Sigma 30mm vs Zeiss 24mm

rogatsby wrote:

I think that's fair Sean. I am not doubting that the Zeiss 24 is a great lens. It clearly is. But what I am uncomfortable with is that so many people seem to be blinded by the placebo effect of an expensive and name-brand lens. Take for instance this exchange in a recent post (my comments followed by a respons in bold-underlined text):

____________________________________________________________

rogatsby wrote:

I neglected to mention the one substantive benefit of the Zeiss, which is the wide aperture (1.8), and which is one of the greatest benefits of that lens. But even taking this into account, I can't see it outweighing the benefit of being able to get 2 lenses with f2.8 and a nice zoom (55-210) for less than the price of the Zeiss. Especially if you can also get fast manual focus lenses for dirt cheap with just as wide aperture such as the Horusbennu 50mm f1.7, Canon FD 50mm 1.8, etc.

"I'm the other way around, i rather have the Zeiss rather than all those lenses as its better to keep things simple".

_____________________________________________________________
I don't care how great the Zeiss is. If you are sitting in an auditorium for your child's concert, and you have a Zeiss 24 on your camera, you are useless unless you want to take photos of tiny subjects on a stage. If the hypothetical person here had the 55-210, which along with the Sigma 30 and 19 would have cost less than the Zeiss, he or she would have possibly gotten good shots.
My point here is that the Zeiss is a great lens, but people should not get it (and sell other useful lenses) based solely on the reputation and placebo effect of the Zeiss.