sony high end glass

thank you to all the early adopters, that are buying the new sony
high-end glass, and posting here.

we are all very envious!

I guess that every brand needs some bragging lenses.

Canon certainly has quite a few.

I have respect for the canon users who, in fact, own the 30D or
5D, or 1xxxx, and the cruel top-end glass...

the only justification about bragging about the canon 20D, 30D, +++ camera low-noise hi-iso quality is if they already own the canon 2.8 L IS zoom lenses...

but, there's a lot of ppl, and i know some, who bought the 350D and the lowest end IS lens...why? because "canon makes the best"... and...the "pros all use canon"...

are THEY ever going to invest in more glass??? probably not....but their estem comes from what OTHERS have spent, and what OTHERS are

buying...and they like the security that nobody can say they made a bad decision...

physcologically, that makes sense, and more power to them...the world is about having fun, striving to make it a better place, and if that's how they want to spend their $$$, that's ok....

but, now these people will be better able to understand the allure of the sony brand...it does make a difference, and gives more credability to the mount...

and, someday i will buy these lenses, they are just too good not to...

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that the better Sony lenses that are now becoming slowly available are 'good glass ' but there is still a lot of concern that Sony are pitching prices too high.

If this fact becomes widely known it will eventually harm sales or drive buyers into only considering 3rd party options.The average buyer only gets about 3 or less lenses & once bought they will tend to stick with what they have got.

Keith-C

KEITH-C said:

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that the better Sony
lenses that are now becoming slowly available are 'good glass ' but
there is still a lot of concern that Sony are pitching prices too
high.

If this fact becomes widely known it will eventually harm sales or
drive buyers into only considering 3rd party options.The average
buyer only gets about 3 or less lenses & once bought they will tend
to stick with what they have got.

Keith-C

Click to expand...

I agree. And savy DSLR buyers will price out complete kits of lenses and accessories and decide that Sony is more expensive than the competition. Add to that they fact that SSM is only available in the top lenses and it is not a good story for Sony compared with Canon and Nikon.

--
fjbyrne

what I am seeing is Sony is attracting new DSLR users, it's blending A-100 & lens into the electronic products.

Sure it does not have high end bodies yet, but then again a lot of people know the name "SONY". We in the photography circle know Canon & Nikon are the top brands, however to an average joe, Sony is a far better-known name. I see middle aged men, young women picking up Sony A-100 & think it's "pro" camera.

The SSM glass is the exception, it's not the norm; other lenses are very comparative to Nikon & Canon.

OG

olivegarden said:

what I am seeing is Sony is attracting new DSLR users, it's
blending A-100 & lens into the electronic products.

Sure it does not have high end bodies yet, but then again a lot of
people know the name "SONY". We in the photography circle know
Canon & Nikon are the top brands, however to an average joe, Sony
is a far better-known name. I see middle aged men, young women
picking up Sony A-100 & think it's "pro" camera.

The SSM glass is the exception, it's not the norm; other lenses are
very comparative to Nikon & Canon.

OG

Click to expand...

I wouldn't say very comparable to Nikon & Canon. Scanning the price list from B&H shows Sony costing more than N & K for most lenses including entry level. I hope this will change in the near future as supply ramps up.

--
fjbyrne

KEITH-C said:

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that the better Sony
lenses that are now becoming slowly available are 'good glass ' but
there is still a lot of concern that Sony are pitching prices too
high.

If this fact becomes widely known it will eventually harm sales or
drive buyers into only considering 3rd party options.The average
buyer only gets about 3 or less lenses & once bought they will tend
to stick with what they have got.

Keith-C

Click to expand...

In the UK; the Sony 50mm F1.4 is priced at £240, compared to the Canon 50mm F1.4 at £280, and the Nikon 50mm F1.4 at £416!!!

The CZ 85mm F1.4 is priced about the same as the Canon 85mm F1.2, and more than the Nikon 85mm F1.4, which is a bit too much. However, the CZ 135mm F1.8 is priced in-between the Canon 135mm F2.0 (which is cheaper) and Nikon 135mm F2.0 (which is more expensive). Given that the 135mm F1.8 is BETTER than these two, I think this is quite reasonable.

