K01, who is "ugly" now?

Started Oct 26, 2013 | Discussions thread
marike6
Senior MemberPosts: 5,070Gear list
Like?
Re: All manufacturers MTFs graphs look brilliant...
In reply to sportyaccordy, Oct 27, 2013

sportyaccordy wrote:

marike6 wrote:

viking79 wrote:

marike6 wrote:

At least on a Nikon or Canon FF you can mount a $200 50 f/1.8 with terrific optics. 1000 USD for a 55 f/1.8 normal lens??? Yikes.

The New Nikon 58mm f/1.4 is $1700 US and is not a better performer. I agree the new 55mm f/1.8 is on the high side, but it is also a much more expensive lens design than a $200 50mm f/1.8, it is a much better lens than those lenses (more comparable to a Leica).

http://dearsusans.wordpress.com/2013/10/17/166-are-the-new-zeiss-sony-lenses-for-the-a7-camera-too-expensive/

Eric

Wow, you are really drinking the manufacturers MTF Kool-aid. Sony has not shipped a single 55 f/1.8 yet you are already telling people which lenses it's better than based on its manufacturer MTFs or some Wordpress blog post?

When someone actually tests new 55 f/1.8 on an optical bench we'll see it performs about the same as most other 50s. BUT I'd bet anything like ALL mirrorless lenses it doesn't optically correct for distortion and vignetting like ALL DSLR lenses are, meaning the optical engineers had a MUCH easier time designing it having only resolution, coma and astigmatism to worry about. So no, a lens that uses software correction is not "more expensive to design".

That's a fair point, but that seems like a disadvantage for DSLRs

And the new Nikon 58 f/1.4 is too expensive for a normal lens, BUT it has a faster max aperture and a much better build quality including a distance scale, something ALL lenses at such a high price point should have.

But my point is cost of ownership matters for most amateurs. Professionals may be able to justify a $1000 f/1.8 normal lens, most amateurs cannot. Nor would they be well served by such lenses when they are much faster max aperture lenses for less.

By this logic, amateurs shouldn't even discuss FF at all. $1700 is too much for a body, etc. etc. You are just looking at the price and aperture. But like dude said, based on preliminary figures anyway, these lenses are an optical bargain, and I really doubt Zeiss would put out MTF graphs that were way off the mark just to get people excited.

I didn't mean to imply amateurs shouldn't discuss FF at all, just that maybe for some, myself included, a FF mirrorless with Sony/Zeiss lenses might be overkill.

As far as the 55 f/1.8 being a "bargain", that's what they said about the extremely expensive Sony NEX 24 f/1.8, which at least is a fast wide. And that's what they said about the Zeiss Touit 32 f/1.8, a lens that gets soundly outperformed by the far less expensive and brighter Fujinon 35 f/1.4. Even the Zeiss ZF and ZE 50 f/1.4 (non-Sony) is "only" $700. But I guess Sony sees how expensive Olympus and Panasonic m43 lenses are, and they figure that as FF higher price tags are justified.

I get that the new lens is a FF mirrorless lens but compared to DSLR lenses the Sony FE lenses, especially considering their modest max apertures, are pricey.

Same as above for Sony's $1200 f4 standard zoom. My Nikon 70-200 f4 VR was only $200 more than the Sony 24-70 f4, to give you an idea of how ridiculously priced the Sony standard zoom is. The Nikkor 70-200 f4 VR is an expensive lens for sure, but it's a 70-200mm telephoto zoom. The Sony f4 standard zoom is beyond expensive. And don't bother looking up MTFs for the f4 zoom or telling me about some blue sticker. My RX100 has a blue sticker too, before it fell off.

Cheers, Markus

Ummmm, Canon's 24-70L F4 is $1400, AND doesn't have IS. Apples to apples.

Canon EF 24-70 f4L IS, it has IS.

But the Canon 24-70 is not expensive I agree completely. It's built like a tank, has blazing fast USM motor, and tons of exotic glass but it's more expensive than their 70-200 f4 L IS, which is crazy. But Canon in the last few years has been going a bit overboard with pricing for their pro-grade gear.

Personally I think it's a mistake to price slower f4 lenses so high when there are great f/2.8 standard zooms like the Tamron 24-70 f/2.8 VC.

You want speed, small size, and the resolution worthy of a 36MP FF sensor, it's probably going to cost money.

As D800 user I can tell you that you absolutely do not need super expensive primes to have lenses worthy of a 36 mp sensor. You need good lenses, not expensive ones.

As far as speed it's not like the FE 55 f/1.8 and 35 f/2.8 are exactly super bright lenses.  And no the 55 f/1.8 is not smaller than DSLR normal lens at all, in fact it's considerably larger than the Canon or Nikon normal lenses even the f/1.4 ones.

If it's too much to bear, go with a cheaper inferior platform.

I have a D800 (with 28-50-85 f/1.8 primes and a 70-200 f/4 VR) which is my favorite camera of all time. And when I need something smaller, I have a Fujifilm X-E1. For my purposes, they work great, but I've never bought into the mirrorless philosophy that smaller is better and I prefer DSLR ergonomics. And when I do want to be discreet, I have my Fuji X camera which I couldn't be happier with.

I think Sony is making a mistake with it's lens pricing that's all, it's not that I'm a cheap skate. In general FF lenses are more expensive than crop sensor lenses.  I'm wondering if lens prices might turn off potential adopters, but I guess we will see. All the best, Markus

 marike6's gear list:marike6's gear list
Nikon Coolpix P330 Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH2 Nikon D800 Fujifilm X-E1 Panasonic Lumix G 20mm F1.7 ASPH +7 more
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