Sony's new lens pricing

Started Feb 18, 2013 | Discussions thread
azoele
Contributing MemberPosts: 629
Like?
A lot of money, but worth it if you have the performance
In reply to dr jim, Feb 20, 2013

If the lenses have quality, the prices are not "fair", but acceptable. Not in absolute terms, but compared to the competition that imposes heavy mark ups for very little effective quality.
Don't forget, owner of other brands do get ripped off badly too.
And: paying is ok, if at least you have reliable quality.

Example: the prices, at least for Nikon, have skyrocketed as of late, and quality is so so... at best.

  • The 24/1.4 is plagued by a bad autofocus and focus shift, and it's weak until f2. For 2000$. On mine, I often use live view to focus, as no amount of AF fine tune helps, it just focuses erratically. The best of 3 copies I tried, by the way.
  • The 35/1.4 is trounced by the Sigma for half the price. I know, own them both... and the darn Sigma focuses well, while the Nikon gives me shivers whenever I use it... 1600$.
  • The 85/1.4 suffers from massive LoCa and focus shift. Sold mine in despair... 1400$ new.
  • The 50/1.4 is just bad, very weak until f2, lots of aberrations. But at least it's cheap... but still, bought the 1.8G as it makes more sense.
  • The 80-400 is just a lens from another era... and it's 1500$... 

Canon guys enjoy "better" luck with their 85/1.2 II, and their 35 focuses better than Nikon's, but their top of the line 24/35/50 too are just ridicule for their price, performance before f2.8, and a hassle to focus.

Still feel so much ripped off by Sony?

I don't feel ripped off by prices: if you can buy you buy. Else you save and buy later. Else you dream, like we all do for many items. But if price buys you excellent quality, then it's ok: a lens will last many years, and the pleasure or usefulness would be invaluable.

What is bad is paying 2000$ for a lens with known issues in focusing, and bad performance till well stopped down...
So, if the Zeiss 50 will be sharp, focus reliably, and with aberrations kept at a minimum, then... Sony would have the best 50 around, even at a price. And those loving 50 and able to afford it would just jump in their socks, and some others would seriously think of stepping into the system...

And if the 80-400 grants better bokeh, even sharper pictures, and faster autofocus, then it will be a lens people from the other camps crave... remember, the next step up for Canon (and not a step up IQ-wise, apparently...) is a 400/4 DO at 6000$+, or the 2.8 versions at 9000$... A lens providing excellent performance at 400/5.6 at 3000$ doesn't sound too bad.

Now, my only question is: considering how good Nikon's and Canon's 500/4 are: what really justifies the price of the Sony 500/4SSM?

Lory

-- hide signature --

'The human race is a race of cowards. And I'm not only marching in that procession, but carrying a banner.'
Mark Twain

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow