Sony's new lens pricing

from SAR:

Price for the new A-mount lenses:

Zeiss Planar T* 50mm f/1.4 ZA SSM lens: around $1500
Sony 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 SAM II: around $200
Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6G SSM II: around $3000

All I can say is: WOW! What a perfect way to price them out.

Even Canon L-glass with proven track record is cheaper:

Canon EF 50mm f/1.2 L USM (~$1400) - faster than 50/1.4ZA

Obviously white paint is a lot more expensive than silver paint.......I mean a LOT!!

So, what are they smoking over there??  It's as if they are actually trying to drive away potential new users.  This category (the long zoom) is one where Sony has had a definite advantage over Canon and Nikon's offerings.  As a casual wildlife shooter who doesn't want to spend $5000 + for a lens the 70-400 has been a great compromise. It's part of what has kept me from switching mounts.  now, Sony has nothing longer than 300mm that is even semi affordable.  This would be almost as stupid as introducing a $13,000 500mm instead of some lenses people might actually buy.

--
Just for fun! Jim

This is too elliptical for me to follow all the way 'round.  Can you explain a bit on why the pricing is perfect?

The cost of the new 70-400 has been rumored for a while to be closer to $2500.  $3000 is, imho, about $1000 too high.

--
-- Kirby Krieger.

yup after the 180 rebate..

from b&h

=-=-=



• Price:$1,579.00
• Instant Savings:$180.00

Offer ends MAR 30 '13

• You Pay:$1,399.00

I do not care about these  prices. There are plenty used Maxxum primes on market and new Tamrons are excellent too.

--
Person is taking photos, not camera. When photograph is bad, it's because photographer doesn't know how to choose settings optimal to "own preferences". Then blames camera for bad IQ.
This is same as blaming car about arriving to wrong destination.
http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

Maybe Sony's top management are bankers, who lost connection with the real world.

If they continue this way it's almost impossible NOT to switch brand sooner or later.

What do they think they are selling??

The only cheap lens is available for about $50 because of overall bad performance.

I dunno, the Zeiss sounds about right

The 70-400 way too high. Guess I'll hang to my old one!!!!!

The 18-55, I guess, I don't care

Tim

But I wouldn't say that the Tamron's are better. They are good, but the older screw mount Tamron 70-200mm f2.8 wasn't quite as good as the 70-200mm SSM. But then again, that's my only experience so my sample size is rather small, with a rather small coverage of offerings.

I was thinking of $2200-2500 for weather sealed and white paint, perhaps the new lens has better bokeh as well. But for $3000 I just can't help but giggling about the one I bought (used) recently for $1300. I have zero complain about sharpness or AF speed, there isn't muh I can do about bokeh, F5.6 is what it is, sometimes it's OK other times not so good. As for the silver paint, once I wrapped with camo tape it doesn't matter any more.

Agree, to my eyes the Tamron 70-300 Di USD is as good as Sony 70-300G. I just don't know when Tamron will come up with the 200-500 replacement (with fast USD motor). We really need some healthy competition to keep Sony in check.

70-300mm USD is an amazing lens on A850 body.

I'm waiting for Tamron 70-200mm f/2.8 USD review. If it s as sharp and as AF-fast as expected I'll be getting one.

--
Person is taking photos, not camera. When photograph is bad, it's because photographer doesn't know how to choose settings optimal to "own preferences". Then blames camera for bad IQ.
This is same as blaming car about arriving to wrong destination.
http://stan-pustylnik.smugmug.com

$3000 is perfect? For who? I don't know if its any sharper/better than the Nikon 80-400 but the Nikon is brand new for $1499.

I meant Sony want to price themselves out of market if they list 70-400G II at $3000.

Nikon 80-400 is older design, it's not as sharp, AF much slower than the current 70-400G. Canon 100-400 L is fast in AF but sharpness at 400/5.6 is not as good as current Sony.

This kind of rumor can hype up the price you know

I've heard Sony 70-400mm f/4-5.6G SSM II is going to be around $2000, as the last one. 
Hush, nobody should try to jack it up, LOL.

Good grief!!! On what planet is $1,500 for a 50mm f/1.4 anything but obscene?

It's not a zoom. It's not a difficult focal length to design. It's not a super-fast f/1.2.

It's a sh!t load of money. It could feed a town in an underdeveloped country for a year.

Take a look at B&H and you'll see the most expensive 50mm f/1.4 is a Zeiss at $725. The most expensive from Canikon is Nikon's $484 luxury version with (the equivalent to) SSM.

Sony/Zeiss should be ashamed of their evil pricing, when there are people starving.

No offense to SAR, but I'd suggest waiting to see what prices Sony actually announces before getting all lathered up.

Well the Schneider 50mm t&S is $3995

The Leica 50mm 1.4 is $3300

The Canon at 1.2 is still $1500 and is only one stop faster.

One pays for the name

How so?  Canon has a 100-400 L lens that's about the same price as the 70-400 Sony.  Plus 200/300/400/ etc 2.8's.  What advantage does Sony have over Canon/Nikon?  They both have quite a few more long zoom offerings, plus low cost 70-300 lenses as well.

I'm waiting for the Tamron 24-70 SP.  That'll have to do even if it doesn't support AF-D (which it might). If the sony 24-70 was at least weather sealed...

--
Steve W weather photos: http://home.comcast.net/~scwest/atmo/