I don't know about the US, maybe it is a very different picture, but in the UK at least Sony has most of their lenses pretty well priced.

The exceptions of course are the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 and 300mm F2.8. The former is currently costing about £1800, the latter £4800. This is compared to £1200 for the 70-200mm F2.8 or £3100 for the 300mm F2.8 from Canon. I cannot find either lens for Nikon.

I believe in the theory that these two lenses are overpriced due to concerns about production capacity vs demand, and I hope that with some time they may reduce in price. It doesn't matter a lot to me, as they aren't lenses I plan on buying.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

In the UK Sony is very competitively priced, maybe just in the US this is different.

Nice that Sony is not so biased towards the Americans as Canon / Nikon!
--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Two Truths said:

KEITH-C said:

I don't think that anyone disputes the fact that the better Sony
lenses that are now becoming slowly available are 'good glass ' but
there is still a lot of concern that Sony are pitching prices too
high.

If this fact becomes widely known it will eventually harm sales or
drive buyers into only considering 3rd party options.The average
buyer only gets about 3 or less lenses & once bought they will tend
to stick with what they have got.

Keith-C

Click to expand...

In the UK; the Sony 50mm F1.4 is priced at £240, compared to the
Canon 50mm F1.4 at £280, and the Nikon 50mm F1.4 at £416!!!

Click to expand...

From B&H:

Sony - $349.95
Canon - $309.95 ($289.95 with rebate)
Nikon - $279.95

Two Truths said:

The CZ 85mm F1.4 is priced about the same as the Canon 85mm F1.2,
and more than the Nikon 85mm F1.4, which is a bit too much.
However, the CZ 135mm F1.8 is priced in-between the Canon 135mm
F2.0 (which is cheaper) and Nikon 135mm F2.0 (which is more
expensive). Given that the 135mm F1.8 is BETTER than these two, I
think this is quite reasonable.

Click to expand...

From B&H:

Sony 85/1.4 - $1,299.95
Canon 85/1.2 USM- $1,829.95 ($1,779.95 with rebate)
Nikon 85/1.4 - $1,024.95

The Canon is more expensive but it is 1.2 vs 1.4 and is USM.

Sony 135/1.8 - $1,399.95
Canon 135/2.0 USM - $899.95 ($874.95 with rebate)
Nikon 135/2.0 - $1,079.95

Sony is more expensive but it is 1.8 vs 2.0 but no SSM.

Two Truths said:

I don't know about the US, maybe it is a very different picture,
but in the UK at least Sony has most of their lenses pretty well
priced.

Click to expand...

It seems to depend on the lens. However I think Sony should be priced better so that they are a better value than Canon or Nikon. Sony is trying to overtake these guys so they need to be aggresively priced.

Two Truths said:

The exceptions of course are the Sony 70-200mm F2.8 and 300mm F2.8.
The former is currently costing about £1800, the latter £4800.
This is compared to £1200 for the 70-200mm F2.8 or £3100 for the
300mm F2.8 from Canon. I cannot find either lens for Nikon.

Click to expand...

Sony 70-200/2.8 SSM - $2,399.95
Canon 70-200/2.8 IS USM - $1,699.95 ($1,649.95 with rebate)
Canon 70-200/2.8 USM - $1,139.95 ($1,094.95 with rebate)
Nikon 70-200/2.8 VR AFS - $1,614.95 ($1,539.95 with rebate)
Nikon 70-200/2.8 AFS - $not listed (was around $900 IIRC)

To me the comparison has to be with the non-stabilized Canon & Nikon since they are the comparable lenses.

Two Truths said:

I believe in the theory that these two lenses are overpriced due to
concerns about production capacity vs demand, and I hope that with
some time they may reduce in price. It doesn't matter a lot to me,
as they aren't lenses I plan on buying.

Click to expand...

I would LOVE to have a 70-200/2.8. Won't spend $2400 on it though.

Two Truths said:

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Click to expand...

