keepreal: This is yet another example of capitalism gone mad and some people having money way beyond their actual needs to spend frivolously. I had this lens in the early 1970s in a mount for Exakta Varex and, for a triplet design, it was surprisingly good. However, $1,699 is a ridiculous price. About a tenth of that would make sense, little more.
I, for example, make prints of my best photos in A2 size (16.53 x 23.39 inches) and my Nikon D300 bought in 2009 with the Sigma 12-24mm f4.5-5.6 EX DG bought in 2006 are fine for landscapes in good light, even if there is better available today.
I would have been interested in the new m.Zuiko Pro 7-14mm F2.8 on Micro Four Thirds because that too would have been good enough. However I would not pay over $1000 for a hefty bit of glass, however good, when the saving in bulk and weight compared to APSC is so small.
Very few people need a Nikon D610 or better but the fact that so many people buy them usually attests to their greed or stupidity.
keepreal : "Very few people need a Nikon D610 or better but the fact that so many people buy them usually attests to their greed or stupidity."
You know crap about what people need...Stop making a fool of yourself by talking out of your a$$.
Markol: Frankly, every other dpr challenge winner looks like a painting.
HaHaha.. so true.
Well, we(meaning you) are talking about it.... Free air time for LG.
I was going to say things but I don't like writing.I feel like 'Untitled #96' by Cindy Sherman regarding this news.
Take a look at what "one of the most bankable 'art' photographers in the world" does. http://www.cindysherman.com/art.shtml
In conclusion: It could be you!