people on full frame.
I didn't see any obvious distortion. It can now focus extremally close. I'll ask my niece if she wants to try it on her R50. It might have more difficulty looking sharp, but it should look better.
 
Upvote 0
From a quick look, it seems:

Sony 16-35 f/2.8 II: relatively small and light, relatively high maximum magnification, no IS.

RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS: compared to the Sony, it is bigger, heavier and has lower maximum magnification, but you get an extra mm at the wide end and IS.

RF 14-35 f/4 IS: compared to the Sony, it gives up a stop of aperture but weight is very similar, and you get even smaller size, even higher maximum magnification, an extra two mm at the wide end and IS.

I don't use UWA lenses enough to want to pay the asking price for any of these, but the Sony would be my preference (assuming, of course, the Sony's IQ holds up - will have to wait for reviews about that) because, for me, the combination of f/2.8 aperture and relatively small size and weight (with the relatively high maximum magnification being a nice bonus) would trump the extra features of the Canons. I am sure there are many will prefer one of the Canon's though, particularly because they are wider and have IS. (My comments are about the design choices reflected in each of the lenses but yes, of course, having a camera with the correct mount to use a lens would also be a factor in choosing between the Sony and Canon lenses :) )

As usual, pick your poison!
 
Upvote 0
RF 15-35 f/2.8 IS: compared to the Sony, it is bigger, heavier and has lower maximum magnification, but you get an extra mm at the wide end and IS.
And you get the wobbles when shooting video. I don't think IS is really as beneficial as IBIS is on the wide end. For example using the EF 16-35 rather then the RF IS lens, the wobbles appear to be almost non existent.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0