--
fjbyrne

the price of sony glass will come down. more sony glass will be released.
ssm will (eventually) get there.

Minolta will be releasing a replacement for the 7D too.

Being a better value to some means making product cheaper in price, even if it cost in quality.

What sony does not want to do is give the impression of being a cheap wanna bee. They don't want to botch things like Oly, where Oly has managed to dig themselves into the Econo brand hole. Even though oly stuff isn't even very cheap, but it gives the impression.

Sony is out to make the statement that they make better stuff then canon or nikon.

Ditto, that's my sentiment too.

Olympus 4/3 really makes very nice photos in terms of color, but it does ring "bargain", if only people have seen the silver-ringed lenses....

PhotoTraveler said:

What sony does not want to do is give the impression of being a
cheap wanna bee. They don't want to botch things like Oly, where
Oly has managed to dig themselves into the Econo brand hole. Even
though oly stuff isn't even very cheap, but it gives the impression.

Sony is out to make the statement that they make better stuff then
canon or nikon.

Click to expand...

No one is asking Sony to produce 'tat' - just value for money equipment that is competitive with other major brands. For example they over-priced the A100 when it was first released & now are facing increased competition from Canon & Nikon. If they are serious about making big inroads into the DSLR market they need to wise-up.

If they are to attract new buyers they cannot just rely on their reputation derived from selling Playstations etc.

Keith-C

... the high prices of SONY high end glasses. What would you think if SONY stayed with the old prices of KM high end lenses and the high-end DSLR is unleashed? Do you think SONY will release the PRO DSLR with a street price of only $1500? NO! Brace yourself! Sony, surely will price it twice at around $3000 to $3500. So, the present price of 70-200 SSM is just right!

In this category of body, I think a high-end glass at a price of only $1500 is a mismatch. It should match the prestige of the upcoming high-end DSLR. I presume too, a compact super zoom with a range of 28mm to 300mm, SSM, f2.8, STF at longer ends, will fetch $5000 or more.

I will be in Cloud 9 by then!

The A100 was in no way overpriced when it came out. And it has the sales to back it up. It still is a great deal.

Nikon and Pentax came along later with the D80 and K10D and changed things a bit. But when the A100 came out, it was a steal. Still is a great deal.

Sony made a big move by making a 10MP entry level camera. It didn't so much cost them much to do it, since they make the sensors and a 6 verses 10 is probably almost no price difference for them. But the blew up the market for everyone else. Pentax and Nikon thought they would be able to come in the market with 11-1300 buck cameras. A spot a bit above entry level, and with some room above the newly forming cheaper then cheap class (D40, K100D). So they put that bit of extra in those models (big view finders, seals for pentax too). But then before they came to market, Sony came along and low balled them, a 900 buck 10MP camera. That killed their potential price point. Canon prepped a lame 10MP improvement, basically figuring others would remain 6 for a bit longer, or maybe go to 8MP. Clearly Canon didn't expect the A100 to be what it is. Or they would have tried much harder.

Sony took the market from a place where a 10MP SLR was a D200 at 1500 bucks, and turned it into a entry level camera at sub 1000.

The A100 was anything but over priced.

Now it's problem is simply that others have come along, and in the case of Pentax offered a lot more, and Nikon about the same (but instead of AS, you get a Big viewfinder). Nikon and Pentax had to get those cameras cheaper pretty fast. So definitely hurt them. Pentax will sell a lot of K10D, but they won't make nearly as much money as the wanted. If only they hadn't dragged on getting it out so long. Nikon adjusted but basically killed D200 sales.

Everyone should be very happy with what Sony caused. Nikon, Pentax users should love sony for forcing those brands to make their cameras much cheaper, lots of bang for the buck. Sony-Minolta users should be happy for a great and cheap 10MP camera. Cameras left the 6MP age for dead and went the next step.

KEITH-C said:

No one is asking Sony to produce 'tat' - just value for money
equipment that is competitive with other major brands. For example
they over-priced the A100 when it was first released & now are
facing increased competition from Canon & Nikon. If they are
serious about making big inroads into the DSLR market they need to
wise-up.

