Anfernee Cheang: Sony, you forgot C3, which has only been released for 1 year and 7 months, and is still being used by so many people! It is in the same generation of 5N and 7, and it got a silver award from DPReview. So many people love to shoot with it, including me.
After I purchased NEX-6 kit, I found the E1650 produced unacceptable vignetting on C3. It is pathetic that a live model has been omitted by such a large scale brand name and manufacturer. Although my 6 got updated now with the support to my E1018, E35, E18200LE, I still feel so disappointed.
To add to that, Sony does not even support distorsion or chromatic aberration for older lenses such as the 16mm with the C3. Really a shame and a slap on the face for C3 owners!
zygh: If this 20mm lens was at least f/2.0 it would have probably been worth it. As it is, it's about two times overpriced.20/2.8 for 350 smackaroos?! No thanks, Sony!
Your point being the price is totally adequate or that we should not complain about it?I think yabokkie and I have both shown your argumentation to be flawed and baseless with logical and concrete examples and using your own words. What is your point exactly? That there is no one else that offered an APS-C 20mm f/2 lens for less money? Does the Canon 22m example I have pointed out count to you?That the asking price for the 2.8/20 Sony is just right? Have you even read the arguments that yabokkie and I have pointed to? Does it even matter to you or are you just another fanboy that is brand-defensive? Are you just the antagonistic type here or do you really have no issue with pricing and feel no one else should either? I really don't get it, please make your point clear.
"On sale. Its suggested retail at launch was $350. If people don't buy something, prices come down. No?"
Perfectly right! That's precisely what I was saying: the Sony will undertake the same route; unless more paying-toms such like yourself shall be willing to shell out top-buck for it.My feeling is, though, not many will, me included (even though I was waiting for a lens resembling this one, but faster).
The Samsung 2.8/20 lens for their NX system is 200 bucks less than the Sony, while the Canon M 2/22 is 100 less than the Sony. Both fit the 'pancake' category and cover APS-C.The Sony 2.8/20, while covering APS-C, is overpriced even compared to the equivalent 2/35 lenses designed for 35mm format.One thing is for sure, this Sony 2.8/20 better be awesome starting right at 2.8 or else massively rebated to make it worth while.
If this 20mm lens was at least f/2.0 it would have probably been worth it. As it is, it's about two times overpriced.20/2.8 for 350 smackaroos?! No thanks, Sony!
Even though the concept looks interesting, the price is verging on the insane. Unless one owns the lens(es) worth thousands, I can't see this adapter being a solution for those of us with old Nikkor or M42 lenses. I would like to try one, but for the price, I'd much rather get a 1.8/35E or save a bit more and go for a SH 1.8/24E.Anyone else feels the price is excessive?
JEROME NOLAS: So who will buy Nikon 1 now???
Apparently the Japanese. J1 has been no.1 in the mirrorless market for the past year.
I think this ranking is a laugh. Where is the RX100? the RX1? These two cameras alone redefined the market as we know it; the future will prove it...The 5D3 and the OM-D shouldn't even be there; the D800 sure, because of it's novelly sheer detail resolving prowness.The RX100 solely gave a new purpose to the pocket camera market, enhanced by a terrific lens.The RX1, need I say, set out a new line of cameras single-handedly.In conclusion I want to say I own neither of these cameras, however the writing is clearly on the wall.
twopossums wrote: > > zygh wrote:> > > , but this powerful number is found in all living things and is actually related to the Fibonacci sequence...> > Zygh, I notice your reference to the Fibonacci sequence...are you by chance a Tool fan?> > Angela> >
isnt that a oneminded, overly simplistic connection to make. that band, my dear, not talking about the music, are just about mixin half symbols, half dreams and half wit for a "desired effect". essentially it's what any charlatan does. besides that, yes, i enjoy some of their music, it gives cheap thrills just like any ol' bottle would.cheery-o!
it is more complex than that. the rate of growth of said snail's shell has a spiralling growth of ~1.61, but this powerful number is found in all living things and is actually related to the Fibonacci sequence...you see, the Architect had a plan and nothing is as straightforward as it seems and everything is one :)have a nice day!