If they are to attract new buyers they cannot just rely on their
reputation derived from selling Playstations etc.

Click to expand...

You forget that the Sony Alpha 100 is an entry-level dSLR, and that many of it's buyers have come up from prosumer, fixed-lens cameras...

Sony DSC-F828
Sony DSC-V3
Sony DSC-R1
Sony DSC-H2

All excellent prosumers, with excellent build quality (especially for the F828 and V3 with their magnesium alloy bodies), features (e.g. nightshoot and hologram autofocus assist) and performance (fast autofocus, good colours, good detail level).

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

Yes - it was overpriced on entry !- in the UK it was £700 ( about 1200-1300 $) I'm getting a little irritated by those in the USA who don't appreciate that the rest of the world is subsidising their buying habits !

The fact is that now it has been reduced in price to around £440 for body only & less than £500 with a kit lens. That is still more than in the States but is getting more acceptable.

If it had been close to that price initially it would have sold better & cemented Sony's position in the European market - as it is it now struggling against the likes of the Xt, the 400D & Nikon D50 & D40 & many potential buyers are already committed to other DSLR systems.

In addition unless they release news shortly about a possible 7D replacement they will lose existing Minolta users in huge droves & please don't try to refute that because its already happening - just talk to some dealers.

Keith-C

junMel said:

... the high prices of SONY high end glasses. What would you think
if SONY stayed with the old prices of KM high end lenses and the
high-end DSLR is unleashed? Do you think SONY will release the PRO
DSLR with a street price of only $1500? NO! Brace yourself! Sony,
surely will price it twice at around $3000 to $3500. So, the
present price of 70-200 SSM is just right!

Click to expand...

Not quite.

The next Sony dSLR will be to replace the KM 7D, and will be set to compete with the Nikon D200. It will be released at a price that is competitive with the Nikon D200, and above that of the Canon 30D and Pentax K10D. That would be about the $1600 mark.

Sony will not release a full-frame or near-full-frame pro camera without having a semi-pro camera in it's range first; that would just be daft.

I believe it will be 2008 before Sony release a pro dSLR camera; they will have to give the world enough time to recognise the professional merit of their system.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

KEITH-C said:

Yes - it was overpriced on entry !- in the UK it was £700 ( about
1200-1300 $) I'm getting a little irritated by those in the USA who
don't appreciate that the rest of the world is subsidising their
buying habits !

Click to expand...

It cost £600 on entry into the highstreet, reduced to £550 within about a month, and reduced again to £500 within about two months. I know, because that was my target price, and that was when I bought it.

KEITH-C said:

The fact is that now it has been reduced in price to around £440
for body only & less than £500 with a kit lens. That is still more
than in the States but is getting more acceptable.

If it had been close to that price initially it would have sold
better & cemented Sony's position in the European market - as it is
it now struggling against the likes of the Xt, the 400D & Nikon D50
& D40 & many potential buyers are already committed to other DSLR
systems.

In addition unless they release news shortly about a possible 7D
replacement they will lose existing Minolta users in huge droves &
please don't try to refute that because its already happening -
just talk to some dealers.

Click to expand...

To be honest with you I think that losing some existing Minolta users would be a good thing. They're holding onto far too much used glass!!! Can't get Minolta glass from eBay as easily as you can any other brand.

For every Minolta user that leaves, that will make space for two new Sony users who want to keep to a limited a budget.

--
Stuart / the Two Truths
http://www.flickr.com/photos/two_truths/
http://two-truths.deviantart.com/gallery/

You may be on cloud-9 at that stage but you will find it very lonely there ! I can't help but feel that some who post here are acting as stooges for Sony & their business interests.

Sony have already stated that they are not about to produce a Pro model so talk of an expensive model as you suggest is unrealistic. If they did then Canon & Nikon could slaughter them with price cutting on existing & new models.

Get real ! - Sony are presently the underdog - they cannot afford to strut & pose - instead they need to fight hard to keep a toe-hold in an unstable market.

Keith-C